This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of hadith article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Criticism of hadith appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 June 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The article seems to suggest that parts of the Quran might have been lost in history, but that article gives the impression that there is no dispute regarding the original text. Could someone give further explanation of this apparent contradiction? Wnt ( talk) 06:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this article a bit slanted to the Quran alone movement (or claimed as cult by some muslims), and their rejection of hadith? 86.21.104.180 Faro0485 ( talk) 15:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I've taken out some of the many Hadith added today, but kept the most pertinent of them displaying the opposing viewpoint. But some, like "Among the prisoners of war taken at the Battle of Badr those who were literate were released after each taught ten Muslims how to read and write." aren't really talking about the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the Hadith so were removed as extraneous. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started this section to keep tabs of what articles link to this one. I've just added a link to it from all the most relevant articles I could think of, but my concern is that an article of this nature will be removed from the See also sections of other Islamic articles so it might be necessary to put them back up from time to time. I'll check What links here from time to time, God Willing, and keep it up to date. Of course, anyone is welcome to modify the list, but please keep it tidy and only list actual articles, other pages aren't really important here. Thanks, Abd r Raheem al Haq ( talk) 00:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Whilst many Muslims during Mohammed's lifetime, ostensibly including Muhammad himself, are actually reported in the Hadith to have forbidden people from recording hadith, Caliph Umar II is believed to have altered this position and instead encouraged the collection and codification of Mohammed's sayings into formal libraries approximately 200 years later.ref: Jewish Virtual Library, Hadith
(I've started this topic because I see a number of blatant inaccuracies that I plan to delete or replace one by one with referenced sources.)
I have read many hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim; I have found that many of these hadiths are from other religious material found in Jewish Talmud (particularly the Gemara), and literature in Zoroastrian myths. If it is feasible for me to add which hadiths are exacted from either the Talmud and Zoroastrian literature...I will be happy to oblige.
RekonDog (
talk) 05:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This article should be moved to "Historicity of hadith" to better discuss both sides of the issue. Bless sins ( talk) 00:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not use the word "quranist". Nobody I see has ever used that word, other than a gay sect (Farouk A Peru´s sect), that constantly uses it, and since homophilia is forbidden in the Quran, it cannot be deemed serious. Instead "quran-alone" followers is often used. I corrected the article, and also corrected a few other things, and also added a link to my research. Peace Be With You.
Edit: 5 minutes later, the edit is reversed, for no sane reason. That is why wikipedia does not work. That might be why people have representative democracy. You should have suggestions for editing, with reason being the evaluator of information. Or else some lunatic might just edit things, in his very own world of nutcasedom.
And I am not going to spend time editing here as a researcher that did 10 years of research correcting things only for such a person to revert it. If you want to loose the best, keep ignoring this, and second rate is the best wikipedia will ever be.
I have deleted the following irrelevant information which has no place here
Anyone seeking to revert should provide arguments as to why these irrelevant things should be kept in the article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@ FreeatlastChitchat:,@ Drmies:, @ HyperGaruda:
The following structure would be better (and the material for it is already present.) It would fix the weight issues and is more logical. Scholars and their critiques should be placed in each category irregardless of their religious background:
Thanks. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 07:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
yea, that's weird! I had no idea pinging doesn't work if separated from signature, I'll try and remember that lol. And I see your point about the "logical/empirical" section standing separately. Here's a modification:
Philosophical is general enough to contain ethical/logical/empirical, and theological can contain purely dogmatic arguments... Or just avoid the subcategory and roll those directly under philosophical. Either one works. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
His blog is titled "Who Are the Moderate Muslims?" it ends with the words "There is no question that we must give Muslim moderates every tool they need to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists." So if @ Drmies and HyperGaruda can give their opinions about this matter we can lay it to rest, because as far as I can Code16 will not remove him or Hamlin, no matter what I say. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 11:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)While intelligent people can disagree about how "innocent" the theology of Islam is, a willingness to admit the obvious is a basic requirement of religious moderation. Any Muslim who will not concede that there is a death-cult forming in the Muslim world, is either part of that cult, or an obscurantist -- not a religious moderate. How will Muslim moderates view women and women's rights? They will feel what any person who is reasonably free of medieval dogmatism now feels. Equal rights for women is not even a question worthy of discussion among religious moderates, and it is not a subject about which moderate Muslims will have the slightest caveat. Anyone who believes that men should determine how women dress, or whether they receive medical attention, marry, divorce, practice contraception, or do anything else with their minds and bodies is not a religious moderate. He (or she) is a religious demagogue on a collision course with modernity.According to a literalist reading of the hadith (the literature that recounts the sayings and the actions of the Prophet) if a Muslim decides that he no longer wants to be a Muslim, he should be put to death. If anyone ventures the opinion that the Koran is a mediocre book of religious fiction or that Muhammad was a schizophrenic, he should also be killed. It should go without saying that a desire to kill people for imaginary crimes like apostasy and blasphemy is not an expression of religious moderation. A moderate Muslim will see no problem with another Muslim deciding to become a Christian, or a Jew, or an atheist. The essence of religious moderation is the understanding that a person should be free to interpret the data of the universe for himself, without fearing that he will be murdered for reaching an unpopular conclusion. We should note that this is a standard of enlightened tolerance that not even the former folk-singer Cat Stevens (now Yosuf Islam) could muster in response to the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses:
What I'm reading in Harris' blog, is criticism on some of the rules in Islam and not on the hadith per se. The Hamlin quote seems fabricated or at least "rephrased", because I cannot find it in
his book. A couple of
pages later, something close to the quote is stated: It [Mussulman law] is founded upon various traditions and commentaries, and is no part of the Koran.
