Did Muhammad ask for the Hadeeth to be written down and treated as eternal laws?

[godf]

Question as above.

Reading about their history, I didn't really understand why, if this is what he wanted, he didn't arrange for them to be compiled during his own lifetime, when he'd have been able to check and clarify them himself.

Is there anything in the Qu'ran saying a project like the Hadith should be carried out? Or did Muhammed ever make it explicit that his advice and sayings should always be treated as eternally correct, regardless of the social context - or is this even what people think? It seems some treat the Hadeeth more as 'the best advice at the time'... is this widely done? Or dismissed here as modernist revisionism?

Thanks.

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

Firstly, the Qur'an in many places orders the believers to obey God and to obey His Messenger.

There is no way for those who come after the Messenger (peace be upon him) to know how to obey him, unless they know what he said, ordered, taught etc. The Prophet himself, peace be upon him, ordered the people to follow his Sunnah (teachings, example, behaviour) and cautioned them against abandoning it. It is through the hadith that we learn what the Sunnah actually was.

That is why the hadith were recorded, beginning from the time that those who had lived with the Prophet, and those who had learnt directly from them, had began to die out.

Yes, it is true that many people came who fabricated hadiths, however from a very early period, the scholars of Islam developed an extensive system of authentication based on thorough "background checks" of all of the narrators of the hadiths in each generation and level, by which unreliable or doubtful narrators could be identified.

Regarding your last statement, the Qur'an itself clearly states in more than one place that the Prophet's example, guidance and teachings are not his own opinion, but rather part of the Divine Revelation that he has been ordered by God to convey to the people. So the Sunnah - based as it is on hadiths that are authentic and agreed-upon by the main body of the Muslims for 1400 years - it has the approval of God Himself and is therefore on the same level of authority as the Qur'an.

[godf]

But is there anywhere where it talks about his advice and guidance being eternal- rather than based on the conditions at the time?

Is this how it's currently treated?

It seems that what you say is wholly consistant with viewing the Hadeeth as a pragmatic response to problems at the time, divine wisdom, rather than eternal truth.

I still don't understand why it's thought Muhammed did not instigate the writing of the Hadeeth himself, if he'd wanted them to be treated as they now are. Is there any widely accepted explanation for this? - or it's just not seen as being of any interest?

The Prophet himself, peace be upon him, ordered the people to follow his Sunnah (teachings, example, behaviour) and cautioned them against abandoning it.

Did he caution them against abondoning it? Or demand that they never do so?

If it was divine wisdom, then even though the advice may not be eternally valid, it would still make sense to be cautious of abondoning it as society develops and changes.

Didn't some of Muhammed's own teaching change as his life developed? Isn't there a custom of giving greater weight to his later teachings? Surely this indicates at least some were responses to the conditions of the day, rather than eternal truths.

[Nooristan]

godf the sciences of hadeeth is a vast study that men spend years on,I sincerely commend you for your interest in this topic,to many questions for me though and I know my place,just admired the zeal,may Allah guide you to what is right ,ameen..........

['Abd al-Kareem]

George, I get the feeling that you don't yet know that there is an entire field of science dedicated to 'hadith.' It is not simply custom as you said in the following: "Isn't there a custom of giving greater weight to his later teachings?"

Rather there is a complete system in place. A very vast, complex one, at that. Perhaps someone else with more knowledge can delve a bit further. But it is definitely not as simple as you may think.

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

If it was divine wisdom, then even though the advice may not be eternally valid, it would still make sense to be cautious of abondoning it as society develops and changes.


This is the problem with you, you are assuming that your own idea of "the evolution of morality" is established fact. Muslims do not - and have never - accepted this idea.
Didn't some of Muhammed's own teaching change as his life developed? Isn't there a custom of giving greater weight to his later teachings? Surely this indicates at least some were responses to the conditions of the day, rather than eternal truths.

None of his teachings changed. If you mean that the message of Islam was revealed on a gradual basis, then yes this is true, however this does not mean that it was changed or modified in the way you (mis)understand it.<!-- / message -->

[godf]

George, I get the feeling that you don't yet know that there is an entire field of science dedicated to 'hadith.' It is not simply custom as you said in the following: "Isn't there a custom of giving greater weight to his later teachings?"

Rather there is a complete system in place. A very vast, complex one, at that. Perhaps someone else with more knowledge can delve a bit further. But it is definitely not as simple as you may think.


I think my use of the word 'custom' would fit in fine with your 'system'. I didn't mean 'custom' in a dismissive way if that's how it came accross.

This is the problem with you, you are assuming that your own idea of "the evolution of morality" is established fact. Muslims do not - and have never - accepted this idea.


None of his teachings changed. If you mean that the message of Islam was revealed on a gradual basis, then yes this is true, however this does not mean that it was changed or modified in the way you (mis)understand it.<!-- / message -->

No, I'm not assuming my own idea of 'the evolution of morality' is an established fact. I don't think that is even an idea I hold - depending on precisely what you mean.

Rather, I'd read that Muhammed's advice in the Hadeeth varied as the circumstances he faced changed; and that according to the most common system of analysis used for the hadeeth (thanks jund-al-islam), pre-eminance is given to his later advice.

If that is wrong, then I am wrong. But my understanding came from a discussion amongst Muslims, who seemed agreed on the point. I worry that I may be communicating poorly, or using words you'd take to be insulting when they do not need to be.

Have you ever heard of the view that later Hadeeth be given additional weight over earlier ones?

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

Rather, I'd read that Muhammed's advice in the Hadeeth varied as the circumstances he faced changed; and that according to the most common system of analysis used for the hadeeth (thanks jund-al-islam), pre-eminance is given to his later advice.

If that is wrong, then I am wrong. But my understanding came from a discussion amongst Muslims, who seemed agreed on the point. I worry that I may be communicating poorly, or using words you'd take to be insulting when they do not need to be.

Have you ever heard of the view that later Hadeeth be given additional weight over earlier ones?

Ah yes, now I see what you mean. OK, to put it as simply as possible, the Islamic laws were established gradually over a period of 23 years, until God sent down the Qur'anic verse "Today I have perfected My Favour upon you, and completed your Religion for you..." So yes, that is why in the event of any (apparently) "contradictory" orders in Islam, we take the later one, because that is the one which was in effect at the time that God declared that the teachings of the religion had been completed.<!-- / message -->

[godf]

It may simply be that I’m coming at this from a more Christian notion or religion, but I’m surprised by your reply.

Am I right to say you think the Hadeeth are meant to be taken as eternal laws, originating from Divine Revelation that Muhammed was ordered by God to convey to the people – yet also think that some of the earlier ones are simply wrong?

That it’s not simply a case that societal circumstance changed, and so the best course of action changed, but rather, Muhammed had misinterpreted divine revelation?

I worry I’ve misunderstood you.

[Nu7]

By the way, Hadeeth were compiled during the time of the prophet (SAW)!!

I guess you are thinking about the Saheehayn (Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim) when you suggest that hadith was not compiled during the time of the prophet (pbuh). But these are not the only hadith collections that exist, there are some who are older.

I'll see if I can find some good articles on this later today, insha Allah. I know I have some saved on my computer.

Sister Umm-Abdullah has also written articles about this on her blog.

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

It may simply be that I’m coming at this from a more Christian notion or religion, but I’m surprised by your reply.

Am I right to say you think the Hadeeth are meant to be taken as eternal laws, originating from Divine Revelation that Muhammed was ordered by God to convey to the people – yet also think that some of the earlier ones are simply wrong?

That it’s not simply a case that societal circumstance changed, and so the best course of action changed, but rather, Muhammed had misinterpreted divine revelation?

I worry I’ve misunderstood you.


Yes, you have misunderstood me. However, I don't know how I can be clearer than I already have been. You seem to have a talent for (deliberately?) misunderstanding everything.

The process of development of the Islamic laws that took place during the life of the Prophet, peace be upon him, was directed and ordered by God Himself, for certain wisdoms that are clear to anyone who looks honestly at the Prophet's Sirah (biography). They were not simply the "opinions" of Muhammad, peace be upon him, and indeed, in the few instances when the Prophet made - or was about to make - a mistake in judgement, God corrected him.

So it cannot be argued that these things were "misinterpretations" of the divine revelation, especially since God was overseeing the whole thing and directing it!

And it is not that the earlier commands were "wrong", rather they were right because God ordered them, for certain reasons and wisdoms. And the same God abrogated them afterwards.

Look at it this way. The things you are taught and the rules you have to follow in the first year of primary school are different to how they are in university. However, it doesn't mean that what was in primary school is "wrong".

[godf]

Before I reply more fully, could you clarify one point:

Is it thought that hadeeth from before a certain point should not be seen as eternal laws, and those from after should?

Or is it thought that later hadeeth are to be given pre-eminence over earlier ones.

I'd thought it was the second statement that was most widely accepted, but could be wrong.

I understand your point about the necessary simplification used in primary schools. But to me, those simplified claims can often be described as 'wrong'. Are the earlier Hadeeth's really seen as simpler than the latter ones? Do you see them as an educational tool - or is that extending your analogy rather too far?

@NU7: I could be using unfamiliar terminology incorrectly, but it seems others here also talk of the Hadeeth being collected and formalised after Muhammed's death. If Muhammed had wanted them to be treated as they now are, I do not understand why he would not have initiated their collation himself.

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

Before I reply more fully, could you clarify one point:

Is it thought that hadeeth from before a certain point should not be seen as eternal laws, and those from after should?

Or is it thought that later hadeeth are to be given pre-eminence over earlier ones.

I'd thought it was the second statement that was most widely accepted, but could be wrong.


There are no "earlier" hadiths. The hadiths in their written form were compiled after the Prophet's death. I think what you mean is hadith that describe earlier laws, rather than "earlier hadith". Anyway, in the vast majority of cases in which laws were abrogated or superceded by others, this is clearly mentioned in the hadith itself or the context.

I understand your point about the necessary simplification used in primary schools. But to me, those simplified claims can often be described as 'wrong'. Are the earlier Hadeeth's really seen as simpler than the latter ones? Do you see them as an educational tool - or is that extending your analogy rather too far?


No, what I am saying is that they were not "wrong" any more than what you are taught in primary school is "wrong".

It is very difficult to explain what I mean unless you give me actual examples of instances of laws being abrogated or superceded, and then we can discuss the context and reasons behind them. Otherwise, it is very difficult to make these things clear using generalised terms.

