Page 1 of 2

The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:54 pm
by The Cat
Part One: The Insiders...

1a) Because the Koran states so:

a) No hadiths can be authoritative

4.87: Whose hadith (Ĥadīthāan) can be truer than Allah's?
6.57: The decision is for Allah only.
6.70: It hath beside Allah no protecting ally nor intercessor.
6.114: Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah?

7.185: In what HADITH (Ĥadīthin) after this will they believe?
9.31: They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks (Hanbal/Bukhari; imams and sheiks) and the
Messiah son of Mary (or Muhammad made into such an Islamic Messiah), when they were bidden to worship only One God.

12.111: It is no invented hadith (Ĥadīthāan) but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture)
and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe.

31.6: Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith (Al-Ĥadīthi), and thus divert others from the path of GOD.
45.6: In which Hadith (Ĥadīthin) other than GOD and His revelations do they believe?
77.50: Which Hadith (Ĥadīthin), other than this, do they uphold?

There can be NO hadith confirming the Koran, since the Koran infirms them all at first!

b. No hadith whatsoever can be part of an Islamic Sharia:

3.78: And lo! there is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that
what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture. And they say: It is from Allah, when
it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly.


16.116-117: And speak not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or unclean), the falsehood:
"This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so that ye invent a lie against Allah. Lo! those who invent a lie against
Allah will not succeed. A brief enjoyment (will be theirs); and theirs a painful doom.


c. The only Sunna is that of Allah (17.77; 33.62 35.43; 48.23).
48.23: It is the law of Allah (sunnata allahi) which hath taken course aforetime.
Thou wilt not find for the law of Allah aught of power to change.
ImageImage
3.19: The only religion approved by Allah is Islaam. Those who received the scripture dispute this fact, knowingly.
This is due to jealousy on their part. For those who reject Allah's revelations, Allah is most strict in reckoning.

3.85: Anyone who accepts other than Islaam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him...

Now go back and examine Qur'aan 17:77 and you will see that the "SUNNA" is in past tense, so therefore the "SUNNA" that is spoken of in the Qur'aan has nothing to do with the books called hadiyth (written by BUKHARI, TIRMIDHI, MUSLIM etc. which Sunni Muslims say is the sunna of Muhammad) that were again written in the future (AFTER) the revelation of Islaam (Al Qur'aan) and not BEFORE.... "Sunna Allah" is found in Qur'aan 48:23 and you will clearly see that it has nothing to do with hadiyth books written by BUKHARI, TIRMIDHI, MUSLIM etc. Please examine the verse below because we are dealing with the facts in the Qur'aan and not OPINIONS/STATEMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS/EMOTIONS by men: Again the "Sunna Allah" in that verse is in past tense
http://tawhiyd.webs.com/sunnainquraan.htm

Also a link to Sam Shamoun over this question...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... _quran.htm

NOTE: there will be many more posts, each one dealing with a different aspect of this topic.

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:22 pm
by The Cat
1b) Muhammad interdicted to write them down.

viewtopic.php?p=128218#p128218
Quoting:
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 48%29.html
Spoiler! :
The Prophet said, "Do not write down anything from me except the Quran." [Ahmed, Vol. 1, Page 171, and Sahih Moslim, Zuhd, Book 42, Number 7147]

Ibn Saeed Al-Khudry reported that the messenger of God had said, "Do not write anything from me except Quran. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it."

Zayd Ibn Thabit (The Prophet's closest revelation writer) visited the Khalifa Mu'aawiyah (more than 30 years after the Prophet's death), and told him a story about the Prophet. Mu'aawiyah liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said. " the messenger of God ordered us never to write anything of his hadith".

In "Ulum Al-Hadith" by Ibn Al-Salah, reports a hadith by Abu Hurayra in which Abu Hurayra said the messenger of God came out to us while we were writing his hadiths and said; "What are you writing?" We said, "Hadiths that we hear from you, messenger of God." He said, "A book other than the book of God?" We said, "Should we talk about you?" He said, Talk about me, that would be fine, but those who will lie will go to Hell. Abu Hurayra said, we collected what we wrote of Hadiths and burned them in fire.

In the famous book, "Taq-yeed Al-Ilm", Abu Hurayra said, the messenger of God was informed that some people are writing his hadiths. He took to the pulpit of the mosque and said, "What are these books that I heard you wrote? I am just a human being. Anyone who has any of these writings should bring it here. Abu Hurayra said we collected all these and burned them in fire. (We should note that Huraira is contradicting himself when in Bukhari 3:113 he implies that Abdallah bin Amr wrote them down).

(...)
Abu Bakr at one point was not sure whether to keep what he knows of hadiths or not. He had collected 500 Hadiths during very long companionship of the Prophet Muhammed, but he could not sleep the night until he burned them. Omar Ibn Al-Khattab insisted on destroying the Hadiths collected by his son Abdullah. Islamic history mentioned the story of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab restraining four of the Prophet's companions because of their insistence on telling Hadiths, these were Ibn Masoud, Abu Al-Dardaa, Abu Masoud Al-Anssary and Abu Tharr Al-Ghaffary.

Omar called Abu Hurayra a liar and threatened to send him back to Yemen where he came from if he does not stop telling these lies about the prophet Muhammed. He stopped until Omar died then started again. Omar is also reported to have stated that he had desired to write down a collection of the prophet's sayings, but refrained for fear of the Muslims choosing to abandon the teachings of the Quran in favour of the Hadith.

"I wanted to write the Sun'an, and I remembered a people who were before you, they wrote other books to follow and abandoned the book of God. And I will never, I swear, replace God's book with anything" Jami' Al-Bayan 1/67

Ali Ibn Abu Talib, the fourth Khalifa in one of his speaches said, "I urge all those who have writings taken from the messenger of God to go home and erase it. The people before you were annihilated because they followed the Hadiths of their scholars and left the book of their Lord." (Sunan Al-Daramy)

Also:
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 08%29.html

The so-called abrogations of this by the prophet came from a late compiler, Abu Dawud 25:3639, who himself declared that he had dispelled many unauthentic hadiths. Islamic scholars such as Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani believe some of the unmarked ones to be weak as well. In another work, Kitab al-Marasil, he lists 600 hurried (mursal) hadith which, after extensive background investigation, he concludes are nonetheless sahih. It differs a lot from B.3.113 in which there's NO blessing to the writing down of hadiths by Muhammad. See and compare:

---Bukhari, 3:113, Narrated Abu Huraira: There is none among the companions of the Prophet who has narrated more Hadiths than I except 'Abdallah bin Amr (bin Al-'As) who used to write them and I never did the same.

---Abu Dawood, 25.3639: Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As (...):
I stopped writing, and mentioned it to the Apostle of Allah (pbuh). He signaled with his finger to him mouth and said: Write, by Him in Whose hand my soul lies, only right comes out from it.

We'll soon see furthermore how much Abu Hurairah contradicted himself on this and other topic.

Exegesis on this topic by AhmedBahgat:

Restricting Shirk (part one, loaded with examples):
viewtopic.php?p=128846#p128846

Restricting Shirk, part 2 (an excerpt here, dismissing B.3.113):
viewtopic.php?p=128847#p128847
Spoiler! :
13- Omar Ibn Al-Khattab:
Abi Hurairah said: The messenger of Allah was informed that some people wrote his hadith, so he climbed into the stand then praised and thanked Allah and said: What are these books that you have written? Indeed, I am only a human, whoever has of these books should bring it in. So we collected it and destroyed it. (...)

Al-Qasim Ibn Muhammed said: Omar Ibn Al-Khattab was informed that some books started to surface between the people, so he denied and despised them then said: O people! I was informed that some books appeared between your hands, and the most loved of them to Allah would be the most just and fair, so no one leaves a book with him except he should bring to me so I see what is in there and give my opinion. (Omar was only tricking them)

The people thought wrong that Omar wanted to look at the books and authenticate them in order to remove disagreement between these books. The people brought to Omar all their books and he just burnt them all, and then said: You just had the desire (tendency) like the desire of the people of the book.

Restricting Shirk, Part III:
viewtopic.php?p=128848#p128848
One day I entered the mosque and heard a boy calling us to answer Abdullah Ibn Masoud in his house. The people went there, and I went with them; we found the same book in his hand, so Abdullah Ibn Masoud said: Unquestionably, what are in this book are fitnah (trial), misguidance and inventions; and indeed, the people of the book were destroyed before you because they followed (similar) books and left the book of Allah. Therefore I ask everyone to inform me where I can find all these copies, as by Allah, if it comes to my knowledge that a copy of this is found in India, I would go to it (to destroy it), even on foot. Then Abdullah Ibn Masoud asked for water and washed that book

Somehow a part IV:
viewtopic.php?p=128986#p128986
The prophet said to Maaz Ibn Jabal: Whoever meets Allah while not shirking anything with Him, he should enter paradise.

Maaz Ibn Jabal said to the prophet:
Should I inform everyone so they receive the good tidings?

So the prophet replied back:
NO, as I fear that they may rely on that.

In effect, Bukhari hadith # 126 clearly contradicts Bukhari hadith # 5962


The companions (shahaba) were interdicted to write down the sunna/hadiths of the prophet.
That's the only explanation for their unauthoritative disparity until at least Shafi'i & Hanbal.

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:18 pm
by The Cat
1c) History proves that this has been respected for around TWO centuries.

The so-called early hadiths up to the Sahih ones, under the Mutawatir (corroboration) scrutiny...

Let's have a look at those 'early' hadiths while remembering that we possess NO manuscript evidence, including Ibn Ishaq.

http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/vih_e.html
1. `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As (d. 695), al-Sahifa al- Sadiqa, originally containing about 1,000 hadiths of which 500 reached us, copied down by `Abd Allah directly from the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace - BUT transmitted to us by his great-grandson `Amr ibn Shu`ayb (d.840).

2. Hammam ibn Munabbih's (d.733 or 763) al-Sahifa al- Sahiha which has reached us complete in two manuscripts containing 138 hadiths narrated by Hammam and not directly from Abu Hurayra (d.692).

Note: Yet we have NO first hand hadiths from Hurairah. The 138 hadiths we have from his alleged pupil Hamman ibn Munabbih only appeared around 750, that is posthumously. This pinpoint that Hurairah himself respected Muhammad's order not to write down hadiths but narrated them orally. The al-Sahifa al- Sadiqa of `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As was transmitted by his great-grandson `Amr ibn Shu`ayb (d.840). Again, this pinpoint to the fact that they weren't written down until late after Muhammad's death, all after the Abbasid usurped power.

3. The lost folios of Aban ibn `Uthman (d.737) the son of `Uthman ibn `Affan (d. 35), from whom Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d.782) narrated; (only known through ibn Hisham, d.833).

4. The accomplished works of `Urwa (d. ~92-95) - the son of al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam and grandson of Asma' and `A'isha the learned daughters of Abu Bakr the Truthful. `Urwa ordered them burnt, after a lifetime of teaching from them, during the sack of Madina by the armies of Syro-Palestine under Yazid ibn Mu`awiya in 665;

5. Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri's (d.762) Sira, from which Ibn Ishaq (ie. ibn Hisham) also borrowed much;

6. `Asim ibn `Umar ibn Qatada ibn al-Nu`man al-Ansari's (d.753 or 761) Maghazi and Manaqib al-Sahaba, another principal thiqa source for Ibn Ishaq (ie. Ibn Hisham) and others;

7. `Abd Allah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn `Amr ibn Hazm al-Ansari's (d.767) tome, another main source for Ibn Ishaq Ibn Sa`d, (ie. ibn Hisham) and others;

8. The most reliable Sira of the Madinan Musa ibn `Uqba al-Asadi (d.773), praised by Imam Malik (d.811) and used by Ibn Sa`d and others.

None of these -allegations- are corroborated by manuscript evidences, which should have been religiously preserved in the case of Muhammad permitting their writing down. So the few weak -allegations- must be classified as pious frauds for those hypocrites in need to forge some corroborating issues. The very fact that the hadiths of the prophet only became authoritative from Imam Shafi'i and later is proving that they weren't so before.

Bukhari 1.3.98 is a demonstration how those hadiths were later edited backward for Hurairah was dead (681) before Umar II was even born (c.682) so he couldn't possibly have said this hadith during his lifetime. This cast at least a serious doubt over their historical accuracy.

________
Secondly we only have a pocketful of the mutawatir (corroborated) type of hadiths, at least 95% of them are of the ahad (uncorroborated one-to-one transmission). The uncorroborated reliability of this kind of transmission must be questioned. Ibn al-Salah & al-Suyuti came with the conclusion that the corroborated hadiths were no more than 110. Clearly and logically there can't be any SAHIH hadith which aren't corroborated. So the whole exercise of Bukhari and Muslim are deceitful. If there were indeed corroborated they wouldn't have to rely on the ahad sort.

The Chinese Whisper: a demonstration that any chain of narration from memory is biased:
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/chi ... 55%29.html

On the ahad chain of narrators, from Wael Hallaq (mostly in spoiler).
viewtopic.php?p=123959#p123959

http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showthread. ... tir-hadith!
The like of Umar would be very strict in accepting narrations from fellow companions. He would either make them swear by Allah or he would ask them to produce witnesses to corroborate what they were narrating. This from fellow companions; pious companions! So, how would he have reacted to narrations that have a chain extending to two centuries after him? Think about that.

But this is not all. We have other examples such as Aisha who refused to accept a narration from Ibn Umar because she felt it contradicts the Qur’an. This particular narration happens to be in the compilation of Imam Muslim but Aisha disagreed with it. Interestingly, her objection is also in the compilation of Imam Muslim. There is another case where Abdullah Ibn Abbas criticised a narration narrated by Abu Hurairah because he felt it makes no sense (Ibn Majah and al-Tirmidhi). We are here talking about companions being sceptical of narrations from fellow companions. What about the khabar Ahad (i.e. narrations narrated by individuals) that we have with us today?

Then the wholesome acceptance of all the companions (including kids who only have meet or seen the prophet for a moment) solely on an ahad basis must be held ludicrous, especially since many of the prominent ones where discarded (ex. Salman al-Farisi, Muhammad ibn Maslamah).

Conclusion: The hadiths were built up backward from the time of the Abbasid. The oldest school of law is said to be the Hanifi one, founded by Abu Hanifa (689-767?) but it's not the one prevailing in... Arabia ! The four Mazhabs differ upon their recognized chain of transmissions, each one their own patronizing alleged sources. But... we have -nothing- directly from Abu Hanifa! What we have comes from his pupils Abu Yusuf (d.798) and Muhammad al-Shaybani (d.805) and it is said they differed with Hanifa from -traditions unavailable- to the earlier scholar! HOW'S THAT !!

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:04 pm
by The Cat
1d) The Power of Intercession is for Allah alone.

Let's have a good look at Bukhari 1.3.98 (which dispel 3 ignominy by itself alone):
Narrated Abu Hurairah
I said: "O Allah's Apostle! Who will be the luckiest person, who will gain your intercession on the Day of Resurrection?" Allah's Apostle said: O Abu Huraira! "I have thought that none will ask me about it before you as I know your longing for the (learning of) Hadiths. The luckiest person who will have my intercession on the Day of Resurrection will be the one who said sincerely from the bottom of his heart "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah."

And 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr bin Hazm, "Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish and the religious learned men will pass away (die). Do not accept anything save the Hadiths of the Prophet. Circulate knowledge and teach the ignorant, for knowledge does not vanish except when it is kept secretly (to oneself)."


a. The power of intercession is for no one except Allah (2.48; 2.123; 6.51; 6.94; 32.4, etc)

Spoiler! :
2:48 And guard yourselves against a day when no soul will in aught avail another, nor will intercession be accepted from it, nor will compensation be received from it, nor will they be helped.

2:254 O ye who believe! spend of that wherewith We have provided you ere a day come when there will be no trafficking, nor friendship, nor intercession. The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers.

6.94: Now have ye come unto Us solitary as We did create you at the first, and ye have left behind you all that We bestowed upon you, and We behold not with you those your intercessors, of whom ye claimed that they possessed a share in you. Now is the bond between you severed, and that which ye presumed hath failed you.

7.188: Say: For myself I have no power to benefit, nor power to hurt, save that which Allah willeth. Had I knowledge of the Unseen, I should have abundance of wealth, and adversity would not touch me. I am but a warner, and a bearer of good tidings unto folk who believe.

7.197-198: They on whom ye call beside Him have no power to help you, nor can they help you, nor can they help themselves. ---And if ye (Muslims) call them to the guidance they hear not; and thou (Muhammad) seest them looking toward thee, but they see not.

10.18: and they say: These are our intercessors with Allah. Say: Would ye inform Allah of (something) that He knoweth not in the heavens or in the earth ?

10.29: Allah sufficeth as a witness between us and you, that we were unaware of your worship.

39.44-45: Say (Muhammad): Unto Allah belongeth all intercession. His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. And afterward unto Him ye will be brought back. ---And when Allah alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are repelled, and when those (whom they worship) beside Him are mentioned, behold! they are glad.



b. Hurairah was dead (681) before Umar II was born (c.682), let alone a ruler (717-720).
That's a clear proof of the backward edition of the so-called Sahih Hadiths.


c. The religious knowledge is solely that of the Arabic Koran -and- other korans (Torah, Gospel, Psalms/Zabur).
10.94: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read
the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

Muhammad himself was called to follow the path of Abraham. It's quite clear that, according to the Koran itself,
Hanif and Islam are almost synonymous when referred as the DIN to be followed:

Spoiler! :
Q.2.135-137: ''Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Nay, but (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright (Hanifa), and he was not of the idolaters. ---Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered (Islam). ---And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and Allah will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower.''

30.30-32: ''So set thy purpose (O Muhammad) for religion as a man by nature upright (hanif) - the nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man. There is no altering (the laws of) Allah's creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not - Turning unto Him (only); and be careful of your duty unto Him and establish worship, and be not of those who ascribe partners (unto Him); Of those who split up their religion and became schismatics (Sunnis, Shiites, Ahmadis, name it), each sect exulting in its tenets (of hadiths, fiqh, etc).''

5.48: ''And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it.
So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee
...''


The Shariah is solely that of Allah:
A derivative for Sharia' is in 42.13: ''He hath ordained for you that religion (Deen) which He commended unto Noah, and that which We
inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion (Deen), and
be not divided therein.
'' This is stressed AGAIN in 16.123: ''And afterward We inspired thee (Muhammad, saying): Follow the religion
(Deen) of Abraham, as one by nature upright. He was not of the idolaters.
'' The Deen and Sharia of Islam (and of Muslims) are that of
Abraham, Moses and Jesus... NOT the one invented later around Muhammad! Their own prophet was called to follow them -exclusively-!

So, the whole Fiqh tradition runs counter to the Koranic message! It can't be proven from Abraham, Moses or Jesus... How's that! 6.112:
"We have permitted the enemies of every prophet, human and jinn devils, to inspire in each other fancy sayings, in order to deceive"

Indeed!
More on the Koranic Sharia...
viewtopic.php?p=121292#p121292

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:13 am
by The Cat
1e) Obey Allah and obey... Muhammad (?)

This is NEVER written like that. What we read is always: Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger. WHY ?

As a person Muhammad's name is only to be found exactly 4 times (except man-made additions in brackets):
3.144 (89th); 33.40 (90th); 47.2 (95th) and 48.29 (111th). A fifth would be Ahmad in 61.6 (109th). That's all!
But the names of Abraham, Moses and Jesus are found hundreds of time. This should be most intriguing...

Thing is that Muhammad as a person shouldn't be followed at all, but as a Messenger. What does it mean?
Well first of all a simple messenger (rasul), a NEW law carrier, is quite more than a simple prophet (nabi).

So we've got an important nuance: A messenger (rasul) delivers a new scripture while a prophet (nabi) is just heralding it.
http://www.bci.org/islam-bahai/Nabi.htm
One definition of "Messenger" given, is that a Messenger brings a revelation, a religion. The following verse from the Qur'an is repeated three times, always with the word "Rasool" (9.33; 48.28; 61.9): Only a few Individuals mentioned in the Qur'an are called Messengers. In chapter 61 of the Qur'an (Al-Saf) , in verses 4,5, and 8, the word "Rasool" is used for Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (PBU Them). All Three were law bearing Messengers with Books and Revelation (Deen).

Let us understand 'messenger' through some verses

33.40:
Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.....
a) The term 'abu' doesn't only mean a biological father, but a leader of clan, a tribe.
b) He can't be the seal of messengers but of prophets since there's no end to Gabriel.
c) 'Katham' doesn't mean 'last' (ie. akhiri) but 'emblematic certification' (a wax seal).

As a messenger, Muhammad is no particular fellow
41.43: Naught is said unto thee save what was said unto the messengers before thee.

2.285: The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth
in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers....


40.78: Verily We sent messengers before thee, among them those of whom We have told thee, and some of whom
We have not told thee; and it was not given to any messenger that he should bring a portent save by Allah's leave
....

46.9: Say: I am no new thing among the messengers (of Allah), nor know I what will be done
with me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.


72.20-23:
Say: I pray unto Allah only, and ascribe unto Him no partner.
Say: Lo! I control not hurt nor benefit for you.
Say: Lo! none can protect me from Allah, nor can I find any refuge beside Him
(Mine is) but conveyance (of the Truth) from Allah, and His messages; and whoso
disobeyeth Allah and His messenger, lo! his is fire of hell
.....

To join Muhammad in the Shahadah is to ascribe a partner unto Him. His duty as a messenger is the conveyance to obey Jibril's messages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messengers_of_Islam
The Quran may rank a messenger higher than a prophet. For example, whenever both titles appear together, messenger comes first.
Crucially, a messenger delivers a new religious law (Sharia) revealed by God, whereas a prophet continues an old one...


We hear of only 6 messengers, ie. Shariah bringers: Noah, Abraham, David, Moses, Isa et Muhammad. But of hundreds of prophet.

16.35: Had Allah willed, we had not worshiped aught beside Him, we and our fathers, nor had we forbidden aught without (command
from) Him. Even so did those before them. Are the messengers charged with aught save plain conveyance (of the message)?


16.63: By Allah, We verily sent messengers unto the nations before thee, but the devil made their deeds fairseeming unto them.
So he is their patron this day, and theirs will be a painful doom.


24.54: Say: Obey Allah and obey the messenger. But if ye turn away, then (it is) for him (to do) only that wherewith he hath been charged,
and for you (to do) only that wherewith ye have been charged. If ye obey him, ye will go aright. But the messenger hath no other charge than
to convey (the message) plainly.


http://www.submission.org/obey-Prophet-Muhammed.htm
Spoiler! :
Any student of the Quran will object right away to this expression that he/she never heard before. We always hear, "Obey God and obey the messenger..." but never "Obey God and Obey Muhammed ." What is the difference, if any? Let us find out first if God mentioned Muhammed by name in the Quran. We know, He did, actually four times. In 3:144, 33:40, 47:2 and 48:29. How many times did God tell us to "Obey the messenger" ? There are more than 25 times in the Quran, where God ordered us to obey the messenger. Not a single time did God say "Obey Muhammed" Is this a coincidence or a deliberate order? Only true believers know that everything in God's world is deliberate, nothing is a coincidence.

18.110: Say: I am only a mortal like you. My Lord inspireth in me that your God is only One God.

Muhammed without the message is just a regular human being, he frowned and turned away when the blind poor man came to him, (See 80:1-11), he feared the people when he was supposed to fear only God, (See 33:37), and he prohibited what he should not prohibit, (See 66:1 That is why there has never been a single order in the Quran from God,the Most Cognizant to "Obey Muhammed." If we were to obey Muhammed the human being,(not the messenger), we were to frown at the poor, fear the people instead of God and prohibit what God did not. We are required to obey the messenger, because it is the message (QURAN) that made the obedience a requirement, not the person, Muhammed, that made it a requirement.

A messenger is called as a witness in that the delivered message (by Jibril) is truthful, that is to confirm it as a human within the world.
Just like not all angels are messengers, all messengers aren't prophets, that is bringing NEW scriptures.

Here we shall pause and wonder: ''Obey the Messenger'' is meant so both the person of Muhammad and the deliverer, Jibril, are joined.
This also means that any hadith NOT directly delivered by Jibril to let's say Bukhari or Muslim can only be bid'aa: forbidden innovations!


25.27-31: ''On the day when the wrong-doer gnaweth his hands, he will say: Ah, would that I had chosen a way together with
the messenger (of Allah)! Alas for me! Ah, would that I had never taken such an one for friend! He verily led me astray from
the Reminder after it had reached me. Satan was ever man's deserter in the hour of need. And the messenger saith:
O my Lord! Lo! mine own folk make this Qur'an of no account. Even so have We appointed unto every prophet an opponent
from among the guilty
; but Allah sufficeth for a Guide and Helper.''

Here again we read both messenger and prophet. The messenger is Muhammad but 'prophet' comes as a past generalization.
Muhammad is complaining that the folks aren't at the receiving end, while Allah fortifies him: it happened to the others too !

http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/27 ... rophet.htm
The Quran revealed to Mohammad was communicated to us by his mouth. Most of the verses begin with the imperative ‘say,’ addressed
to him. To obey the message is to obey God and His messenger at the same time. If God’s revelation is not complete, what would the
function of the Quran be? Why should God leave His message incomplete to be completed by other sources? Had God intended to give
us additional injunctions, He would certainly have increased the thickness of the Book.

The Quran enjoins the man who finds himself in a difficulty, to eat, without trespassing the limits, the meat of animals slaughtered in
the name of other divinities, and the meat of the dead animal, pork etc., a very exceptional case surely. Given this fact how can we
presume that God left loopholes in His book? Whatever He has not enjoined His creatures, He has left to the discretion of His servants.


http://www.quranicpath.com/sunnishia/ob ... enger.html
Spoiler! :
"Say, I am nothing new among the Messengers. I have no idea what will be done with me or you.
I only follow what has been revealed to me. I am only a clear warner.' (Qur'an 46:9)

As is stated in the above verse, the prophetic religion is based on the Qur'an. "Allah and His Messenger" do not issue contradictory
teachings between themselves, that is, the prophet will not instruct against the teachings of Allah in the Qur'an, as his duty is to
preach the message of the Qur'an. This is why it is stated in the Qur'an that:

"Whoever obeys the Messenger obeys Allah. If some pay no heed, We have not sent you to be their keeper." (Qur'an 4:79)....

Yet, many people today, when asked about following a reported saying of the prophet that contradicts the Qur'an
immediately quote, "Obey Allah and the Messenger" from verses like the following:

"Say, 'Obey Allah and the Messenger'. But if they turn away, [know that] Allah does not love the disbelievers." (Qur'an 3:32)

They do not realise that the Messenger does not issue a teaching against Allah. In other words, the Messenger never issued any teaching
that violates the Qur'an. Their understanding immediately shows they have not grasped the Quranic essence nor studied the Qur'an.