, but like Harris' blog, it is more like criticism on the shari'ah rather than on hadiths. -
HyperGaruda (
talk) 13:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
cӨde1+6 TP 23:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
criticism of the hadith is fundamental to islam and history confirms this, excluding criticism of the hadith from the main islam article can only be described as religious bias and political pandering to the hadith hardliners, which should not be allowed to pervade any neutral presentation of a broad religion such as islam. i propose a summary of hadith criticism and its sources should be included in the main islam article's 'criticism' section. The5thForce ( talk) 20:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Background: An article entitled Debate on the Hadith was created on 15 December 2015 and a speedy delete request was placed on it two days later. [1] This was denied with the comment "seems to contain additional material--not obviously duplicative enough for speedy. Consider a merge" [2] The person requesting deletion then converted the article into a redirect to the present article with the comment "merger" with a rationale at Talk:Debate on the Hadith#Merger, but did not move any of the contents. The article's creator asked for the "deletion" to be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 19. During the discussion the creator reverted the redirect. [3] The DRV request was closed "Disagreements about this are resolved through the normal editorial process". The redirect was restored by the person requesting deletion. [4] I then restored the article and joined the talk page discussion. Unfortunately only the person requesting deletion and myself continued the discussion and I have been asked to revert my recreation of the article. Because I have absolutely no background knowledge of this topic I have no idea of what the article's status should be.
To be resolved: Should there be an article Debate on the Hadith (or similar)? If so should it have a different title? If not, should there be a merge of some of its contents here or should there merely be a redirect here? Maybe the article should be completely deleted. Thincat ( talk) 09:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Drmies, sir I noticed some key parts were missing when FreeatlastChitchat "condensed" the material from Hallaq. This particular material that he subtracted, I think, is very relevant to the subject matter. I've re-added the parts, and will be willing to reduce the sentence count further. But the actual content/research of the author is very valid content that I think deserves to be here. I think that FreeatlastChitchat's selection of the material is going a bit far. I'll also ping Malik Shabazz for expert opinion as you originally suggest, I hear that he's active again. cӨde1+6 TP 07:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Will do sir, below are the two relevant Diffs, including the original Hadith page edit. The content in contention is sourced from Wael Hallaq. It's clear that I have significantly condensed it (from around 600 words, to 300, including citation links etc.) So I think that the consensus is met (which was to condense material sourced from Hallaq.)