@NU7: I could be using unfamiliar terminology incorrectly, but it seems others here also talk of the Hadeeth being collected and formalised after Muhammed's death. If Muhammed had wanted them to be treated as they now are, I do not understand why he would not have initiated their collation himself.

Firstly, the Prophet initially forbade it because he did not want the people to confuse his own words and statements with the words of God in the Qur'an. (Note: this does not imply that the Prophet's words have less authority than the Qur'an, just that the words themselves are not part of the actual Qur'an.)

Later, however, once the followers of the Prophet were familiar with the Qur'an, the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, allowed them to write down his words, and some of his companions did so. However, you need to understand that writing was not as widespread back then as today, and the Arabs were famous for their strong memories, and the companions lived the teachings of the Prophet, so they were thoroughly familiar with them and did not need to write them down at that time. It was only once they had started to die, and there was a danger of these things being lost, that they began to be recorded on a wide scale.
<!-- / message -->

[godf]

There are no "earlier" hadiths. The hadiths in their written form were compiled after the Prophet's death. I think what you mean is hadith that describe earlier laws, rather than "earlier hadith". Anyway, in the vast majority of cases in which laws were abrogated or superceded by others, this is clearly mentioned in the hadith itself or the context.

I was confused by an earlier quote you gave: “until God sent down the Qur'anic verse "Today I have perfected My Favour upon you, and completed your Religion for you..."

I was wondering if that meant a special status was given to hadeeth dated as coming from Muhammed after this point – that hadeeth from before this point are seen as ‘unperfercted’; or rather, whether there is a more general system of giving preference to later hadeeth over earlier ones, which is what I’d thought. I don’t think I understand why that quote was provided.

Were the earlier hadeeth (I mean hadeeth believed to have been given by Muhammed earlier, rather than when they were compiled) seen as eternal laws prior to being superseded at a later date? Are hadeeth given by Muhammed at that period, but without being later superseded, now treated as eternal laws?

No, what I am saying is that they were not "wrong" any more than what you are taught in primary school is "wrong".

It is very difficult to explain what I mean unless you give me actual examples of instances of laws being abrogated or superceded, and then we can discuss the context and reasons behind them. Otherwise, it is very difficult to make these things clear using generalised terms.

I understand why talking in generalities might be difficult for you. Although it may not be the best example for this discussion (I’m afraid I’ve forgotten the Hadeeth I’d earlier heard discussed), I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on Nikah Mut'ah, as this is something that’s come to interest me elsewhere.

Although I’m afraid it takes us rather off track from a discussion about changes of hadeeth over time, it does raise a notion I find just as interesting, the idea that the hadeeth can abrogate the Qu’ran. This raises so many more questions for me, but maybe I should let you reply first. Thanks.

Re primary schools: I really do think a lot of the simplified information taught at primary school (and A-levels!!) can be classed as ‘wrong’. It may (although may not) be a useful tool for teaching children, but it is not an honest description of reality. I’m afraid you may have touched upon something that irritates me more than others. I think the distorted view of reality provided to children in order to spare them the complexities of life can be badly misleading. Although I’m not well read on the subject, and do not give my intuitions much weight, they are what they are.

Firstly, the Prophet initially forbade it because he did not want the people to confuse his own words and statements with the words of God in the Qur'an. (Note: this does not imply that the Prophet's words have less authority than the Qur'an, just that the words themselves are not part of the actual Qur'an.)

Later, however, once the followers of the Prophet were familiar with the Qur'an, the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, allowed them to write down his words, and some of his companions did so. However, you need to understand that writing was not as widespread back then as today, and the Arabs were famous for their strong memories, and the companions lived the teachings of the Prophet, so they were thoroughly familiar with them and did not need to write them down at that time. It was only once they had started to die, and there was a danger of these things being lost, that they began to be recorded on a wide scale.
<!-- / message -->

Given what you say, I’m surprised it seems so widely accepted with Islam that Muhammed wanted his words and actions to be codified, and treated as eternal laws. To even go so far (for some) as to allow them to abrogate parts of the Qu’ran. It’s very interesting.

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

Given what you say, I’m surprised it seems so widely accepted with Islam that Muhammed wanted his words and actions to be codified, and treated as eternal laws. To even go so far (for some) as to allow them to abrogate parts of the Qu’ran. It’s very interesting.


You have missed the point. I have already explained to you that the Sunnah of the Prophet - i.e. his words and actions etc. - are not from his own opinions which might oppose the Qur'an. Rather, the Sunnah has the status of divine revelation because God has made that perfectly clear in the Qur'an itself.

And the idea that the Sunnah can abrogate the Qur'an is not agreed upon by the Islamic scholars anyway (but this is beside the point). What is agreed is that the Qur'an can abrogate the Qur'an, the Sunnah can abrogate the Sunnah, and the Qur'an can abrogate the Sunnah.


I understand why talking in generalities might be difficult for you. Although it may not be the best example for this discussion (I’m afraid I’ve forgotten the Hadeeth I’d earlier heard discussed), I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on Nikah Mut'ah, as this is something that’s come to interest me elsewhere.



Regarrding nikah al-mut'ah, this was a common practice back in those days, just like drinking alcohol and other things that were later prohibited in Islam. So the people were doing it, and it was not forbidden until the order came for it to be forbidden (it was in the year of the battle of Khaybar that nikah al-mut'ah was categorically forbidden). It is a similar case with drinking alcohol, gambling and so on. People were doing it, the Muslims were doing it, but when the time came for it to be forbidden, i.e. when the order of prohibition of these things was revealed, they left them.

It doesn't mean that these things were "right" or "good" at one time and then they somehow became "bad". They were agreed to be bad to various degrees; for example, drinking alcohol was always looked upon as being a negative thing, however the final ruling (hukm) on actually drinking it was established with its prohibition and the hadd punishment due on the one who is caught drinking it.


Re primary schools: I really do think a lot of the simplified information taught at primary school (and A-levels!!) can be classed as ‘wrong’. It may (although may not) be a useful tool for teaching children, but it is not an honest description of reality. I’m afraid you may have touched upon something that irritates me more than others. I think the distorted view of reality provided to children in order to spare them the complexities of life can be badly misleading. Although I’m not well read on the subject, and do not give my intuitions much weight, they are what they are.



OK, perhaps that was not a good analogy to use, although remember I did not mean it as an exact analogy, I was just using it as an example of how some issues - even if they are not implemented at an early stage, or implemented differently at an early stage - are not necessarily "wrong". If you want to go into details about distorted perspectives allegedly given to children in your educational system, then that was never my point to begin with, so let's not get sidetracked.

[godf]

You have missed the point. I have already explained to you that the Sunnah of the Prophet - i.e. his words and actions etc. - are not from his own opinions which might oppose the Qur'an. Rather, the Sunnah has the status of divine revelation because God has made that perfectly clear in the Qur'an itself.

And the idea that the Sunnah can abrogate the Qur'an is not agreed upon by the Islamic scholars anyway (but this is beside the point). What is agreed is that the Qur'an can abrogate the Qur'an, the Sunnah can abrogate the Sunnah, and the Qur'an can abrogate the Sunnah.

I understand that all the teaching of Muhammed are seen as divine - but I'm still interested in the relative weightings given to his teachings in the Hadeeth and the Qu'ran. And I'm also interested in why the teaching's of Muhammed are seen as being eternal laws regardless of social context. His teaching could easily be seen as divine, without necessarily requiring the eternal status that now seems to be attached to them.

Do you think the Hadeeth can abrogate the Qu'ran? - I don't mean to push you to decide if you're unsure, I'm just interested in what you think and why.

Regarrding nikah al-mut'ah, this was a common practice back in those days, just like drinking alcohol and other things that were later prohibited in Islam. So the people were doing it, and it was not forbidden until the order came for it to be forbidden (it was in the year of the battle of Khaybar that nikah al-mut'ah was categorically forbidden). It is a similar case with drinking alcohol, gambling and so on. People were doing it, the Muslims were doing it, but when the time came for it to be forbidden, i.e. when the order of prohibition of these things was revealed, they left them.

It doesn't mean that these things were "right" or "good" at one time and then they somehow became "bad". They were agreed to be bad to various degrees; for example, drinking alcohol was always looked upon as being a negative thing, however the final ruling (hukm) on actually drinking it was established with its prohibition and the hadd punishment due on the one who is caught drinking it.

I thought the Qu'ran specifically authorised nikah al-mut'ah though, quite unlike the use of alcohol, so this is a case of the Hadeeth seeming to have pre-eminence over the Qu'ran. (I'm afraid my ability to research this is rather limited by my unfamiliarity with Islamic terms. I'm also limited by the frustrating tendency of both Shia and Sunni writings on this to quote from 'experts' rather than the original text. Google has let me down.)

As a side-track you can feel free to ignore: I recently tried a fermented yoghurt drink that apparently Muhammed used to used as a gift for others, and it had an alcoholic flavour to it. Not enough to get drunk, but certainly present. Also - what about Jesus’ (and I'm sure many others) drinking of wine? Was he seen as oblivious to the sin of alcohol? - or do Muslims not think he drank wine?

OK, perhaps that was not a good analogy to use, although remember I did not mean it as an exact analogy, I was just using it as an example of how some issues - even if they are not implemented at an early stage, or implemented differently at an early stage - are not necessarily "wrong". If you want to go into details about distorted perspectives allegedly given to children in your educational system, then that was never my point to begin with, so let's not get sidetracked.


I agree we could be in danger of being sidetracked, but I'd like to go back to why the analogy was first used.

Do you see earlier Hadeeth (my term) as tools for preparing people's minds for later Hadeeth?

I don't really understand why it's thought that certain Hadeeth abrogate each other.

To me, I'd assume it would have to be because i) one of the commands was wrong, or ii) the commands were intended to be seen as responses to the current social context, and likely to change as society changes.

You seemed to hint at a third option (earlier Hadeeth were never intended to be 'true', but rather, were a tool for preparing people for later Hadeeths), but I'm not sure I've understood it, and if I have, I'm not sure why you think this is the case.

ta.

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

I understand that all the teaching of Muhammed are seen as divine - but I'm still interested in the relative weightings given to his teachings in the Hadeeth and the Qu'ran.


Divine is divine, there is no "relative" involved if it is all part of the same system coming from God.


And I'm also interested in why the teaching's of Muhammed are seen as being eternal laws regardless of social context. His teaching could easily be seen as divine, without necessarily requiring the eternal status that now seems to be attached to them.



Why? You haven't given any real basis for this, other than that it is your opinion.