“The Messenger’s duty is only to deliver the message: Allah knows what you reveal and what you conceal.” (Qur’an 5:99)


It is not the duty of a Messenger to be a guardian or warder over Allah's Revelations. Allah suffices to that...
39.41: Lo! We have revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture for mankind with truth. Then whosoever goeth
right it is for his soul, and whosoever strayeth, strayeth only to its hurt. And thou art not a warder over them.


http://www.free-minds.org/obey
Yes the prophet was inspired by God in certain personal matter, an example of that is found in 66:3 where God inspired the prophet
regarding the truth of a domestic issue. However, this was mere inspiration from God and not revelation. The difference between
inspiration and revelation is that God inspires all humans (). God also inspires the animals (). This is different from revelation which
is specificaly an inspired scripture which contains religious laws and prohibitions. Note here that hadith followers uphold the hadith and
sunna as the second source of Islamic law besides the Quran, and by doing so they elevate the hadith to the status of revelation.

41:43 Naught is said unto thee (Muhammad) save what was said unto the messengers before thee.

41.44: And if We had appointed it a Lecture in a foreign tongue they would assuredly have said: If only its verses were expounded
(so that we might understand) ? What! A foreign tongue and an Arab ? - Say unto them (O Muhammad): For those who believe it is a
guidance and a healing; and as for those who disbelieve, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness for them....


88.21-22: Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them.

The Remembrance
viewtopic.php?p=99263#p99263
http://www.answering-islam.org/Mna/muslim.html
Spoiler! :
The People of the Book
(Quoting 17.107; 13.43; 16.43) The Remembrance is not the Qur'an. It is the people of the Book who know about the Psalms. According to Q. 21:105, "We have written in the Psalms, after the Remembrance, 'The earth shall be the inheritance of My righteous servants'." The Remembrance is the revealed books before the Psalms. So it cannot be the Qur'an. The people of the Book are also the people of Remembrance. The Galalan commentary says the people of remembrance in that verse are the scholars of the Torah and the Injil.

According to Q. 13:43 the witness of those people is only second to God's witness. Therefore, those who were Muslims before Mohammad and before the Qur'an; those who were the First Muslims, and the men possessed of the knowledge of the Book; these are the original defenders of the true religion and Monotheism. Here is the testimony of the Qur'an concerning these people: ''God bears witness that there is no god but He and the angels, and men possessed of knowledge - upholding justice; there is no god but He, the Al-mighty, the All-wise. The true religion with God is Islam.'' (Q. 3:18,19).......

We read the following about some verses of the Qur'an: "It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous" (Q.3:7). In other words, some parts of the Qur'an are clear and precise in meaning, while others are ambiguous. The question is: How much is clear and how much is ambiguous? Ghazaly, who is considered by Muslims as one of the greatest Muslim scholars, said, "The number of the clear verses is 500." While the total number of the verses of the Qur'an is 6616. According to the above, it seems that most of the Qur'an is ambiguous, that is, about 92% of the Qur'an.

Therefore the Qur'an commands the followers of Mohammad to ask the People of the Remembrance when they do not know (10.94).



According to the definition of a messenger, to obey him means to obey equally -all the previous scriptures- brought by other prophets!

________________
Where in the Koran is it stated: ''Obey Allah and Muhammad''?

Muhammad is solely to be obey in that he's a messenger, i.e. to be reckoned with on par with other messengers in a time when many doubted
his mission (8,31; 21.5; 34.43; 36.69; 43.7, 43.23; 52.29-33; 69.40-46), yet no more no less then the others(3.144). He is a plain warner
(15.89, innama is negating everything else), bringing in nothing new (46.9), yet not a warder (39.41), nor able of intercession (2.48).

Muhammad isn't bringing any portent on his own (88.21-22, 6.109). Thus, stressing that Muhammad should be obey as a messenger means
that he should be acknowledge on par with the other messengers (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus) in obedience. Meccans (whoever) most
obviously didn't believed in the Messenger and he had to flee first to Ta'if, then Ethiopia, then Medina.

6.34: Messengers indeed have been denied before thee, and they were patient under the denial and the persecution till Our succour reached
them. There is none to alter the decisions of Allah. Already there hath reached thee (somewhat) of the tidings of the messengers (of before).

2.79: Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase
a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

A plain warner (with the particle innama it negates everything else): 15.89; 17.93, 105; 18.110; 22.49; 27.92; 67.8-9, 26; 29.50;

He's nothing new: 41.43; 46.9. ---5.99; 16.35; 29.18; 42.7; 7.188; 72.21.

No intercession from him: 2.48; 2.123; 39.45; 4.48; 4.79; 6.51; 39.44-45; 2.152; 3.144; 4.113; 10.35-36; 14.22; 42.21; 46.9.

Muhammad erred and sinned: 33.37; 9.43; 93.7; 42.52. Such a person is no religious authority by himself.

More...
Spoiler! :
He's not a warder (39.41): Lo! We have revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture for mankind with truth. Then whosoever
goeth right it is for his soul, and whosoever strayeth, strayeth only to its hurt. And thou art not a warder (guardian) over them.

88.21-22: Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them.

45.6-8: These are the portents of Allah which We recite (hadiths) unto thee with truth. Then in what fact (Ĥadīthi), after Allah and His
portents, will they believe? ---Woe unto each sinful liar, ---Who heareth the revelations (Āyāti) of Allah recited unto him, and then
continueth in pride as though he heard them not.

33.62: Lo! This verily is the true narrative (sunna). There is no God save Allah, and lo! Allah, He verily is, is the Mighty, the Wise.

7.158: Say: O mankind! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah to you all - (the messenger of) Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of
the heavens and the earth. There is no God save Him. He quickeneth and He giveth death. So believe in Allah and His messenger....

69.44-47: And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand And then severed his life-artery,
And not one of you could have held Us off from him.

5.48: And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it.
So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee.
For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may
try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return,
and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.

5.49-50: So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee
from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee. And if they turn away, then know that Allah's Will is to smite them for some sin
of theirs. Lo! many of mankind are evil-livers. ---Is it a judgment of the time of (pagan) ignorance that they are seeking? Who is better than
Allah for judgment to a people who have certainty (in their belief)?


Here is how Bukhari (6.60.3) turns the table in favor of Muhammad, from a blasphemous (bida'a) statement:
‘'Go to Moses, the slave to whom Allah spoke (directly) and gave him the Torah. So they will go to him and he will say, ‘I am not fit for this
undertaking.’ And he will mention (his) killing a person who was not a killer, and so he will feel ashamed thereof before his Lord, and he will
say, ‘Go to Jesus, Allah's Slave, His Apostle and Allah's Word and a Spirit coming from Him. Jesus will say, ‘I am not fit for this undertaking,
go to Muhammad the Slave of Allah whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah.’ …"

6.19-21: Say (O Muhammad): What thing is of most weight in testimony ? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you. And this Qur'an hath
been inspired in me, that I may warn therewith you and whomsoever it may reach. Do ye in sooth bear witness that there are gods beside
Allah ? Say: I bear no such witness. Say: He is only One God. Lo! I am innocent of that which ye associate (with Him). ---Those unto whom
We gave the Scripture recognise (this revelation) as they recognise their sons. Those who ruin their own souls will not believe.

3.50: And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you.
I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

3.59-60: Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.
---(This is) the truth from thy Lord (O Muhammad), so be not thou of those who waver.


To me this is exactly why the hadiths came in: to de-christianized Islam by substituting Muhammad, as an Islamic Messiah, to Jesus!

More on this topic of 'Obey Allah and the Messenger':
http://www.free-minds.org/obeygod2
http://www.free-minds.org/conflict
http://www.free-minds.org/obeygod

No hadiths are from the prophet
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/had ... 77%29.html
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 09%29.html
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 10%29.html
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 11%29.html

NOTE:
Everything above was compiled to provide references against the hadiths, using Koranist point of view.
For any comment and/or critics please use the numerous threads already existing on this subject...

They do are subject to editing, deleting and/or adding -if and when- new informations get in.

Thanks.

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:55 am
by The Cat
Our long time member, AhmedBahgat (a Quraner-only), made many exegetical threads on this subject, which I'll list for references...

1f. AhmedBahgat :hi:

Tas-hih Al Bukhari (Authenticating Bukhari), by AhmedBahgat
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45657
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 566#929566
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 608#930608
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 802#931802
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 721#935721
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 270#939270
Spoiler! :
Quran 12.111: In their histories there is certainly a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a HADITH which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it and a distinct explanation of all things and a guide and a mercy to a people who believe.

Quran 4.87: Allah, there is no god but He-- He will most certainly gather you together on the resurrection day, there is no doubt in it; and who is more true in HADITH than Allah?

And most of them do not follow (anything) but conjecture; surely conjecture will not avail aught against the truth; surely Allah is cognizant of what they do. And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those other than Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds. Or do they say: He has forged it (Al Quran)? Say: Then bring a chapter like this and invite whom you can other than Allah, if you are truthful. Quran 10.36-38. (...)

Bukhari was not happy with his 70,000 hadith that he learnt in his first 10 years of life, he wanted more, far more indeed, now Bukhari at a later age learned another 530,000 hearsay after talking with more than 1000 hearsayers, Bukhari was fully aware that many of those 600,000 hearsay may have been forged, it makes no sense to expect that the prophet since the age of 40 (when he started his message) till his death at the age of 63 has narrated 600,000 hearsay, this means the prophet was saying a hadith every 20 minutes 24 hours a day, so Bukhari knew that this is impossible, so he only included about 7000 of those 600,000 hearsay, the fatal mistake of Bukhari though that he admitted that many of his 7000 sahih hadith are Daif, i.e. Weak, yet he included them in his book, the hadith advocates and his followers defend his foolish act and say, he included them so the Ummah be aware that those hearsay that are Daif.

Hmmm, I say, don’t you think if he didn’t include it from the first place NO ONE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT IT?, well and if that defence by his followers is true then why he didn’t include his 593,000 possibly forged ones so the Ummah will be aware of it too?

I say this 600,000 hadith that he learnt is as ludicrous as his 70,000 hadith he memorised by the age of 10, in fact if he needed 8 years to memorise 70,000 hadith with their complete chain of narrations going from him to his teacher and from his teacher to his teacher’s teacher and all the way to the prophet then Bukhari needed 68 years working 24 hours a day to be able to achieve that.

Opps, Bukhari only lived for about the same number of years (there is actually a conflict to how many years he lived and what year he died), again it does not make any sense, and again how they bloody confirmed this hearsay that he indeed memorised this huge number of hearsays that is equivalent to more than 96 full Qurans? If we consider that one hadith = I Quran verse in length, it can only make sense if they just took the hearsay about Bukhari himself for granted. (...)

49.12: O you who believe! avoid most of conjectures, for surely conjectures in some cases is a sin, and do not spy nor let some of you backbite others. Does one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? But you abhor it; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), Merciful.

In 49:12 Allah is telling us to avoid most conjectures, you expect that the reason to avoid MOST of it is, because MOST conjectures are false but Allah didn’t say that, He said avoid MOST conjectures because SOME of it is false, i.e. avoid MOST conjectures even if MOST of it is true, exactly as the human law in court. Therefore, Bukhari, Mulsim and their likes are nothing but hearsayers promoting conjectures...



More...
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 329#941329
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 746#946746
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 85#1098585
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 71#1099071

Al Mushrikoon exposed -AB
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38763

Some other AB links
Spoiler! :



Sam Shamoun on the rampant idolatry in Islam
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/idolatry.htm

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:32 pm
by The Cat
1g) Some videos on the hadiths' perfidy...
Note: the first link shall open in a new window so you can listen to it while reading this thread or another...


1. Origin of hadith
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS5DXBX5_u4



2. Is hadith divine? (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtWMcAZTzvU



3. Who was Abu Hurairah? (part 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4vXWhMJ8q4



4. The corruptions of Bukhari (part 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58GaB-Vnn-o


The other parts will be available once on you-tube at the right.


The False Teachings of Islam (part 70, over a hundred of them!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqTLyjKELrU

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:53 pm
by The Cat
1h) To Obey Allah is to Obey All of His Messengers
(particularly Noah as the Shariah carrier to be followed (42.13) and Jesus -3.50; 3.59-60).
Muhammad is only to convey the message, he is not a warder (guardian) but a simple warner as the other messengers were.

Examples from Sura 2
2:213 Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed. And only those unto whom (the Scripture) was given differed concerning it, after clear proofs had come unto them, through hatred one of another. And Allah by His Will guided those who believe unto the truth of that concerning which they differed. Allah guideth whom He will unto a straight path.

2:253 Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spake, while some of them He exalted (above others) in degree; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty) and We supported him with the holy Spirit. And if Allah had so wiled it, those who followed after them would not have fought one with another after the clear proofs had come unto them. But they differed, some of them believing and some disbelieving.....

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

2:263 A kind word with forgiveness is better than almsgiving followed by injury. Allah is Absolute, Clement.

2:272 The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad), but Allah guideth whom He will. And whatsoever good thing ye spend, it is for yourselves, when ye spend not save in search of Allah's Countenance; and whatsoever good thing ye spend, it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.

2:285 The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers - and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.

2:286 Allah tasketh not a soul beyond its scope. For it (is only) that which it hath earned, and against it (only) that which it hath deserved. Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget, or miss the mark! Our Lord! Lay not on us such a burden as thou didst lay on those before us! Our Lord! Impose not on us that which we have not the strength to bear! Pardon us, absolve us and have mercy on us, Thou, our Protector, and give us victory over the disbelieving folk.

Sura 3 to 9...
Spoiler! :
3:3 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

3:4 Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of right and wrong). (Also 21.48, so not the Al-Fatihah)

3:78 And lo! there is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that
what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture. And they say: It is from Allah,
when it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly.

3:79 It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and LAW and the prophethood
(Al-Kitāba Wa Al-Ĥukma Wa An-Nubūwata) that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah....

3:80 And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords.

3:84 Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham
and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets
from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them........

3:100 O ye who believe! If ye obey a party of those who have received the Scripture they will make you disbelievers after your belief.

4:105 Lo! We reveal unto thee the Scripture with the truth, that thou mayst judge between mankind
by that which Allah showeth thee
. And be not thou a pleader for the treacherous.

5.3: This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam.

5:4 They ask thee (O Muhammad) what is made lawful for them. Say: (all) good things are made lawful for you.....

5:12 ... believe in My messengers and support them...

5:13 And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts.
They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished.
Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them....

5:44 Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers.

5:47 Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

5:48 And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it,
and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed
, and follow not their desires away
from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way.......
5:49 So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest
they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee.......

5.92: Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and beware! But if ye turn away, then know that the duty of Our messenger is only plain conveyance (of the message).

5:109 In the day when Allah gathereth together the messengers, and saith: What was your response (from mankind) ? they say: We have no knowledge. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden.

5:111 And when I inspired the disciples, (saying): Believe in Me and in My messenger (Jesus), they said: We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered (unto Thee) "we are muslims".

6.104-105: Proofs have come unto you from your Lord, so whoso seeth, it is for his own good, and whoso is blind is blind to his own hurt. And I am not a keeper over you. ---Thus do We display Our revelations that they may say (unto thee, Muhammad): "Thou hast studied," and that We may make (it) clear for people who have knowledge.

6.106-107:Follow that which is inspired in thee from thy Lord; there is no God save Him; and turn away from the idolaters. ---Had Allah willed, they had not been idolatrous. We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them.

6:114 Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained ? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers.

6:161 Say: Lo! As for me, my Lord hath guided me unto a straight path, a right religion, the community of Abraham, the upright, who was no idolater.

7.2-3: (It is) a Scripture that is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) - so let there be no heaviness in thy heart therefrom
- that thou mayst warn thereby, and (it is) a Reminder unto believers.(Saying): Follow that which is sent down unto you
from your Lord, and follow no guardians (Min Dūnihi 'Awliyā'a) beside Him
.

7:33 Say: My Lord forbiddeth only indecencies, such of them as are apparent and such as are within, and sin and wrongful oppression, and that ye associate with Allah that for which no warrant hath been revealed, and that ye tell concerning Allah that which ye know not.

7.35-36: O Children of Adam! When messengers of your own come unto you who narrate unto you My revelations, then whosoever refraineth from evil and amendeth - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. ---But they who deny Our revelations and scorn them - each are rightful owners of the Fire; they will abide therein.

7:37 Who doeth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie concerning Allah or denieth Our tokens. (For such) their appointed portion of the Book (of destiny) reacheth them till, when Our messengers come to gather them, they say: Where (now) is that to which ye cried beside Allah ? They say: They have departed from us. And they testify against themselves that they were disbelievers.

7:53 Await they aught save the fulfilment thereof ? On the day when the fulfilment thereof cometh, those who were before forgetful thereof will say: The messengers of our Lord did bring the Truth! Have we any intercessors, that they may intercede for us ? Or can we be returned (to life on earth), that we may act otherwise than we used to act ? They have lost their souls, and that which they devised hath failed them.

9:43 Allah forgive thee (O Muhammad)! Wherefor didst thou grant them leave ere those who told the truth were manifest to thee and thou didst know the liars ?

9:44 Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask no leave of thee lest they should strive with their wealth and their lives. Allah is Aware of those who keep their duty (unto Him).

9:45 They alone ask leave of thee who believe not in Allah and the Last Day, and whose hearts feel doubt, so in their doubt they waver.

8:24 O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and the messenger when He calleth you to that which quickeneth you,
and know that Allah cometh in between the man and his own heart, and that He it is unto Whom ye will be gathered.

9:70 Hath not the fame of those before them reached them - the folk of Noah, A'ad, Thamud, the folk of Abraham, the dwellers of Midian
and the disasters (which befell them) ? Their messengers (from Allah) came unto them with proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty). So Allah surely
wronged them not, but they did wrong themselves.



Sura 10 to 24...
Spoiler! :
10:15 And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them, they who look not for the meeting with Us say: Bring a Lecture
other than this, or change it. Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my accord.
I only follow that which is
inspired in me. Lo! if I disobey my Lord I fear the retribution of an awful Day.

10:20 And they will say: If only a portent were sent down upon him from his Lord! Then say, (O Muhammad):
The Unseen belongeth to Allah. So wait! Lo! I am waiting with you.

10.41-42: And if they deny thee, say: Unto me my work, and unto you your work. Ye are innocent of what I do, and I am innocent of what ye do. And of them are some who listen unto thee. But canst thou make the deaf to hear even though they apprehend not ?

10:46 Whether We let thee (O Muhammad) behold something of that which We promise them or (whether We)
cause thee to die, still unto Us is their return, and Allah, moreover, is Witness over what they do.

10:47 And for every nation there is a messenger. And when their messenger cometh (on the Day of Judgment)
it will be judged between them fairly, and they will not be wronged.

10:49 Say: I have no power to hurt or benefit myself, save that which Allah willeth.

11:33 He said: Only Allah will bring it upon you if He will, and ye can by no means escape.
11:34 My counsel will not profit you if I were minded to advise you, if Allah's will is to keep you astray. He is your Lord and unto Him ye will be brought back.
11:35 Or say they (again): He hath invented it ? Say: If I have invented it, upon me be my crimes, but I am innocent of (all) that ye commit.

12:40 Those whom ye worship beside Him are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers.
Allah hath revealed no sanction (Min Sulţānin) for them. The LAW (Al-Ĥukmu) rests with Allah only,
Who hath commanded you that ye worship none save Him. This is the right religion, but most men know not.

Shahadah
13:14 Unto Him is the real prayer. Those unto whom they pray beside Allah respond to them not at all, save as (is the response to) one who stretcheth forth his hands toward water (asking) that it may come unto his mouth, and it will never reach it. The prayer of disbelievers goeth (far) astray.

Sujud
13:15 And unto Allah falleth prostrate whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, as do their shadows in the morning and the evening hours.

13:16 Say (O Muhammad): Who is Lord of the heavens and the earth ? Say: Allah. Say: Take ye then (others) beside Him for protectors, which, even for themselves, have neither benefit nor hurt ? Say: Is the blind man equal to the seer, or is darkness equal to light ? Or assign they unto Allah partners who created the like of His creation so that the creation (which they made and His creation) seemed alike to them ? Say: Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Almighty.

13.17: ...Thus Allah coineth (the similitude of) the true and the false. Then, as for the foam, it passeth away as scum upon the banks, while, as for that which is of use to mankind, it remaineth in the earth. Thus Allah coineth the similitudes.

13:30 Thus We send thee (O Muhammad) unto a nation, before whom other nations have passed away, that thou mayst recite unto them that which We have inspired in thee, while they are disbelievers in the Beneficent. Say: He is my Lord; there is no God save Him. In Him do I put my trust and unto Him is my recourse.

13:31 Had it been possible for a Lecture to cause the mountains to move, or the earth to be torn asunder, or the dead to speak, (this Qur'an would have done so). Nay, but Allah's is the whole command....

13:32 And verily messengers (of Allah) were mocked before thee, but long I bore with those who disbelieved....

13:37 Thus have We revealed it, a decisive utterance in Arabic; and if thou shouldst follow their desires after that which hath come unto thee of knowledge, then truly wouldst thou have from Allah no protecting friend nor defender.

13:38 And verily We sent messengers (to mankind) before thee, and We appointed for them wives and offspring, and it was not (given) to any messenger that he should bring a portent save by Allah's leave. For everything there is a time prescribed.

13:43 They who disbelieve say: Thou art no messenger (of Allah). Say: Allah, and whosoever hath knowledge of the Scripture, is sufficient witness between me and you.

17:36 (O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked.
17:37 And walk not in the earth exultant. Lo! thou canst not rend the earth, nor canst thou stretch to the height of the hills.

17:48 See what similitudes they coin for thee, and thus are all astray, and cannot find a road!

17.54: ...We have not sent thee (O Muhammad) as a warden over them.

17:55 And thy Lord is Best Aware of all who are in the heavens and the earth. And we preferred some of the prophets above others, and unto David We gave the Psalms.
17:56 Say: Cry unto those (saints and angels) whom ye assume (to be gods) beside Him, yet they have no power to rid you of misfortune nor to change.

17:73 And they indeed strove hard to beguile thee (Muhammad) away from that wherewith We have inspired thee, that thou shouldst invent other than it against Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend.

17:77 (Such was Our) method in the case of those whom We sent before thee (to mankind), and thou wilt not find for Our method aught of power to change.

17:84 Say: Each one doth according to his rule of conduct, and thy Lord is Best Aware of him whose way is right.
17:85 They are asking thee concerning the Spirit. Say: The Spirit is by command of my Lord, and of knowledge ye have been vouchsafed but little.
17:86 And if We willed We could withdraw that which We have revealed unto thee, then wouldst thou find no guardian for thee against Us in respect thereof.

17.93: Say (O Muhammad): My Lord be Glorified! Am I aught save a mortal messenger ?
17:94 And naught prevented mankind from believing when the guidance came unto them save that they said: Hath Allah sent a mortal as (His) messenger ?
17:95 Say: If there were in the earth angels walking secure, We had sent down for them from heaven an angel as messenger.
17:96 Say: Allah sufficeth for a witness between me and you. Lo! He is Knower, Seer of His slaves.

18.26: ...He maketh none to share in His government (yushriku fi Ĥukmihi 'Aĥadāan).

20:47 So go ye unto him and say: Lo! we are two messengers of thy Lord. So let the children of Israel go with us, and torment them not. We bring thee a token from thy Lord. And peace will be for him who followeth right guidance.

20:114 Then exalted be Allah, the True King! And hasten not (O Muhammad) with the Qur'an ere its revelation hath been perfected unto thee, and say: My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.

20:130 Therefor (O Muhammad), bear with what they say, and celebrate the praise of thy Lord ere the rising of the sun and ere the going down thereof. And glorify Him some hours of the night and at the two ends of the day, that thou mayst find acceptance.

20:132 And enjoin upon thy people worship, and be constant therein. We ask not of thee a provision: We provided for thee. And the sequel is for righteousness.

21:7 And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men, whom We inspired. Ask the followers of the Reminder if ye know not ?

21:25 And We sent no messenger before thee but We inspired him, (saying): There is no God save Me (Allah), so worship Me.

21:34 We appointed immortality for no mortal before thee. What! if thou diest, can they be immortal!

21:41 Messengers before thee, indeed, were mocked, but that whereat they mocked surrounded those who scoffed at them.
21:42 Say: Who guardeth you in the night or in the day from the Beneficent ? Nay, but they turn away from mention of their Lord!

21:45 Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I warn you only by the Inspiration. But the deaf hear not the call when they are warned.

21:48 And We verily gave Moses and Aaron the Criterion (of right and wrong) and a light and a Reminder for those who keep from evil.

22:52 Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth....

22:67 Unto each nation have We given sacred rites which they are to perform; so let them not dispute with thee of the matter, but summon thou unto thy Lord. Lo! thou indeed followest right guidance.

22:73 O mankind! A similitude is coined, so pay ye heed to it: Lo! those on whom ye call beside Allah will never create a fly though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly took something from them, they could not rescue it from it. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought!

22:75 Allah chooseth from the angels messengers, and (also) from mankind. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Seer.

24:54 Say: Obey Allah and obey the messenger. (...) But the messenger hath no other charge than to convey (the message) plainly.




Sura 25 to 49
Spoiler! :
25:51 If We willed, We could raise up a warner in every village.
25.56: And We have sent thee (O Muhammad) only as a bearer of good tidings and a warn
25:57 Say: I ask of you no reward for this, save that whoso will may choose a way unto his Lord.

27:9 (Say): I (Muhammad) am commanded only to serve the Lord of this land which He hath hallowed,
and unto Whom all things belong. And I am commanded to be of those who surrender (unto Him)....
27:92 And to recite the Qur'an. And whoso goeth right, goeth right only for (the good of) his own soul;
and as for him who goeth astray - (Unto him) say: Lo! I am only a warner.

28:85 Lo! He Who hath given thee the Qur'an for a law will surely bring thee home again.
Say: My Lord is Best Aware of him who bringeth guidance and him who is in error manifest.

28:87 And let them not divert thee from the revelations of Allah after they have been sent down unto thee;
but call (mankind) unto thy Lord, and be not of those who ascribe partners (unto Him).

29:18 But if ye deny, then nations have denied before you. The messenger is only to convey (the message) plainly.

33:7 And when We exacted a covenant from the prophets, and from thee (O Muhammad) and from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus son of Mary. We took from them a solemn covenant;

33:40 Muhammad is not the father (Aba) of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah
and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is ever Aware of all things.

33:45 O Prophet! Lo! We have sent thee as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a war
33:46 And as a summoner unto Allah by His permission, and as a lamp that giveth light.

34.41: They will say: Be Thou Glorified. Thou (alone) art our Guardian, not them!
Nay, but they worshipped the jinn; most of them were believers in them.

34.44: And We have given them no scriptures which they study, nor sent We unto them, before thee, any warner.

35:4 And if they deny thee, (O Muhammad), messengers (of Allah) were denied before thee.

43.21-22: Or have We given them any scripture before (this Qur'an) so that they are holding fast thereto ?
---Nay, for they say only: Lo! we found our fathers following a religion, and we are guided by their footprints.