Current dispute
Original diff from November, which includes Hallaq's content restored by admin following FreeatlastChitchat's deletions
cӨde1+6 TP 21:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
My rationale is as follows. Hallaq is basically criticising about a so called mutawatir hadith But according to Hallaq; Salah himself wrote that this theory is Fringe and acknowledged that this kind of definition of mutawatir is not present in the repertoire of traditionists. Ibn-e-Salah's view was fringe even in his own time and many muslims were against it and called it radi aka garbage. Hallaq is arguing against a Fringe theory that was considered Fringe at its time and trying to browbeat someone. Even though Hallaq is a scholar this kind of discussion has no place here. This is a very old discussion which discusses a fringe theory. Hadith terminology#Mutawatir shows that mutawatir has never been used in this sense since Salah. Therefore it is a WP:FRINGE theory which should be given space, but not that much space. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 04:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)The problem; however, which Ibn al-Salah was trying to solve is the rarity of this class of hadith which qualify as "mutawatir." This class of hadith is "virtually non existent". Such hadiths are so rare that Ibn al-Salah could only find a single hadith which met the mutawatir criteria in his own search. Ironically, that hadith found by Ibn al-Salah, which is narrated by a hundred independent sources, quotes the Prophet warning others against the fabrication of hadith. Later Islamic legal theoreticians, like Ansari and Abd al-Shakur managed to find a few additional cases of mutawatir hadith. Still, the total number of mutawatir narrations was still "short of even eight or nine." This small set also does not include the hadith which alleges the infallibility of Muslim Community's consensus, which is classed as "tawatur ma nawi", a lower probabilistic reliability rating than mutawatir.
So apparently, FreeatlastChitchat thinks that Ibn al-Salah and his Introduction to the Science of Hadith is "fringe" (LOL.) This is funnier than his original accusation that I was "misrepresenting" Hallaq (turned out, he just misunderstood the terminology Hallaq was using.) There is a reason why Hallaq discusses him at length, and everyone can read the main articles to find out why. Also Mutawatir is STANDARD terminology, see Hadith terminology. So when FreeatlastChitchat says: "Hallaq is basically criticising about a so called mutawatir hadith" he is implying that this classification isn't real (when it obviously is.) And finally, why is this class of hadith significant? Well because of the following definition, stated on the main Hadith Terminology article: "A successive narration is one conveyed by narrators so numerous that it is not conceivable that they have agreed upon an untruth thus being accepted as unquestionable in its veracity." So it is the most authentic class of hadith and yet, it is "virtually non-existent." Therefore, obviously, this has relevance for the section entitled "Authenticity". cӨde1+6 TP 12:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, Ibn al-Salah argued that if a hadith is present in both the Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim collections, then it can be considered "certain knowledge," merely based on the fact that both of these collections are regarded by Muslims has authoritative........The problem; however, which Ibn al-Salah was trying to solve is the rarity of this class of hadith which qualify as "mutawatir."
Now this is a Fringe definition, no one else regards this definition of mutawatir to be true, rather they define it as a hadith which has a lot of narrators, Halla has himself given this definition and pointed out that the number required is kinda arbitrary. The difference is simple. The Widely used definition of mutawatir is a hadith which is narrated by lots of people. Lets say 5 is the number required. Now when 5 people narrate anything it will be a mutawatir, even if only Bukhari has written about it. The definition used by Salah, which is fringe, says that any hadith which occurs in both Bukhari and muslim, which is usually called "sahi", will be called mutawatir. Salah himself acknowledges that his theory is Fringe and he was reprimanded for it. The classification is real, just the definition used by Salah is a new Fringe definition that did not catch on. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 03:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I've read the paper; it is quite interesting. Now about your dispute, here is a proposal that 1) condenses the current two Hallaq paragraphs significantly, 2) ditches the undue weight on Ibn al-Salah's "Bukhari+Muslim=certainty" theory, and 3) keeps the main point that Code16 wants to see: mutawatir hadiths are the most reliable ones, but are also extremely rare. I have also toned down the weasels/POV wordings a bit:
Wael Hallaq has argued that the most central problem associated with Prophetic hadith has been their authenticity. From the legal theoretician's point of view, hadiths can be divided into
mutawatir and
ahad: hadiths transmitted via numerous
chains of narrators and the other hadiths respectively. The medieval scholar
Al-Nawawi argued that any non-mutawatir hadith is only probable and can not reach the level of certainty. Scholars of Islam like
Ibn al-Salah (d. 1245 CE), al-Ansari (d. 1707 CE), and Ibn ‘Abd al-Shakur (d. 1810 CE) could however only find a few hadiths that fell into the mutawatir category, totalling to "no more than eight or nine."