I thought the Qu'ran specifically authorised nikah al-mut'ah though, quite unlike the use of alcohol, so this is a case of the Hadeeth seeming to have pre-eminence over the Qu'ran. (I'm afraid my ability to research this is rather limited by my unfamiliarity with Islamic terms. I'm also limited by the frustrating tendency of both Shia and Sunni writings on this to quote from 'experts' rather than the original text. Google has let me down.)



Regarding the alleged reference to mut'ah in the Qur'an, the word is "istamta'tum", which linguistically means "enjoyed" (i.e. consummated marriage with), but which the shi'ah have interpreted it in the sense of "nikah al-mut'ah" (temporary marriage/"marriage of enjoyment"). What is being said in the verse is that payment of the full mahr (dowry) is binding on the husband once the marriage has been consummated.

As a side-track you can feel free to ignore: I recently tried a fermented yoghurt drink that apparently Muhammed used to used as a gift for others, and it had an alcoholic flavour to it. Not enough to get drunk, but certainly present.

Where is the reference for the Prophet using this fermented yoghurt drink? Sounds more like "kumiz", the traditional drink in Mongolia.


Also - what about Jesus’ (and I'm sure many others) drinking of wine? Was he seen as oblivious to the sin of alcohol? - or do Muslims not think he drank wine?



Firstly, it cannot be proven 100% that Jesus drank wine. Sure, it says so in the Bible, but many things in the bible have been added or altered. It could be that Jesus was drinking grape juice and not wine itself; in the time of the Prophet, they used to drink date juice called "nabidh", and when it was fermented it became alcoholic, and then later on the drinking of the fermented version of nabidh became very widespread to the point that the word "nabidh" was used to mean wine, when originally it referred to simple date juice.

But regarding what you said about Jesus and the wine, only God knows for sure and it cannot be decisively "proven" one way or another.

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

I don't really understand why it's thought that certain Hadeeth abrogate each other.

To me, I'd assume it would have to be because i) one of the commands was wrong, or ii) the commands were intended to be seen as responses to the current social context, and likely to change as society changes.

You seemed to hint at a third option (earlier Hadeeth were never intended to be 'true', but rather, were a tool for preparing people for later Hadeeths), but I'm not sure I've understood it, and if I have, I'm not sure why you think this is the case.



OK, it is true that certain commands were abrogated due to changes in circumstances, e.g. in the early stage of the Prophet's mission when he and his followers were in a position of weakness in Makkah, fighting was not allowed, then later on after the establishment of the Islamic state in al-Madinah it was allowed to defend against attackers, then later on when the state was strengthened and the borders expanded, conquest was prescribed. These are examples of "abrogation" due to differing circumstances.

HOWEVER this does not mean that anything the Prophet's Sunnah itself could ever be abrogated after his death and after the completion of the religion, because the prescribing of laws, abrogation of them and so forth was done through revelation, and the revelation stopped with the Prophet's death.

So yes, the abrogation was due to changes in circumstances during the lifetime of the Prophet, throughout the various stages of his mission, for reasons of wisdom that are clear to anyone who researches them sufficiently. For example, even though the laws of the religion were completed in al-Madinah, however if Muslims happen to find themselves in a situation similar to that of the Prophet and his followers at the early part of his mission in Makkah, where they don't have a state or power or influence, then they have to follow the Prophet's example accordingly.

However, that does not mean that Islamic laws can be abolished or altered if people feel that they are no longer "suitable" for the present time, because the authority to legislate these things is not with people but with God alone.

It is also important to note that many things which are superficially thought of as being "new developments" in society etc. can in most cases actually be looked at and judged in accordance with events that took place during the Prophet's life. This is why the study of the Prophet's biography and the study of the hadith and the Sunnah along with the Qur'an is so important for Muslims, because it is through these sources that the basis of Islamic jurisprudence are derived, and it is through this jurisprudence that the scholars derive rulings from those sources regarding "new" events.

So the Sunnah is much more than just a local phenomenon in a 1400 year-old context, rather it is a dynamic methodology of understanding how to apply the revealed Law of God. If we only had the Qur'an, without the Sunnah/Hadiths, we would still have a lot of very useful info but we would be in the dark as to how it should be implemented. The purpose of the Sunnah is to provide us with the practical example of how to apply the Law of God as revealed in the Qur'an, and that it clearly mentioned in many places throughout the Qur'an itself.

I'm sorry if I have ben a bit long-winded; I'm not a scholar so sometimes I might not be able to find the best way to explain these issues with you, that doesn't mean that I don't understand them, but it is just hard to find the right words or way of describing sometimes. You have asked some very thoughtful questions though, and this indicates that you are sincere in your desire to understand these matters and get to the heart of them, so to speak. I suggest that perhaps it's better that you find a qualified Islamic scholar if there happen to be any in your area, and meet with him and discuss these things directly, on a face-to-face basis. I think that this should be more beneficial, as there can be many limitations in discussing complicated matters like these on internet forums.

[godf]

Divine is divine, there is no "relative" involved if it is all part of the same system coming from God.

I thought it was accepted that there are differences between and within these texts. Therefore, to decide what should be done, one part would have to be given greater weight than another. Is this not right?

Why? You haven't given any real basis for this, other than that it is your opinion.

Indeed. Some people are of the opinion that if someone gives you divine advice it is not just perfect then, at that time, but for all time. You could equally claim that advice can be divine, but only be intended to be applied at that time, unless it was explicitly stated otherwise. ie that there's a big difference between telling one group of people at one time 'You should plant your crops in March' and telling them 'It will always be best for you to plant your crops in March'. The first statement leaves room for potential changes in the future (climactic change, technological change -fertilisers etc) altering the best time to plant your crops; where as the second would mean, whatever changes occur, still March would be best.

That's why I'd wanted to know if Muhammed had ever explicitly asked for the hadeeth to be written down and treated as eternal laws.

Regarding the alleged reference to mut'ah in the Qur'an, the word is "istamta'tum", which linguistically means "enjoyed" (i.e. consummated marriage with), but which the shi'ah have interpreted it in the sense of "nikah al-mut'ah" (temporary marriage/"marriage of enjoyment"). What is being said in the verse is that payment of the full mahr (dowry) is binding on the husband once the marriage has been consummated.

I see. So you don't think there is any reference to nikah al-mut'ah in the Qu'ran? Okay - that rather changes things. I may have to find a more suitable example. Thanks.

Where is the reference for the Prophet using this fermented yoghurt drink? Sounds more like "kumiz", the traditional drink in Mongolia.

It's called 'kefir' (maybe just a different spelling?): I searched 'kefir muhammed' on google - but realised you'd be more likely to find pages of interest to you than I would.


Firstly, it cannot be proven 100% that Jesus drank wine. Sure, it says so in the Bible, but many things in the bible have been added or altered. It could be that Jesus was drinking grape juice and not wine itself; in the time of the Prophet, they used to drink date juice called "nabidh", and when it was fermented it became alcoholic, and then later on the drinking of the fermented version of nabidh became very widespread to the point that the word "nabidh" was used to mean wine, when originally it referred to simple date juice.

But regarding what you said about Jesus and the wine, only God knows for sure and it cannot be decisively "proven" one way or another.

I see. I'm wonder if people at the time associated 'alcohol' - the chemical, as strongly with 'alcohol' - the cause of drunkenness, in the way that we do today. I'd have thought it would be very difficult to get drunk on that yoghurt drink, with an alcohol content of about 1%. Was alcohol recognised by its chemical form, of by the affect it had on people?


OK, it is true that certain commands were abrogated due to changes in circumstances, e.g. in the early stage of the Prophet's mission when he and his followers were in a position of weakness in Makkah, fighting was not allowed, then later on after the establishment of the Islamic state in al-Madinah it was allowed to defend against attackers, then later on when the state was strengthened and the borders expanded, conquest was prescribed. These are examples of "abrogation" due to differing circumstances.

HOWEVER this does not mean that anything the Prophet's Sunnah itself could ever be abrogated after his death and after the completion of the religion, because the prescribing of laws, abrogation of them and so forth was done through revelation, and the revelation stopped with the Prophet's death.

So yes, the abrogation was due to changes in circumstances during the lifetime of the Prophet, throughout the various stages of his mission, for reasons of wisdom that are clear to anyone who researches them sufficiently. For example, even though the laws of the religion were completed in al-Madinah, however if Muslims happen to find themselves in a situation similar to that of the Prophet and his followers at the early part of his mission in Makkah, where they don't have a state or power or influence, then they have to follow the Prophet's example accordingly.

However, that does not mean that Islamic laws can be abolished or altered if people feel that they are no longer "suitable" for the present time, because the authority to legislate these things is not with people but with God alone.

To me, there is something of a conflict here. A recognition that it was sensible for Muhammed’s rulings to shift during his lifetime, but then a requirement that they be treated as eternal laws following his death. If they were supposed to be eternal laws, God could have initiated a social setting in which these eternal laws could be carried out from the start. – It may seem presumptuous to ask God to do such a thing, but equally, doesn’t it seem presumptuous to decide Muhammed’s rulings should be treated as eternal laws without his explicit say so? Especially when they were not treated as such during his lifetime, by him.

Your reasoning is – Muhammed was being told different laws from God, these laws altered according to social context, as part of God’s project of creating the Hadeeth – the true eternal laws of behaviour from God.

My problem is – did Muhammed ever say this is what was happening? So far, everything you’ve said would seem to also fit in with interpreting the Hadeeth as being a divine and perfect, but also pragmatic (which is pretty necessary for perfection imo) response to the social settings of the time.

I’m not saying that one interpretation can be proven right over the other, but rather that I’m surprised so many people seem to behave as if it has been proven the Hadeeth should be treated as eternal laws. The evidence doesn’t seem to be there to allow such confidence in this interpretation.

Do you understand my surprise?

It is also important to note that many things which are superficially thought of as being "new developments" in society etc. can in most cases actually be looked at and judged in accordance with events that took place during the Prophet's life. This is why the study of the Prophet's biography and the study of the hadith and the Sunnah along with the Qur'an is so important for Muslims, because it is through these sources that the basis of Islamic jurisprudence are derived, and it is through this jurisprudence that the scholars derive rulings from those sources regarding "new" events.

So the Sunnah is much more than just a local phenomenon in a 1400 year-old context, rather it is a dynamic methodology of understanding how to apply the revealed Law of God. If we only had the Qur'an, without the Sunnah/Hadiths, we would still have a lot of very useful info but we would be in the dark as to how it should be implemented. The purpose of the Sunnah is to provide us with the practical example of how to apply the Law of God as revealed in the Qur'an, and that it clearly mentioned in many places throughout the Qur'an itself.