43:40 Canst thou (Muhammad) make the deaf to hear, or canst thou guide the blind or him who is in error manifest ?

43.63: When Jesus came with clear proofs (of Allah´s Sovereignty), he said: I have come unto you with LAW (Bil-Ĥikmati),
and to make plain some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.

46:9 Say: I am no new thing among the messengers (of Allah), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.

46:23 He said: The knowledge is with Allah only. I convey unto you that wherewith I have been sent, but I see you are a folk that know not.

47:16 Among them are some who give ear unto thee (Muhammad) till, when they go forth from thy presence they say unto those who have been given knowledge: What was that he said just now ? Those are they whose hearts Allah hath sealed, and they follow their own lusts.

47:26 That is because they say unto those who hate what Allah hath revealed: We will obey you in some matters; and Allah knoweth their secret talk.

48:10 Lo! those who swear allegiance unto thee (Muhammad), swear allegiance only unto Allah. The Hand of Allah is above their hands. So whosoever breaketh his oath, breaketh it only to his soul's hurt; while whosoever keepeth his covenant with Allah, on him will He bestow immense reward.

48:29 Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves. Thou (O Muhammad) seest them bowing and falling prostrate (in worship), seeking bounty from Allah and (His) acceptance. The mark of them is on their foreheads from the traces of prostration. Such is their likeness in the Torah and their likeness in the Gospel.

49:16 Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Would ye teach Allah your religion, when Allah knoweth all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and Allah is Aware of all things ?
49:17 They make it a favour unto thee (Muhammad) that they have surrendered (unto Him). Say: Deem not your Surrender a favour unto me; but Allah doth confer a favour on you, inasmuch as He hath led you to the Faith, if ye are earnest.



Sura 50 to the end...
Spoiler! :
50:45 We are Best Aware of what they say, and thou (O Muhammad) art in no wise a compeller over them.
But warn by the Qur'an him who feareth My threat.


53:26 And how many angels are in the heavens whose intercession availeth naught save after Allah giveth leave to whom He chooseth and accepteth.

57:19 And those who believe in Allah and His messengers, they are the loyal, and the martyrs are with their Lord; they have their reward and their light; while as for those who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, they are owners of hell-fire.

66:1 O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives ? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

68:36 What aileth you ? How foolishly ye judge!
68:37 Or have ye a scripture wherein ye learn
68:38 That ye shall indeed have all that ye choose ?
68:39 Or have ye a covenant on oath from Us that reacheth to the Day of Judgment, that yours shall be all that ye ordain ?
68:40 Ask them (O Muhammad) which of them will vouch for that!

72.18: And the places of worship are only for Allah, so pray not unto anyone along with Allah.
72:19 And when the slave of Allah stood up in prayer to Him, they crowded on him, almost stifling.
72:20 Say (unto them, O Muhammad): I pray unto Allah only, and ascribe unto Him no partner.
72:21 Say: Lo! I control not hurt nor benefit for you.
72:22 Say: Lo! none can protect me from Allah, nor can I find any refuge beside Him.
72:23 (Mine is) but conveyance (of the Truth) from Allah, and His messages;
and whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger, lo! his is fire of hell, wherein such dwell for ever.

72.25: Say (O Muhammad, unto the disbelievers): I know not whether that which ye are promised is nigh,
or if my Lord hath set a distant term for it.

72:26 (He is) the Knower of the Unseen, and He revealeth unto none His secret,
72:27 Save unto every messenger whom He hath chosen, and then He maketh a guard to go before him and a guard behind him
72:28 That He may know that they have indeed conveyed the messages of their Lord.
He surroundeth all their doings, and He keepeth count of all things.

88.20-21: Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them.


http://www.quranicpath.com/sunnishia/ob ... enger.html
"This [Qur'an] is sent down from the Lord of all the worlds. If [the Prophet] had said anything against Us, We would
certainly have seized his right hand and cut off his artery, and none of you could have defended him." (Qur'an 69:43-47)

As Quranic injunctions are prophetic injunctions, then it follows that obeying Quranic injunctions and way of life meticulously,
is obeying Messenger. Therefore, the way to totally 'obey' the Messenger, is to be thoroughly knowledgeable of the Qur'an
- always being mindful of its content, and upholding its teachings in all places and time - judging everything by it - and not
accepting teachings that go against it, no matter how authentic it is alleged to be by a human being. Anything that goes
against the Qur'an lacks all credibility, no matter how many people claim it to be genuine.


http://freequranonline.org/Obey-the-Messenger (excerpts)
Spoiler! :
"He does not make any one His associate in His ‘HUKM’ (Laws and Ruling)." (18:26)

The phrase <la_ yushriku fi hukmihi ahada> "He (Allah) does not associate anyone in His Laws." (18:26) Makes it quite clear that obedience and rule is only for the Law of Allah and no other law. Even a messenger of Allah does not have the authority to make anyone subservient to his personal commands, but obedience and subservience is only for the law of Allah, as the following verse declares:

"It is not meet for a Human Being that Allah should give him the Book and Government and 'Nabuwah' (Direct reception of Divine Messages), then he should say to people: Be subservient to me rather than Allah; <ku_nu_ 'iba_dal li min du_nilla_h> but on the contrary (he would say): Become sustenance providers (to mankind) because of your teaching the Book and your studying (it yourselves)." (3:79)

The above verse declares that even a ‘Nabi’, i.e. a person who is a direct recipient of Allah’s message cannot make any other human being subservient to his own laws, but he too is asking the people to be obedient to the law of Allah by studying the Book of Allah and teaching it to others as well.

The rule of Allah is ordained all over the universe in the form of natural laws, but in human affairs, it is established by governing all matters of human life though the injunctions contained in Allah’s Book. Muhammad (S.A.W) is himself made to confirm that it is by introducing the injunctions of Allah’s distinctly elucidated Book, that Allah’s government is to be established in human affairs:

<Afaghairalla_hi abghi hakamaw wa huwal lazi anzala ilaikumul kita_ba mufassala>
"Shall I then seek a Ruler other than Allah? When He it is Who has revealed to you the Book (which is) distinctly elucidated;" (6:114)

The messenger delivers the Law of Allah
"Say: Obey Allah and obey the messenger; but if you turn back, then on him rests that which is imposed on him and on you rests that which is imposed on you; and if you obey him, you are on the right way; and nothing rests on the messenger but clear delivering (of the message)." (24:54)

The above verses clearly define what is meant by obedience to Allah and His messenger. The double negative used in the phrase, <wa ma_ alar rasu_li il lal bala_ghul mubin> "...and nothing rests on the messenger but clear delivering (of the message)." Unambiguously states that the messenger makes people obedient only to the message of God that is revealed on him, and does not deliver any other teachings apart from the message of God. This clarifies that obedience to Allah and his messenger does not mean that Allah is giving some separate teachings while messenger ordains some separate injunctions, but clearly states that Allah has revealed his Book on His messenger and the messenger in turn delivers the law contained in the Book of Allah, and we have to obey those laws that Allah has sent to us through the agency of His messenger.

Obedience is only for the Message received and delivered by the messenger. No book apart from the Qur'an is to be followed as divine guidance. In Surah Al-Araf, it is stated that the believers are to follow and obey only the Book of Allah and not obey any other source besides that:

"A Book revealed to you-- so let there be no straitness in your breast on account of it-- that you may warn thereby, and a reminder close to the believers. Follow what has been revealed to you from your Sustainer and do not follow guardians besides Him (His Laws), how little do you mind." (7:2-3). "Itiba" (Following and obedience) is only for "..what has been revealed to you from your Sustainer.." and the phrase "..do not follow guardians besides Him ..." makes it evident that only the revelation of Allah is to be obeyed and no other source besides that.

The messenger of Allah is reminded that Allah has not given any books apart from the Qur’an which the people should study: "And We have not given them any books which they study, nor did We send to them before you a warner." (34:44) The "Mushrikeen" of all times object to the Qur’anic Ayat that are presented, but Allah confirms that He has not given any books which they are to study, apart from Allah’s very own Book.

Again, Allah asks a question:
"What! shall We then treat the Muslims as the Criminals? What has happened to you? How do you judge? Or have you a book from which you study?. That you have surely therein what you choose?" (68:35-38)

The question of Allah in the above verses "Or have you a book from which you study?" indicates that Allah has not given any other divine book for study apart from the Qur’an. Again, Allah confirms that He did not give any other Book apart from the Qur’an:

"Or have We given them a book so that they follow a clear argument thereof? Nay, the unjust do not hold out promises one to another but only to deceive." (35:40)

"And an announcement from Allah and His messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His messenger are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve." (9:3)

It is obvious that the messenger did not issue a separate declaration from Allah such that one announcement came from Allah and the other from the messenger, but it is Allah who had commissioned this declaration and it was in turn delivered to people through the agency of His messenger. But the announcement is attributed to both Allah as well as his messenger. This clearly confirms that Allah and His messenger are not two separate sources to give laws and ordinances.........

"O you who believe! obey Allah and His messenger and do not turn back from Him while you hear" (8:20)

In the above verse the Believers are called upon to obey Allah and His messenger but the verse ends with the phrase: <wa la_ tawallau 'anhu wa antum tasma'u_n> "and do not turn back from Him while you hear". Here the believers are identified to be those who were listening to the messenger who delivers the Qur’anic laws to them, as the singular pronoun <anhu> "from him" indicates. This confirms that Allah and His messenger are not two separate sources of divine law to be obeyed but one source, as the above verse identifies both Allah’s as well as His messenger’s obedience but ends in the singular pronoun, and not a dual one. This pronoun in the singular is for the messenger to whom the Believers are asked to listen to attentively.

The ultimate source to whom obedience and subservience is due is Allah, but since Allah does not communicate with each and every individual directly, he selects a person among mankind, and reveals His laws and injunctions on His selected emissary. That person, who is divinely chosen, then delivers those Laws that he has received from Allah. Such a person has been called as "Nabi" and "Rasul". He is a "Nabi" on account of his direct reception of the divine message, and "Rasul", as he does not keep the divine message to himself but also delivers it to mankind. The messenger not only calls people to obey those laws which he has received by divine revelation but he himself is also obedient to those laws.......

Thus he who listens to the messenger listens to what the messenger propagates. By listening to the messenger people listen to what God has revealed on him and by obeying those injunctions which are delivered by the messenger the people indirectly obey Allah as well, as it is Allah Himself, who has given that teaching to his selected emissary. That is why it is stated in the Qur’an:

"Whoever obeys the messenger, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them." (4:80)

From the above Qur’anic evidence it is clearly established that obedience to the messenger is not obedience to his personal orders but to the divine laws that have been revealed on him, and that Allah and his messenger are not two separate obediences but it is a term which stands for one single source of divine law and obedience.


Messengers are only confirming the scriptures first brought down by the prophets (3.81). Such is also Gabriel, as the seal of Allah.

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:52 am
by The Cat
1i) Another interesting Koraner site (excerpts): http://www.detailedquran.com/

http://www.detailedquran.com/quran_data ... Quran.html
16:89 (Pickthall): And (bethink you of) the day when We raise in every nation a witness against them of their own folk, and We bring thee (Muhammad) as a witness against these. And We reveal the Scripture unto thee as an exposition of all things, and a guidance and a mercy and good tidings for those who have surrendered (to Allah).

There cannot be any words clearer than this. When Allah says EVERYTHING (Likulli shai’) that means EVERYTHING. If the Qur’an itself is supposed to explain everything, what does it mean to explain the Qur’an by other books? In other words, the above verse is saying that there is NOTHING (Islamically) that is not explained by the Qur’an. The Muslim who says that “not everything is in the Qur’an”, must sit down and contemplate on these verses and reflect on the logical consequences of his/her statement.


http://www.detailedquran.com/quran_data ... ample.html
We must consider that the Prophet Muhammad was born into an Arab culture with many man-made traditions – he wore the clothes that they wore; he had a beard and so did the kuffar among the enemies of the Muslims; he ate as they did, with his hands and they probably always sat on the floor and they probably wore turbans or cloths on their heads etc…

The question is: are we to follow such cultural examples that the prophet followed? Are these the things that will make us better Muslims? Or is there another aspect of the example of the prophet that we must follow (mentioned above)? The answer is obvious. As a point of interest and relevance to the discussion of Sunnah (example) and it being followed, we must note that Allah commanded the Prophet Muhammad and all of us through him that we all must follow the Prophet Ibrahim: 16.123, etc.

It is the enemies of the prophets who fabricate deceptive speech and inspire it in one another in order to guide away from the truth. This can very easily refer to the books of Hadith, the books of Hadith are seen as a legitimate religious source, they take away focus from the Qur’an and the majority of Muslims believe in them and follow them. Yet, they have no justification in the Qur’an.


http://www.detailedquran.com/quran_data ... ation.html
Spoiler! :
If we look at this next verse: - “The hypocrites fear lest a Surah should be sent down to them telling them plainly of what is in their hearts. Say: Go on mocking, surely Allah will bring forth what you fear.” (9:64)

We see that the hypocrites feared the REVELATION of a SURAH revealing their intent. If everything the prophet said was by revelation, then why could he not just say it? Why wait for a surah? The answer is clear! Because it was only the Qur’an that was revealed to him! Why would they not fear his other non Qur'anic revelations?

The believers also used to wait for SURAHS to receive Allah’s commandment. If we read: -

“And those who believe say: Why has not a Surah been revealed? But when a decisive Surah is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein you see those in whose hearts is a disease look to you with the look of one fainting because of death. Woe to them then!” (47:20)

Then we see that if everything that the Messenger was saying was revelation, then they would not have to wait for a SURAH. Once again proving that Allah is making a distinction between what was revealed (The Qur’an) and what was the normal speech of the prophet. .......

“Say: I follow only that which is inspired in me from my Sustainer. This (Qur'an) is insight from your Sustainer, and a guidance and a mercy for a people that believe. And when the Qur'an is recited, give ear to it and pay heed, that you may obtain mercy.”
(7:203-204)

Then Allah tells the Prophet that he is to warn only by the Qur’an. If his other speech was also revelation, then this would be unnecessary: “We know best what they say, and you are not one to compel them; therefore remind him by means of the Qur’an who fears My promise.” (50:45)

To push the point further, if Hadith and Sunnah were revelation, then Muhammad should have died immediately after the revelation of 5:3 to the people. Because if he was alive, then immediately it means there is Sunnah if he does something, and Hadith if he says something. NO WAY AROUND IT. Now how can a Hadith proponent reconcile the fact that on the one hand Allah (swt) tells us he has completed the religion, and on the other hand have Muhammad still receiving "revelations" which he spreads in the form of Hadith and Sunnah even AFTER this verse was revealed!



http://www.detailedquran.com/quran_data ... senger.htm
Spoiler! :
“The reply of the believers when they are summoned to Allah and His Messenger so that He (Allah) can judge between them, is to say, ‘We hear and we obey.’ They are ones who are successful.” (24:51)

Here we clearly see the phrase ‘Allah and His Messenger’ is followed by a clear indication that is the judgement of Allah (He) that is obeyed when you obey the judgement of ‘Allah and His Messenger’. Only Allah judges (12:40, 18:26), and this confirms the understanding just reached.

“All who obey Allah and His Messenger and have awe of Allah and fear of Him, they are the ones who are victorious.” (24:52)

“You who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger. And do not turn away from him when you are able to hear.” (8:20) This verse tells us that Allah and his messenger are obeyed through the mouth of the Messenger. This is obvious, and Allah is exact when he states to obey ‘Allah and his messenger’, because if the messenger is delivering the words of Allah, how can you disobey his words and still obey Allah?

“Surely you cannot guide whom you like/love, but Allah guides whom He pleases, and He knows best the followers of the right way. And they (Muhammad’s contemporaries) say: If we follow the guidance (Qur’an) with you, we shall be carried off from our country. What ! have We not settled them in a safe, sacred territory to which fruits of every kind shall be drawn?-- a sustenance from Us; but most of them do not know.” (28:56-57)

This not only tells us that Muhammad cannot guide whom he likes, but it also clearly indicates that his contemporaries recognised that the guidance they were being called to was the guidance with him (the Qur’an) and not his guidance.

“Say: ‘I am nothing new among the Messengers. I have no idea what will be done with me or you. I only follow what has been revealed to me. I am only a clear warner.’” (46:9)

Muhammad is made to proclaim that the truth which gives guidance is that which is sent down to him, the Qur’an. And that all of us must follow that which is revealed. Muhammad’s judgements come only from the word of Allah: - “"Am I to desire someone other than Allah as a judge when it is He Who has sent down the Book explained in detail?" Those We have given the Book know that it has been sent down from your Lord with truth, so on no account be among the doubters” (6: 114)

Muhammad warns by the Qur’an, not by his own wisdom: - “Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me; and this Qur’an has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches. Do you really bear witness that there are other gods with Allah? Say: I do not bear witness. Say: He is only one Allah, and surely I am clear of that which you set up (with Him).” (6:19)

Thus it is clear that Muhammad was not to warn by his own wisdom or anything else (what people would now call Hadith and Sunnah)....... If you obey the Messenger (NOT IF YOU OBEY MUHAMMAD), you have obeyed Allah, and if anyone disobeys (turns away), then it is not the messenger’s (in this case Muhammad) job to look after them (the disbelievers) or arrange their affairs. Which means that for those who obey Allah and his messenger (The Qur’an), the messenger will then have the responsibility of looking out for them or arranging their affairs.....

So when you obey the messenger, you are of course obeying the message and hence Allah. Allah Decides and the messenger decides the same way, no separation in this: - “When Allah and His Messenger have decided something it is not for any man or woman of the believers to have a choice about it. Anyone who disobeys Allah and His Messenger is clearly misguided.” (33:36)

It is obvious that Muhammad will decide whatever Allah decides, and hence there cannot be any separation in this regard (that is, that you would obey the decisions of Allah in the Qur’an, and separately obey the decisions of Muhammad even if they have no Qur’anic basis). The next verses clarify that it is only Allah who judges anything and not Muhammad. That is why Muhammad can make no judgement unless it is Allah’s. ......

And so we see that there is no separation of Authority in the phrase ‘Obey Allah and obey the messenger’, it really just means, obey the word of Allah by obeying what is revealed through the prophet. Hence the 3rd possibility of absolutely obeying for all time what the prophet says as a result of what was revealed to him from Allah (As in when he judges by the Qur’an) is not to be accepted, as the prophet’s individual judgement is not the judgement or word of Allah and hence cannot be described as Allah and the messenger’s word/judgement (it is merely the judgement of a societal leader for his time and place, and not revelation and guidance for all humanity). This can only happen if it is first Allah’s judgement (That is, if it is contained in the Qur’an).


From this, outside the spoiler...
Because for example, Muhammad used his judgement in (9:43) and was wrong, because it was not the judgement of Allah.
In conclusion, consider the following: -

72:20 Say (unto them, O Muhammad): I pray unto Allah only, and ascribe unto Him no partner.
72:21 Say: Lo! I control not hurt nor benefit for you.
72:22 Say: Lo! none can protect me from Allah, nor can I find any refuge beside Him
72:23 (Mine is) but conveyance (of the Truth) from Allah, and His messages; and whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger,
lo! his is fire of hell, wherein such dwell for ever.

http://www.detailedquran.com/quran_data ... s_Role.htm
Spoiler! :
This lesson will deal with what was the social role of Muhammad as distinct from his role as a messenger of the Message of the Qur’an,
this is to answer the question often raised “Was Muhammad just a mouthpiece for the Qur’an and nothing else?”. As part of this social role,
Muhammad was indeed to be obeyed as the leader of the community, but this is in a manner distinct from the obedience to word of Allah.

“O Prophet! when believing women come to you giving you a pledge that they will not associate aught with Allah, and will not steal, and
will not commit fornication, and will not kill their children, and will not bring a calumny which they have forged of themselves, and will not
disobey you in what is good, accept their pledge, and ask forgiveness for them from Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (60:12).

Muhammad judges by what is revealed to him, if he errs in this he is not to be obeyed as he has not the right of Allah to be absolutely obeyed.
The reality is that when the Qur’an was not being revealed to him, Muhammad had to judge by it and lead his people in that regard, in this
sense he was to be obeyed as the leader of the Muslims who in his capacity ruled by the Qur’an.

“We sent no Messenger except to be obeyed by Allah’s permission. If only when they wronged themselves they had come to you and asked
Allah’s forgiveness and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them they would have found Allah Ever-Returning, Most Merciful.” (4:64)

Every prophet that Allah has sent was to be obeyed by Allah’s permission as part of the prophet’s mission. So this not something new.
And as Muhammad is dead, we have no obligation to obey him (he is no longer the leader of the Muslims); hence we obey what he proclaimed.

“O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among
yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable in the end.” (4:59)

This verse tells us the following:

1. Recall from before that the obey Allah and his messenger means that you obey the revelation of Allah through the messenger.

2. Those who we elect by consultation to be figures of authority should be obeyed in their capacity, which is to fulfil their roles
by consultation, unless they are going against the revelation of Allah through his prophet Muhammad.

So the general message is to obey ‘Allah and his messenger’ (The Qur’an) as the primary authority in all affairs, but then in affairs of state
(mediated by those charged with authority), which should be sorted by consultation: - “Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish
regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance;” (42:38).

It must be noted that Muhammad was the community leader, because as Islam regulates our actions in life, the person responsible to tell us
these responsibilities and actions will also be the leader in the community. “Say: ‘I am nothing new among the Messengers. I have no idea
what will be done with me or you. I only follow what has been revealed to me. I am only a clear warner.’ (46:9)

“…Judge between them by what Allah has sent down and do not follow their whims and desires. And beware of them lest they lure you away
from some of what Allah has sent down to you…(5:49). So Allah instructs Muhammad and all of mankind to judge by what Allah has revealed,
and that is the Qur’an. Those who do not do this are deniers of the truth and are sinners.

Therefore, when a proponent of Hadith asks you to judge the validity of Hadith from the Hadith itself, then he/she is disobeying Allah.
It is time to shun the word of man as our guidance, let us bow down before the word of God and deny all partners in guidance.


_____________________
A much interesting study, found in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam
In the first schema, see how only Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are
1. Prophets;
2. Messengers AND
3. Imams.

Check how the reference to Muhammad as an Imam is plainly wrong from 2.124!
And (remember) when his Lord tried Abraham with (His) commands, and he fulfilled them, He said: Lo! I have appointed thee AN IMAM
for mankind
. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders) ? He said: My covenant includeth not wrong-doers.
(9.43; 93.7)!

Conclusion:
Since Muhammad isn't even recognized as an Imam, ALL past and actual imams are usurpers to what the Koran solely confers
to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! More so, his depiction through the hadiths as such, and indirectly as a Messiah, is plain SHIRK.

Then all man-made shariah are running contrary to the Koranic injunctions of the other Sharia's carriers, namely NOAH,
ABRAHAM, MOSES & JESUS the Messiah. Those are the only sanctified Sharia carriers, whom Muhammad shall follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messengers_of_Islam
In Islam, a Messenger (Arabic: رسول‎ rasūl, plural رسل rusul) is a prophet sent by God with a Sharia "Divine Law".

http://www.bci.org/islam-bahai/Nabi.htm
http://www.submission.org/messenger/prophet.html

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:12 am
by The Cat
1k) Miscellaneous of related Koranic verses

"You will find that the Sunna of Allah is the only Sunna" (17.77; 33:62; 35:43; 48:23)

Sura 2 to 5
Spoiler! :
2.97-98: Say (O Muhammad, to mankind):
Who is an enemy to Gabriel! For he it is who hath revealed (this Scripture) to thy heart by Allah's leave, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, and a guidance and glad tidings to believers; ---Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the disbelievers.

2.100-101: Is it ever so that when they make a covenant a party of them set it aside ? The truth is, most of them believe not. ---And when there cometh unto them a messenger from Allah, confirming that which they possess, a party of those who have received the Scripture fling the Scripture of Allah behind their backs as if they knew not,

2.102: And follow that which the devils falsely related against the kingdom of Solomon. Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved, teaching mankind magic and that which was revealed to the two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut. Nor did they (the two angels) teach it to anyone till they had said: We are only a temptation, therefore disbelieve not (in the guidance of Allah)....

Imams: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!
2:124 And (remember) when his Lord tried Abraham with (His) commands, and he fulfilled them, He said: Lo! I have appointed thee a leader for mankind (Imāmāan). (Abraham) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders) ? He said: My covenant includeth not wrong-doers.

21:72 And We bestowed upon him Isaac, and Jacob as a grandson. Each of them We made righteous.
21:73 And We made them chiefs who guide (A'immatan) by Our command, and We inspired in them the doing of good deeds and the right establishment of worship and the giving of alms, and they were worshippers of Us (alone).

Note: For Isaac, and not Ishmael, is the son of the Promise (29.27).
viewtopic.php?p=96993#p96993
viewtopic.php?p=97077#p97077

2:140 Or say ye that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes were Jews or Christians (or Muhammadans) ? Say: Do ye know best, or doth Allah ? And who is more unjust than he who hideth a testimony (like through the hadiths) which he hath received from Allah ? ....

3:3 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

3:4 Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of right and wrong).

3:65 O People of the Scripture! Why will ye argue about Abraham, when the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till after him ? Have ye then no sense ?

3:67 Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.

3.78: And lo! there is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture. And they say: It is from Allah, when it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly.

3.79: It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah...

3:80 And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords. Would he command you to disbelieve after ye had surrendered (to Allah) ?

3:84 Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.

3:100 O ye who believe! If ye obey a party of those who have received the Scripture they will make you disbelievers after your belief.

3:128 It is no concern at all of thee (Muhammad) whether He relent toward them or punish them; for they are evil-doers.

3:144 Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him. Will it be that, when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn back on your heels ? He who turneth back on his heels doth no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful.

3:159 It was by the mercy of Allah that thou wast lenient with them (O Muhammad), for if thou hadst been stern and fierce of heart they would have dispersed from round about thee. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. And when thou art resolved, then put thy trust in Allah. Lo! Allah loveth those who put their trust (in Him).

3:161 It is not for any prophet to embezzle. Whoso embezzleth will bring what he embezzled with him on the Day of Resurrection. Then every soul will be paid in full what it hath earned; and they will not be wronged.

3.179: ...And it is not (the purpose of) Allah to let you know the Unseen. But Allah chooseth of His messengers whom He will, (to receive knowledge thereof). So believe in Allah and His messengers...

3:183 (The same are) those who say: Lo! Allah hath charged us that we believe not in any messenger until he bring us an offering which fire (from heaven) shall devour. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Messengers came unto you before me with miracles, and with that (very miracle) which ye describe. Why then did ye slay them ? (Answer that) if ye are truthful!

4.87: Allah! There is no God save Him. He gathereth you all unto a Day of Resurrection whereof there is no doubt. Who is more true in hadith (Allāhi Ĥadīthāan) than Allah ?

5:44 Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers.

5:47 Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

5:48 And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee.....