[1]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |registration=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
Pinging Code16 and FreeatlastChitchat to see if they agree. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The "Orthodox response" appears to be suddenly controversial. The article shouldn't be a he-said-she-said collection of contradictary opinions; but that doesn't justify simply removing the section and all it's content William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
[copied from my (Louis P.'s) user talk page ]
There is a difference between "wajib" (obligatory) and "sunnah" (recommended). Washing one time is obligatory (wajib) , more than one time is recommended (sunna). That distinction is known from many other similar topics like the prayer. In some narratinos a prayer is done and in some its not. Its not a contradiction because it just means some prayers are Sunnah and some Wajib.So there is also no contraction in terms of being an example because that was common method to show, that something is obligatory or not. The same rule applies for ablution.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/226422/the-obligatory-parts-and-sunnahs-of-wudoo
Whitemonth ( talk) 22:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit 23.06.2020:
From Wikepedia "a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility or incongruity between two or more propositions". Thats not the case because its logically possible to wash my hands once and another time thrice. But there is another wrong preassumption, that everything in the hadith is always obligatory (Any source for that ?). There is difference between "saying" and "actions". If the prophet would SAY different things, it could be ambigous for the follower but ACTIONS are not the same. For example there are narrations where he is riding a camel , in another narrations he is riding a horse and in some he is walking. These are not cotradicting each other. It cant be said, its not clear what Muslims should do becaue all of them are allowed. In some narrations the prophet prays in certain times and in some not. These are not contradicting because both are allowed if the prayer is not obligatory. Contradicton would appear if he ORDERS different rulings. I hope its more clear
And what the reliability of the website "Uncorrupted Islam", the author is unknwon and there is no explanationn from credible person to the narrations. Looks like what christian missionaries do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemonth ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit: wikiislam is not a reliable source and anyway is just citing the hadith (like the second source) without any scholarly opion how they understood this narrations or if they saw contradictions. How I said before , there is a difference between ORDERS and just ACTIONS. Only because there are narrations that the prophet sometimes walked and sometimes was riding a camel, there is no contradiction between them. Most of the narrations are like that and there was no contradcition seen. Maybe you have reliable sources where scholars saw contradictions between them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemonth ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
RIPMamba
Debresser
Drmies (admin),
HyperGaruda @
RIPMamba: @
Debresser: @
Drmies: (admin), @
HyperGaruda:
Greetings all you regular participants. (Sorry if I missed anyone)
I would like to propose a change in the structure of the article. Here's why:
I'll quote from the lede:
But that's the last you hear of this traditional Islamic hadith studies in the article except for how it missed disqualifying hadith that should not be sahih. It seems to me that traditional Islamic hadith studies is hadith criticism -- the original hadith criticism -- and the article should say something about it.
Another intro feature I think is lacking is why hadith and criticism of it is important.
To that end I have written a couple of sections for the article, that would follow the lede and precede the
Arguments for existence of false hadith section. Since that section starts out
and since sahih hadith are hadith approved by traditional Islamic hadith studies, I think the flow of the article would be enhanced not damaged.
A number of scholars, (including Joseph Schacht, Daniel W. Brown) have credited the overriding importance of hadith of Muhammad in Islamic law/fiqh to second century scholar al-Shāfiʿī (767–820 CE), [2] founder of the Shafi'i school of fiqh, who wrote/preached sometime around a century and a half after the death of Muhammad.
Prior to Shafi'i, Islamic legal scholars had regarded Prophetic sunnah as only one source of law among many -- other sources being the traditions of other caliphs and of leading early Muslims, [3](these legal pragmatist scholars were known as ahl al-raʿy); or rejected the authority of hadith because they thought there was no way to be absolutely certain about its authenticity (these speculative theologians were known as ahl al-kalām). [4]
But Al-Shafi‘i preached that hadiths
"from other persons are of no account in the face of a tradition from the Prophet, whether they confirm or contradict it; if the other persons had been aware of the tradition from the Prophet, they would have followed it". [5] [6]
The fact that Shafi'i felt the need to continually insist on his point in his writing suggests (to Joseph Schacht) that he was not upbraiding the occasional deviant/heretic, but working to establish his doctrine as orthodoxy, something it had not yet become. [7]