I feel like you may have exaggerated the extent to which deciding the Hadeeth should not be viewed as eternal laws serves to undercut its usefulness.

You said Muhammed cautioned against going against his advice. Indeed, were his advice divine perfection, even if driven by pragmatic social considerations at the time, it would still be sensible to use this advice as a guide even in quite different social contexts. Indeed the practical changes relating to viewing the Hadeeth as perfect advice at the time, rather than eternal laws, could even be non-existent. I suppose that would be a matter of debate.

Actually – some Islamic debates about the application of Hadeeth seem very similar to this already. It’s just the debate seems stunted by the partial assumption that the Hadeeth should be treated as eternal laws. A down-playing of the important technological and social changes that have occurred.

The recent growth f ‘Islamic-finance’ seems a fair example of this. The modern financial system is quite unlike anything from Muhammed’s time, and has allowed for far greater security and wealth generation. It seems many Muslims recognise that they are simply damaging their own interests by detaching from this system of wealth generation; but rather than being open about deciding that social and technological changes have been so great that Muhammeds advice should, with caution, be put aside, they’ve created these elaborate word games, intended to wiggle around the Hadeeth. Insisting the Hadeeth be treated as eternal laws seems to require either a certain level of self-deception, or else, prevents Muslims from taking advantage of useful innovations unavailable at Muhammed’s time.

I'm sorry if I have ben a bit long-winded; I'm not a scholar so sometimes I might not be able to find the best way to explain these issues with you, that doesn't mean that I don't understand them, but it is just hard to find the right words or way of describing sometimes. You have asked some very thoughtful questions though, and this indicates that you are sincere in your desire to understand these matters and get to the heart of them, so to speak. I suggest that perhaps it's better that you find a qualified Islamic scholar if there happen to be any in your area, and meet with him and discuss these things directly, on a face-to-face basis. I think that this should be more beneficial, as there can be many limitations in discussing complicated matters like these on internet forums.

I appreciate the fullness of your replies. I’ve found discussing this with you far more educational than reading any of the Islamic treatises on the matter I’ve stumbled across. I think much of the work of Islamic scholars is written for an Islamic audience, and I find I do not share many of the assumptions taken for granted, or have a good enough understanding of Islamic culture to understand their references.

Maybe a chat with an expert would be useful, but certainly, so has this. There are many good things about forums as a place of discussion – having a trail of what’s been said, the ease of quoting each other, access to the resources of the internet. So long as the participants are genuinely interested in understanding each other (and here is a common problem with the internet), they can be great tools. Thank you for taking part.

[godf]

Does anyone else have anything to add to this?

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

A recognition that it was sensible for Muhammed’s rulings to shift during his lifetime, but then a requirement that they be treated as eternal laws following his death.As has been explained before, legal rulings did change over the course of the period of divine revelation. Their changing is a moot point, as any new regulations were themselves divine revelation. They were ultimately solidified as per the Qur'anic verse establishing perfection, revealed at the end of the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وسلم) life.

The rest of your comments I haven't read much of... much of it is based on speculative premises (leading to attempted constructions of false dichotomies) which would require an equal amount of verbosity to unravel. It's better if points be dealt with concisely and each premise addressed one at a time.

[godf]

The rest of your comments I haven't read much of... much of it is based on speculative premises (leading to attempted constructions of false dichotomies) which would require an equal amount of verbosity to unravel. It's better if points be dealt with concisely and each premise addressed one at a time.

That would be great, thanks. I always try to write as concisely as clarity allows.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

We can start with my previous comment:

As has been explained before, legal rulings did change over the course of the period of divine revelation. Their changing is a moot point, as any new regulations were themselves divine revelation. They were ultimately solidified as per the Qur'anic verse establishing perfection, revealed at the end of the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وسلم) life.

[godf]

We can start with my previous comment:

You want to start over? Could you not address any of my previous posts - I'd felt like things were progressing.

If not: 'Did Muhammad ask for the Hadeeth to be written down and treated as eternal laws?'

What does the Qur'anic verse you mentioned actually say?

Ta.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

What does the Qur'anic verse you mentioned actually say?
Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah. that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (al-Ma'idah 5:3)
Thus, along with the last of the legal rulings, perfection was announced.

Did Muhammad ask for the Hadeeth to be written down and treated as eternal laws?That's two questions in one. 1) Did the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) request his words, deeds etc. be written down? And: 2) Are Islamic laws for all time? You'll note that I've expanded the breadth of the second question as the commands/prohibitions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) assume legal stature (24:51-52, 33:36, 4:65, and numerous others). Your question also presumes that Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) needed to ask, which itself wasn't necessary given the Qur'anic sanction.

These questions should be addressed individually. I don't know if 1) has already been addressed in this thread, or even if it seriously needs addressing.

[godf]

re the quote:

Do we know at what point of Muhammed's life this statement was made? Are Hadeeth from before this point treated differently to those from after?

It doesn't seem to explicitly refer to what has become known as the Hadeeth - why is it you think it does? Is this related to another Qu’ranic verse I’m ignorant of?


Thus, along with the last of the legal rulings, perfection was announced.

That's two questions in one. 1) Did the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) request his words, deeds etc. be written down? And: 2) Are Islamic laws for all time? You'll note that I've expanded the breadth of the second question as the commands/prohibitions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) assume legal stature (24:51-52, 33:36, 4:65, and numerous others). Your question also presumes that Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) needed to ask, which itself wasn't necessary given the Qur'anic sanction.

These questions should be addressed individually. I don't know if 1) has already been addressed in this thread, or even if it seriously needs addressing.

I think your division of my question into two parts could be damaging. It could be Muhammed wanted his sayings written down and remembered. It could be Islamic laws are meant to be for all time. It could still be that the Hadeeth are not meant to be treated as eternal laws. We would have to examine precisely what is meant by 'Islamic laws' - if you want to approach it this way, we could do. I think your post may have tried to address some of these points - would you be able to post the full quotes you're referring to? I would be especially interested in the specific Qur'anic sanction for the creation of the Hadeeth you mentioned.

re 1) Apparently Muhammed had originally discouraged people from writing down his own advice and sayings, out of fear it would 'distract' (maybe not the right word there) people from the Qu'ran. As his followers became more familiar with the Qu'ran, he allowed them to start writing things down.

Given the importance most Muslims give to the Hadeeth, I was surprised to find out Muhammed does not seem to have requested their creation. Had he wanted them to be treated as they now are, would he not have requested their creation during his own lifetime so that he could provide some level of over-sight?

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

Do we know at what point of Muhammed's life this statement was made? During the final pilgrimage.


Are Hadeeth from before this point treated differently to those from after?Hadith merely means 'report' (referring to reports about the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم). Why should they be?


Is this related to another Qu’ranic verse I’m ignorant of?You'll note that I've directed you to verses establishing the legal authority of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in my previous post, and again below.


It could still be that the Hadeeth are not meant to be treated as eternal laws.

I explained why I broadened the topic: "You'll note that I've expanded the breadth of the second question as the commands/prohibitions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) assume legal stature (24:51-52, 33:36, 4:65, and numerous others)." So if one accepts the notion that Islamic law is for all time, then it must be recognised that the commands/prohibitions of the Prophet form a part of that law on the basis of the verses I have directed you towards.

I would rather not copy-paste them all out as there are quite a number of them, but I suggest you go to a website like http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/ and research those passages referenced.

[godf]

During the final pilgrimage.

Hadith merely means 'report' (referring to reports about the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم). Why should they be?

The quote talks of "this day" as being the day the religion was perfected - so does that have any impact on the relative weight given to Hadeeth before and after that day?



You'll note that I've directed you to verses establishing the legal authority of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in my previous post, and again below.

I was hoping you could post the quotations yourself, so I can be certain of the translation you're using, and also, because I am unfamiliar with use of the Qu'ran.



I explained why I broadened the topic: "You'll note that I've expanded the breadth of the second question as the commands/prohibitions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) assume legal stature (24:51-52, 33:36, 4:65, and numerous others)." So if one accepts the notion that Islamic law is for all time, then it must be recognised that the commands/prohibitions of the Prophet form a part of that law on the basis of the verses I have directed you towards.

I would rather not copy-paste them all out as there are quite a number of them, but I suggest you go to a website like http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/ and research those passages referenced.

I looked up: 24:51-52 and got:

24:51 The only response of believers, whenever they are summoned unto God and His Apostle in order that [the divine writ] might judge between them, can be no other than, [68] “We have heard, and we pay heed!”- and it is they, they who shall attain to a happy state:

24:52 for, they who pay heed unto God and His Apostle, and stand in awe of God and are conscious of Him, it is they, they who shall triumph [in the end]!


I think you'd provided that reference to show that reports of Muhammed's advice should be used as eternal laws. Have I found the right passage?

It doesn't seem to say that to me.

This is why I'd have liked you to provide the quotes yourself - they simply do not seem to say what was expected. Was that the passage you'd meant?

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

The quote talks of "this day" as being the day the religion was perfected - so does that have any impact on the relative weight given to Hadeeth before and after that day?I've already addressed this. Hadith simply means report. Why should reports about the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وسلم) death, for instance, be seen as different? If you're trying to make an underlying point, please be candid about it.

I think you'd provided that reference to show that reports of Muhammed's advice should be used as eternal laws.If that's what you think then need to re-read my comments, as this is a straw-man attribution. Again: "You'll note that I've expanded the breadth of the second question as the commands/prohibitions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) assume legal stature (24:51-52, 33:36, 4:65, and numerous others)." ... "So if one accepts the notion that Islamic law is for all time, then it must be recognised that the commands/prohibitions of the Prophet form a part of that law on the basis of the verses I have directed you towards."

Hence the verses are significant in that they establish legal authority of what the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) enjoins or forbids, and make obedience to him mandatory. Your incorrect attribution again conflates two separate issues like your initial question did, and like I suggested, we should deal with each of those premises individually.


they simply do not seem to say what was expected.The reason is because you misread what my assertion about these verses was. Incidentally, did you stop reading there or did you aslo refer to the other verses provided? I'll copy-paste the verses in question (by no means an exhaustive list) with a standard Y. Ali trans.


24:51 The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, "We hear and we obey": it is such as these that will attain felicity.

24:52 It is such as obey Allah and His Messenger, and fear Allah and do right, that will win (in the end),

24:54 Say: "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

24:56 So establish regular Prayer and give regular Charity; and obey the Messenger. that ye may receive mercy.