5.92: Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and beware! But if ye turn away, then know that the duty of Our messenger is only plain conveyance (of the message).

5.99: The duty of the messenger is only to convey (the message). Allah knoweth what ye proclaim and what ye hide.

5:109 In the day when Allah gathereth together the messengers, and saith: What was your response (from mankind) ? they say: We have no knowledge. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden.

5:111 And when I inspired the disciples, (saying): Believe in Me and in My messenger (Jesus), they said: We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered (unto Thee) "we are muslims".



Sura 6 to 20
Spoiler! :
6:114 Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained ? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers.

6:115 Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

6:116 If thou obeyedst most of those on earth they would mislead thee far from Allah's way. They follow naught but an opinion, and they do but guess.

7:33 Say: My Lord forbiddeth only indecencies, such of them as are apparent and such as are within, and sin and wrongful oppression, and that ye associate with Allah that for which no warrant hath been revealed, and that ye tell concerning Allah that which ye know not.

7.35-36: O Children of Adam! When messengers of your own come unto you who narrate unto you My revelations, then whosoever refraineth from evil and amendeth - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. ---But they who deny Our revelations and scorn them - each are rightful owners of the Fire; they will abide therein.

7:37 Who doeth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie concerning Allah or denieth Our tokens. (For such) their appointed portion of the Book (of destiny) reacheth them till, when Our messengers come to gather them, they say: Where (now) is that to which ye cried beside Allah ? They say: They have departed from us. And they testify against themselves that they were disbelievers.

7:53 Await they aught save the fulfilment thereof ? On the day when the fulfilment thereof cometh, those who were before forgetful thereof will say: The messengers of our Lord did bring the Truth! Have we any intercessors, that they may intercede for us ? Or can we be returned (to life on earth), that we may act otherwise than we used to act ? They have lost their souls, and that which they devised hath failed them.

7.188: Say: For myself I have no power to benefit, nor power to hurt, save that which Allah willeth. Had I knowledge of the Unseen, I should have abundance of wealth, and adversity would not touch me. I am but a warner, and a bearer of good tidings unto folk who believe.

7.197-198: They on whom ye call beside Him have no power to help you, nor can they help you, nor can they help themselves. ---And if ye (Muslims) call them to the guidance they hear not; and thou (Muhammad) seest them looking toward thee, but they see not.

9:31 They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks (or imams) and the Messiah son of Mary (or Mhmd son of Abdallah), when they were bidden to worship only One God.

9:33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger (most obviously Gabriel here) with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion...

9:34 O ye who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks (and Islamic Mullahs) devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah.

9:43 Allah forgive thee (O Muhammad)! Wherefor didst thou grant them leave ere those who told the truth were manifest to thee and thou didst know the liars ?

9:44 Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask no leave of thee lest they should strive with their wealth and their lives. Allah is Aware of those who keep their duty (unto Him).

9:45 They alone ask leave of thee who believe not in Allah and the Last Day, and whose hearts feel doubt, so in their doubt they waver.

9:50 If good befalleth thee (O Muhammad) it afflicteth them, and if calamity befalleth thee, they say: We took precaution, and they turn away well pleased.
9:51 Say: Naught befalleth us save that which Allah hath decreed for us. He is our Protecting Friend. In Allah let believers put their trust!

9:56 And they swear by Allah that they are in truth of you, when they are not of you, but they are folk who are afraid.
9:57 Had they but found a refuge, or caverns, or a place to enter, they surely had resorted thither swift as runaways.
9:58 And of them is he who defameth thee in the matter of the alms. If they are given thereof they are content, and if they are not given thereof, behold! they are enraged.

9:59 (How much more seemly) had they been content with that which Allah and His messenger had given them and had said: Allah sufficeth us. Allah will give us of His bounty, and (also) His messenger. Unto Allah we are suppliants.

9:65 And if thou ask them (O Muhammad) they will say: We did but talk and jest. Say: Was it at Allah and His revelations and His messenger that ye did scoff ?

9:67 The hypocrites, both men and women, proceed one from another. They enjoin the wrong, and they forbid the right, and they withhold their hands (from spending for the cause of Allah). They forget Allah, so He hath forgotten them. Lo! the hypocrites, they are the transgressors.

9:70 Hath not the fame of those before them reached them - the folk of Noah, A'ad, Thamud, the folk of Abraham, the dwellers of Midian and the disasters (which befell them) ? Their messengers (from Allah) came unto them with proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty). So Allah surely wronged them not, but they did wrong themselves.

9:74 They swear by Allah that they said nothing (wrong), yet they did say the word of disbelief, and did disbelieve after their Surrender (to Allah). And they purposed that which they could not attain, and they sought revenge only that Allah by His messenger should enrich them of His bounty.

9:77 So He hath made the consequence (to be) hypocrisy in their hearts until the day when they shall meet Him, because they broke their word to Allah that they promised Him, and because they lied.

9.80: Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

9:86 And when a surah is revealed (which saith): Believe in Allah and strive along with His messenger, the men of wealth among them still ask leave of thee and say: Suffer us to be with those who sit (at home).

9:90 And those among the wandering Arabs who had an excuse came in order that permission might be granted them. And those who lied to Allah and His messenger sat at home.

9:96 They swear unto you, that ye may accept them. Though ye accept them. Allah verily accepteth not wrongdoing folk.
9:97 The wandering Arabs are more hard in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be ignorant of the limits which Allah hath revealed unto His messenger. And Allah is Knower, Wise.

9:101 And among those around you of the wandering Arabs there are hypocrites, and among the townspeople of Al-Madinah (there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou (O Muhammad) knowest not.

10:15 And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them, they who look not for the meeting with Us say: Bring a Lecture
other than this, or change it. Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my accord. I only follow that which is
inspired in me. Lo! if I disobey my Lord I fear the retribution of an awful Day.

10.18: and they say: These are our intercessors with Allah. Say: Would ye inform Allah of (something) that He knoweth not in the heavens or in the earth ? Praised be He and High Exalted above all that ye associate (with Him)!

10.29: Allah sufficeth as a witness between us and you, that we were unaware of your worship.
10.36: Most of them follow not but conjecture (Zanna). Assuredly conjecture can by no means take the place of truth. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do.

10.41-42: And if they deny thee, say: Unto me my work, and unto you your work. Ye are innocent of what I do, and I am innocent of what ye do. And of them are some who listen unto thee. But canst thou make the deaf to hear even though they apprehend not ?

10:103 Then shall We save Our messengers and the believers, in like manner (as of old). It is incumbent upon Us to save believers.
10:104 Say (O Muhammad): O mankind! If ye are in doubt of my religion, then (know that) I worship not those whom ye worship instead of Allah, but I worship Allah Who causeth you to die, and I have been commanded to be of the believers.
10:105 And, (O Muhammad) set thy purpose resolutely for religion, as a man by nature upright, and be not of those who ascribe partners (to Allah).
10:106 And cry not, beside Allah, unto that which cannot profit thee nor hurt thee, for if thou didst so then wert thou of the wrong-doers.
10:107 If Allah afflicteth thee with some hurt, there is none who can remove it save Him; and if He desireth good for thee, there is none who can repel His bounty. He striketh with it whom He will of his bondmen. He is the Forgiving, the Merciful.
10:108 Say: O mankind! Now hath the Truth from your Lord come unto you. So whosoever is guided, is guided only for (the good of) his soul, and whosoever erreth erreth only against it. And I am not a warder over you.
10:109 And (O Muhammad) follow that which is inspired in thee, and forbear until Allah give judgment. And He is the Best of Judges.

11:34 My counsel will not profit you if I were minded to advise you, if Allah's will is to keep you astray. He is your Lord and unto Him ye will be brought back.
11:35 Or say they (again): He hath invented it ? Say: If I have invented it, upon me be my crimes, but I am innocent of (all) that ye commit.

13:16 Say (O Muhammad): Who is Lord of the heavens and the earth ? Say: Allah. Say: Take ye then (others) beside Him for protectors, which, even for themselves, have neither benefit nor hurt ? Say: Is the blind man equal to the seer, or is darkness equal to light ? Or assign they unto Allah partners who created the like of His creation so that the creation (which they made and His creation) seemed alike to them ? Say: Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Almighty.

13.17: ...Thus Allah coineth (the similitude of) the true and the false. Then, as for the foam, it passeth away as scum upon the banks, while, as for that which is of use to mankind, it remaineth in the earth. Thus Allah coineth the similitudes.

13:30 Thus We send thee (O Muhammad) unto a nation, before whom other nations have passed away, that thou mayst recite unto them that which We have inspired in thee, while they are disbelievers in the Beneficent. Say: He is my Lord; there is no God save Him. In Him do I put my trust and unto Him is my recourse.

13:31 Had it been possible for a Lecture to cause the mountains to move, or the earth to be torn asunder, or the dead to speak, (this Qur'an would have done so). Nay, but Allah's is the whole command....

13:32 And verily messengers (of Allah) were mocked before thee, but long I bore with those who disbelieved....

13:37 Thus have We revealed it, a decisive utterance in Arabic; and if thou shouldst follow their desires after that which hath come unto thee of knowledge, then truly wouldst thou have from Allah no protecting friend nor defender.

13:38 And verily We sent messengers (to mankind) before thee, and We appointed for them wives and offspring, and it was not (given) to any messenger that he should bring a portent save by Allah's leave. For everything there is a time prescribed.

13:43 They who disbelieve say: Thou art no messenger (of Allah). Say: Allah, and whosoever hath knowledge of the Scripture, is sufficient witness between me and you.

16.20: Those unto whom they cry beside Allah created naught, but are themselves created.
16.21: (They are) dead, not living. And they know not when they will be raised.

16.35: And the idolaters say: Had Allah willed, we had not worshipped aught beside Him, we and our fathers, nor had we forbidden aught without (command from) Him. Even so did those before them. Are the messengers charged with aught save plain conveyance (of the message) ?

16.63: By Allah, We verily sent messengers unto the nations before thee, but the devil made their deeds fairseeming unto them. So he is their patron this day, and theirs will be a painful doom.

17:36 (O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked.
17:37 And walk not in the earth exultant. Lo! thou canst not rend the earth, nor canst thou stretch to the height of the hills.

17:41 We verily have displayed (Our warnings) in this Qur'an that they may take heed, but it increaseth them in naught save aversion.

17:46 And We place upon their hearts veils lest they should understand it, and in their ears a deafness; and when thou makest mention of thy Lord alone in the Qur'an, they turn their backs in aversion.

17.46-47: And We place upon their hearts veils lest they should understand it, and in their ears a deafness; and when thou makest mention of thy Lord in the Qur'an alone* (Rabbaka Fī Al-Qur'āni Waĥdahu), they turn their backs in aversion. ---We are Best Aware of what they wish to hear when they give ear to thee and when they take secret counsel, when the evil-doers say: Ye follow but a man bewitched. (*note: wrongly translated by ''thy Lord alone in the Qur'an'', while 'wahdahu' is rather written AFTER al-Qur'ani).

17:48 See what similitudes they coin for thee, and thus are all astray, and cannot find a road!

17.54: ...We have not sent thee (O Muhammad) as a warden over them.

17:55 And thy Lord is Best Aware of all who are in the heavens and the earth. And we preferred some of the prophets above others, and unto David We gave the Psalms.
17:56 Say: Cry unto those (saints and angels) whom ye assume (to be gods) beside Him, yet they have no power to rid you of misfortune nor to change.

17:73 And they indeed strove hard to beguile thee (Muhammad) away from that wherewith We have inspired thee, that thou shouldst invent other than it against Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend.

17:77 (Such was Our) method in the case of those whom We sent before thee (to mankind), and thou wilt not find for Our method aught of power to change.

17:80 And say: My Lord! Cause me to come in with a firm incoming and to go out with a firm outgoing. And give me from Thy presence a sustaining Power.

17:84 Say: Each one doth according to his rule of conduct, and thy Lord is Best Aware of him whose way is right.
17:85 They are asking thee concerning the Spirit. Say: The Spirit is by command of my Lord, and of knowledge ye have been vouchsafed but little.
17:86 And if We willed We could withdraw that which We have revealed unto thee, then wouldst thou find no guardian for thee against Us in respect thereof.

17.93: Say (O Muhammad): My Lord be Glorified! Am I aught save a mortal messenger ?
17:94 And naught prevented mankind from believing when the guidance came unto them save that they said: Hath Allah sent a mortal as (His) messenger ?
17:95 Say: If there were in the earth angels walking secure, We had sent down for them from heaven an angel as messenger.
17:96 Say: Allah sufficeth for a witness between me and you. Lo! He is Knower, Seer of His slaves.

18.102: Do the disbelievers reckon that they can choose My bondmen as protecting friends beside Me ?...

18.110: Say: I am only a mortal like you. My Lord inspireth in me that your God is only One God. And whoever hopeth for the meeting with his Lord, let him do righteous work, and make none sharer of the worship due unto his Lord.



Sura 21 to 42
Spoiler! :
21:7 And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men, whom We inspired. Ask the followers of the Reminder if ye know not ?

21:25 And We sent no messenger before thee but We inspired him, (saying): There is no God save Me (Allah), so worship Me.

21:34 We appointed immortality for no mortal before thee. What! if thou diest, can they be immortal!

21:41 Messengers before thee, indeed, were mocked, but that whereat they mocked surrounded those who scoffed at them.
21:42 Say: Who guardeth you in the night or in the day from the Beneficent ? Nay, but they turn away from mention of their Lord!

21:45 Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I warn you only by the Inspiration. But the deaf hear not the call when they are warned.

21:48 And We verily gave Moses and Aaron the Criterion (of right and wrong) and a light and a Reminder for those who keep from evil.

Imams: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!
2:124 And (remember) when his Lord tried Abraham with (His) commands, and he fulfilled them, He said: Lo! I have appointed thee a leader for mankind. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders) ? He said: My covenant includeth not wrong-doers.
+
21:72 And We bestowed upon him Isaac, and Jacob as a grandson. Each of them We made righteous.
21:73 And We made them chiefs who guide by Our command, and We inspired in them the doing of good deeds and the right establishment of worship and the giving of alms, and they were worshippers of Us (alone).


24.54: Say: Obey Allah and obey the messenger. But if ye turn away, then (it is) for him (to do) only that wherewith he hath been charged, and for you (to do) only that wherewith ye have been charged. If ye obey him, ye will go aright. But the messenger hath no other charge than to convey (the message) plainly.

25.30-31: And the messenger saith: O my Lord! Lo! mine own folk make this Qur'an of no account. ---Even so have We appointed unto every prophet an opponent from among the guilty; but Allah sufficeth for a Guide and Helper.

25:51 If We willed, We could raise up a warner in every village.

25.56: And We have sent thee (O Muhammad) only as a bearer of good tidings and a warn
25:57 Say: I ask of you no reward for this, save that whoso will may choose a way unto his Lord.

28:48 But when there came unto them the Truth from Our presence, they said: Why is he not given the like of what was given unto Moses ? Did they not disbelieve in that which was given unto Moses of old ? They say: Two magics that support each other; and they say: Lo! in both we are disbelievers.

28:49 Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Then bring a scripture from the presence of Allah that giveth clearer guidance than these two (that) I may follow it, if ye are truthful.

28:56 Lo! thou (O Muhammad) guidest not whom thou lovest, but Allah guideth whom He will.

28:86 Thou hadst no hope that the Scripture would be inspired in thee; but it is a mercy from thy Lord...

28:87 And let them not divert thee from the revelations of Allah...

33:2 And follow that which is inspired in thee from thy Lord. Lo! Allah is Aware of what ye do.
33:3 And put thy trust in Allah, for Allah is sufficient as Trustee.

33:7 And when We exacted a covenant from the prophets, and from thee (O Muhammad) and from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus son of Mary. We took from them a solemn covenant;

33:17 Say: Who is he who can preserve you from Allah if He intendeth harm for you, or intendeth mercy for you. They will not find that they have any friend or helper other than Allah.

38:65 Say (unto them, O Muhammad): I am only a warner, and there is no God save Allah, the One, the Absolute....

38:69 I had no knowledge of the Highest Chiefs when they disputed;
38:70 It is revealed unto me only that I may be a plain warner.

39.23: Allah hath revealed the fairest of hadiths (Aĥsana Al-Ĥadīthi), a Scripture consistent, paired, whereat doth creep the flesh of those who fear their Lord, so that their flesh and their hearts soften to Allah´s reminder. Such is Allah´s guidance...

39.44-45: Say (Muhammad): Unto Allah belongeth all intercession. His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. And afterward unto Him ye will be brought back. ---And when Allah alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are repelled, and when those (whom they worship) beside Him are mentioned, behold! they are glad.

42:3 Thus Allah the Mighty, the Knower inspireth thee (Muhammad) as (He inspired) those before thee.

42:6 And as for those who choose protecting friends beside Him, Allah is Warden over them, and thou art in no wise a guardian over them.

42:10 And in whatsoever ye differ, the verdict therein belongeth to Allah.


___________
Shariah (ALSO: 5.48 (Shir'atan); 42.21 (Shira'tun) and 45.18 (Sharī`atin).

42:13 He hath ordained for you that religion (Shara`a Lakum Mina Ad-Dīni) which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in
thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion, and be not divided
therein. Dreadful for the idolaters is that unto which thou callest them....
http://www.theholybook.org/content/view/4285/94/

5.48: And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it.
So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee.
For each We have appointed a divine law (Shir`atan) and a traced-out way.......

42.21: Or have they partners (of Allah) who have made lawful (Shara`ū) for them in religion that which Allah allowed not?
And but for a decisive word (gone forth already), it would have been judged between them. Lo! for wrong-doers is a painful doom.

45.18: And now have We set thee (O Muhammad) on a clear road of (Our) commandment(Sharī`atin);
so follow it, and follow not the whims of those who know not.

The Deen and Sharia of Islam (and of Muslims) are that of Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus... NOT the one invented later around Muhammad!
Their own prophet was called to follow them -exclusively-!
___________

42:14 And they were not divided until after the knowledge came unto them, through rivalry among themselves; and had it not been for a Word
that had already gone forth from thy Lord for an appointed term, it surely had been judged between them. And those who were made to inherit
the Scripture after them are verily in hopeless doubt concerning it. (We know that the Word is Isa from 4.171; 19.17; 19.21... don't we?).
See: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Allah,_His_Word,_and_%27Isa

42:15 Unto this, then, summon (O Muhammad). And be thou upright as thou art commanded, and follow not their lusts,
but say: I believe in whatever scripture Allah hath sent down, and I am commanded to be just among you......

42:23 This it is which Allah announceth unto His bondmen who believe and do good works. Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I ask of you no fee therefor, save lovingkindness among kinsfolk....

42.28: And He it is Who sendeth down the saving rain after they have despaired, and spreadeth out His mercy. He is the Protecting Friend, the Praiseworthy (Al-Ĥamīdu).

43:40 Canst thou (Muhammad) make the deaf to hear, or canst thou guide the blind or him who is in error manifest ?

43.63: When Jesus came with clear proofs (of Allah´s Sovereignty), he said: I have come unto you with LAW (Bil-Ĥikmati), and to make plain some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.

45:35 This, forasmuch as ye made the revelations of Allah a jest, and the life of the world beguiled you. Therefor this day they come not forth from thence, nor can they make amends.

46:9 Say: I am no new thing among the messengers (of Allah), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.

46:23 He said: The knowledge is with Allah only. I convey unto you that wherewith I have been sent, but I see you are a folk that know not.

Sura 46 to the end
Spoiler! :
47:16 Among them are some who give ear unto thee (Muhammad) till, when they go forth from thy presence they say unto those who have been given knowledge: What was that he said just now ? Those are they whose hearts Allah hath sealed, and they follow their own lusts.

47:26 That is because they say unto those who hate what Allah hath revealed: We will obey you in some matters; and Allah knoweth their secret talk.

48:8 Lo! We have sent thee (O Muhammad) as a witness and a bearer of good tidings and a warner,
48:9 That ye (mankind) may believe in Allah and His messenger, and may honour Him, and may revere Him, and may glorify Him at early dawn and at the close of day.
48:10 Lo! those who swear allegiance unto thee (Muhammad), swear allegiance only unto Allah. The Hand of Allah is above their hands. So whosoever breaketh his oath, breaketh it only to his soul's hurt; while whosoever keepeth his covenant with Allah, on him will He bestow immense reward.

48:29 Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves. Thou (O Muhammad) seest them bowing and falling prostrate (in worship), seeking bounty from Allah and (His) acceptance. The mark of them is on their foreheads from the traces of prostration. Such is their likeness in the Torah and their likeness in the Gospel

49:16 Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Would ye teach Allah your religion, when Allah knoweth all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and Allah is Aware of all things ?
49:17 They make it a favour unto thee (Muhammad) that they have surrendered (unto Him). Say: Deem not your Surrender a favour unto me; but Allah doth confer a favour on you, inasmuch as He hath led you to the Faith, if ye are earnest.

50:45 Thou (O Muhammad) art in no wise a compeller over them. But warn by the Qur'an him who feareth My threat.

53:23 They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed no warrant. They follow but a guess and that which (they) themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord hath come unto them.

53:26 And how many angels are in the heavens whose intercession availeth naught save after Allah giveth leave to whom He chooseth and accepteth.

57:7 Believe in Allah and His messenger, and spend of that whereof He hath made you trustees; and such of you as believe and spend (aright), theirs will be a great reward.
57:8 What aileth you that ye believe not in Allah, when the messenger calleth you to believe in your Lord, and He hath already made a covenant with you, if ye are believers ?
57:9 He it is Who sendeth down clear revelations unto His slave, that He may bring you forth from darkness unto light; and lo! for you, Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful.

57:19 And those who believe in Allah and His messengers, they are the loyal, and the martyrs are with their Lord; they have their reward and their light; while as for those who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, they are owners of hell-fire.

68:36-40:
What aileth you ? How foolishly ye judge! Or have ye a scripture wherein ye learn That ye shall indeed have all that ye choose ? Or have ye a covenant on oath from Us that reacheth to the Day of Judgment, that yours shall be all that ye ordain ? Ask them (O Muhammad) which of them will vouch for that!

65:11 A messenger reciting unto you the revelations of Allah made plain, that He may bring forth those who believe and do good works from darkness unto light.

66:1 O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives ? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


88.21-22: Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them.

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 1:15 pm
by The Cat
1l) The Hadiths' Perfidy: Resuming, more links and Additions.

A. RESUMING (see above for more/other details):

a) No hadith can be religiously authoritative (ie. the Shariah) as per the Koran.
The only authoritative Sunna is that of Allah (17.77; 33.62; 35.43; 48.23).
http://tawhiyd.webs.com/sunnainquraan.htm

b) The Koranic Deen (din) is basically Abraham's 'millata', not Muhammad's Sunna:
http://www.wakeup.org/anadolu/02/3/din_quran.html

c) Muhammad interdicted their writing down, explaining their authoritative absence.
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 48%29.html
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 08%29.html

Part 3/21 on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNHoS_uhykM



d) History demonstrate the above
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithhistory
viewtopic.php?p=122489#p122489

Part 4/21: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LER_pUJTkW8&NR
From the script, beginning at 2'26:
The four guided Khalifas who ruled the Muslim Umma (nation) after the death of Prophet Muhammad, respected the order of the Prophet (part 3) and prohibited the writing and collection of Hadiths.... Abu Bakr at one point was not sure whether to keep what he knows of hadiths or not. He had collected 500 Hadiths during his very long companionship with Prophet Muhammad, but he could not sleep the night until he burned them.

Omar Ibn Al-Khattab insisted on destroying the Hadiths collected by his son Abdullah. Islamic history mentioned the story of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab restraining four of the Prophet's companions because of their insistence on telling Hadiths, these were Ibn Masoud, Abu Al-Dardaa, Abu Masoud al-Anssary and Abu Tharr al-Ghaffary. Omar called Abu Hurayra a liar and threatened to send him back to Yemen where he came from if he does not stop telling these lies about Prophet Muhammad.....

Ali Ibn Abu Talib, the fourth Khalifa in one of his speeches said, ''I urge all those who have writings taken from the Messenger of God to go home and erase it. The people before you, were annihilated because they followed the Hadiths of their scholars and left the book of their Lord.'' (Sunan al-Daramy).....

The guided Khalifas, al-Khulafaa al-Rashedun, who ruled the Muslim Umma after the death of Prophet Muhammad respected the Prophet's wish in not writing anything but the Quran and denounced any attempt of writing the Hadiths and Sunna. Their example was followed for the first two centuries after the Prophet's death. By that time, the lies about Prophet Muhammad was widespread and the people deserted the Quran to look for Hadiths. That is when Khalifa Omar Ibn Abdel-Aziz issued an order to permit the writing of Hadiths and Sunna thinking that he would put an end to the lies about Prophet Muhammad. In his ruling he disregarded the commandments of God in the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad and the examples of his predecessors and the objection of many of the scholars in his time....


e) The Power of Intercession is for Allah alone (2.48; 2.123; 6.51; 6.94; 32.4, etc);
Bukhari 1.3.98 four blasphemous blunders!; Bukhari 1.8.345, is it 5 or 12½ prayers?

f) The Shariah is that of Noah, thus the 7 Noachide commandments (42.13; 42.21; 5.48; 45.18, 6.123).
http://www.theholybook.org/content/view/4285/94/
viewtopic.php?p=100835#p100835
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5519
viewtopic.php?p=99434#p99434

The Laws Within the Koran (the Koranic Deen & Islam; the Shariah)
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8384
The so-called abrogations
viewtopic.php?p=104171#p104171
Allah's Shariah are clearly given in some Koranic verses: 17.22-36; 2.83-84 and 6.150-157.

The title of 'Imam' belongs solely to Abraham, Isaac & Jacob: 2.124, 21.73 (not to Muhammad, Shafi'i, Bukhari and the likes):
Imam Abraham and the son of the Promise
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8369

g) The Koran never says ''obey Allah and Muhammad'' (but the obey the Messenger).
http://www.submission.org/obey-Prophet-Muhammed.htm
http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/27 ... rophet.htm
http://www.quranicpath.com/sunnishia/ob ... enger.html

Now, the divine message is ALWAYS threefold: Allah - Gabriel - a human (2.97-98).
Thus there's no genuine Messenger by himself if separated from Gabriel as the angel is the divine guarantor,
acting like the seal on a royal message carried out by the messenger, whom has little importance by himself.

Looking at 33.21, often associated with Obey Allah and Muhammad:
33.21: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him
who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.


In a far twisted logic, a good example for him who looketh unto Allah, remembering Him much
BECOMES... Look for the Siras, the Tafsirs, the Hadiths and Muhammad's Sunna (now see 3.7)!

16.35:.... Are the messengers charged with aught save plain conveyance (of the message) ?
41.43: Naught is said unto thee save what was said unto the messengers before thee.
88.21-22: Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them.

h) No hadith came down directly from Muhammad (whom interdicted them all).
Debunking SNB on the so-called early hadiths, once again.
viewtopic.php?p=148804#p148804

http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/had ... 77%29.html
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 09%29.html
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 10%29.html
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 11%29.html

33.40: Muhammad is not the father (Aba) of any man among you,
but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets
....