Belief that Muslims must obey the Prophet and follow his sunnah comes from verses in the Quran such as 3:32, 5:92, 24:54, 64:12. [8] Hadith had been passed down by oral transmission until around the third century of Islam [9] and some questioned how closely they followed Muhammad's actual teachings and behavior in authenticity and spirit, but Al-Shafiʿi argued that Muslims must obey the hadith using a "simple proposition: having commanded believers to obey the Prophet, God must certainly have provided the means to do so." [10]
Al-Shāfiʿī thought hadith so important that even the Qurʾan was "to be interpreted in the light of traditions (i.e. hadith), and not vice versa", [11] [12] and that “the command of the Prophet is the command of God.” [13] [14]
Not only was Sunnah considered divine revelation ( wahy), and records of it (i.e. hadith) the basis of Islamic law ( Sharia), but the number of verses pertaining to law in the Quran are relatively few, while hadith give direction on everything from details of religious obligations (such as Ghusl or Wudu, ablutions [15] for salat prayer), to the correct forms of salutations, [16] and the importance of benevolence to slaves. [17] In the words of J.A.C. Brown, “the full systems of Islamic theology and law are not derived primarily from the Quran. Muhammad’s sunna was a second but far more detailed living scripture, and later Muslim scholars would thus often refer to the Prophet as `The Possessor of Two Revelations`”. [18]
"Criticism" of hadith in the sense of weeding out fraudulent accounts and establishing a core of authentic "sound" (sahih) hadiths -- was taken on by the classical Islamic science of hadith (ʻilm al-ḥadīth, also "hadith studies"). This science became a "mature system", [19] or entered its "final stage" [20] with the compilation of the classical collections of hadith in the third century of Islam, roughly a century after al-Shafiʿi's passing. [Note 1]
The establishment of this elaborate system of evaluating the authenticity of traditions science/discipline was important in Islam for a number of reasons: After the third century of Islam the triumph of Al-Shafiʿi's doctrine meant that the supreme importance of the Sunnah of the Prophet was undisputed. [21] The status of Hadith as primary sources of Islamic law gave them great power as "ideological" tools [22] [23] in political/theological conflicts. [9] But since hadith were transmitted orally over 100-150 years, [9] until the classic collections of hadith of third century of Islam were compiled, there was no written documentation to verify the chain of transmission of a hadith. [19] Forgery "took place on a massive scale" [24] which threatened to undermine hadith's divine legitimacy of reports of the Prophet. [Note 2]
The system of judging the authenticity (sihha) of hadith is based on three criteria in hadith studies:
These criteria in turn are based on other premises:
Evaluation was "almost exclusively" of the chain/ isnad of the hadith, and not the content ( matn). [Note 3]
The work of ʻilm al-ḥadīth criticism of hadith is found in major collections of hadith ( Kutub al-Sittah, "The six books") of the third century of Islam. Perhaps the most famous collector of hadith and practitioner of ʻilm al-ḥadīth, and author of one of the six books, Muhammad al-Bukhari, reportedly devoted 16 years to sifting nearly 600,000 narrations, [30] and eliminated all but approximately 7400 (this includes different versions of the same report and repetitions of the same report with different isnad, i.e. chains of transmitters). [30]
I'm sure there are other parts of the article that will need to be rewritten if these changes are made. Hope you think this will be an improvement and will give me some feedback. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 17:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Schacht-OoMJ-1959-152
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EMHME-80
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I removed a huge chunk of that was just references to wordpress blogs and random youtubers. And left whatever was cited to academic sources. However many of thee stuff is all over the place, not in the correct sections. Western Oriental Textual Criticism is mixed in with Islamic Textual Criticism, then many of those things are redundantly repeated word for word or paraphrased in other sections. I believe someone who actually academically specializes in this topic should rewrite it. Zegoy ( talk) 01:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
MENJ-stoning-monkeys
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The Statistics about the Hadith Rejection by Bukhari & Muslim
Name of Narrator No of Hadiths In Saheh Bukhari In Saheh Muslim Bukhari rejected how may Hadith Muslim rejected how many hadith Abu Huraira RA 5374 1004 1121 4370 4253 Ayesha Siddequa RA 2200+ 741 503 1459 1697 Abu Saeed Al Khadri RA 1170 180 204 990 966 Anas bin Malik RA 2286 792 558 1494 1728 Abdullah bin Abbas RA 1660 321 594 1339 1066 Abdullah bin Umer RA 1630 714 586 916 1044 Jabir bin Abdullah RA 1540 281 445 1259 1095
I collected this data from authentic Books about Hadith Compilers, Introduction to Hadith and Asool e Hadith of very famous, renowned Sheikh ul Hadiths from Salfi, Ahl e Hadith ,Deoband ,Ahl e Sunnah wal Jamat factions.
The following was
deleted 9 June 2021 by 2601:40d:4281:8670:e54e:5f02:cc84:9582 (talk):
Being a munkir-i-hadith or denier of hadith, is considered an act of unbelief by many Muslims.