33:36 It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

4:64 We sent not an apostle, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

8:20 O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak). (21) Nor be like those who say, "We hear," but listen not

4:65 But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.
The verses verify that obedience to God and the Prophet is mandatory. Thus, the Prophet's commands/prohibitions (hardly 'advice', as you put it) are legally binding and part of Islamic law, as substantiated by the Qur'an itself. Once this premise is established, then the 'eternality' of Islamic laws in general can be discussed.

[godf]

I see... I'm using 'Hadeeth' to refer specifically to the elements of the Hadeeth taken as commands by Muslims. Is there a better term for me to use?

I'm worried that your attempt to clarify my questions may lead to the points I'm most interested in going unanswered.

Am I right to understand that you believe all of Muhammad's advice should be seen as necessarily eternal commands: he doesn't need to say "Everyone must always" or "No-one should ever" - that is assumed based as various Qu'ranic quotes, and Muhammad's own claims? Or is this a 'straw man' argument? I may well have misunderstood how Muslims treat the Hadeeth - but this is not a deliberate ploy on my part.

Would you be able to explain how this conclusion's been reached (if this is your conclusion?) and which quotes have led you to this? I don't see the quotes from above leading to this conclusion (thank you for posting them) - they seem to simply talk of obeying the Prophet, rather than treating all of his advice as eternal laws.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

Am I right to understand that you believe all of Muhammad's advice should be seen as necessarily eternal commands: he doesn't need to say "Everyone must always" or "No-one should ever" - that is assumed based as various Qu'ranic quotes, and Muhammad's own claims?


Anything in the form of an imperative i.e. "Do this" or "Don't do this" is a command or a prohibition respectively, and taken as legally binding to enact. Anything in the form "You may do this if you like" is not compulsory to perform given the caveat. You can't lump it all as 'advice'.

Commands/prohibitions need no individual 'eternality' caveat for each, as it was already provided for them all with the last of the revealed verses, which we discussed above.

Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah. that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (al-Ma'idah 5:3) they seem to simply talk of obeying the Prophet, rather than treating all of his advice as eternal laws.Again, imperatives cannot adequately be referred to as advice.

The verses mandate obedience to God and His Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), thus imperatives from them become legally binding (=laws).The eternality of the laws from God and the Prophet is established by the above verse.

[godf]

So my assumption was right, other than where Muhammad explicitly stated his advice/command was optional? In all other instances, it is to be assumed Muhammed's advice/command are eternal and universal: he does not need to say "Everyone must always" or "No-one should ever".

If he said "Do not rest under the shade of a sycamore tree" (ignoring the strangeness of this advice) it would be taken to mean "No-one should ever rest under the shade of a sycamore tree".

Is this right?

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

If he said "Do not rest under the shade of a sycamore tree" (ignoring the strangeness of this advice) it would be taken to mean "No-one should ever rest under the shade of a sycamore tree".

It would be for the jurists to ascertain whether the comment was made in general terms or if there is a specific incident attached to the comment. But in general, yes.

[godf]

It would be for the jurists to ascertain whether the comment was made in general terms or if there is a specific incident attached to the comment. But in general, yes.

This is what I was trying to get at.

Why is it assumed that the advice/commands Muhammad's companions remember him giving is assumed to be unversally and eternally applicable? Did he ever say it was?

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

This is what I was trying to get at.

Why is it assumed that the advice/commands Muhammad's companions remember him giving is assumed to be unversally and eternally applicable? Did he ever say it was?

It's not assumed. It's a direct result of the Qur'anic declarations that all Muslims must obey the Prophet (which naturally applies to more than just those in direct contact with him), the religion has now been perfected (5:3), and that Muhammad has been sent for all of mankind (34:28). As the Qur'an tells all Muslims to obey the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and it says that the religion is perfect and for all mankind, then on the basis of the Qur'an alone it is apparent that the command to obey the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), along with the rest of the laws, is universal in application and also applies to future generations.

Additionally, refer to the statements of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) himself "The prophets before me were sent to their own nations, but I was sent to all of mankind" (Bukhari and Muslim), "I do not want to see any one of you reclining on his couch and, when he hears of my instructions or prohibitions, saying 'I don’t accept it; we didn’t find any such thing in the Book of Allah.'" (Jami' al-Tirmidhi)

[godf]

So you take "Obey the Prophet" to mean "treat all the advice/commands Muhammad's companions remember him giving as unversally and eternally applicable to all Muslims"?

Is this right?

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

So you take "Obey the Prophet" to mean "treat all the advice/commands Muhammad's companions remember him giving as unversally and eternally applicable to all Muslims"?

Is this right?

I think my previous post clearly and concisely highlights what my stance is and the evidences involved.


As the Qur'an tells all Muslims to obey the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and it says that the religion is perfect and for all mankind, then on the basis of the Qur'an alone it is apparent that the command to obey the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), along with the rest of the laws, is universal in application and also applies to future generations.

[godf]

I don't see that anything you've posted explains why you'd think Muhammad wanted you to "treat all the advice/commands Muhammad's companions remember him giving as unversally and eternally applicable to all Muslims."

You've said:

1) the Qur'an tells all Muslims to obey the Prophet
2) this command, along with the rest of the laws, is universal in application and also applies to future generations.

To me, this means you take "Obey the Prophet" to mean "treat all the advice/commands Muhammad's companions remember him giving as unversally and eternally applicable to all Muslims".

2 simply clarifies that this interpretation of 1 is in itself universal and eternal. Is this right?

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

I don't see that anything you've posted explains why you'd think Muhammad wanted you to "treat all the advice/commands Muhammad's companions remember him giving as unversally and eternally applicable to all Muslims."


Needlessly compounded attribution aside, you really need to review my previous posts then.


1) the Qur'an tells all Muslims to obey the Prophet
2) it says that the religion is perfect and for all mankind (also that Muhammad has been sent for all mankind)
3) [thus] this command... ...is universal in application and also applies to future generations.
I've included the second caveat which you omitted for one reason or another. Premises 1) and 2) considered together result in conclusion 3).

I'd rather you not put words in my mouth, which is why I shall simply ignore attempts at loaded and over-simplified characterisations of my argument.

[godf]

I've included the second caveat which you omitted for one reason or another. Premises 1) and 2) considered together result in conclusion 3).


1) the Qur'an tells all Muslims to obey the Prophet
2) it says that the religion is perfect and for all mankind (also that Muhammad has been sent for all mankind)
3) [thus] this command... ...is universal in application and also applies to future generations.

So you think that this leads to the conclusion that Muhammad wanted you to treat all the advice/commands Muhammad's companions remember him giving as unversally and eternally applicable to all Muslims?

I don't see why this argument would be any more convincing than the one I'd provided. (Unless you see the perfection of 'the religion' as self-fulfilling: ie whatever Muslims think Islam is, becomes perfect. I don't think this is what you mean though.)


I'd rather you not put words in my mouth, which is why I shall simply ignore attempts at loaded and over-simplified characterisations of my argument.

Did you notice how I'd ask 'Is this right'? I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I'm trying to understand your words. It would be more helpful if you corrected my mistakes, rather than ignored them.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

So you think that this leads to the conclusion that Muhammad wanted you to treat all the advice/commands Muhammad's companions remember him giving as unversally and eternally applicable to all Muslims?

I've told you precisely what my conclusion is and how it was reached. Instead of addressing the how, you seem to be trying to redefine my assertion by compounding it with further clauses. Which to me is a straw man.

Did you notice how I'd ask 'Is this right'? And I'd respond, in my own words (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=149693&postcount=37). And then you'd repeat (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=149695&postcount=38) with the same loaded attribution. I find that rather disingenuous.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

Unless you see the perfection of 'the religion' as self-fulfilling

Perfection means it is without flaw, nothing is better. Hence it is applicable for all of mankind (as the Qur'an itself states) and future generations.

[godf]

1) Muhammad wanted you...
2) to treat all the advice/commands Muhammad's companions remember him giving...
3) as unversally and eternally applicable to all Muslims?

What parts do you disagree with? Feel free to divide further. Thanks.

The post you directed to, while it may well be what you believe, doesn't serve to answer my questions at all. If you think it does, I think you've misunderstood what I'm trying to find out.

[godf]

Perfection means it is without flaw, nothing is better. Hence it is applicable for all of mankind (as the Qur'an itself states) and future generations.

Your 'hence' is misplaced. One does not lead to the other. I'd have thought that was clear given the massive ammount of change that can occur over time, but especially for Muslims, given that the advice of Muhammad himself changed over time.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

I've broken the clauses down as such:


1) Muhammad wanted you to treat...
2) [his] advice/commands
3) companions remember him giving...
4) as unversally and eternally applicable to all Muslims?
Clauses 1 and 3 are extraneous to the discussion. The former on the basis that it's not necessary for the Prophet to request something if God (in the Qur'an) requests it for him. The latter on the basis that it's currently irrelevant to the specific discussion. With 2 and 4 we are left with:

Do his commands apply universally and to all future generations of Muslims?

The answer, on the basis of the evidences I have explained for you previously (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=149677&postcount=35), is yes.


The post you directed to, while it may well be what you believe, doesn't serve to answer my questions at all. If you think it does, I think you've misunderstood what I'm trying to find out.The post (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=149693&postcount=37) conclusively answers the question I quoted. You over-simplified the argument by equating that sole verse ('Obey they Prophet') with the conlusion, whereas I made clear that this Qur'anic command is understood in the light of the other verses establishing that the religion has been perfected and is for all mankind.

[godf]

I've broken the clauses down as such:

Clauses 1 and 3 are extraneous to the discussion. The former on the basis that it's not necessary for the Prophet to request something if God (in the Qur'an) requests it for him. The latter on the basis that it's currently irrelevant to the specific discussion. With 2 and 4 we are left with:

Do his commands apply universally and to all future generations of Muslims?

This is the problem. You think my question as to why
2) [his] advice/commands
and
3) companions remember him giving
is reduced to "his commands"; is extraneous. I really am interested in why this is done - it's not irrelevant to me!



The post (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=149693&postcount=37) conclusively answers the question I quoted. You over-simplified the argument by equating that sole verse ('Obey they Prophet') with the conlusion, whereas I made clear that this Qur'anic command is understood in the light of the other verses establishing that the religion has been perfected and is for all mankind.

I addressed your use of the word perfection above. I’ll wait for your reply to that before going further.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

This is the problem. You think my question as to why
2) [his] advice/commands
and
3) companions remember him giving
is reduced to "his commands"; is extraneous. I really am interested in why this is done - it's not irrelevant to me!