--Aba (or abu) doesn't only mean a biological father, but a leader of any kind, a sect or a tribe (etc).
--Seal is written Katham and doesn't mean 'last', which would have been written akhiri. It's NOT so!
He's not the seal of the messengers (ie. Gabriel), solely the seal (ie. certification) of the prophets.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/seal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam

viewtopic.php?p=148380#p148380
viewtopic.php?p=148403#p148403

______________
To be followed by a part 2 (Links and Additions).

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2011 12:46 am
by The Cat
Part 2: Links and Additions

Joseph Schacht on the Islamic Jurisprudence, a revaluation...
http://www.answering-islam.net/Books/Sc ... uation.htm
My excerpt
viewtopic.php?p=98118#p98118

Links to Quranist's sites
viewtopic.php?p=124484#p124484

The Mudarras K. Gaznavi site
http://www.reocities.com/spenta_mainyu/index.htm
On Islam (many pages), the messenger's region.
http://www.reocities.com/spenta_mainyu/Islam.htm
On Muhammad
http://reocities.com/spenta_mainyu_2/Muhammad.htm

Abraha inscription, Wael Hallaq, Buk.1.3.98, tawatûr, no hadiths from Muhammad.
viewtopic.php?p=147684#p147684

No Early Manuscripts, the mutawatir/tawatur dilemma, the Mutazilites, videos.
viewtopic.php?p=148804#p148804

2.282; 3 versions of the last sermon.
viewtopic.php?p=150474#p150474

The Criminals of Islam, by Dr Shabbir Ahmed.
http://www.ourbeacon.com/wp-content/upl ... minals.pdf

Alfred Guillaume: The Traditions of Islam, An Introduction to the Study of the Hadith Literature.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Gu ... /index.htm
3 Excerpts (+ Patricia Crone 1st extract from her 'Hagarism...')
viewtopic.php?p=151371#p151371

Historical Facts about the Origins of Islam, by William A. Percy
http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index ... s_of_Islam
Excerpt
viewtopic.php?p=151817#p151817

Problem of the Sources (Ibn Warraq's Why I'm Not a Muslim)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51323863/4/Th ... of-Sources
My excerpt
viewtopic.php?p=146555#p146555

Links to sites debunking the hadiths, the historical Muhammad, coins.
viewtopic.php?p=148354#p148354
How Muhammad’s Sunna Trumps Allah’s Book, by Sam Shamoun
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... _quran.htm

On 33.40 (not the father of any man, the seal of prophets...)
viewtopic.php?p=148380#p148380
viewtopic.php?p=148403#p148403
viewtopic.php?p=148425#p148425

On 31.6 (the tafsirs and hadiths)
viewtopic.php?p=149491#p149491

Mullahs and Imams as religious Pharisees (9.31)
Image

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:23 pm
by The Cat
Part 3: The Hadiths under the scrutiny of Western scholars...
Herein, I'll provide some Western studies over the 'science' of hadiths...

How Muhammad’s Sunna Trumps Allah’s Book, by Sam Shamoun
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... _quran.htm
Note: apart from confusing Sunna (ancestral practices) with Hadith (reports of sayings), the article is quite sharp.

I'll only bring excepts from the end of articles, of which chapters are...
1) --Presentation
2) --What the Quran really Says about the Hadith
3) --The Quran on the real Sunna
4) --The Quran – the only inspiration given to Muhammad
5) --The Quran – A Fully Detailed Scripture
6) --Muhammad – the uninspired and fallible interpreter
7) --The Sunni Dilemma (some in the given quote)

Spoiler! :
Here is where the Sunni Muslims face a number of problems. In the first place, although there are many reports that say that Muhammad expressly censured the writing of his statements there are other narratives which contradict this by claiming that he did allow his followers to record them:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As:
I used to write everything which I heard from the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). I intended (by it) to memorise it. The Quraysh prohibited me saying: Do you write everything that you hear from him while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) is a human being: he speaks in anger and pleasure? So I stopped writing, and mentioned it to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). He signalled with his finger to him mouth and said: Write, by Him in Whose hand my soul lies, only right comes out from it. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 25, Number 3639)

The following report implies that there were certain companions who started recording Muhammad’s words during his lifetime:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
There is none among the companions of the Prophet who has narrated more Hadiths than I except 'Abdallah bin Amr (bin Al-'As) who used to write them and I never did the same. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 113)

We, therefore, have a huge contradiction within the hadith literature.

The second major problem is the assertion that the reason why Muhammad didn’t allow the recording of his traditions is because of his fear that the people would confuse them with the Quran. How could anyone confuse Muhammad’s words with the Quran when the latter is supposed to be unmatchable? Since Sunnis believe that the words Muhammad spoke when he wasn’t reciting the Quran were not dictated to him, but were merely inspired in the sense that the ideas were from Allah but the words that he used to express them were his very own, how then could anyone confuse the two together?

In other words, wouldn’t the words of the Quran be of superior quality and eloquence to Muhammad’s statements since the former were divinely dictated to him which he then recited? Moreover, doesn’t Muhammad’s fears show that his statements were equal to the Quran? Is this why certain reports claim that Muhammad was given something similar to or like (mithli) the Quran? But if they are equal to the words of the Muslim scripture then doesn’t this meet the challenge of the Quran to produce something like it? If so wouldn’t this falsify the Quran’s claims that it is inimitable? After all, how can human speech no matter how inspired be equal to Allah’s words which are dictated through a human agent?

Let the reader keep this point in mind. Muhammad’s Sunna wasn’t dictated by Allah but was relayed through Muhammad’s own words and modes of expression. It, therefore, cannot have the same level of eloquence and authority of the Quran which is supposed to be the very speech of Allah which was dictated word for word. And yet the hadith literature makes the bold assertion that Muhammad’s Sunna is exactly like or equal to the Muslim scripture!

What this basically implies is that Muhammad’s Sunna trumps the Quran and falsifies the latter’s claim of being unmatchable and fully detailed, that it is the best hadith there is, since Muhammad’s hadiths are just as good and equal to the Muslim scripture. To top it off, Muhammad’s statements haven’t come down to us entirely intact, but have been intermingled with the words of the narrators who often times forgot or summarized what they heard. Thus, the statements of uninspired, fallible humans have the same level of authority as the Quran, being its equal!


But let us dig furthermore into the composition of the Hadiths...

The authenticity of Muslim literature from the formative period, by Herbert Berg
http://books.google.ca/books?id=8oYLyS_ ... &q&f=false
Chapters available: 1) --Introduction; 2) --Hadiths criticism...
3) --Exegetical hadiths and the origins of tafsir (sub: authenticity of the historical hadiths)
4) --Isnads and exegetical devices (Tabari, the mythic Ibn Abbas, the informants of Tabari)

Spoiler! :
Excerpts from the text...
1) If one questions the historicity of the events recorded in the sira, the biography of Muhammad, then
seemingly nothing of the formative period of Islam remains: the entire edifice of Muslim belief and even the
Western scholarly research crumbles.

2) On the question of Muhammad's marriage to Maymuna, he (J. Schacht) says: ''even the details of this
important event in the life of the prophet are not based on authentic historical recollection but are fictitious
and intended to support legal doctrines.
'' See: http://answering-islam.org/Books/Schach ... uation.htm

3) Like Conrad, Kister suggest that the ''narratives of the sirah have to be carefully and meticulously sifted in
order to get at the kernel of historically valid information, which is in fact meagre and scanty.

4) As for the isnads attached to these historical hadiths, Leder is skeptical; they are often fabricated
and serve to conceal the authors or the authoritical contributions made by tradents and, at least in
some of the case he examines, ''isnads do not reveal the real transmission of the text.''

5) All of these concerns point to the fundamental problem of source analysis; it involves circular reasoning.
The general authenticity of the isnads is assumed in order demonstrate that the reliability of the reports to
which they are attached. But this is precisely the objection of the skeptics. Acceptance of the biographical
materials...

6) Ironically therefore, Stauth's observation that there are more similarities between the materials in al-Tabari's
Tafsirs with the three Abi Najih () might well suggest that the names in the isnads do not have as strong a
correlation to the contents of their hadiths as Stauth assumes. Rather, they suggest that there is a correlation
between the collectors.... His has introduced into his study a weakness or oversight -the same one that most
scholars introduce who implicitly accept the reliability of isnads in order to prove that reliability. Namely, Stauth
ignores the fact that similarities Stauth observed between the various Mujahid-transmissions are present even
in non-Mujahid-transmistions, suggesting perhaps that a consensus of sorts had formed about the exegesis of a
certain passage and then various isnads were subsequently fabricated to retrospect these opinions.

Problem of the sources: Al-Tabari & Ibn Abbas under scrutiny
1) Through his arguments and presentation the grammatical tradition and exegetical tradition are made to concur. And so
al-Tabari aimed at entrenching in the Muslim consciousness a 'majority' conception of Islam: ''This view is more efficacious
that a theological treatise, because it causes to think that Islam has always and everywhere been conceived as it was in the
third century AH. The use of exegetical hadiths therefore has a theological agenda, quite apart from their contents.

2) Gradually, a far more skeptical understanding of the material attributed to Ibn Abbas has emerged -even more so than the
one which labelled him a liar.... Nagel argues that Ibn Abbas as the progenitor of the Abbasids dynasty, served as the surest
foundation upon which to base their dynastic claims. As the paternal cousin of Muhammad, Ibn Abbas places the Abbasids
within the bloodline of the Prophet. Moreover, as the predestined commentator of the Qur'an, he places the Abbasids within
the 'spiritual' bloodline of the Prophet. The extent to which the authority of Ibn Abbas is transformed is attested to by the
same aforementioned biographical traditions which are unlikely to have originated prior to Abbasid rule.

3) Several Tafsirs are proclaimed to be the actual Tafsir of Ibn Abbas, but none transmitted from the aforementioned
students..... Literary criteria and an introduction found in a manuscript of al-Wadih fi tafsir al-Qur'an (which contains the
same text as the Tafsir Ibn Abbas) by Abu Muhammad () al-Dinawari (d.308/920) suggests that the text was produced in
the late third century and has some connection to al-Kalbi's tafsir.

4) (Andrew) Rippin has shown that the extant manuscripts of Gharib al-Qur'an are not independent works, but copies of
al-Lughat fi al-Qur'an.... Rippin concludes from his study and comparison of these texts that they could not have originated
from the same author and that the 'attribution to Ibn Abbas (of these works) is fiction designed to give the texts more
credence by assigning them to an early and prominent figure. As for the remaining entries under Ibn Abbas in Sezgin's (),
they too consist of later compilations.

It seems that there are no extant works that originate from the pen of Ibn Abbas. At best, we have Ibn Abbas as he was
transmitted by several generations and finally compiled (with al-Tabari's Tafsir, being one of the first substantial collections
of sayings attributed to him).... The ability easily to fabricate hadiths, exegetical or otherwise, combined with a real motive
to do so -the mythic status of Ibn Abbas- leaves us in doubt about anything attributed to him.

5) Uncertainties surround the lives and exegetical activities of tradents leading from the students of Ibn Abbas to the
informants of al-Tabari as well.... Past Muslim scholars have gone to considerable effort to attempt to record the basic
bio-bibliographical information of all the tradents found in isnads of the hadith literature.... Most of the transmitters of
legal hadiths also figure prominently in the isnads of exegetical hadiths, and so material is available by which to evaluate
most of the relevant transmitters. The biographical information on Ibn Abbas above depends heavily on this material.
Unfortunately, the rijal material is as suspect, as it is abundant. The mythic status assigned to Ibn Abbas in this material
is good example of how it has been manipulated. It accounts of the lives of the transmitters cannot be assumed to be
objective.

6) The study of biographies is posterior to the production of isnads. That is, if a name adduced in a particular isnad could be
fabricated, then so too could be the tradent's biography. In fact, the fabrication of the biography would be likely, and the
transmitters' qualities determined not by authentic information about him, but by whether the material attached to his name
had come to be considered 'orthodox' or not.




More on the dubious existence of Ibn Abbas, in a James E. Montgomery's book (with Herbert Berg).
http://books.google.ca/books?id=VHZXeOs ... &lpg=PA129
He came to be seen as the single most authoritative mufassir (). However, given that Ibn Abbas was perhaps born only
three years prior to the Hijra and that Muhammad died when Ibn Abbas was still quite young (10, 13, 15 years of age),
it seems somewhat surprising that he would be considered such an authority -so much more so than even Abu Bakr and
Ali, two of Muhammad's earliest converts. It is not surprising therefore that some scholars have speculated that Ibn
Abbas's status arises more from the importance of his descendants than from anything he might have done.

Ibn Abbas prominence in Qur'anic exegesis emerged, peaked, and began to decline congruently with the political and
religious power of the Abbasid caliphs.... Although, several works are proclaimed to be the actual tafsirs of Ibn Abbas,
all of these have been shown not to originate from him. It is the mythic status of Ibn Abbas that places his name at the
end of the isnad. Western scepticism about the hadiths and tafsirs attributed to Ibn Abbas began with Sprenger, who
called Ibn Abbas a 'liar'. Noldeke and Schwally argued that the contradictions are just too numerous to reconstitute his
teachings for a particular verse on the basis of what has been attributed to him. Therefore, no alternative remains, except
that the prominence of the authority of Ibn Abbas is for the most part a fiction (a sociological fact according to Birkeland).....

Ibn Abbas' growing prominence is evident elsewhere. In the chapter headings, al-Bukhari often cites statements by
mufassirun without isnads. Ibn Abbas is cited most frequently.... In addition, hadiths that denigrate Ibn Abbas are absent...
Several other hadiths find ways to praise or elevate Ibn Abbas by portraying his closeness to Muhammad. In the tafsir of
al-Tabari, over 15% of his 38,397 hadiths are attributed to Ibn Abbas.....

Some cracks in the mythic status of Ibn Abbas are evident from al-Tabari's tafsir. Although many of the exetical hadiths
found in al_Bukhari's Kitab al-Tafsir are found in some form in al-Tabari, the aforementioned which emphazise Ibn Abbas's
closeness to Muhammad are notably absent.... Whether because of Abbasid propaganda or patronage, Ibn Abbas' reputation
as the greatest mufassir grew, as apparently the number of hadiths attributed to him. As Nagel suggests, there would be
no better way for someone to build more confidence and legitimation for a fabricated hadith than to attribute it to the
infallible master of Qur'anic exegesis, namely Ibn Abbas.

My conclusion from this....
--All the hadiths tradition relies on the biography of Muhammad as per Ibn Ishaq, of which we have no manuscripts but
reports from Ibn Hisham (d.830). Hisham had seriously tampered and abrogated the original text, if it ever existed.

His credibility and that of Al-Tabari are much contested even in Islamic scholarly circles....

The Problems with Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasoul Allah and other Early sources of Islam and Prophet Muhammad
http://www.answering-christian-claims.c ... Ishaq.html
http://www.answering-christian-claims.c ... ammad.html

--In all probabilities, the sira of Ibn Hisham, the apparitions of the tafsir of Ibn Abbas, of al-Kalbi and the hadiths of Bukhari and
of al-Tabari, point to an editing consortium in between 830-930 who's main task was to overthrow the reigning Mutazilites, using
the hadiths as propaganda, much like the Abbasids (from far away Khorastan) have done by inventing themselves a bloodline with
Muhammad to cast away the Umayyads, by gaining the crucial Shiites support.

Thus the old rivalry between the Arabs and Persians (see mawali) kept on under the garb of religion. The first paper mill recorded in
Baghdad greatly helped the propagandists. Most if not all the above names and hadiths compilers also came from far away Khorasan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Zab
The main factor which incited this rebellion was that to the outlying peoples of the Caliphate, the Umayyads (based in Damascus)
seemed distant, and the governors they appointed to rule were essentially corrupt and obsessed only with their own gain (read not
obsessed with religion). Equally, the Umayyads could claim no direct descent from Muhammad, however the Abbasids could make
such a claim — a fact they played upon greatly during the revolution, although not specifying until the revolution had been won that
they were in fact descended from Muhammad's uncle.

That really was the beginning of all the forgeries around Muhammad, named only 4 times in the Koran (or else in added brackets).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-Saffah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_ibn_Abd_al-Muttalib
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_Allah_ ... l_Muttalib

Finally, getting to the core of it all: Muhammad's historicity...
WE HAVE NO HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS, FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES, ACKNOWLEDGING THE ISLAMIC TRADITION ABOUT MUHAMMAD !!
Quite the opposite....

According to the Doctrina Jacobi, Muhammad was still a brand new thing around 634-640 (-at least two years after his alleged death-):
''But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had
met him.
..'' Clearly, Muhammad was unknown yet the tradition makes him an Arabic ruler, sending letters to his foreign pairs.

http://www.godlesshaven.com/articles/mu ... dence.html
Aside from writings, the earliest artifact discovered with the name Muhammad is an Arab-Sassanian coin dating to about 685 AD, nearly 50
years after the death of Islam's prophet. This may seem like ample evidence to some that Muhammad was in fact a historical figure, but it is
quite interesting to note how earlier Arab-Sassanian coins invoked Allah with no mention of Muhammad whatsoever (). Some Islamic scholars
like Muhammad Sven Kalisch, Gerd-R Puin and Patricia Crone have noted the presence of Christian and Gnostic influence in early Islam too,
noting that: "there also exist coins found in Palestine, probably minted in Amman, on which the word "Muhammed" is found in Arabic script
on one side, and a picture of a man holding a cross on the other."

The Case of the Missing Mecca
Islam asserts that Mecca has been around since the time of Abraham (2000-1500 BC), that it is located near famous trade routes, and that
several important wars were fought in the area. These allegations work strongly to the disadvantage of Islam though, since the surrounding
regions are indeed well documented with inscriptions, archaeological evidence, and war records - yet none of them seem aware of Mecca.

In his article on The History and Archaeology of Arabia..., Dr. Rafat Amari mentions that cities to the North of Mecca, like Qedar, Dedan
and Teima, are historically well attested to by numerous monuments and inscriptions dating as far back as the 8th or 7th century BC.
Kingdoms to the South of Mecca, such as Haram, Inabba, Kaminahu, and Nashan, are also fairly well documented, although they were
smaller than Mecca was considered to be. Dr. Amari gives an overwhelming amount of evidence for surrounding dynasties, cities, and
kingdoms in the region, stretching far back into history, and notes how none of them have... inscriptions, or any references to Mecca.
(-Reference: http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm -)

With Mecca having supposedly been right in the middle of the Northern and Southern cities of Arabia, as well being next to the Red Sea
trading route, it seems that some references to the city should have surfaced in the area before the 4th or 5th century AD. If Muhammad
had been at war with several tribes in the region, as the hadiths/traditions tell us, one would think that such issues would have stirred up
at least enough notice to warrant documentation or evidence of some sort, especially if Muhammad had been attacking caravans on trade
routes, as he allegedly did. But it is almost like Mecca did not even exist at the time.


All this of course is asking for further researches about the Historicity of both Muhammad & Mecca. Which I've done thoroughly...

Muhammad -Myth vs Reality
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5518

Mecca -Myth vs Reality: In Search of Mt Sinai
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527

A wide summary (Hadiths/Muhammad & Mecca) is found in...
viewtopic.php?p=152903#p152903

Archeological evidences against nowadays Mecca
viewtopic.php?p=150476#p150476

With nowadays Mecca being the -all time- biggest historical blunder ever... the traditional Muhammad crumbles into dust.
Amen !

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:44 am
by The Cat
Part 3 continued....
Featuring Andrew Rippin, Ibn Warraq, Alfred Guillaume, Yehuda Nevo and others...

Muslims: their religious beliefs and practices, by Andrew Rippin (small excerpt)
http://books.google.ca/books?id=1KTX7M- ... 4&lpg=PA44
The problem of hadith reports
For an individual report itself, the isnad, or chain of transmitters, is considered to act as a guarantor of the genuineness of the text
of the report. However, the isnad mechanism was, according to Muslims, subject to a great deal of fraud in the early period. Muslims
therefore created several methods of evaluating these isnads, using criteria which dealt in particular with the life and character of the
individual transmitters found in the sequence of names. The desire was to document isnads which were complete in their testimony to
the transmission of the text of the report from generation to generation..... Not surprisingly, perhaps, such methods could really only
sort out the inept isnad fabrications from the less inept. The tendency to fabricate hadith reports extended so far as to include reports
which could justify the employment of hadith reports themselves in trying to settle legal issues and others which warn against false
transmission of reports....

The forces which tried to stem the tide of extensive spreading of unreliable hadith reports appear to have used the very practise it was
trying to condemn in order to stop the practice. We also find in the collections of hadith reports instances which clearly are concerned
with matters of interest to the community in generations after Muhammad but which have been framed as predictions made by him.....
Muhammad is employed as a spokesperson for the theological party which supported the doctrine of predestination (Free will was uphold
by the Mutazilites); in a way, those people tried to assert the rightness of their position by citing Muhammad as their proof. Hadith
reports may also be found which also support the opposite position.

It has also been discovered by modern researchers that isnads had a tendency to ''grow backwards''. In certain early texts a statement will
be found attributed to a caliph of the Umayyad dynasty, for example, or will even be unattributed, as in the case of certain legal maxims;
elsewhere, the same statements will be found in the form of hadith reports with fully documented isnads going back to Muhammad or one
of his companions. There are instances where it would have been appropriate on the basis of the arguments being conducted in texts to
cite the given report from Muhammad, had such reports been available; but, in fact, unattributed statements are found.


http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... hadith.htm
There are many hadiths which record conflicting accounts of the same event! Another question which needs to be asked is : where is the
manuscript evidence concerning the earliest Hadith? How can we be sure that stories were not erroneously inserted into the traditions, or
that existing stories did not undergo editing? After all, if someone can "create" a tradition, what would prevent them from "creating" a
chain of narration?

It is interesting to note that Bukhari wrote a book about the narrators (Zuafa-us-sagher). What is even more interesting is that Bukhari's
book condemns several narrators including: Ata bin abi Maimoona, Ayyub bin Aiz, Ismail bin Aban, Zubair bin Muhammad, At-Tayyimi,
Saeed bin Urwa, Abdullah bin Abi Labeed, Abdul Malik bin Ameen, Abdul waris bin Saeed, Ata bin As-Saib bin Yazeed, and Khamsan bin
Minhal as unreliable. However, the Hadith-collection of Bukhari in the its modern form actually includes many traditions narrated by these
very individuals! Obviously, these traditions, which Bukhari rejected, were inserted in his book following his death.....

The Muwatta of Malik provides a good example which illustrates my concerns about the historical accuracy of the Hadith. According to the
book A `Perfect' Qur'an OR "So it was made to appear to them"?: Indeed, one publication of Muwatta here in the U.K. - that of Islamic
Academy U.K. - has notes relating how this one was chosen from among 50 `versions' of the Muwatta, and only 16 were considered "best
transmitted". So Dr. Saifullah, which of these 16 "best transmitted" editions of the Muwatta of Malik represents your authentic "early
Hadith"? Personally, I do not trust the historical accuracy or authenticity of any of these versions. But, as you say, God knows best!


http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id3.html
The complete unreliability of the Muslim tradition as far as dates are concerned has been demonstrated by Lawrence Conrad. After close
examination of the sources in an effort to find the most likely birth date for Muhammad--traditionally `Am al-fil, the Year of the Elephant,
570 C.E.--Conrad remarks that: 'Well into the second century A.H. scholarly opinion on the birth date of the Prophet displayed a range of
variance of eighty-five years. . . ."

Indeed, it appears that the only secure date anywhere in the whole saga of the origins of Islam is 622 C.E., which has been confirmed from
dated coinage as marking the beginning of a new era. (...) It was not until the manufacture of Hadiths (Prophetic traditions) got under way
in the second Islamic century that all these vague notions were absorbed and particularized in the detailed sunnt an-nabi.....

The ayyam nature of these accounts explains why the written versions of the Traditional Muslim account disagree with each other
concerning the names of battles, of commanders, the number of participants and casualties, and so on. Furthermore, if we are to judge
from this literature, we must conclude that the mass of Arab tribesman were pagan at the time of their influx into the Fertile Crescent,
and remained so throughout the seventh century; the governing elite adopted a simple form of monotheism, basically Judaeo-Christian,
which may be discerned in an account of official Christian dealings with Arab governor during the early years of Mu`awiya's rule....


http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modu ... oryid=9372
It is a striking fact that such documentary evidence as survives from the Sufnayid period makes no mention of the messenger of god at
all. The papyri do not refer to him. The Arabic inscriptions of the Arab-Sasanian coins only invoke Allah, not his rasul [messenger]; and
the Arab-Byzantine bronze coins on which Muhammad appears as rasul Allah, previously dated to the Sufyanid period, have not been placed
in that of the Marwanids. Even the two surviving pre-Marwanid tombstones fail to mention the rasul.

The great scandal of Islamic tradition is the absence of Islamic formulations from coins and monuments dating from the its first two
centuries, as well as the presence of material obviously incompatible with Islam. "Coins and inscriptions are incompatible with the Islamic
writing of history," Kalisch concludes on the strength of older work, including Yehuda Nevo and Jutith Koren's Crossroads to Islam.

The oldest inscription with the formulation "Mohammed Messenger of Allah" is to found in the 66th year of Islamic reckoning, and after
that used continuously. But there also exist coins found in Palestine, probably minted in Amman, on which the word "Muhammed" is
found in Arabic script on one side, and a picture of a man holding a cross on the other.
Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossroads ... Arab_State
The so-called criticism of Colin Wells are but dhimmi slanders unworthy of epistemic and archaeological scholarship!

Alfred Guillaume: http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Gu ... ns/ch1.htm
The foundation of the enormous mass of traditions which afterwards accumulated was laid by the Companions who were scattered
throughout the Muhammadan world; but it would be rash to dogmatize as to how much of existing material can be safely ascribed to them.
Our estimate of traditions circulated in their name cannot but be adversely affected by the frequent accusations of forgery levelled against
many of the professional traditionists, by the many anachronisms they contain, and by the political and sectarian bias they display.

When all these factors are allowed for, and account is taken of the inevitable mistakes that must occur when traditions are handed down
through a long line of speakers, it is difficult to regard the hadith literature as a whole as an accurate and trustworthy record of the
sayings and doings of Muhammad.....


Origins of the Koran (by Ibn Warraq)
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Origins_of_the_Qur%27an
The biographers of Muhammad were too far removed from his time to have true data or notions; far from being objective the data rested
on tendentious fiction; furthermore it was not their aim to know these things as they really happened, but to construct an ideal vision of
the past, as it ought to have been. "Upon the bare canvas of verses of the Koran that need explanation, the traditionists have embroidered
with great boldness scenes suitable to the desires or ideals of their paricular group; or to use a favorite metaphor of Lammens, they fill the
empty spaces by a process of stereotyping which permits the critical observer to recognize the origin of each picture.".....