[1]
Here is the edit summary for the deletion:
(Removed incorrect line. The source quoted for this line only says that rejecting Hadith while believing it to be the true words of Mohammed would be disbelief, but of course the topic of Hadith criticism and the wording of the deleted line is referring to a situation in which someone does not believe a Hadith should be considered the words of Mohammed, a situation that the source itself mentions would not be considered disbelief.)
Here is a quote from the citation in support on the deleted line: Allah, may He be exalted, has enjoined upon the believers complete submission to the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his hadith and rulings, to the extent that He, may He be glorified, swore by His divine self that whoever hears the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), then rejects them and does not accept them, has nothing to do with faith at all. [ https://islamqa.info/en/answers/115125/ruling-on-one-who-rejects-a-saheeh-hadith
I guess you can say whoever hears the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), then rejects them and does not accept them, ..., is a little ambiguous. Does the rejecter "reject Hadith while believing it to be the true words of Mohammed" (quote from the delete-er above) i.e. believe those words to be "the words of the Prophet"?; or do they hear what mainstream Muslims call a sahih hadith and reject it as something to obey?
In any case I put it to you that this article -- "Criticism of Hadith" -- includes both weeding out fraudulent hadith and criticism of what mainstream Muslims call a sahih hadith. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 21:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Louis P. Boog I would like to voice my agreement with the 2021 comment by @ Zegoy that this page needs a rewrite. Pogenplain ( talk) 17:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}}
template (see the
help page).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of hadith article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Criticism of hadith appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 June 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The article seems to suggest that parts of the Quran might have been lost in history, but that article gives the impression that there is no dispute regarding the original text. Could someone give further explanation of this apparent contradiction? Wnt ( talk) 06:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this article a bit slanted to the Quran alone movement (or claimed as cult by some muslims), and their rejection of hadith? 86.21.104.180 Faro0485 ( talk) 15:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I've taken out some of the many Hadith added today, but kept the most pertinent of them displaying the opposing viewpoint. But some, like "Among the prisoners of war taken at the Battle of Badr those who were literate were released after each taught ten Muslims how to read and write." aren't really talking about the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the Hadith so were removed as extraneous. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started this section to keep tabs of what articles link to this one. I've just added a link to it from all the most relevant articles I could think of, but my concern is that an article of this nature will be removed from the See also sections of other Islamic articles so it might be necessary to put them back up from time to time. I'll check What links here from time to time, God Willing, and keep it up to date. Of course, anyone is welcome to modify the list, but please keep it tidy and only list actual articles, other pages aren't really important here. Thanks, Abd r Raheem al Haq ( talk) 00:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Whilst many Muslims during Mohammed's lifetime, ostensibly including Muhammad himself, are actually reported in the Hadith to have forbidden people from recording hadith, Caliph Umar II is believed to have altered this position and instead encouraged the collection and codification of Mohammed's sayings into formal libraries approximately 200 years later.ref: Jewish Virtual Library, Hadith
(I've started this topic because I see a number of blatant inaccuracies that I plan to delete or replace one by one with referenced sources.)
I have read many hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim; I have found that many of these hadiths are from other religious material found in Jewish Talmud (particularly the Gemara), and literature in Zoroastrian myths. If it is feasible for me to add which hadiths are exacted from either the Talmud and Zoroastrian literature...I will be happy to oblige.
RekonDog (
talk) 05:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This article should be moved to "Historicity of hadith" to better discuss both sides of the issue. Bless sins ( talk) 00:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not use the word "quranist". Nobody I see has ever used that word, other than a gay sect (Farouk A Peru´s sect), that constantly uses it, and since homophilia is forbidden in the Quran, it cannot be deemed serious. Instead "quran-alone" followers is often used. I corrected the article, and also corrected a few other things, and also added a link to my research. Peace Be With You.
Edit: 5 minutes later, the edit is reversed, for no sane reason. That is why wikipedia does not work. That might be why people have representative democracy. You should have suggestions for editing, with reason being the evaluator of information. Or else some lunatic might just edit things, in his very own world of nutcasedom.
And I am not going to spend time editing here as a researcher that did 10 years of research correcting things only for such a person to revert it. If you want to loose the best, keep ignoring this, and second rate is the best wikipedia will ever be.