The recording of commands/prohibitions and their status in Islamic thought are two distinctly separate issues. If you want to discuss the authenticity of hadith, you've been asking the wrong questions entirely.


I addressed your use of the word perfection above. I’ll wait for your reply to that before going further.I'd meant the hence as a summative conclusion. A law being perfect means by definition that it requires no amendment. A law being for "all of mankind" means that it is universal. Similarly, the command to 'Obey the Prophet' and all the other Islamic laws need no amendment as perfection was announced, and they are universal. "O you who believe" refers to all Muslims, including the ones living today.

[godf]

The recording of commands/prohibitions and their status in Islamic thought are two distinctly separate issues. If you want to discuss the authenticity of hadith, you've been asking the wrong questions entirely.

I wanted to know 'Did Muhammad ask for the Hadeeth to be written down and treated as eternal laws?' That's what I asked. It may well require reference to matters that are seen as distinct in Islamic thought. I made no assumption about that matter one way of the other.

I'd meant the hence as a summative conclusion. A law being perfect means by definition that it requires no amendment. A law being for "all of mankind" means that it is universal. Similarly, the command to 'Obey the Prophet' and all the other Islamic laws need no amendment as perfection was announced, and they are universal. "O you who believe" refers to all Muslims, including the ones living today.

A law can be perfect, yet still be tied to the circumstances it was created for. When we’re living in such a changeable world, much specific advice would need to be changeable in order to be accurate.

Should my wife travel to the shops without a male companion? In certain places, and at certain points of history, the ‘perfect’ answers would be very different.

Unless Muhammad clearly states he wants his advice/commands to be taken as eternal laws, it seems dangerous to assume they should be. Especially as he did not arrange for them to be written down and formalised as such during his life-time (I really do think “companions remember him giving” is important here too).

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

I wanted to know 'Did Muhammad ask for the Hadeeth to be written down and treated as eternal laws?' That's what I asked.


Indeed, and as I said, that's two questions in one (plurium interrogationum), presupposed by the notion that the Prophet needed to ask, as opposed to the presence of clear evidences in the Qur'an anyway. So the question itself is clearly flawed and loaded, and needs to be broken down for clarity's sake.

A law can be perfect, yet still be tied to the circumstances it was created for.I think you're clutching at straws. If that was the intended meaning, then it wouldn't proclaim itself to be for all of mankind.

Unless Muhammad clearly states he wants his advice/commands to be taken as eternal laws, it seems dangerous to assume they should be. It's enough that God in the Qur'an tells all Muslims to obey the Prophet, and that the Prophet has been sent to all of mankind, and that the religion has now been perfected. It's enough that the Prophet himself said he was sent to all of mankind, and told Muslims not to ignore what he commanded and forbade. There are no assumptions. I'm not convinced you've really understood the evidences (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=149677&postcount=35) provided. You're requesting a statement tailored to your specific demands, which is simply unreasonable given the weight of conclusive evidence already provided.

Especially as he did not arrange for them to be written down and formalised as such during his life-time.Companions did indeed write down the Prophet's statements, with his permission. Most notably was the case of Amr b. al-`Aas (Abi Dawud). It was standard practice for the companions to narrate to each other orally about what the Prophet commanded/forbade, which was also something encouraged by the Prophet himself (Muslim).

[godf]

Indeed, and as I said, that's two questions in one (plurium interrogationum), presupposed by the notion that the Prophet needed to ask, as opposed to the presence of clear evidences in the Qur'an anyway. So the question itself is clearly flawed and loaded, and needs to be broken down for clarity's sake.

Ahhh… I see. I’d included the contents of the Qu’ran as being a place where Muhammad could have ‘asked’, as the Qu’ran came through him. If there is a quote from the Qu’ran that says the Hadeeth should be written down and treated as eternal laws, I would certainly accept that. I think I’d made that clear earlier in the thread, perhaps before you started replying though.

I think you're clutching at straws. If that was the intended meaning, then it wouldn't proclaim itself to be for all of mankind.

But again, this is assuming that all of the Hadeeth were intended to be commands for all of mankind, despite many of them not explicitly saying so.

It's enough that God in the Qur'an tells all Muslims to obey the Prophet, and that the Prophet has been sent to all of mankind, and that the religion has now been perfected. It's enough that the Prophet himself said he was sent to all of mankind, and told Muslims not to ignore what he commanded and forbade. There are no assumptions. I'm not convinced you've really understood the evidences (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=149677&postcount=35) provided. You're requesting a statement tailored to your specific demands, which is simply unreasonable given the weight of conclusive evidence already provided.

Muhammad should be obeyed.
Muhammad’s been sent for all mankind.
The religion has now been perfected.
Muslims should not ignore what he commanded and forbade.

From that, you assume a command to treat the Hadeeth as eternal and universal laws?

Children should obey their parents, but when they’re told to get in the bath, that doesn’t mean forever... even if telling them to get in the bath is perfect advice. I don’t see that these statements can be taken to show that the Hadeeth should be treated as eternal laws. I don’t really understand how you can think they do.

I’m also interested by “Muslims should not ignore what he commanded and forbade”, which is quite different from “Muslims should always do as he commanded and forbade”. Certainly, if there was any clear statement that what has become the Hadeeth should all be seen as explicit commands and an integral part of ‘the religion’, that would provide a reasonably strong basis for treating the Hadeeth as they now are (if you think you know of such quotes, I’d love to see them); but even then, ‘not ignoring’ could well be taken to mean ‘pay heed to, and take account of’. Perhaps I only mention this as it is so close to something I’d mentioned a few pages back, and am surprised to see it backed up by scripture.

Companions did indeed write down the Prophet's statements, with his permission. Most notably was the case of Amr b. al-`Aas (Abi Dawud). It was standard practice for the companions to narrate to each other orally about what the Prophet commanded/forbade, which was also something encouraged by the Prophet himself (Muslim).

This is quite different from a request to write them down and treat them as codified law!

If Muhammad had wanted the Hadeeth to be created and treated in the way they now are, he could have arranged and supervised their creation himself. Instead, he’d even restricted companions writing about him for the early part of his life – out of concern such writings could distract from the eternal message of the Qu’ran. Now some Islamic scholars say Hadeeth can abrogate the Qu’ran! Where are the quotes that say the Hadeeth should be treated as it is – or even created in the first place?

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

But again, this is assuming that all of the Hadeeth were intended to be commands for all of mankind, despite many of them not explicitly saying so.

The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, "I was sent to all of mankind," hence his commands and prohibitions apply to all of mankind.


Muhammad should be obeyed. (=All Muslims should obey Muhammad)
Muhammad’s been sent for all mankind.
The religion has now been perfected.
Muslims should not ignore what he commanded and forbade.
From that, it is clear that the Prophet's commands and prohibitions are universally applicable and apply to future generations of Muslims as well.

Children should obey their parents, but when they’re told to get in the bath, that doesn’t mean forever... Poor analogy. 'Get in the bath' is a common way of saying 'Have a bath.' Secondly, I'm presuming the parent would tell the child when to get out as well. Like I said, it's a poor analogy.


Certainly, if there was any clear statement that what has become the Hadeeth should all be seen as explicit commands and an integral part of ‘the religion’Again, Hadith are merely reports. Hadith are a source of law, along with the Qur'an. There are plenty of clear statements in the Qur'an commanding obedience to the Prophet (thus, it is indeed an integral part of the religion), whose commands and prohibitions are preserved in hadith literature.


This is quite different from a request to write them down and treat them as codified law!Why does the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) need to reiterate what God has said in no uncertain terms: "O you who believe, obey the Prophet." "If you obey him, you will be rightly guided." "Whoever disobeys him is misguided." "They can have no real faith until they make you [Muhammad] judge in all their affairs" "The only answer of the believers when the decree of God and His Prophet comes to them is 'We hear and obey'" "So take what the Prophet gives you, and abstain from what he forbids you" The companions were well aware that they had to obey what the Prophet commanded and forbade. That, after all this, you demand a "request to write them down and treat them as codified law" is absurd to me.

I’m also interested by “Muslims should not ignore what he commanded and forbade”, which is quite different from “Muslims should always do as he commanded and forbade”.This is purely semantics. Here is what the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, as I quoted before: "I do not want to see any one of you reclining on his couch and, when he hears of my instructions or prohibitions, saying 'I don’t accept it; we didn’t find any such thing in the Book of Allah.'"

Instead, he’d even restricted companions writing about him for the early part of his life – But he didn't forbid them from narrating about him. In fact, he told his companions to narrate from him, even during the early restriction.

out of concern such writings could distract from the eternal message of the Qu’ran.Nonsense. The intial restriction was so that the Prophet's words and Qur'anic text would be kept distinct and not accidently mistaken for one another. Once there was no danger of that, then permission was given for them to be written.

You're also contradicting yourself... if you assume the message of the Qur'an to be eternal, then why aren't the commands therein for all Muslims to obey the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), also eternal? I find your argument here a little duplicitous.

[alghayb]

May I highly recommend the below:

*'The Authority and Importance of the Sunnah' by Jamaal Al-Din M. Zarabozo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaal_al-Din_M._Zarabozo)

*'The Authority of Sunnah' by Muhammad Taqi Usmani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Taqi_Usmani)


Also see the articles:

Ahadeeth Myths (http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=434&section=indepth&subsection=Hadeeth)
and
Responses to Hadeeth Rejectors (http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/hadeeth_rejecters)

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

Godf, please read and if necessary re-read along with reflecting over the above articles whose links alghayb has posted, before you return to the discussion, in order that more futile circular arguments be avoided and the point not missed.

[godf]

May I highly recommend the below:

Also see the articles:

Ahadeeth Myths (http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=434&section=indepth&subsection=Hadeeth)
and
Responses to Hadeeth Rejectors (http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/hadeeth_rejecters)

Thanks.

The point raised by the first I was already aware of.

The second I occasionally found difficult to read due to my unfamiliarity with Islamic terms, but I feel I got most of it (I’m afraid my eye did occasionally glaze over).

eg "Write it for Abu Shaah": Is Abu Shaah a person? A concept?

Also, I was surprised at how clear-cut "‘Do not write down anything from me except the Qur’aan" is.

Actually - that whole article left me ever more surprised at the weight given to the Hadeeth than before.

Godf, please read and if necessary re-read along with reflecting over the above articles whose links alghayb has posted, before you return to the discussion, in order that more futile circular arguments be avoided and the point not missed.