An instruction given to his obedient governor al Mughira by Muawiya is in the spirit of the Umayyads: "Do not tire of abusing and insulting
Ali and calling for God’s mercifulness for ‘Uthman, defaming the companions of Ali, removing them and omitting to listen to them (i.e., to
what they tell and propagate as hadiths); praising in contrast, the clan of ‘Uthman, drawing them near to you and listening to them." This
is an official encouragement to foster the rise and spread of hadiths directed against Ali and to hold back and suppress hadiths favoring Ali.
The Umayyads and their political followers had no scruples in promoting tendentious lies in a sacred religious form, and they were only
concerned to find pious authorities who would be prepared to cover such falsifications with their undoubted authority. There was never
any lack of these. Hadiths were liable to be fabricated even for the most trivial ritualistic details. Tendentiousness included the suppression
of existing utterances friendly to the rival party or dynasty.

Under the ‘Abbasids, the fabrications of hadiths greatly multiplied, with the express purpose of proving the legitimacy of their own
clan against the ‘Alids. For example, the Prophet was made to say that Abu Talib, father of ‘Ali, was sitting deep in hell: "Perhaps my
intercession will be of use to him on the day of resurrection so that he may be transferred into a pool of fire which reaches only up to
the ankles but which is still hot enough to burn the brain." Naturally enough this was countered by the theologians of the ‘Alias by
devising numerous traditions concerning the glorification of Abu Talib, all sayings of the prophet. "In fact," as Goldziher shows,
amongst the opposing factions, "the mischievous use of tendentious traditions was even more common than the official party."

The notion that 'Obey the Messenger' means to 'follow the sunna of Muhammad' is unheard of before imam Shafi'i (d.820)!
But who's the Messenger to be obeyed? JIBRIL (2.97-101)! Not Muhammad, just the human part of the message, for there are to be no
distinction between human messengers (2.285). So is it stated in 33.21: Muhammad is a good example in that he ''looketh unto Allah
and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much''. For otherwise, in human affairs he is to lead through council (3.159; 4.59; 42.38),
respect and abide to them. Then, of course, all hadiths are running contrary to the Koranic statements that is it a clear, fully explained
scripture (6.114-116). And, in case of doubts Muhammad himself is to seek advise from the People of the Book (6.89-90; 10.94; 16.43;
21.7). The Koran defines him as depraved (93.7) and never ever gives him the title of Imam as to Abraham (2.124) or Moses (46.12) !

http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/84/117/
The word sunna predates the rise of Islam and is well attested in pre-Islamic sources. The word sunna was likely to be applied to
Muhammad even during his lifetime. The Qur’an never mentions sunna-al-nabi (sunna of the Messenger). The application of the
term sunna is likely to be post-Qur’anic, especially when applied exclusively to Muhammad.

Early Muslims did not give precedence of Muhammad's sunna over other sunnas, such as the sunna of the early caliphs or early
companions. The sunna term was not exclusive to Muhammad. There were no rigid distinctions about sources of religious law,
i.e. it wasn't concrete that Muhammad's sunna could be used as a source of law.

Shafi was born in 204 AH (193 years after Messenger Muhammad's death). He was the first to argue the Messenger's sunna as a
source of law, identified to authentic Divinely Revealed hadith, and give it an equal footing to The Qur'an.... After Shafi, it is rare
to find the term sunna applied to other than Muhammad. Al-kalam (ie. the Mutazilites) argued the sunna of Muhammad should
never be allowed to rule on The Qur’an and described the science of hadith (as in the methods used to collect hadith) as arbitrary.
Evidence of this was the hadith was filled with contradictory, blasphemous and absurd traditions.....

Challenges to the view of the organic relationship between The Qur'an and sunna are not completely unprecedented in the history of
Islamic thought. Some of the opponents of Shafi argued that The Qur'an explains everything (e.g. 16:89) and needs no supplement,
this was because one of Shafi's central arguments was the need to clarify The Qur'an. This opposing viewpoint was snuffed out....

If the Messenger failed to have his sunna written down, it is also evident according to the "deniers", that Allah did not preserve the
integrity of tradition after the time of the Messenger. At best the collections of traditions, even Bukhari and Muslim, are mixtures
of truth and falsehood. At worst they are riddled with blatant blasphemies and absurdities. In such a mixture, how can one distinguish
what is revelation from what is forgery? Here again arguments discrediting the historical authenticity of hadith mingle with theological
assumptions about the nature of revelation. In Sidqi's words "Is it conceivable that Allah would have subjected the world to something
in which it is impossible for anyone to distinguish truth and falsehood?" ....

Moreover, since neither the Messenger, nor his Companions, nor the early Caliphs considered anything to be revelation except The
Qur'an, it is evident that the elevation of sunna to this status must have been a creation of later Muslims....


Much more on this in a later post, as we'll catch on with Joseph Schacht... John Wansbrough and Patricia Crone, among others.

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:51 am
by The Cat
I found back a forgotten link, which is impressive, as you will see... It includes many quotes from Western scholars!

Ten Myths About Islam, by Timothy W. Dunkin (references are given in the link)
http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam_myths.html
Back in time, I had this link (wow) right here...
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=5206

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.html
Scholars have long recognized that the various ahadith and other traditional materials, such as the historical records of battles
in the Arab conquest and the biographical materials concerning Mohammed, are often quite contradictory, and rarely can be put
together into a logical, coherent order of events. Further, the materials making up the ahadith and the biographies are very late,
often as much as two centuries after the fact and were often blatantly polemical in their outlook. This suggests that the reason
for the conflicting details in so many of these sources is due to their being "spun" (or even invented) by factionalists among the
Muslims, each trying to bolster their own particular view or party by laying claim to some saying or action of the prophet.

Schacht has expressed an opinion which has become increasingly commonplace in the studies of Islam when he stated,
"No one could have been more surprised than I was by the results which the evidence of the texts has forced upon me during the
last ten years or so; but looking back I cannot see what other result could possibly be consistent with the very foundations of our
historical and critical study of the first two or three centuries of Islam. One of these foundations, I may take it for granted, is
Goldziher's discovery that the traditions from the Prophet and from his Companions do not contain more or less authentic
information on the earliest period of Islam to which they claim to belong, but reflect opinions held during the first two and a
half centuries after the hijra.
"
....

"Every legal tradition from the Prophet, until the contrary is proved, must be taken not as an authentic or essentially authentic, even
if slightly obscured, statement valid for his time or the time of the Companions, but as the fictitious expression of a legal doctrine
formulated at a later date....We shall not meet any legal tradition from the Prophet which can positively be considered authentic.
''


The determination of an "authentic" hadith by Muslim scholars has traditionally been made by judging the isnad, the persons making up
the chain of authority for the hadith, on a number of factors such as reliability and reputation (hence, making it a somewhat subjective
exercise). This method in which the ahadith were transmitted and recorded is less than inspiring in its capacity to accurately transmit
information. Muir, after noting that even respectable and accepted traditions contain much that is "exaggerated and fabulous", quotes
Gustav Weil saying this about the reliability of the oral traditions and transmission of traditions,

"Reliance upon oral traditions, at a time when they were transmitted by memory alone, and every day produced new divisions among
the professors of Islam, opened up a wide field for fabrication and distortion. There was nothing easier, when required to defend any
religious or political system, than to appeal to an oral tradition of the Prophet." He further notes, "....the terms in which the evidence
was given; whereas tradition purely oral is affected by the character and habits, the associations and the prejudices, of each witness
in the chain of repetition. No precaution could hinder the commingling in oral tradition of mistaken or fabricated matter with what
at the first may have been trustworthy evidence. The floodgates of error, exaggeration, and fiction were thrown open.
"


Also, the independence of the witnesses in the isnad has likely been overestimated by past scholars of Islam. Noting that the process
of isnad as a means of transmitting information about Mohammed and early Islam evolved many decades after the facts they purport
to transmit, Juynboll expresses a studied trepidation about the authority and authenticity of these traditions.

"In my view, before the institution of the isnad came into existence roughly three quarters of a century after the prophet's death, the
ahadith and the qisas (mostly legendary stories) were transmitted in a haphazard fashion if at all, and mostly anonymously. Since the
isnad came into being, names of older authorities were supplied where the new isnad precepts required such. Often the names of
well-known historical personalities were chosen but more often the names of fictitious people were offered to fill the gaps in isnads
which were as yet far from perfect...The overall majority of allegedly the most ancient traditions is likely to have originated at the
earliest in the course of the last few decades of the first century [ed. note - Islamic century] (700s-720s), when for the first time
the need for traditions became generally felt. The isnad as institution had just come into being and slowly but gradually the concept
of sunnat an-nabi began to eclipse the Sunna of a region or of a (group of) person(s).
"


Goldziher was the first modern western scholar of Islam to recognize the spurious nature of the hadithic records, when his thorough
examination of them (practically the first undertaken by a Western scholar) uncovered the astounding regularity with which the
traditions contradicted each other, and whose numbers seemed to balloon with each succeeding generation.

Goldziher succinctly summarized his findings, "In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt the most
tentative opinion as to which parts of the Hadith are the oldest original material, or even as to which of them date back to the
generations immediately following the Prophet's death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of Hadiths induces skeptical
caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections. We are unlikely
to have even as much confidence as Dozy regarding a large part of the Hadith, but will probably consider by far the greater part of
it as the result of the religious, historical, and social development of Islam during the first two centuries. The Hadith will not serve
as a document for the history of the infancy of Islam, but rather as a reflection of the tendencies that appeared in the community
during the maturer stages of its development. It contains invaluable evidence for the evolution of Islam during the years when it
was forming itself into an organized whole from powerful mutually opposed forces.
"
....

(Patricia Crone) further concludes about the hadithic traditions,
"But above all the tradition is marked by high entropy. Unsurprisingly, it is full of contradictions, confusions, inconsistencies, and
anomalies, and if these could be ordered a certain meaning might emerge. But the debris is dejectingly resistant to internal criticism,
and because it cannot be ordered, nothing much can be proved or disproved. There is nothing, within the Islamic traditions, that one
can do with Baladhuri's statement that the kiblah (direction of prayer) in the first Kufan mosque was to the west (opposite direction to
Mecca): either it is false or else it is odd, but why it should be there and what it means God only knows. It is similarly odd that Umar
(second caliph) is known as the Faruq (Redeemer), that there are so many Fatimas, that Ali (Muhammad's cousin) is sometimes
Muhammad's brother, and that there is so much pointless information...It is a tradition in which information means nothing and leads
nowhere; it just happens to be there and lends itself to little but arrangement by majority and minority opinion.
"


The process of isnad is also highly suspect, and was shown on several counts by Goldziher to yield seeming authenticity to mutually
contradictory ahadith. Cook has shown a number of ways in which the isnads could spread in ways that would falsely appear to give
greater authenticity to them. Indeed, that the ahadith and other traditional materials are most likely forgeries developed over
time in the Muslim community to "fill out" for itself and it's prophet a sense of history has been shown as both plausible and likely....

Crone discusses the large numbers of ahadith at length, pointing out that what was sifted out and handed down was what later
Islamic jurists interpreted Mohammed as having said, filtered through the lenses of their own biases and opinions,

"The chances of authentic material surviving at their hands is exceedingly small. Indeed, in purely statistical terms it is minute.
Bukhari is said to have examined a total of 600,000 traditions attributed to the Prophet; he preserved some 7,000 (including
repetitions), or in other words dismissed some 593,000 as inauthentic. If Ibn Hanbal examined a similar number of traditions,
he must have rejected about 570,000, his collection containing some 30,000 (again including repetitions). Of Ibn Hanbal's
traditions, 1,710 (including repetitions) are transmitted by the Companion Ibn Abbas. Yet, less than fifty years earlier one scholar
estimated that Ibn Abbas had only heard nine traditions from the Prophet, while another thought that the correct figure might be
ten. If Ibn Abbas has heard ten traditions from the Prophet in the years around 800, but over a thousand by 850, how many had he
heard in 700, or 632? Even if we accept that ten of Ibn Abbas' traditions are authentic, how do we identify them in the pool of 1,710?
We do not even know whether they are to be found in this pool, as opposed to that of the 530,000 traditions dismissed on the ground
that their chain of authorities were faulty. Under such circumstances it is scarcely justified to presume Hadith to be authentic until
the contrary has been proven.
"
(Note: we've seen how unreliable were Ibn Abbas' accounts, right above on Herbert Berg).

Essentially, she is making the point that the huge number of ahadith that were available to al-Bukhari and Ibn Hanbal to sift through,
all presenting themselves as authentic (though most recognizably not), was the result of a process of hadithic inflation. Huge numbers
of ahadith were being created and added to the compilations of these traditions, such that while Islamic scholars in 800 AD recognized
a mere ten (or nine) ahadith as transmitted from the Companion Ibn Abbas, a mere fifty years later, this number has increased to 1,710.
This expansion in the number of ahadith was most likely due to the redactions and inventions discussed above....
(Note: same happened with the 750's 138 hadiths of Huraira in Munabbih, miraculously becoming Hanbal's 3,700 & Bukhari's 5,774 !).

Along with the problems introduced by invention and false ascription, the likelihood that many early Muslim traditions where handed down
orally for at least a century contributes to the unreliability of these accounts when they were finally written down. The bewildering array
of inconsistencies and repetitions which plague traditional Muslim accounts concerning just about everything having to do with early
Islamic history can be attributed to the natural evolution of stories passes mouth to mouth via oral tradition, in an even looser fashion
than that proposed by the traditional appeal to isnad authority. Cook, discussing the general solidification and "filling out" of biographical
details appearing between the works of Ibn Ishaq (d. 767) and al-Waqidi (d. 822), says this,

"The most interesting hypothesis which has been advanced, and one which accounts rather well for this and other effects, is that the
eighth-century authors drew much of their material directly from the specialist story-tellers of early Islam, the qussas. We should then
think in terms of a common repertoire of material in circulation among the story-tellers, rather than of hard and fast lines of individual
transmission. If, as is plausible, we assume that this story-telling remained a living source for the authors of scholarly biographies as late
as the time of Waqidi, we can readily explain Waqidi's superior knowledge as a reflection of the continuing evolution of this oral tradition.
''


The article keeps on with interesting historical topics, to check, but a little away from the goal of this thread. Yet this must be added:
Also, many of the Traditional details of Mohammed's life were taken from the life of Mohammed bin al-Hanafiyyah, a prophet-like figure
put forward by a losing faction in one of the early Arab civil wars. Bashear hints that this Mohammed might have been the Mohammed,
but this is not likely. Rather, he provided, as the idealized "prophet of Allah", a template upon which later Muslims built the biography
of the prophet Mohammed.
Ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_al-Hanafiyyah

Further, Mohammed appears very little in the Qur'an, and in a way not particularly suggestive of being a specific person, but rather a
generalized "chosen one" style of prophet, which really could refer to anyone. The many appearances of terms referring to "God's
Prophet" or "the messenger" are merely assumed to be referring to Mohammed. Indeed, many English translations of the Qur'an even
insert his name in parentheses to strengthen the mental association, yet there is little to specifically suggest that these are about
Mohammed, other than to rely upon the a priori assumption that these statements are speaking of him. Nevo and Koren have also
noted that in Arabic literature, the root hmd (from which comes the name "Mohammed") was first used as a title for the prophetic
figure, only later did it specifically become his name around the first few years of the 8th century, being linked to the Judaeo-Christian
style prophet being introduced by Abd al-Malik.

The root itself means not so much "one who is praised" (the traditional understanding, developed later and attached to Mohammed),
but "chosen one", thus clarifying the early messianic role for the Arab prophet. The term “muhammed” appears four times in the Qur’an,
and in each case the use is accompanied by no personal information, even though the Qur’an elsewhere takes great pains to emphasis
the kinship affiliation of other prophets with the people to whom they were sent. This suggests that the references to Mohammed entered
the developing Arab scriptures before their prophet had been provided with a biography, and perhaps even before “Mohammed” was
understood to be his name, rather than just his title.

This seems to find support from a piece of evidence contemporary with this process of developing a prophet for Islam. In John of Damascus'
Haeresies, he wrote, "So until the times of Heraclius they [the Arabs] were plain idolators. From that time till now a false prophet appeared
among them, surnamed Muhammad, who, having happened upon the Old and the New Testament and apparently having conversed, in like
manner, with an Arian monk, put together his own heresy....
"


Notice that John identifies "Mohammed" as the surname for this Arabian prophet. This suggests that "Mohammed" originally was not the
personal name for this prophet at all, but that the term was instead titular or descriptive, likely a laqab (the part of an Arabic name that
gives a description of its bearer).


Indeed, John of Damascus working as a high official in the Damascus court (like his father) is a first-class witness about Islam.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

He describes how the 'Ishmaelites' were ''plain idolators until the time of Heraclius'' (d.641),
How ''from that time until present'' a prophet -surnamed Mamed- appeared... to start a Christian heresy!

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:37 pm
by The Cat
Joseph Schacht 1/2

Joseph Schacht (1902-1969): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schacht
A British-German professor of Arabic and Islam at Columbia University in New York. He was the leading Western scholar on Islamic law,
whose Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (1950) is still considered a centrally important work on the subject. The author of many
articles in the various editions of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Schacht also edited The Legacy of Islam for Oxford University Press.
Other books include An Introduction to Islamic Law (1964).

A summery, from a lecture of Schacht, at answering-islam...
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Schach ... uation.htm
The great mass of legal traditions which invoke the authority of the Prophet, originated in the time of Shafi'i and later; we can observe
this directly by following the successive stages of legal discussion and the ever-increasing number of relevant traditions incorporating
gradual refinements. It can further be shown that legal traditions from the Prophet began to appear, approximately, in the second
quarter of the second century A.H.. This explains why the doctrine of Medina as established by Malik in his Muwatta', disagrees often
with traditions from the Prophet with Medinese isnads, related by Malik himself. These traditions sometimes express Iraqian doctrines
and for this reason alone cannot represent the old Arab customary law of Medina as has been pretended.....

The Kitab al Athar of Abu Yusuf contains 189 traditions from the Prophet, 372 from Com­panions, 549 from Successors. In the incomplete
text of the Kitab al-Athar of Shaibani7 we find 131 traditions from the Prophet, 284 from Companions, 550 from Successors, and 6 from
later authorities. It cannot be doubted that the stage of referring to the teaching and the example of the Prophet was preceded by, and
grew out of, an earlier stage in which reference was made to Companions (and Successors) only. It is not the case, as has often been
supposed a priori, that it was the most natural thing, from the first generation after the Prophet onward....

We must therefore abandon the gratuitous assumptions that there existed originally an authentic core of information going back to the
time of the Prophet, that spurious and tendentious additions were made to it in every succeeding generation, that many of these were
eliminated by the criticism of isnads as practised by the Muhammadan scholars, that other spurious traditions escaped rejection, but
that the genuine core was not completely overlaid by later accretions. If we shed these prejudices we become free to consider the
Islamic traditions objectively in their historical context, within the framework of the development of the problems to which they refer,
and this enables us to find a number of criteria for establishing the relative and even the absolute chronology of a great many traditions.

Our new approach to traditions disposes of the fictitious reputation as forgers acquired by some Companions of the Prophet. I mentioned
how the nat­ural desire to push back the frontiers of the unknown, caused some scholars after Goldziher to presume the authenticity of
more and more traditions until they found themselves back in the generation of the Companions, in the thirty years after the death of
the Prophet. From making the first step into the time of the Prophet himself, they were prevented by the influence of Goldziher's
achievement and by their own critical sense. But then they had to credit the Companions of the Prophet, during the first thirty years or
so after the death of their master, with the large-scale fabrication of spurious and contradictory information about him....

The dogmatic treatise ascribed to Hasan Basri, whether or not it is genuinely his, cannot be later than the very early years of the second
century, and it shows that dogmatic traditions on the important problem of free will and human responsibility hardly existed at the time
of its composition. There is no trace of traditions from the Prophet, and the author states explicitly: "Every opinion which is not based
on the Koran, is erroneous." Two important dogmatic traditions in particular () cannot yet have existed when the treatise was written....

As regards the biography of the Prophet, traditions of legal and of historical interest cannot possibly be divided from one another. The
important point is that to a much higher degree than hitherto suspected, seemingly historical information on the Prophet is only the
background for legal doctrines and therefore devoid of independent value. For instance, the Medinese regarded the marriage concluded
by a pilgrim as invalid, the Meccans and the Iraqians regarded it as valid. The Medinese projected their doctrine back to Ibn 'Umar and,
with spurious circum­stantial details, to 'Umar himself. The opposite doctrine was expressed in a tradi­tion to the effect that the Prophet
married Maymuna as a pilgrim. This tradition was countered, on the part of the Medinese, by another tradition related by Sulaiman b.
Yasar who was a freedman of Maymuna to the effect that the Prophet married her in Medina, and therefore not as a pilgrim, and by
more explicit tra­dition to the same effect related by Yazid b. Asamm, a nephew of Maymuna. We see that even the details of this
important event in the life of the Prophet are not based on authentic historical recollection, notwithstanding the family isnads; but
are fictitious and intended to support legal doctrines.

This transformation of legal propositions into pseudo historical information is one aspect; another is what might be called the independent
growth of alleged historical material concerning the biography of the Prophet. We can observe this growth directly over the greater part of
the second century in the discussions on the law of war, concerning which the biography of the Prophet was searched for precedents. The
polemical nature of these discussions makes it safe to conclude that whenever an author does not mention a relevant historical tradition
which agrees with his own doctrine and disagrees with that of his opponents, he was not aware of it, in other words, it cannot have as
yet existed in his time. We find new traditions at every successive stage of doctrine, and the lawyers occasionally object to historical
traditions adduced by their opponents because they are unknown to or not accepted by the specialists on the biography of the Prophet.
A considerable part of the standard biography of the Prophet in Medina, as it appeared in the second half of the second century A.H., was
of very recent origin and is therefore without independent historical value....

If we collect the points which we must postulate an Umayyad administrative regulation is the starting-point of Muhammadan
jurisprudence, we find that practically all fall under the three great head­ings of fiscal law, law of war and penal law....

The imposing appearance of the isnads in the classical collections of traditions ought not to blind us to the true character of these
traditions, which is that of a comparatively recent systematization of the "living tradition." The same is true in the field of history;
here too, the vague collective memory of the community was formalized, systematized, replenished with details, and shaped into
formal traditions with proper isnads only in the second century A.H..


Which is, of course, around the time when the Abbasids needed to forge a blood-line with Muhammad through the fictitious al-Muttalib.

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:15 am
by The Cat
Joseph Schacht 2/2
I was fortunate enough to found out, in pdf format, his whole book: Origins of the Muhammadan Jurisprudence
(365 pdf pages, hand-copied excerpts). I've hand-copied this and some of it will appear in spoiler. Excerpts:

http://ahadithstudies.files.wordpress.c ... chacht.pdf

--Two generations before Shafi'i reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule,
to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception (ie. The Muwatta of Malik), and it was left to Shafi'i
to make the exception his principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking,
traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet....

--It is generally conceded that the criticism of traditions as practiced by the Muhammadans scholars is
inadequate and that, however many forgeries may have been eliminated by it, even the classical corpus
contains a great many traditions which cannot possibly be authentic. All efforts to extract from this often
self-contradictory mass an authentic core by 'historic intuition', as it has been called, have failed.

--Goldziher... shown positively that the great majority of traditions from the Prophet are documents not
of the time to which they claim to belong, but of the successive stages of development of doctrines during
the first centuries of Islam.

--A great many traditions in the classical and other collections were put into circulation only after Shafi'i's time.

--There was as yet no trace of the particular reputation of Medina as the 'true home of the sunna', a reputation
incompatible with Shafi'i's terse statement: 'We follow this (tradition from the Prophet), and so do the great
authorities', and with his sustained polemics against the Medinese.

--Shafi'i insists time after time that nothing can override the authority of the Prophet, even if it be attested only by
an isolated tradition.... Shafi'i continual insistence on this point shows that is could not yet have been so in his time.

--Q.: Is there a sunna of the Prophet, established by a tradition with an uninterrupted chain of transmitters (isnads),
to which the scholars in general refuse assent? A.: No... we never find a well-authenticated sunna which they are
unanimous in contradicting.

--It makes the sunna as expressed in traditions from the Prophet prevail over the Koran because, as we shall see,
the Koran is to be interpreted in the light of traditions..... He speaks contemptuously of those who dare to criticize
traditions because they seem to contradict the Koran: ''... One might as well regard a number of fundamental doctrines,
all of which are based on enactments of the Prophet, as repealed by the Koran. Whoever hold this, spirits away the
majority of the sunnas of the prophet, and that is ignorance.''

--Shafi'i bases his unquestioning acceptance of traditions from the Prophet on the Koranic passages which make it a
duty to obey the Prophet (Note: never the prophet, never Muhammad; always the Messenger). He interprets the term
hikma 'wisdom', which is used in the Koran together with 'book' as a name for the divine revelation, as referring to the
sunna of the Prophet expressed in traditions....''Everything legally relevant that the prophet has allowed or forbidden,
has in fact been allowed or forbidden by Allah, because Allah has ordered the Prophet to allow or forbid it.''

--In so far as the Companions act as transmitters of traditions from the Prophet, Shafi'i claims that ''all are reliable,
thanks to Allah's grace'', but he does not yet know the tradition from the Prophet which was to be used later to justify
reference to them as authorities: ''My Companions are like lodestars''.

--The Kitab al-Athat of Abu Yusuf contains 189 traditions from the Prophet, 372 from Companions, 549 from Successors.
In the (incomplete) Kitab al-Athar of Shaibani we find 131 traditions from the Prophet, 372 from Companions, 550 from
successors, and 6 from later authorities.

--Wheras Shafi'i professes to follow to follow the traditions from the Prophet in all circumstances, the Medinese choose
freely among the traditions from the prophet snd from others, and even reject both kinds altogether. Rabi' says explicitly:
''Our doctrine is to authenticate only those traditions that are agreed upon by the people of Medina, to the exclusion of
other places.'' In the opinion of the Medinese, sound reason and analogy supersede traditions.... The two particular
authorities of the Medinese among the Companions are Umar and Ibn Umar.

--We must conclude that the reference to traditions from Companions is the older procedure, and the theory of the
over-ruling authority of traditions from the Prophet an innovation, which was as yet imperfectly adopted by the Iraqians
(and Medinese) and consistently applied only by Shafi'i.

Spoiler! :
--Mursa traditions are, generally speaking, older than traditions with full isnads.

--The hostility towards traditions came not only or even mainly from unorthodox circles... but rather that it was the natural
reaction of the early specialists on law against the intrusion of a new element... It follows that the the traditions from the
prophet do not form, together with the Koran, the original basis of Muhammadan law, but an innovation begun at a time
when some of its foundations already existed.

--Shafi'i's doctrine expresses the reaction of a traditionist against the principle of consensus as embodying the 'living tradition'
.... the farther we go back, the more we find lawyers independent of traditions.