I have deleted the following irrelevant information which has no place here
Anyone seeking to revert should provide arguments as to why these irrelevant things should be kept in the article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@ FreeatlastChitchat:,@ Drmies:, @ HyperGaruda:
The following structure would be better (and the material for it is already present.) It would fix the weight issues and is more logical. Scholars and their critiques should be placed in each category irregardless of their religious background:
Thanks. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 07:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
yea, that's weird! I had no idea pinging doesn't work if separated from signature, I'll try and remember that lol. And I see your point about the "logical/empirical" section standing separately. Here's a modification:
Philosophical is general enough to contain ethical/logical/empirical, and theological can contain purely dogmatic arguments... Or just avoid the subcategory and roll those directly under philosophical. Either one works. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
His blog is titled "Who Are the Moderate Muslims?" it ends with the words "There is no question that we must give Muslim moderates every tool they need to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists." So if @ Drmies and HyperGaruda can give their opinions about this matter we can lay it to rest, because as far as I can Code16 will not remove him or Hamlin, no matter what I say. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 11:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)While intelligent people can disagree about how "innocent" the theology of Islam is, a willingness to admit the obvious is a basic requirement of religious moderation. Any Muslim who will not concede that there is a death-cult forming in the Muslim world, is either part of that cult, or an obscurantist -- not a religious moderate. How will Muslim moderates view women and women's rights? They will feel what any person who is reasonably free of medieval dogmatism now feels. Equal rights for women is not even a question worthy of discussion among religious moderates, and it is not a subject about which moderate Muslims will have the slightest caveat. Anyone who believes that men should determine how women dress, or whether they receive medical attention, marry, divorce, practice contraception, or do anything else with their minds and bodies is not a religious moderate. He (or she) is a religious demagogue on a collision course with modernity.According to a literalist reading of the hadith (the literature that recounts the sayings and the actions of the Prophet) if a Muslim decides that he no longer wants to be a Muslim, he should be put to death. If anyone ventures the opinion that the Koran is a mediocre book of religious fiction or that Muhammad was a schizophrenic, he should also be killed. It should go without saying that a desire to kill people for imaginary crimes like apostasy and blasphemy is not an expression of religious moderation. A moderate Muslim will see no problem with another Muslim deciding to become a Christian, or a Jew, or an atheist. The essence of religious moderation is the understanding that a person should be free to interpret the data of the universe for himself, without fearing that he will be murdered for reaching an unpopular conclusion. We should note that this is a standard of enlightened tolerance that not even the former folk-singer Cat Stevens (now Yosuf Islam) could muster in response to the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses:
What I'm reading in Harris' blog, is criticism on some of the rules in Islam and not on the hadith per se. The Hamlin quote seems fabricated or at least "rephrased", because I cannot find it in
his book. A couple of
pages later, something close to the quote is stated: It [Mussulman law] is founded upon various traditions and commentaries, and is no part of the Koran.
, but like Harris' blog, it is more like criticism on the shari'ah rather than on hadiths. -
HyperGaruda (
talk) 13:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
cӨde1+6 TP 23:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
criticism of the hadith is fundamental to islam and history confirms this, excluding criticism of the hadith from the main islam article can only be described as religious bias and political pandering to the hadith hardliners, which should not be allowed to pervade any neutral presentation of a broad religion such as islam. i propose a summary of hadith criticism and its sources should be included in the main islam article's 'criticism' section. The5thForce ( talk) 20:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Background: An article entitled Debate on the Hadith was created on 15 December 2015 and a speedy delete request was placed on it two days later. [1] This was denied with the comment "seems to contain additional material--not obviously duplicative enough for speedy. Consider a merge" [2] The person requesting deletion then converted the article into a redirect to the present article with the comment "merger" with a rationale at Talk:Debate on the Hadith#Merger, but did not move any of the contents. The article's creator asked for the "deletion" to be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 19. During the discussion the creator reverted the redirect. [3] The DRV request was closed "Disagreements about this are resolved through the normal editorial process". The redirect was restored by the person requesting deletion. [4] I then restored the article and joined the talk page discussion. Unfortunately only the person requesting deletion and myself continued the discussion and I have been asked to revert my recreation of the article. Because I have absolutely no background knowledge of this topic I have no idea of what the article's status should be.