I may have missed something in those articles, but I cannot see what. They seem utterly unconvincing. I recognise however, that I do not really have the level of cultural understanding required to fully appreciate much Islamic writing. That’s why I find forum discussions preferable. It’s far easier for me to come back and ask questions.

Before coming to this forum, I’d never expected to end up questioning why the Hadeeth is treated as it is – but all the reasons so far provided seem rather weak. I’m still open to the fact I may simply be misunderstanding something, but as this thread’s gone on, I feel that’s becoming increasingly unlikely. It’s all very interesting. It’s making me think I’d be interested to read a secular discussion of these issues too, to see how the emergence of the Hadeeth is viewed in academia. Does anyone have any idea? Do people here read much in the way of secular analysis of Islam?

The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, "I was sent to all of mankind," hence his commands and prohibitions apply to all of mankind.

The emphasis was meant to be on ‘commands’:

“this is assuming that all of the Hadeeth were intended to be COMMANDS for all of mankind, despite many of them not explicitly saying so.”

From that, it is clear that the Prophet's commands and prohibitions are universally applicable and apply to future generations of Muslims as well.

But much of the Hadeeth are not explicitly commands.

I’d the Hadeeth were based on the laws Muhammad had set out for Muslims, that were codified in his lifetime, in use during his lifetime, and punished as they now are during his lifetime – yet this does not seem to be the case. Even then I still don’t think the evidence presented here that he wanted them to be treated as eternal laws would be totally compelling – although you’d be on far better ground.

Poor analogy. 'Get in the bath' is a common way of saying 'Have a bath.' Secondly, I'm presuming the parent would tell the child when to get out as well. Like I said, it's a poor analogy.

Certainly a thoughtless analogy – yet still, I don’t think we could confidently assume the child will be told to get out. That the child should get out of the bath at some point in their lives, I think, would itself be assumed simply because the parent did not say “You must get into a bath forever”. That some commands are transitory is often taken for granted, yet the treatment of the Hadeeth does not seem to recognise this.

Again, Hadith are merely reports. Hadith are a source of law, along with the Qur'an. There are plenty of clear statements in the Qur'an commanding obedience to the Prophet (thus, it is indeed an integral part of the religion), whose commands and prohibitions are preserved in hadith literature.

I just don’t think the creation of the Hadeeth, and it’s treatment as eternal laws, can remotely be justified by the command to ‘Obey the Prophet’. Certainly, if Muhammad told you to do something, you should do it. That’s very different from, if Muhammad told you to do something, everyone should do it forever.

Why does the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) need to reiterate what God has said in no uncertain terms: "O you who believe, obey the Prophet." "If you obey him, you will be rightly guided." "Whoever disobeys him is misguided." "They can have no real faith until they make you [Muhammad] judge in all their affairs" "The only answer of the believers when the decree of God and His Prophet comes to them is 'We hear and obey'" "So take what the Prophet gives you, and abstain from what he forbids you" The companions were well aware that they had to obey what the Prophet commanded and forbade. That, after all this, you demand a "request to write them down and treat them as codified law" is absurd to me.

I tried to make it clear that if the was a clear command in the Qu’ran calling for the creation of the Hadeeth, and calling for Muslims to treat them as eternal laws, I would certainly accept that. Yet, no-one has been able to provide such a quote. I completely recognise that there is a command to obey Muhammad – I just don’t see how they can be assumed to require the creation of the Hadeeth and it’s current treatment. If Muhammad had commanded that the Hadeeth be created, that would be very different.

This is purely semantics. Here is what the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, as I quoted before: "I do not want to see any one of you reclining on his couch and, when he hears of my instructions or prohibitions, saying 'I don’t accept it; we didn’t find any such thing in the Book of Allah.'"

Isn’t that different again though? I’m not arguing that a clear instruction of command from Muhammad should have been disobeyed if it was not backed up by the Qu’ran. That seems a quite different subject.

But he didn't forbid them from narrating about him. In fact, he told his companions to narrate from him, even during the early restriction.

Nonsense. The intial restriction was so that the Prophet's words and Qur'anic text would be kept distinct and not accidently mistaken for one another. Once there was no danger of that, then permission was given for them to be written.

The point I was trying to make, was that Muhammad didn’t command the creation of the Hadeeth. If anything, he seemed wary of people writing of him in a way that could be misunderstood. If he’d wanted to Hadeeth to be created and treated as eternal laws, would he not have organised for their creation? Under his supervision, the chances of them being misunderstood or misused would certainly have been lower. Yet he did not do so.

You're also contradicting yourself... if you assume the message of the Qur'an to be eternal, then why aren't the commands therein for all Muslims to obey the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), also eternal? I find your argument here a little duplicitous.

The message for all Muslims to obey the Prophet could be eternal, without the Hadeeth being eternal. The assumption that Muhammad had wanted all of the Hadeeth to be treated as eternal seems poorly grounded. Just as the parents may not want their child to spend their lives in the bath, Muhammad seems not to have said Muslims should follow all of the Hadeeth as eternal law.




Also: I’ve deliberately changed from ‘Hadith’ to ‘Hadeeth’, because that’s what this board is called… yet I’m the only one using this spelling!! What’s going on here.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

Also, I was surprised at how clear-cut "‘Do not write down anything from me except the Qur’aan" is.

Yet, he simultaneously says "Narrate from me."


“this is assuming that all of the Hadeeth were intended to be COMMANDS for all of mankind, despite many of them not explicitly saying so.”A statement phrased in the imperative is obviously a command. I'm sure we've been through this before.

But much of the Hadeeth are not explicitly commands. The hadith are narratives about the Prophet. Within that there are numerous commands/ prohibitions issued by the Prophet.


Certainly a thoughtless analogy – yet still, I don’t think we could confidently assume the child will be told to get out.You missed my point. "Get in the bath" is a way of saying "Have a bath" - part of having a bath is getting in and getting out.

That some commands are transitory is often taken for granted, yet the treatment of the Hadeeth does not seem to recognise this.You wouldn't be in the best position to judge, as you don't seem very familiar with the principles of jurisprudence or the study of hadith.



I just don’t think the creation of the Hadeeth, and it’s treatment as eternal laws, can remotely be justified by the command to ‘Obey the Prophet’. Certainly, if Muhammad told you to do something, you should do it. That’s very different from, if Muhammad told you to do something, everyone should do it forever.If the Prophet obliged Muslims to do something, they should do it. As all Muslims are required to obey the Prophet, then the ruling applies to all Muslims. I've already shown that the Prophet's commands are universal and apply to future generations of Muslims as well.


I tried to make it clear that if the was a clear command in the Qu’ran calling for the creation of the Hadeeth, and calling for Muslims to treat them as eternal laws, I would certainly accept that. Again, you misunderstand what the meaning of 'hadith' is.

I’m not arguing that a clear instruction of command from Muhammad should have been disobeyed if it was not backed up by the Qu’ran. That seems a quite different subject.If a Muslim, any Muslim, receives a report containing a general command/prohibition from the Prophet then he must act upon it. This is a very simple principle established by the Qur'an.


The point I was trying to make, was that Muhammad didn’t command the creation of the Hadeeth. If anything, he seemed wary of people writing of him in a way that could be misunderstood. If he’d wanted to Hadeeth to be created and treated as eternal laws, would he not have organised for their creation? Under his supervision, the chances of them being misunderstood or misused would certainly have been lower. Yet he did not do so.

The message for all Muslims to obey the Prophet could be eternal, without the Hadeeth being eternal.The more you talk about hadith, the more I get the impression that you haven't quite grasped what a hadith is.

[alghayb]

I may have missed something in those articles, but I cannot see what. They seem utterly unconvincing.

The first book by Zarabozo I would highly recommend. I had the same issues as a revert as you and this book blew everything away. Any, from my former white nationalist and political activist background, it was rather everwhelmingly convincing.

[Nu7]

I don't understand what it is that godf has a problem with. Is it "Hadith" or "hadith collections" such as Sahih Al-Bukhari etc?

Hadith simply means narration, it does not have to be in written form. Yes, the Prophet (SAW) encouraged that ahadith (narrations) be transmitted from him.

Jazaak Allahu khayr brother ibn Abdul-Jabbar for your posts.

[Abdullah ibn Adam]

I don't understand what it is that godf has a problem with.


Godf's problem is that he loves to argue pointlessly, go around in circles, and then keep arguing even after you have made your point perfectly clear, because in reality he won't give up until you just say the same opinion that he has, in the exact wording that he wants from you.

[godf]

I’m afraid I’m having some trouble with my keyboard and mouse at the moment – so must apologise for the increase in typos over the last few posts. Hopefully you’ll be able to understand what I mean, even if I’m not going to win any English Language awards. I’ll try to proof read this post more thoroughly, but I’m sure errors will still slip by.

I don't understand what it is that godf has a problem with. Is it "Hadith" or "hadith collections" such as Sahih Al-Bukhari etc?

Hadith simply means narration, it does not have to be in written form. Yes, the Prophet (SAW) encouraged that ahadith (narrations) be transmitted from him.


My understanding was that there was a reasonable consensus (at least amongst Sunnis) as to what makes up the 'hadith' as if refers to Muhammad. And the Hadith in Muslim culture has gone on from being a narration of what is thought to have happened in Muhammad’s life, to be taken as a source of eternal laws, with the assumption being that Muhammad had intended every phrase murmered to be treated as an Islamic commandment - unless he made it clear this was not the case. I’d like to know why.

Again, my assumptions could well be wrong, in which case, I’d be very grateful if someone were to point out why.

Godf's problem is that he loves to argue pointlessly, go around in circles, and then keep arguing even after you have made your point perfectly clear, because in reality he won't give up until you just say the same opinion that he has, in the exact wording that he wants from you.[/QUOTE

That’s really not the case at all. But I do want to be in a position where I understand the ideas and arguments of others here. I don’t want to just throw up my hands, and assume that those whose beliefs I don’t understand are simply crazy. I have to admit, the last few pages of this thread have been rather slow, but I’m trying to move things on. I just don’t want to move foreword without having understood what’s come before.

[QUOTE=alghayb;150521]The first book by Zarabozo I would highly recommend. I had the same issues as a revert as you and this book blew everything away. Any, from my former white nationalist and political activist background, it was rather everwhelmingly convincing.

Thanks. I'll have a look in my local library when I'm next there. I'd been planning to have another look through their Islamic collection anyway. Admittedly, you coming from a white nationalistic background does not inspire any additional confidence!