--Criticism of traditions on material grounds, which is not unknown even to Shafi'i, is pushed to the extreme by the
ahl al-kalam. They point out that many traditions are contrary to reason (nazar) and observation ('iyan), absurd and
ridiculous. It is worth noticing that this kind of reasoning, which occures continuously in Ibn Qutaiba, is not discussed
by Shafi'i.

--The Koran repeals traditions.... Shafi'i's final argument in favor of the traditions, here and in other cases, is the
truism that to reason in this way would mean whittling away the majority of the sunnas of the Prophet.

--In Shafi'i's time, the ancient schools had systematized the anti-traditionist argument by regarding particular commands
of the Prophet as based on the exercise of his discretion (ijtihad), and concluding that the imam, the head of the state,
was authorized to do the same. The examples adduced here are Medinese, but Iraqians also used this argument.... Shafi'i's
reply is always the same: ''If one started that.... there would be no end to it, and the sunnas would be whittled away''.

--In direct opposition to the Iraqian tradition which claims for the doctrine of Ibn Mas'ud, by implication, the authority of the
Prophet, a counter-tradition makes Ali say: ''The word of a Bedouin from the tribe Ashja cannot prevail over the Koran''.

--Finally, there is the argument based on the lack of documentation of traditions from the Prophet... It says that an 'isolated'
tradition, that is, a tradition transmitted by a single individual () cannot be accepted as well authenticated.... This conclusion
is expressed in a tradition by which Umar is shown as not content with information of a single individual on a decision of the
Prophet, but asking confirmation by another person.... The Medinese reject isolated traditions from the Prophet (Tr.III, 148,
p.242), and hold that their own consensus takes precedence over them. (Shafi'i) ''Either the isolated tradition is a reliable
argument, or it is not; and if not, you must discard all those case in which you rely on isolated traditions.''

--The ahl al-kalam (Mutazilites) go farther and demand that a tradition, to be accepted, must be transmitted by naby from nay
() or widely spread.... The most commonly held opinion demanded twenty transmitters in each generation...

--Most arguments against traditions transmitted from the Prophet are common to the ancient schools of law; the Medinese are
in no way more enthusiastic about them than the Iraqians. The arguments in favor of traditions from the Prophet are often
derived from, or secondary to, arguments against them; the unwillingness to accept them came first.


Sunna
--For Shafi'i, 'sunna' and 'sunna of the Prophet' are synonymous. But sunna means, strictly speaking, nothing more than
'precedent', 'way of life' (custom).... Sunna as a principle of law meant originally the ideal or normative usage of the
community, and only later acquired the restricted meaning of precedents set by the Prophet.

--Ibn Muqaffa, a secretary of state in late Umaiyad and early Abbasid times, subjected the old idea of sunna to sharp
criticism. Anticipating Shafi'i he realized that sunna as it was understood in his time, was based not on authentic
precedents laid down by the Prophet and the first Caliphs, but to a great extent on administrative regulations of the
Umaiyad government. In contrast to Shafi'i, however, he did not fall back on traditions from the Prophet but drew the
contrary conclusion that the Caliph was free to fix and codify alleged sunna.

--In the time of Shafi'i, traditions from the Prophet, particularly 'isolated' ones, were still felt to be something
recent which disturbed the 'living tradition' of doctrine in the ancient schools.

--Among the earliest authentic illustrations of the ancient attitude to practice are two statements of Ibrahim Nakkha'i.
Ibrahim is aware that the imprecation against political enemies during the ritual prayer is an innovation introduced only
under Ali and Mu'awiya, some considerable time after the Prophet. He confirms this by pointing out the absence of any
information on the matter from the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Umar. It follows that the tradition, which claims the Prophet's
example for this addition to the ritual and which Shafi'i of course accepts, must be later than Ibrahim.


The Old Idea of Consensus

--The Mu'tazila, or ahl al-kalam as Shafi'i calls them, acknowledge consensus and share the Iraqian concept of it as the
general agreement of the people of all countries. They apply this idea of consensus to traditions: if the whole community
transmits a certain tradition from the Prophet, it cannot be mistaken. This constitute an extreme case of the 'wide spread'
(tawatur) of traditions demanded by them.

--Shafi'i does not know yet the locus classicus in favor of consensus: ''My community will never agree on an error''. As a
tradition from the Prophet, it appears only in the time of the classical collections, and its wording is directly derived
from statements such as that of Shafi'i.

The Growth of Legal Traditions

--Although the dogmatic treatise of Hasan Basri.... shows that even dogmatic traditions which are, generally speaking
earlier than legal ones, hardly existed at the time of its composition, that is, in the later part of the first century AH.
There is no trace of traditions from the Prophet, and the author states explicitly: ''Every opinion which is not based on
the Koran, is erroneous.''

--Abu Yusuf does not yet know a tradition from the Prophet, although Malik, his contemporary, does. Whereas this calls for
caution in the use of the argument s silentio, it also shows that the tradition was not yet widely known in the time of Malik.

--The recommendation to invest the property of orphans, so that the zakat tax may not consume it, is known to Malik
(Muw,ii,49) only as a saying of Umar, but to Shafi'i already as a saying of the prophet, with full isnad.

--A tradition from the Prophet on an important point of ritual purity, the sound isnad of which Shafi'i commends,
is still unknown to and not followed by Malik (Muw.i.100; Muw.Shaib.76).

--Neither Shafi'i nor the Medinese (Muw.iii.124) know a tradition from the Prophet, forbidding the sale of animals with
anticipated payment and deferred delivery; it occurs in Ibn Hanbal and the classical collections Zurqani,iii.126).
Shaibani (Muw.Shaib.344) knows this only as a tradition from Ali.

--Shafi'i gives as his own opinion a harmonizing interpretation of traditions, and so does Shaibani for himself and for Abu
Hanifa in Muw.Shaib.47; the same doctrine is expressed in traditions from the Prophet in Ibn Hanbal and later collections.

--Malik and Shafi'i know only one tradition from the Prophet, with a very imperfect isnad, on an important point of ritual
(Zurqani,i,70). Several other traditions from the prophet, with improved isnads, occur in the classical collections.... A
series of gradual stages of the development of traditions, first from Companions (like Umar) and then from the prophet,
can be established with the material given by Zurqani.

--Ibn Qutaiba, 206, knows the saying of the Prophet: ''I was given the Koran, and together with it its equivalent'',
referring to the sunna. This was certainly unknown to Shafi'i who would not failed to mention it, had he known it.

--We shall find that the bulk of legal traditions from the Prophet known to Malik originated in the generation
preceding him.... and we shall not meet any legal tradition from the Prophet which can be considered authentic.

--Traditions from the Companions precede, generally speaking, traditions from the Prophet, but shows that the insistence of
Shafi'i and the traditionalists on the overriding authority of the traditions from the Prophet did not prevail at once. Traditions
from the Companions are as little genuine as traditions from the Prophet, and must be subjected to the same scrutiny.

--The common ancient doctrine that prayer without recitation of the Koran is valid, is expressed in traditions from Ali
(Tr.II,3k) and from Umar (Tr.III,84; Mud.i.65). Against this is directed the composite and polemically worded tradition
from The Prophet in Athar AY,I, and the sweeoing maxim 'no prayer (is valid) without recitationM, which Shafi'i (Tr,III, 84)
knows as a tradition from the Prophet.

--In the course of polemical discussion, doctrines are frequently projected back to higher authorities: traditions
from the Successors become traditions from Companions, and traditions from the Companions become traditions
from the Prophet.... we must, as a rule and until the contrary is proved, consider the opinions of the Successors
as the starting points, and the traditions from the Companions and from the Prophet as secondary developments,
intended to provide a higher authority for the doctrine in question.

--The creation of new isnads and additional authorities in Shafi'i's time can be observed in the traditions in favor of the
important doctrine that the evidence of one witness and confirmed by the oath of the plaintiff constitutes legal proof.
The judgments of Tauba b. Nimr, judge of Egypt AH115-20 (Kindi,344ff.), show the gradual growth of this doctrine out
of the practice; no traditions are adduced in this connection. In the middle of the secong century, we find that the
Medinese and the Meccans hold, and the Iraqians and the Syrians reject it. The Iraqians claimed correctly that the
doctrine was unknown to Zuhri, 'Ata', the old Medinese authorities, and the first Caliphs (Tr.III,15; Umm, vii.10).



Mr Schacht adds hundreds of examples not reproduce in these bits, all from the old Islamic jurisprudence then prevailing!

More to come as I am only about half of this formidable study....

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:33 pm
by The Cat
Joseph Schacht 2/2 (continued)
http://ahadithstudies.files.wordpress.c ... chacht.pdf

--Wherever the sources available enable us to judge, we find that the legal traditions from Companions are as little authentic as those from the Prophet.

--It is significant that the earliest authorities of the Iraqians and of the Meccans, respectively, were originally not Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn Abbas themselves, but the 'Companions of Ibn Mas'ud' and the 'Companions of Ibn Abbas'. This makes it pointless to consider the Companions of the Prophet personally responsible for the large-scale circulation of spurious traditions.

--We are justified in considering the existence of a family isnad not an indication of authenticity but only a device for securing its appearance (analyzing Muw.i.108 and 111 on divorce).

--It was observed (the middle common link), though of course not recognized in its implications, by the Muhammadan scholars themselves, for instance by Tirmidhi in the concluding chapter of his collection of traditions. He calls traditions with N.N. (or X) as a common link in their isnads 'the traditions of N.N.', and they form a great part part of the traditions which he calls gharib, that is transmitted by a single transmitter at any one stage of the isnad.

--The existence of common transmitters enable us to assign a firm date to many traditions and to the doctrines represented by them. This consideration which takes into account the fictitious character of the higher parts of isnads, must replace the uncritical acceptance at their face value of isnads, as far back as the time of the Companions.

From his chapter 5: Origin
--The Nafi' traditions are not uniform, and 'Nafi' is a label which was used for various purposes over a considerable period. It is certain that even the group of Nafi' traditions in Malik's Muwatta represents the result of gradual growth. The historical Nafi' was certainly not a representative of the ancient Medinese school of law.... and the bulk of the traditions which go under his name must be credited to anonymous traditionists in the first half of the second century AH (720-770).

--Muhammadan jurisprudence in the pre-literary period formulated legal maxims in the form of slogans most of which became traditions from the Prophet and from other authorities.... The rhyming maxim 'there is no divorce and no manumission under duress' () appears as a tradition from the Prophet only in Ibn hanbal and some of the classical collection.

--The opinion that there is no valid marriage without a wali found its first expression in the alleged decision of Umar b, Abdal'azziz that such marriages must be dissolved (Mud.iii.15). This is no doubt later than the Caliphate of Umar II, and dates only from the second century AH. It was held in Iraq, Medina, and mecca, projected back to Ali, Umar and Ibn Abbas, and finally ascribed to the Prophet, on the authority of Aisha and of other Companions; the traditions which put it into the mouth of the Prophet appear only from Shafi'i onwards.

--The maxim 'restrict hadd punishments as much as possible' started as an anonymous saying, was then ascribed to the Companions and Successors in general, then to a number of individual Companions, and finally to the Prophet. These successive stages are recognizable in the words of Abu Yusuf. The maxim cannot be older than the end of the period of the Successors.

--The essential maxim of procedure in Muhammadan law, 'evidence (by witnesses) has to be produced by the plaintiff, and the oath (in denial) has to be taken by the defendant', became a tradition at a relatively late period. It is not mentioned as a tradition in Muw. and in Muw. Shaib., although Muw.iii.181 presupposes it as the accepted rule.... it appears as a formal tradition from the Prophet, with a Meccan isnad, for the first time in Shafi'i (Ikh.345), and as part of the composite speech of the Prophet at the conquest of Mecca in Shafi'i contemporary Waqidi. It is later found in the classical collections.

--Numerous maxims originated in Iraq, and they were sometimes taken over by the Medinese; but we find no traces of the opposite process. This shows the prevalent role of the Iraqians in the early period of Muhammadan jurisprudence. The legal maxims reflect a stage when legal doctrine was not yet automatically put into the form of traditions.

--During most of the Umaiyad period the administration of justice lay in the hands of the provincial governors and, in so far as special judges were appointed, they were agents of the governors to whom these last delegated part of their functions. The creation of a judiciary, separate from the political administration, dates only from the Abbasid times. When John of Damascus refers to the law-givers () of Islam, he means the governors and their agents, the judges, and his repeated statement, which cannot be a mistake, on flogging as the punishment for theft shows that their practice disregarded an explicit rule of the Koran (v.38).

--The memory of the old practice was harmonized with current doctrine by the fictitious statement that a triple divorce pronounced on one session counted only as a single divorce in the time of the Prophet, of Abu Bakr, and the first three years of the caliphate of Umar, with the implication that 'Umar gave it triple validity (Ikh.310). This statement, attributed to Ibn Abbas, can be dated immediately before Malik; while a formal tradition through Ibn Abbas from the prophet, to the effect that such a divorce counts as single and revocable, appeared only in the time between Shafi'i and Ibn Hanbal. The Medinese considered the whole procedure a sin but valid as a triple divorce, and ascribed this doctrine to the same Ibn Abbas and even to the Iraqians Ibn Masud (Muw.iii.35).

(NB: -Schacht multiplies the examples, left over here for the sake of concision-).

--The existence of a common body of ancient doctrine in the earliest period of Muhammadan law and its later diversification in the ancient schools of law show that Muhammadan jurisprudence started from a single center. It does noy of course imply that Muhammadan jurisprudence was cultivated exclusively in one place, but that one place was the intellectual center of the first theorizing and systematizing activities which were to transform Umaiyad popular and administrative practice into Muhammad law. The ascendancy of a single center of Muhammad jurisprudence must have been maintained over an appreciable period.... The fact that withing the pre-literary period the cross-influences proceeded almost invariably from Iraq and not from Medina, shows that this center was Iraq (Kufa), and not Medina.

--The Koran taken by itself, apart from its possible bearing on the problem raised by the traditions from the Prophet, can hardly be called the first and foremost basis of early legal theory.... Muhammadan law did not derive directly from the Koran but developed, as we saw, out of popular and administrative practice under the Umaiyads, and this practice often diverged from the intentions and even explicitly wording of the Koran.

--Prominent features of the conventional picture, like the pre-eminence of Medina, have no foundation in fact; important concepts current in the ancient schools, such as that of the Companions of Ibn Mas'ud in Iraq, are neglected.

--Ibn Mas'ud, a Companion of the Prophet, lived in Kufa for a number of years and was later considered a main authority for the Kufian Iraqian doctrine. I need hardly elaborate the point that the legal traditions from Ibn Mas'ud are not genuine and that his name is a label affixed to early Iraqian, and particularly Kufian teaching and reasoning.... The former and explicit kind of reference to Ibn Mas'ud himself, as an authority on law, developed out of an earlier stage which consisted in a more general reference to the Companions (ashab) of Ibn Mas'ud. This was the name given originally to an anonymous group of Kufians, some of whom were later identified as relatives of Ibrahim Nakkhai.... The authority of the Companions of Ibn Mas'ud was originally clearly distinct from that of Ibn Mas'ud himself.

--What was originally an opinion of Hammad, was projected back through Hammad to Ibrahim, and through Ibrahim to Masruq who is one of the companions of Ibn Mas'ud, and to Ibn Mas'd himself. Then with other isnads to other Companions of the Prophet, partly in the form of anecdotes with circumstancial details, and finally to the Prophet himself.... Hammad (b. Abi Sulaiman) is the first Iraqian lawyer whom we can regard as fully historical.... With Hammad's disciple Abu Hanifa, whose opinions were collected and preserved in writing by his companions and disciples Abu Yusuf and Shaibani, the legal tradition in Kufa entered the literary period. The activity of Abu Yusuf and Shaibani transformed the school of Kufa into the school of the Hanafis.

--The unsuccessful Ali traditions in Tr.II show often a rigorous and meticulous tendency, obviously inspired by religious and ethical considerations.... We find this kind of Iraqian tradition from Ali corresponding almost regularly to doctrines attested in Medina.... The Iraqians towards the end of the second century AH were able to say with regard to the unsuccessful Ali traditions: No one holds this opinion'.

--The conventional picture of Medina as the home of the sunna of the Prophet is artificial and late.... The 'living tradition' of the school of Medina is to a great extent anonymous nad, where individual authorities are mentioned in the ancient legal texts, there is no trace of any fixed group.

--From Zuhri onwards, there exists an ascertainable authentic element in the opinions ascribed to the authorities of Medina.... But towards the end of the second century AH, Zuhri had already been credited with many spurious and often contradictory opinions, and his name inserted in isnads of traditions which did not yet exist in his time and from which fictitious statements on his supposed doctrine were abstracted. He appears as the common link in the isnads of a number of traditions from the Prophet, from Companions and from Successors; Zuhri himself was hardly responsible for the great part of these traditions.

--Shafi'i (tr.IV, 257) speaks of the struggle of opinions within the Medinese legal tradition in the time of Malik, but the details have been lost because the ancient school of the Medinese transformed itself into that of the Malikis and only the works of Malik and his followers were preserved.

--The main authority of the Meccans among the Companions of the Prophet was Ibn Abbas, and there are traditions which claim the sanction of the Prophet for the doctrine ascribed to him, in the same way in which other traditions claim it for the doctrine ascribed to Ibn Mas'ud in Kufa.

--A tradition in Muw.ii.144 aims at showing that a doctrine which goes under the name of Ibn Abbas, the authority of the Meccans, coincides with the practice of the Prophet. Zaid b. Aslam, in the generation before Malik, is the common link in the isnads of this tradition, and it is likely that it originated in his time. The same doctrine is ascribed to Umar in a tradition which has 'Ata' in the isnad (ibid.); this tradition implies the same controversy as the first, and presumably belongs to the same period; this shows the mention of 'Ata' in the isnad to be spurious.


I'll now put what's left in spoiler...
Spoiler! :
page 264 and on, The Traditionists
http://ahadithstudies.files.wordpress.c ... chacht.pdf

--The main thesis of the traditionists, as opposed to the ancient schools of law, is that formal traditions from the prophet supersede the 'living tradition' (-sunna as ancestral practice-). Their most important activity, the creation and putting into circulation of traditions from the Prophet, is of course seldom avowed openly, but its traces are unmistakable. It is openly confessed, for instance, in the traditions which make the Prophet say: (Sayings attributed to me) which agree with the Koran, go back to me, whether I actually said them or not', and: 'Whatever good sayings there are, I said them'.

--The traditionists accept 'isolated' traditions, whereas the ancient schools of law reject them; the creation and transmission of 'isolated' traditions from the Prophet was the main weapon of the traditionists.... Notwithstanding the high qualifications which were demanded, in theory, of a transmitter of traditions, the standards of reasoning of the traditionists in general were inferior to those of the ancient schools of law.

--We have seen that the traditionists were connected with opposition to the ancient school of Medina.... A close relationship exists between their opposition in Medina and an Iraqian opposition group which expressed its doctrines in a particular body of traditions from Ali (-ie. Shiites-). In contrast to many Medinese Nafi-Ibn Umar traditions, however, these Iraqian traditions from Ali are not carried back to the Prophet and cannot be connected directly with the traditionists.... The body of traditions in question seems to represent a stage at which the opposition to the established local schools had not yet adopted the form of traditions from the Prophet.

--Shafi'i made the essential thesis of the traditionists prevail in legal theory, and their movement culminated in the classical collections of traditions of the third century AH. The legal doctrine of Ibn Hanbal is purely traditionist. But the recognition which traditionist principle won outside the Mutazila did not cause the Hanafis and Malakis, who continued the the ancient Iraqian and Medinese schools, to change their positive legal doctrine appreciably from what it had been at the beginning of the literary period.

--The extreme opponents of the traditionists are the Mutazila who are called 'rationalists' in Shafi'i's writings and in other ancient sources.... their speculative method and their insistence on the Koran as the only basis for their system of religious doctrine, however, led them to the rejection of most traditions.

--The alleged origins of Shi'a literature in the Umaiyad period, and in particular the works on religious law ascribed to the Shiite imam Ja'far Sadiq, are apocryphal.... The authentic legal literature of the 'Twelver' () Shiites starts only towards the end of the third century AH, that of the Isma'ili branch even later.... The Iraqian traditions from Ali show no bias in favor of Shiite legal doctrines.

The Mut'a (temporary marriages) question
--In Iraq, the Ibn Mas'ud (and of Ibn Abbas) tradition was turned into its contrary by the assomption of a repeal of mut'a in the Koran, and to this was prefixed the standard isnad of the school of Kufa; and a more recent tradition with Nafi-Ibn Umar isnad affirmed the prohibition of mut'a by the Prophet. In Medina, a tradition with a typical family isnad made Ali reject the doctrine ascribed to Ibn Abbas by referring to the prohibition of mut'a by the Prophet.... The isnads of these two traditions, and of most of the Medinese traditions directed against muta, have a common link in Zuhri, and this shows that the explicit rejection of muta in Medina is not older than the time of Zuhri at the earliest. There is no reason for singling out the tradition on Umar's prohibition of mut'a and considering it anymore authentic than the other counter-traditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut%E2%80%98ah
http://www.guidedones.com/metapage/frq/mutah10.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/muta.htm

--In the generation preceding Malik, both doctrines were outwardly harmonized and the prohibition of muta maintained by making the Prophet allow and subsequently forbid it. These harmonizing traditions or fragments taken from them, were incorporated in the biography of the Prophet, where they were difficult to reconcile with one another. Nothing of this is authentic historical information.

--The oldest stage of legal reasoning is represented by Iraqian traditions which show crude and primitive conclusions by analogy (qiyas), The results of this reasoning were sometimes expressed in the form of legal 'puzzles', or in the form of legal maxims; these last then became a favorite mode of expressing the results of systematic legal thought in Iraq and in Hijaz.

--The attitude of the ancient schools of law and, after them, of Shafi'i to legal traditions is a significant example of how a perfectly natural and reasonably consistent approach to legal problems became, by an historical process, involved in a mass of seeming inconsistencies, and how Shafi'i replaced it by a novel and severely consistent theory of his own. It is typical of the degree of systematic reasoning reached by the ancient schools of law, that they reject traditions or dispose of them by interpretation, for reasons of systematic consistency.

--Shafi'i's eagerness to prove his new legal theory and the new legal doctrine based on it as the only legitimate interpretation of Muhammedan religious law, causes him to make unjustified assumptions, to argue arbitrarily and illogically, and to misrepresent and exaggerate the opinions of his opponents. A relatively harmless manifestation of this tendency is Shafi'i's debating device of representing his theoretical innovations as implicitly shared by his opponents, and then blaming them for not applying their own alleged principles. But beyond this, there are numerous cases in which Shafi'i's lack of objectivity vitiates his arguments.

--Ikh.337: Shafi'i tries to minimize the correct statement of his Iraqian opponent that a tradition is not followed by the scholars in Iraq and Hijaz, by asking. ''What of the other muftis in the several countries whose opinions you do not know: may I presume, holding the best possible opinion of them, that they agree with the tradition from the Prophet?' It is easy to see how helpless the opponents must have been when faced by Shafi'i's insidious arguments and unwarranted assumptions.

--Ris.33: Shafi'i reasons arbitrarily and unconvincingly in favor of his theory that the sunna never contradicts but only explains the Koran.

--The idea we have gained of the formative period is thoroughly different from the fiction which asserted itself from the early third century AH onwards. After the work of Goldziher there remained no doubt that the conventional picture concealed rather than revealed the truth....



Joseph Schacht (and Ignaz Goldziher) established a firm historical ground, upon which any scholarly debate must by now be carried.
Even the nowadays Islamic scholar, Harald Motski, had to concede that the tradition was without any foundation before around 690.
Then a spurious and primitve bulk emerged between 690 and 780, itself transformed into a deluge right after that.

In short, once Shafi'i established that the Sunna of Muhammad was to be preponderant, Islamic scholars realized they didn't have much!


Next: The Joseph Schacht Aftermath...

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:54 am
by The Cat
The Schacht aftermath is, first of all, best covered in this newly survey of Herbert Berg's

The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period
(hand-copied excerpts from pdf file, emphases mine).
http://books.google.ca/books?id=8oYLyS_ ... &q&f=false

http://books.google.ca/books?id=8oYLyS_ ... is&f=false

--While Abbott has for the most part constructed a coherent argument, her reading of the sources seems naive to some scholars.
As GHA Juynboll has pointed out, ''Abbott seems to rely too heavily on much of the information given in isnads and in books about
isnads concerning the information given in isnads and in books about isnads concerning the three oldest tabaqat
''. Yet it is isnads
and their authenticity that lie at the heart of the debate over the authenticity of hadiths. Her conclusions come as no surprise
once she accepts the historicity of the information contained in isnads, for she has simply developed a circular argument.

--(Fuat) Sezgin offers no real argument for why one should give up the old 'prejudice' against the authenticity of the isnads; he
simply says it most be so. However, as Juynboll points out, ''unearthing and cataloging material, as Sezgin has done is something
altogether different from establishing authenticity
...''

--The dismissal of a few examples does not necessarily weaken the overarching patterns suggested by Schacht, especially since
many of (Mustafa) Azami, like those of (Nadia) Abbott and Sezgin, rest on complete faith in the historicity of the source material.
This faith, of course, is the problem for sceptics. The arguments of Abbott, Sezgin, and Azami rely on biographical materials that
were produced symbiotically with the isnads they seek to defend. These sources are not independent.

--Many scholars have found merit in the arguments and theories of Goldziher and Schacht, and in those of Abbott, Sezgin, and
Azami. While the scepticism of the former two seems largely justified, these other scholars are loath to accept the full implications
of the doubts raised. They are not willing to resign themselves to such uncertainty. Nor are they willing to accept what appears at
times to be the seemingly naive position of the latter three. The use of simple ascription is historically untenable to them.

--Gautier H. A. Juynboll, like Azami, has delved deeply into the issues of origin and authenticity of the hadith material as raised
by Schacht. But, unlike Azami, Juynboll embraces Schacht's work and in many respects his successor, even though he differs from
him on several significant points. That is, Juynboll defends and considerably refines Schach's theories, but he also retreats from his
complete scepticism about the authenticity of the hadiths. On the whole, he is just as distrustful of the historical value of isnads,
but pushes the date for their appearance to no earlier and the end of the first century (+/-740), which is several decades earlier
than Schacht places it.... Juynboll says: ''Something which always struck me in the work of Sezgin, Azami and also of Abbott... is
that they do not seem to realize that, even if a manuscript or a papyrus is unearthed with an allegedly ancient text, this text could
easily have been forged by an authority who lived at a time later than the supposedly oldest authority given in its isnad. Isnad
fabrication occurred on just as vast a scale as matn fabrication
.''

