Faith Freedom International

by **The Cat** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:54 pm

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.

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.

by **The Cat** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:22 pm

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.

by **The Cat** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:18 pm

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 !!

by **The Cat** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:04 pm

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! :

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! :

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

by **The Cat** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:13 am

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! :

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! :

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! :

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! :

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.

by **The Cat** » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:55 am

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

by **The Cat** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:32 pm

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

by **The Cat** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:53 pm

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! :

Sura 10 to 24...

Spoiler! :

Sura 25 to 49

Spoiler! :

Sura 50 to the end...

Spoiler! :

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.

by **The Cat** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:52 am

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

by **The Cat** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:12 am

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! :

Sura 6 to 20

Spoiler! :

Sura 21 to 42

Spoiler! :

___________
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! :

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

by **The Cat** » Sun May 08, 2011 1:15 pm

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).

by **The Cat** » Fri May 27, 2011 12:46 am

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)

by **The Cat** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:23 pm

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 !

by **The Cat** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:44 am

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.

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.

by **The Cat** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:51 am

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!

by **The Cat** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:37 pm

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.

by **The Cat** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:15 am

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! :

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....

by **The Cat** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:33 pm

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! :

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...

by **The Cat** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:54 am

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

by **The Cat** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:46 am

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! :

(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! :

Next: Islam, Muhammad & Archaeology !

Faith Freedom International

The Hadiths' Perfidy

The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Re: The Hadiths' Perfidy

Who is online