A statement phrased in the imperative is obviously a command. I'm sure we've been through this before.

I’d disagree. Especially if the statement came in response to a query, rather than being part of a proclamation. Even more especially if we're dependant on the memories of others for gramatical context! Actually – I may continue this point further bellow.

The hadith are narratives about the Prophet. Within that there are numerous commands/ prohibitions issued by the Prophet.

That is what I’d thought.

You missed my point. "Get in the bath" is a way of saying "Have a bath" - part of having a bath is getting in and getting out.

That was rather my point too. That some commands are simply assumed to be temporary. Given that the Hadeeth were not created under Muhammad’s supervision, how can you be sure that he intended you to use them as they now are – as eternal and universal laws.

You wouldn't be in the best position to judge, as you don't seem very familiar with the principles of jurisprudence or the study of hadith. .

Indeed. Much of my understanding of the application of the Hadeeth has come from this forum. It seems people are quite happy to create commands from passages that are far from clear that this was their intent. I’m not sure if it’s just this forum, but there seems to be a hunger for subservience, a lust for commands. I’m afraid I’m struggling to remember many clear examples of this, and have not been reading many other threads over the last week or so. The fly dunking one seemed deeply peculiar, as does the whole Islamic attitude to modern finance. I’ll try to remember some more.

If the Prophet obliged Muslims to do something, they should do it. As all Muslims are required to obey the Prophet, then the ruling applies to all Muslims. I've already shown that the Prophet's commands are universal and apply to future generations of Muslims as well.

You’ve really not shown that he wanted all the commands assumed from the Hadeeth to be treated as eternal laws. If he had done, why did he not codify them during his own lifetime- why were these laws, now seen as vital to Islam, not collected under his supervision? Given that they’d changed during his lifetime, dependant on social context, is there any eplicit statement that they should now all be assumed to be eternal?

Again, you misunderstand what the meaning of 'hadith' is.

from :"I tried to make it clear that if the was a clear command in the Qu’ran calling for the creation of the Hadeeth, and calling for Muslims to treat them as eternal laws, I would certainly accept that."

Could you please correct my misunderstanding then. I don’t think I do understand what the above statement got wrong.

If a Muslim, any Muslim, receives a report containing a general command/prohibition from the Prophet then he must act upon it. This is a very simple principle established by the Qur'an.

But is the principle that everything Muhammad says should be treated as an eternal command, unless he clearly states otherwise, supported by the Qu’ran. It’s this assumption I do not understand, or so as supported my Muhammad or the Qu’ran.

The more you talk about hadith, the more I get the impression that you haven't quite grasped what a hadith is.

Could you reply more fully to this, as it may help thing move foreword:

"The point I was trying to make, was that Muhammad didn’t command the creation of the Hadeeth. If anything, he seemed wary of people writing of him in a way that could be misunderstood. If he’d wanted to Hadeeth to be created and treated as eternal laws, would he not have organised for their creation? Under his supervision, the chances of them being misunderstood or misused would certainly have been lower. Yet he did not do so.

The message for all Muslims to obey the Prophet could be eternal, without the Hadeeth being eternal."

Ta.

[alghayb]

Thanks. I'll have a look in my local library when I'm next there. I'd been planning to have another look through their Islamic collection anyway.

Good luck, I live in England and find that any bookstore that is not Muslim run is shockingly bad at distributing reference guides about a topic they profess to cater for. Might as well try Waterstones! LOL :)

Admittedly, you coming from a white nationalistic background does not inspire any additional confidence!


It wasn't meant too. I just wanted to let you know that this is the opinion and help I offer from someone that once used to write prolifically anti-Muslim articles. In that, I meant through independent study I came to see a different side and opinion and it was only through my former beliefs that I came to study Islam properly and deeply. I gave this reference about myself in conjunction with a book recommendation because those who know me know that I study profusely to get all opinions and references in order to make a sound, educated and unbiased opinion. Thus, through this criteria for my own personally Jihad to get a fundamentally balanced opinion on the subject of Ahadith and it's authority and origin I can highly recomend this book to put your mind at ease. Or, at least to start you on your own journey of serious study. Inshallah, this will I believe, from my heart, help you. :)

[godf]

It wasn't meant too. :)

And I hope my reply did not come accross as harsh. It's just I do not tend to associate white nationalists with those who pursue 'a sound, educated and unbiased opinion.'

[alghayb]

And I hope my reply did not come accross as harsh. It's just I do not tend to associate white nationalists with those who pursue 'a sound, educated and unbiased opinion.'

Not at all. :) Well, that is the media for you. I can tell you from experience that we (as I was then) don't all drag our knuckels and hate for hates sake. A prime example is Dr. David Ernest Duke Ph.D. (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=40584&postcount=3), a man I came to admire simply because of his 'sound, educated and unbiased opinion.'

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

Especially if the statement came in response to a query, rather than being part of a proclamation. Which is the reason there are established principles of jurisprudence and hadith analysis when deriving legal rulings.

Even more especially if we're dependant on the memories of others for gramatical context!
Red herring, as I'm sure you know.

That was rather my point too. That some commands are simply assumed to be temporary.Not at all. Your point was that a command could be temporary through implied reasoning, or "assumption". I said your analogy was poor, and the correct phrasing, "have a bath," by its very definition accounts for its temporary nature. No implying, no assumptions.

Given that the Hadeeth were not created under Muhammad’s supervision, how can you be sure that he intended you to use them as they now are – as eternal and universal laws.This is precisely why I think you're getting far too ahead of yourself when you talk about hadith. The very fact that the companions were transmitting to each other what the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said and did, with the Prophet fully aware of that and encouraging it ("Narrate from me"), meant they were transmitting "hadith". Anything anyone narrates about the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is a hadith. Not all of them have legal ramifications.

Could you please correct my misunderstanding then. I don’t think I do understand what the above statement got wrong.I shall do that below, insha Allah.

But is the principle that everything Muhammad says should be treated as an eternal command, unless he clearly states otherwise, supported by the Qu’ran. No, the principle established by the Qur'an is that all Muslims must obey whatever the Prophet commands or forbids. This is why the Prophet said "Narrate from me", so that people who didn't hear about his rulings would do so.



Could you reply more fully to this, as it may help thing move foreword:

"The point I was trying to make, was that Muhammad didn’t command the creation of the Hadeeth. If anything, he seemed wary of people writing of him in a way that could be misunderstood. If he’d wanted to Hadeeth to be created and treated as eternal laws, would he not have organised for their creation? Under his supervision, the chances of them being misunderstood or misused would certainly have been lower. Yet he did not do so.The message for all Muslims to obey the Prophet could be eternal, without the Hadeeth being eternal."Don't run before you can walk. You haven't really grasped what a hadith is at all, which is why these comments border on nonsensical. "Hadith" have existed so long as man has been able to communicate. "Hadith" about the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) would have started since the day he was born, ever since people started talking about him. God says in the Qur'an, "Has the hadith of Moses reached you?", referring to the story of Moses. So every time you talk about the "creation of Hadeeth", you fundamentally misunderstand the subject at hand.

[godf]

I'm afraid my PC troubles may prevent me quoting you – but it should be clear what points I’m replying too.

I understand that ‘hadith’ can have a wider meaning than the one I’ve been using in this thread. But equally, people on this board often seem to use it as short-hand for the accepted Islamic narrative of Muhammad’s life. That is how I am using the term anyway. When I talk of the creation of the Hadeeth, I mean the time when the Hadeeth of Muhammad’s life was codified.

I still think this could be a useful summary for you to reply to:

"The point I was trying to make, was that Muhammad didn’t command the creation of the Hadeeth. If anything, he seemed wary of people writing of him in a way that could be misunderstood. If he’d wanted to Hadeeth to be created and treated as eternal laws, would he not have organised for their creation? Under his supervision, the chances of them being misunderstood or misused would certainly have been lower. Yet he did not do so. The message for all Muslims to obey the Prophet could be eternal, without the Hadeeth being eternal." Ahh… I see why you think I was confused. I’d meant ‘Hadeeth being eternal’ as in all of the laws and regulations derived from Muhammad’s Hadeeth. You may have to excuse my occasional misuse of terms I’m unfamiliar with.

I really do think the fact that Muhammad did not supervise this creation throws doubt onto whether he wanted it to be treated as it now is. I do not think this is a trivial red herring.

You saying the imperative ‘Get in the bath’ can also be phrased as ‘Have a bath’ surely illustrates the dangers of trying to create eternal laws from remembered conversations. Muhammad had not codified these laws himself, so the often imprecise nature of our conversational use of language could well lead to such misunderstanding in the Hadeeth.

[junaid123]

"The point I was trying to make, was that Muhammad didn’t command the creation of the Hadeeth. If anything, he seemed wary of people writing of him in a way that could be misunderstood. If he’d wanted to Hadeeth to be created and treated as eternal laws, would he not have organised for their creation?

he doesnt need to give command to follow hadihts as eternal laws, but allah commanded it : obay allah and obay prophet(sw)

53. An-Najm
In the Name of Allâh, the Most
Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
1. By the star when it goes down, (or vanishes).

2. Your companion (Muhammad SAW) has neither gone astray nor has erred.

3. Nor does he speak of (his own) desire.

Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah. If anyone turns away, we did not send you to them as their keeper. (Surat an-Nisa': 80) MY question is to you, if we wanna follow prophet(sw) how can we do that without hadiths?

so what he(sw) spoke was from allah, and allah said to follow him. so dont know where is the problem actuelly that u brother whole day walking around this circle.

obviously hadith is not same like quran, but hadiths are interpratation of quran.

[godf]

I understand Muslims thinking they must obey Muhammad, I just don’t understand why they think the Hadeeth must be treated as it is.

If Muhammad had wanted them to be treated in this way, he could have instituted and supervised their compilation during his own lifetime. Do we have any written records as to the laws that were codified under Muhammad’s rule? Surely they would be of greater import – yet even then, it would surely still be best to recognise many of the laws would have been affected by the technological limitations of the time. All manner of financial transactions would have been massively more dangerous at the time, yet that does not mean the restrictions that would have been sensible then will be sensible forever.

I think the trouble here is that lots of people see the current treatment of the Hadeeth as simply an extension of the command to 'Obey the Prophet', and the notion that the widom of Muhammad was divine wisdom. Yet to me, even accepting those two assumptions does very little to justify the current use of the hadeeth - as neither Muhammad nor the Qu'ran seem to have explicitly asked for the hadeeth to have been used in this way.