--According to the awa'il sources, after Muhammad's death the first to spread stories about him (in a deliberate manner) were the
storytellers (qussas), who told stories of an edifying nature. Isnads proper were not attached to the 'prophetic' utterances. It is
reported that Sha'bi (d.721-8) was the first person to question someone about an authority and that Shu'ba ibn al-Hajjas (d.777)
was the first to examine every isnad. And so, systematic rijal criticism began about 130/747. Hence, isnads did not appear as early
as many Muslim scholars believe.... He does not dispute the fact that Muslims began to record things about their prophet during his
lifetime, but there is nothing to suggest that this was practiced on a significant scale. His examination of the awa'il evidence on the
introduction of hadiths to various parts of the Islamic world and on the collection of such material indicates a relatively late growth.

The Authenticity of the Historical hadiths
--Wansbrough argues that the sira (biography of the Prophet) is salvation history, and not just history. It was a product of a
polemical context and employs exegetical, parabolic, and paraphrastic narratives in order to historicize or exemplify the scripture.
In other words, the sira is tafsir and cannot be used to determine the real events during the life of the prophet.

--Though some of his conclusions are diametrically opposed to those of Wansbrough, a similar scepticism is evinced by (John) Burton.
In his study of hadiths about the collection of the Quran, he argues that, though they may be contradictory, they all agree insofar as
they attempt to mask what really happened -that is, they attempt to cover up the awkwardness of having a doctrine of abrogation in
conjunction with Muhammad having produced the text of the Quran himself. Furthermore, he argues that some historical hadiths (in
this case sunna, but in others sira) are more exegetical than 'historical'.... In the case of historical hadiths, these later scholars seem
to be in the majority (Wansbrough, Calder, Hawting, Crone, Cook, and Hinds, notwithstanding). This was less the case for legal
hadiths and, as we saw, not the case for exegetical hadiths -despite recent efforts to do so.

--The similarity in the content of the matns observed by Stauth may not indicate a common source at all. It may simply reveal that
the spread of isnads occurred, not just with an isolated hadith, but with a collection of them. As Cook suggests with respect to
hadiths in general, isnads may have been fabricated in order to skip contemporaries, to assign teachings to one's own teacher, or to
remove the charge of being 'isolated'.

--A fabricator, whether he is unscrupulously lying or piously inventing, is also limited in the manner in which he expresses his ideas by
the exegetical devices with which he is familiar. And so a profile of his exegetical methods can also be constructed. Whether exegete
or fabricator, an informant can only transmit to his students from the pool of hadiths he has generated.... It is al-Tabari, according to
Gilliot, who sought to define the limits of acceptable interpretation by adducing material that placed those opinions in the mouths of
earlier Muslims. The role of isnads was essential in this process. And so it is with al-Tabari that any investigation into the correlation
of style and isnads should begin.

(Note: I've skipped what has been covered in my preceding post on Herbert Berg, about al-Tabari and Ibn Abbas)
viewtopic.php?p=163405#p163405
Also quoted from H. Berg about Ibn Abbas
http://books.google.ca/books?id=VHZXeOs ... &q&f=false

On Ibn Abbas
--It seems very unlikely that exegetical hadiths could been fabricated on such a massive scale without generating some dissent in the
extant literature. Therefore, a second and equally important question is raised: how could it have been possible to maintain such a large
and complete conspiracy of silence regarding the true origin of the of the material (see the first three chapters). C. Gilliot provides the
first part of the answer. He argues that Ibn Abbas came to have a mythic status in the practice of quranic exegesis.... Leemhuis suggest
that a not insignificant factor is his being a progenitor of the ABBASID caliphs, who ruled when much of the tafsir was being produced.

The next part of the answer comes from Schacht. His assertion that legal hadiths were projected back upon Successors, then Companions,
and finally the Prophet himself, seems applicable to exegetical hadiths too. The vast majority of the hadiths in al-Tabari's Tafsirs are not
linked with Ibn Abbas (5,835 out of 38,388).... Although he is the most numerically prominent exegete. Hence, most hadiths come from
later generations of Muslim exegetes. The data analyzed above cannot be used to verify the authenticity of hadiths whose isnads end
with the students of Ibn Abbas (... Ibn Jubayr, Ikrima, Mujahid...), but it does suggest that the exegetical opinions of the hadiths of
my sample originated neither with Ibn Abbas nor with his students.... Schacht's model seems to fit the exegetical material, though the
ultimate authority becomes Ibn Abbas, not Muhammad....

--This seems to be confirmed by a notable feature in the tafsir. For each interpretation of a word or verse, there are often many hadiths
adduced -some containing the views of Ibn Abbas, through Ibn Jubayr, Ikrima and/or Mujahid for example, and some the views of (these
students) themselves. The fact that these students of Ibn Abbas felt the need to give their own opinions when, according to the isnads,
they were well aware of Ibn Abbas' opinion and when the opinions were exactly the same at times, conforms to a scenario in which the
hadiths were projected back progressively further with the passage of time.

--One could ask why a fabricator would appeal first to the students of Ibn Abbas... If one is going to fabricate a matn, why not give it the
best possible isnad? In the case of exegetical hadiths, it may be that Ibn Jubayr, Ikrima, Mujahid, and later exegetes were associated
with quranic exegesis prior to Ibn Abbas. They only became his 'students' when his mythic status as the great commentator and teacher
emerged.

--The ubiquitous use of students like Ibn Jubayr, Ikrima and Mujahid, whether as transmitters or as exegetes, is consistent with (Norman)
Calder's suggestion that isnads converge at the levels of the Successors and the Companions simply because of the shared respect for
these early Muslims by all later (rival) groups and individuals.... an approach that culminated (in the world of tafsir) in al-Tabari's work.

--These formulations were systemic, but not systematic (the latter of which would certainly require conspiracy or at least collusion).
That ibn Abbas contradicts himself continously according to the hadiths recorded by al-Tabari is evidence that the various authors did
not necessarily agree on what it was that Ibn Abbas had said.... Why would the figure of Ibn Abbas have been chosen if he had not
already been esteemed as an exegete? The mythic status he attained in the field of quranic exegesis is undeniable and no doubt led to
the invocation of his authority by the backward projection of later opinions. However, it seems only logical that such spurious attributions
must be posterior to the emergence of the mythic status and, therefore, that the historicity of Ibn Abbas' exegetical activities led to the
emergence of the status.... My analysis suggest that the hadiths examined do not seem to originate with him or his students. if some of
the material is authentic, it can never be recovered.

--A student of Ibn Abbas who transmitted only prophetic traditions cannot be made into a transmitter of lexical explanations by later
successive generations of transmitters, if they are authentically transmitted.... That is, the number of authentic hadiths coming from
Ibn Abbas via Ibn Jubayr must be less than those from Ibn Abbas. The smaller the number of hadiths, the less the possibility of skewing
the stylistic profile.

Conclusion:
--Schacht delves more deeply (than Goldziher) into the implications of this new incredulity particularly with respect to legal hadiths...
First, he suggests that the more perfect the isnads, the later the hadiths.... His methods for examining isnads are challenged by both
later skeptics (such as Cook and Calder) and those who place faith in the information provided by isnads (such as Sezgin and Azami)...
Nevertheless, together Goldziher and Schacht manage to break the link between Muhammad and his sunna. Wansbrough extends this
process, breaking the link between the figure of Muhammad and the Qur'an and sira.

--The stylistic profile of Ibn Abbas is not preserved by his students or by al-Tabari's informants. Nor are the stylistic profiles of each
students transmission of ibn abbas consistent for each of al-Tabari informants. This general inconsistency indicates that most, if not
all, of the hadiths of my sample cannot have originated with Ibn Abbas as their isnads contend. Moreover, the inconsistency between
his students and the informants implies that these hadiths cannot have been circulated by the students either. Therefore, if neither
Ibn Abbas nor his students can be linked with these hadiths, I must conclude that the claims of the isnads are false. At the very least,
the first two (and most crucial) links in the isnads are incorrect. And, if the isnads of Ibn Abbas's hadiths are largely or completely
spurious, the reliability of the isnads of most exegetical hadiths is in serious doubt. As a result, one must assume the inauthenticity
of the information in such isnads.

--Schacht's model for the development of legal hadiths, particularly if modified by contributions from Calder, Rippin, and Gilliot,
largely applies to exegetical hadiths too. Isnads, at least at first, grew backwards; later, wholesale fabrications, 'dives', seem
likely. At one point during this process, a myth of origins for quranic exegesis developed around the figure of Ibn Abbas.

--A symbiosis between myth of Ibn Abbas and this consensus gave rise to many of the hadiths which bear his name. Later, many
hadiths, no doubt, drew on the authority of Ibn Abbas in a more contrived manner. Therefore, not only is there is no possibility
of reconstructing the original tafsir of Ibn Abbas, but there is also no point in attempting to do so.

--It is obvious that my experiment supports the view of the skeptics, particularly those of Wansbrough. He argues:... The supplying
of isnads, whether traced to the prophet, to his companions, or to their successors, may be understood as an exclusively formal
innovation and cannot be dated much before 200/815. That Shafi'i stringent standards with regard to prophetical hadiths were not
applied in the fields of history and exegesis is an impression derived from a wholly artificial classification of their contents. The
substance of history, of exegesis, and of law was identical: its degree of attestation depended upon the particular use being made of
it. And the quality of isnad (marfu, muttasil, mursal, maqtu, etc), too, varied for the same material according to its employment.''

--Wansbrough's doubt about the origin of tafsir seems confirmed: the earliest names given in the isnads do not seem to have any
consistent or discernable connection to the exegetical material in the corresponding matns. Moreover, it certainly seems that exegetical
hadiths were subject to the same processes as their legal and historical counterparts. No longer can the former be privileged as somehow
unique. And although these results will not be the final word in the debate begun by Goldziher, it is a strong argument in favor of
scepticism toward the isnads of exegetical hadiths in particular, and of other genres of hadiths in early Islamic texts in general.


We see here that it's not only the siras that are unreliable but his best source: Ibn Abbas, who's very identity is much questionable.
As expected, we've got no manuscript from him, nor of his students, the alleged 'informants' of al-Tabari...

Additional informations on Ibn Abbas by Herbert Berg (on this already quoted link, beginning of part three):
http://books.google.ca/books?id=VHZXeOs ... &q&f=false

More on Ibn Abbas, from Patricia Crone...
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.html
Of Ibn Hanbal's traditions, 1,710 (including repetitions) are transmitted by the Companion Ibn Abbas. Yet, less than fifty years earlier
one scholar estimated that Ibn Abbas had only heard nine traditions from the Prophet, while another thought that the correct figure
might be ten. If Ibn Abbas has heard ten traditions from the Prophet in the years around 800, but over a thousand by 850, how many
had he heard in 700, or 632? Even if we accept that ten of Ibn Abbas' traditions are authentic, how do we identify them in the pool of
1,710? We do not even know whether they are to be found in this pool, as opposed to that of the 530,000 traditions dismissed on the
ground that their chain of authorities were faulty. Under such circumstances it is scarcely justified to presume Hadith to be authentic


On Ibn Masud, Kufa's forgeries and Mujahid (whom Mr. Berg mentioned above)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufa
Kufa was also among the first centers of Qur'anic interpretation, which Kufans credited to the exegete Mujahid (until he escaped to
Mecca in 702). It further recorded general traditions as Hadith; in the 9th century, Yahya ibn `Abd al-Hamid al-Himmani compiled
many of these into a Musnad. Given Kufa's opposition to Damascus, Kufan traditionists had their own take on Umayyad history.
The historian Abu Mikhnaf al-Azdi (d. 774) compiled their accounts into a rival history, which became popular under Abbasid rule....

From the perspective of 8th-century CE (2nd-century AH) Medina and Damascus, Kufa was associated with "variant" readings and
interpretations of the Qur'an, typically in the name of Ibn Mas'ud and often (it was claimed) read from the pulpit as if they were part
of the Qur'an itself.... A faction in Kufa preserved the readings "of `Abd Allah / Ibn Mas`ud", whence Mujahid and his fellow
mujtahids compiled them along with other readings and interpretations. From there these readings entered the vast repository of
Near Eastern hadith, ultimately to be written down into collections of hadith and tafsir.

Thus, it's no wonder why all the big hadiths compilers, including al-Tabari, came from Khorasan where the Abbasids originated!

More of Mr. Berg: A Summary of Hadiths Criticisms at scribb.com (given as jpg images)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37518378/Herb ... -Criticism

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:46 am
by The Cat
How Wael Hallaq admonishes Goldziher and Schacht, while blasting off the hadiths' plinth, once and for all !

The Authenticity of Prophetic Hadith: A Pseudo-problem, by Wael Hallaq
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/st ... adith.html

Spoiler! :
The evidence of my argument is derived from a familiar field of Islamic traditional discourse, a field that has escaped
the attention of modern hadith scholarship. This is legal methodology, properly known as usul al-fiqh. In this methodology,
Prophetic hadith is treated from a number of perspectives, but what concerns us here is the perspective of epistemology
which seeks to order the types of hadith on a spectrum that ranges from the dubious to the certain, by way of the central
category of the probable. Setting, for obvious reasons, the dubious aside, legal methodology acknowledges two categories,
khabar al-wahid (or the ahad) and the mutawatir. Because of the modalities through which they are transmitted, the contents
of the former are known only with probability, the latter with certainty....

It is a curiosity of legal methodology -a curiosity whose explanation is irrelevant here - that the ahad is defined in terms of
the mutawatir; that is, the ahad can be identified and known only in terms of what the mutawatir is not. If this is the case,
then what is the mutawatir? The common, and indeed indisputable, definition of this type of hadith is that it is any report
that reaches us through textually identical channels of transmission which are sufficiently numerous as to preclude any
possibility of collaboration on a forgery....

When a person hears a hadith narrated by one transmitter, he is presumed to have gained only probable knowledge of its
contents, and thus of its authenticity. To reach conclusive knowledge, the hadith must be heard by this person a sufficient
number of times, and each time it must be narrated by a different transmitter. Four or fewer instances of hearing such a
hadith were deemed insufficient to constitute a tawatur transmission, since, the jurists argued, the qadi in a court of law
must deliberate on the testimony of four witnesses (as well as investigate their moral rectitude) before he renders his
verdict. This process of deliberation and reflection precludes the possibility of immediate knowledge obtaining, be it in the
case of court-room witnesses or of hadith transmission....

Now, the khabar al-ahad (single chain of transmission) is simply defined as any hadith which falls short of meeting the
requirements of the mutawatir (multi-corroborated at each level of the narration).... In any event, no hadith of the ahad
category can, by itself, reach the level of tawatur; however many channels of transmission it may later acquire.....

If what Weil, Goldziher, Schacht and their ilk have argued against the hadith's authenticity is to make any sense, it must
be taken for granted that what they have assumed Muslim scholars to say is that the hadith is authentic, namely, that as
a whole it represents what the Prophet said or did with certainty. It is inconceivable that these Orientalists would have
made such drastic assertions had they understood traditional Muslim scholars to assert the veracity of the hadith merely
in probabilistic terms. I for one do not believe that Goldziher, for instance, would have raised such a fuss over the
reliability of the hadith as a historical source had he understood the traditional scholars to acknowledge that the hadith's
veracity cannot be known apodictically and that its authenticity can be asserted only in probabilistic terms.

In most instances involving the study of individual hadiths (the total numbering in the tens of thousands) it is frequently
difficult to establish that a particular hadith represents a later fabrication. But if we are able to cast serious, or even some,
doubt about a hadith's authenticity, then, as careful historians - which I hope we are - we should either dismiss it entirely or,
if it is only mildly problematic, use it in a circumscribed manner with the full knowledge and awareness that it cannot
constitute a reliable source. In either case, it is not to be trusted. We trust only a historical narrative that we believe with
assurance to have originated with the event itself, and even then we must guard against "ideological" biases as well as a
variety of other potential problems.

In terms of the Probability Theory, any narrative that we think to be equal to 0.51 or less is to be immediately dismissed.
Compare this, for instance, with the case of a human birth, where the probability of the infant being a girl is 0.5, since
the remaining 0.5 is assigned to the probability of its being a boy. If the probability of a hadith being true (=authentic)
is only marginally higher (by 0.01 or even moderately more) than the probability of a certain new born being a girl (or for
that matter a boy), then surely we have little reason, if any, to trust such a hadith as a credible historical datum.

In this context, both the ahad and the tawatur al-ma'nawi fail to survive beyond the test of probability. The ahad is
admittedly zanni (conjectures), meaning that it engenders in the intellect a probability in the order of 0.51 or higher,
but never, even in the most optimistic of circumstances, certainty. It is with this in mind that the Muslim jurists and
traditionists readily acknowledged that the ahad is subject to mendacity and error, for probability itself is, by definition,
liable to falsification. If the ahad is not to be trusted as a historical source, then al-tawatur al-ma'nawi is to be treated
precisely in the same manner, for this type of tawatur is nothing more than a collection of hadiths of the ahad type.....

Unlike the legal theoreticians, they (religious traditionists) were by no means interested in the probable/certain dichotomy,
but rather in any Prophetic material that appeared to them to meet the minimal requirements of "soundness." This is why
their first and foremost category of hadith, the "sahih" (sound), consisted of various types, not the least of which are those
hadiths which engender mere probability. Probably for the same reason, they did not, in their classification of hadith,
distinguish any category equivalent to the usuli type of the mutawatir. Ibn al-Salah (d. 643/1245), one of the most
distinguished traditionists of the muta'akhkhirun, explicitly states that in the traditionists' discourse the taxonomy of the
mutawatir is nowhere to be found; and this, he says, is due to the fact that such hadiths do not constitute part of their riwaya....

If the mutawatir was not part of the traditionists' repertoire of hadith, then what they handled were hadiths of the ahad type,
or those even of a weaker sort.... It is important to observe here that certainty for Ibn al-Salah does not stem from the
modalities by which the sahih is transmitted, but is deduced from the extraneous fact that a consensus was concluded on the
authoritative choices of Muslim and Bukhari. The implications of ignoring lines of transmission and the character of transmitters
as the established criteria of proof in favour of an extraneous method of evaluation are grave. For Ibn al-Salah's position
amounts in effect to arguing that the Muslim community, in and by itself, is empowered to legislate, by elevating, for instance,
the status of a source of law from a level of probability to certainty. More importantly, his argument, once taken to its logical
conclusion, destroys the very foundations of consensus as a source of law, since, as I have shown elsewhere, it traps it in the
insoluble quandary of a petitio principii (also known as Begging the Question fallacy).....

Finally, we turn to the problem of the mutawatir which engenders certainty. We recall that Ibn ai-Salah himself acknowledged
that the traditionists' repertoire of hadith does not include this category. But Ibn al-Salah said more. He argued in categorical
terms that the mutawatir is a rarity. "He who is asked to produce an example of a hadith that is transmitted in a mutawatir
[fashion] will be exhausted by his search" (68). In his own search for such hadiths, he could cite only one, presumably narrated
by more than a hundred Companions: "He who intentionally lies concerning something I [viz., the Prophet] have said will gain
a seat in Hellfire". The other hadith which he could find that seemingly met the standards of the mutawatir was: "Acts are
Judged by intentions". However, he acknowledges that although this hadith was reportedly narrated by a mutawatir number of
transmitters, its apodictic manner of transmission occurred in the middle tiers of transmission, not from the outset.

The later legal theoreticians Ansari (1119/1707) and Ibn ' Abd al-Shakur (1225/1810) accepted the general tenor of Ibn al-Salah''s
argument about the scarcity of tawatur, but seem to think that there are more hadiths of this type in existence. Having
enumerated, with what seems to be great difficulty, four such hadiths, they call upon Ibn ai-Jawzi (d. 598/1201) who is quoted as
saying: "I have tracked down the mutawatir hadiths and found a number of them." He enumerates six, at least one of which, and
probably two, had already been listed by Ansari and Ibn ' Abd al-Shakur. Thus, a thorough search by a number of the most eminent
traditionists and jurists of Islam could yield no more than eight or nine hadiths of the mutawatir type....

The legal theoreticians' classification of the hadith into mutawatir and ahad leaves us with a colossal number of the latter, merely
probable type, and less than a dozen of the former, reportedly apodictic, variety. The ahad, including the hasan, were universally
acknowledged to have constituted the bulk of hadfth with which the traditionists dealt, and on the basis of which the Jurists
derived the law. The apodictic type was simply inconsiderable. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the mutawatir
hadiths are more than a dozen, say a score, or even many more, the problem of authenticity nevertheless turns out to be a minor
one, involving a minuscule body of Prophetic material that can easily lend itself to our critical apparatus.

Ibn al-Salah's claim that the sahih type - on which Bukhari and Muslim agreed - engenders certainty cannot be taken seriously by
modern scholars, and this for two reasons: First, the claim was highly controversial among traditional Muslim scholars themselves,
having been rejected, for logical and epistemological reasons, by a significant majority. If consensus, which is alleged to elevate
the sahih to an apodictic level, sanctions the authority of hadith, then hadith cannot sanction the authority of consensus; for this
would entail a circularity of which Muslim scholars were acutely aware. But hadith does in reality sanction consensus, especially in
light of the widely acknowledged fact that it is the only authoritative text which can. Thus, consensus cannot sanction hadith, also
a widely accepted conclusion among traditional Muslim intellectuals....




(I've kept his conclusion out of the spoiler)
The certainty which the sahih yields is not established by means of the modalities of transmission or the quality of rectitude
attributed to the transmitters. For instance, it never was the case that the authenticity of an individual hadith of the sahih
category was declared ab initio and a priori certain just because it belonged to that group of traditions agreed upon by
Bukhari and Muslim. A positive affirmation of authenticity always required an investigation of individual hadiths insofar
as their particular mode of transmission was concerned. When these formal methods of enquiry were applied, Ibn al-salah
himself found that the mutawatir is virtually non-existent. Rather, what was said to guarantee Ibn al-Salah's apodictic sahih
was the divine grace metaphysically bestowed upon the Muslim community as a collectivity, not any "scientific" enquiry into
the concrete historical and socio-moral context ('ilm al-rijal) in which these hadiths were transmitted.

It is quite possible that some hadiths of the sahih type were considered to belong to the mutawatir category. What matters,
in the final analysis, is the fact that this last category is quantitatively insignificant, however it may be measured or calculated.
It can be easily controlled and investigated. And surely, the modern western debate about authenticity would be considered
absurd if its object were to be confined to a handful of such hadiths. That the debate was not so confined, and that it dealt
in fact with the vast majority of the hadith is quite obvious and need not be demonstrated. If both the traditionists and the
jurists -the two most important groups in the Study of hadiths- have acknowledged the precarious epistemological status of
the literature, then we need not squander our energies in arguing about the matter of authenticity. We have been told that
except for a score of hadiths, the rest engenders probability, and probability, as we know - and as we have also been
unambiguously told by our sources - allows for mendacity and error. What more do we want?


From Herbert Berg's Summary of hadiths criticism, a short extract in line with the above...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41077970/Summ ... -Criticism
--Essentially all hadiths were ahad. As Ibn al-Salah (d.1245), the most famous scholar of hadith criticism in the later period,
explained, at most one hadith (-Whoever lies about me intentionally, let him prepare for himself a seat in Hellfire-) would
meet the requirement for mutawatir. No hadiths could actually be described as being narrated by a large number of narrators
at every stage of their transmission. In fact, when Mutazilites had insisted that hadiths be transmitted by a mere two people
at every stage, the Sunni Ibn Hibban had accused them of trying to destroy the Sunna of the Prophet in its entirety.

--The final means by which hadiths achieved exaggerated authority in the late Sunni Tradition was the exploitation of the
concept of the mutawatir reports.... Although scholars like al-Salah had declared that no such hadith existed in actuality,
al-Suyuti composed a collection () in which he included 111 hadiths he declared mutawatir because ten or more Companions
had narrated it from the Prophet. -But a mutawatir hadith had to have such number of isnads at every level of transmission,
and not all the chains of transmission that al-Suyuti used as evidence were reliable to begin with.

Yep, even Ibn Hibban, way back then, couldn't find a single multi-corroborated hadith at every stage of the transmission!!

More on Wael Hallaq's studies...

The birth of a legal institution: the formation of the waqf in third-century ... By Peter C. Hennigan
http://books.google.ca/books?id=JcloEPL ... hs&f=false

Spoiler! :
--Until the publication of Wael Hallaq's 1993 article on al-Shafi'i, it was generally assumed that al-Shafi'i's legal theory,
as articulated in his Risala, had a substantial impact on third-century legal discourse. By demonstrating that al-Shaffi'i's
theory had little impact until the fourth century, Hallaq showed that we know very little about third-century legal culture.
If it was not the age of al-Shafi'i, then what was it?

--Al-Khassaf's life (also known as al-Shaybani), in particular, suggests that jurists pursued political and administrative
appointments in the Abbasid bureaucracy, and that the production of legal texts may have been a means of distinguishing
oneself within this legal culture. The biographies also seem to provide support for the recent arguments of Hallaq and
Brockopp that the third century was a ''highly individualistic venture'' in which jurists sought to distinguish themselves
as ''Great Shaykhs'' rather than as mere followers of older authorities.

--The conclusion that second and third-century jurists as as Hilal and al-Khassaf were 'Hanafis' has been called into question
in recent years. Wael Hallaq has argued that the typology of authority presented in the four schools of law -with legal authority
descending from a single master-jurisprudent- was an ex post facto phenomenon, and that Abu Hanifa was not even the most
logical choice for the school that now bears his name. Hallaq and Nimrod Hurvitz have also questioned long-held assumptions
about the development of the schools of law in the second and third centuries. Both historians have challenged Schacht's (and
more recently, Melchert's) conclusions that the 'ancient schools' of law evolved from regional to personal schools, arguing instead,
that the early schools were distinctively personal and that master-disciple relationships provided the organizing framework....
This conclusion regarding the individualistic nature of early Islamic legal culture has been given support in a recent article by
Jonathan Brockopp in which he argues that legal authority during the formative period was seen as residing in 'Great Shaykhs'
-individuals whose knowledge of the religious sources, wisdom and lineage gave their words legal authority.

--The historical record provides indications that it was al-Muhtadi's (Abbasid caliph) vigorous promotion of rationalism (ie.
the Mutazilites) and his hostility to the traditionalists that contributed to his downfall. Al-Khassaf, perhaps on account of his
strong association with the rationalists and/or the caliph, also appears to have been the target of this coup....

--The current state of the discipline indicates that we are still at the beginning stages of understanding the values of the legal
culture in which Hilal and al-Khassaf worked and lived... This lacuna in our knowledge is partly the result of the hagiographical
quality of the Islamic sources, which present these great authorities as motivated by little more than pious and sincere love for
God. This hagiographical presentation, however, has obscured the competitive nature of early Islamic legal culture.

--The third Islamic century was the era during which independetn reasoning, or ra'y, began to 'experience a process of decline'.
With the intellectual foundations of rationalist legal thinking increasingly undermined by traditionalist/anti-ray's critiques, it may
have become necessary for rationalists to buttress their arguments with hadiths.... Concomitant with this increasing pressure on
third-century rationalists to demonstrate that their legal theories were derived from Prophetic hadiths.... Many of these hadiths
concerning the waqf cannot reliably be dated any earlier than the late second/early third century AH (820ad).



Next: Islam, Muhammad & Archaeology !