To be resolved: Should there be an article Debate on the Hadith (or similar)? If so should it have a different title? If not, should there be a merge of some of its contents here or should there merely be a redirect here? Maybe the article should be completely deleted. Thincat ( talk) 09:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Drmies, sir I noticed some key parts were missing when FreeatlastChitchat "condensed" the material from Hallaq. This particular material that he subtracted, I think, is very relevant to the subject matter. I've re-added the parts, and will be willing to reduce the sentence count further. But the actual content/research of the author is very valid content that I think deserves to be here. I think that FreeatlastChitchat's selection of the material is going a bit far. I'll also ping Malik Shabazz for expert opinion as you originally suggest, I hear that he's active again. cӨde1+6 TP 07:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Will do sir, below are the two relevant Diffs, including the original Hadith page edit. The content in contention is sourced from Wael Hallaq. It's clear that I have significantly condensed it (from around 600 words, to 300, including citation links etc.) So I think that the consensus is met (which was to condense material sourced from Hallaq.)
Current dispute
Original diff from November, which includes Hallaq's content restored by admin following FreeatlastChitchat's deletions
cӨde1+6 TP 21:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
My rationale is as follows. Hallaq is basically criticising about a so called mutawatir hadith But according to Hallaq; Salah himself wrote that this theory is Fringe and acknowledged that this kind of definition of mutawatir is not present in the repertoire of traditionists. Ibn-e-Salah's view was fringe even in his own time and many muslims were against it and called it radi aka garbage. Hallaq is arguing against a Fringe theory that was considered Fringe at its time and trying to browbeat someone. Even though Hallaq is a scholar this kind of discussion has no place here. This is a very old discussion which discusses a fringe theory. Hadith terminology#Mutawatir shows that mutawatir has never been used in this sense since Salah. Therefore it is a WP:FRINGE theory which should be given space, but not that much space. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 04:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)The problem; however, which Ibn al-Salah was trying to solve is the rarity of this class of hadith which qualify as "mutawatir." This class of hadith is "virtually non existent". Such hadiths are so rare that Ibn al-Salah could only find a single hadith which met the mutawatir criteria in his own search. Ironically, that hadith found by Ibn al-Salah, which is narrated by a hundred independent sources, quotes the Prophet warning others against the fabrication of hadith. Later Islamic legal theoreticians, like Ansari and Abd al-Shakur managed to find a few additional cases of mutawatir hadith. Still, the total number of mutawatir narrations was still "short of even eight or nine." This small set also does not include the hadith which alleges the infallibility of Muslim Community's consensus, which is classed as "tawatur ma nawi", a lower probabilistic reliability rating than mutawatir.
So apparently, FreeatlastChitchat thinks that Ibn al-Salah and his Introduction to the Science of Hadith is "fringe" (LOL.) This is funnier than his original accusation that I was "misrepresenting" Hallaq (turned out, he just misunderstood the terminology Hallaq was using.) There is a reason why Hallaq discusses him at length, and everyone can read the main articles to find out why. Also Mutawatir is STANDARD terminology, see Hadith terminology. So when FreeatlastChitchat says: "Hallaq is basically criticising about a so called mutawatir hadith" he is implying that this classification isn't real (when it obviously is.) And finally, why is this class of hadith significant? Well because of the following definition, stated on the main Hadith Terminology article: "A successive narration is one conveyed by narrators so numerous that it is not conceivable that they have agreed upon an untruth thus being accepted as unquestionable in its veracity." So it is the most authentic class of hadith and yet, it is "virtually non-existent." Therefore, obviously, this has relevance for the section entitled "Authenticity". cӨde1+6 TP 12:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, Ibn al-Salah argued that if a hadith is present in both the Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim collections, then it can be considered "certain knowledge," merely based on the fact that both of these collections are regarded by Muslims has authoritative........The problem; however, which Ibn al-Salah was trying to solve is the rarity of this class of hadith which qualify as "mutawatir."
Now this is a Fringe definition, no one else regards this definition of mutawatir to be true, rather they define it as a hadith which has a lot of narrators, Halla has himself given this definition and pointed out that the number required is kinda arbitrary. The difference is simple. The Widely used definition of mutawatir is a hadith which is narrated by lots of people. Lets say 5 is the number required. Now when 5 people narrate anything it will be a mutawatir, even if only Bukhari has written about it. The definition used by Salah, which is fringe, says that any hadith which occurs in both Bukhari and muslim, which is usually called "sahi", will be called mutawatir. Salah himself acknowledges that his theory is Fringe and he was reprimanded for it. The classification is real, just the definition used by Salah is a new Fringe definition that did not catch on. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 03:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I've read the paper; it is quite interesting. Now about your dispute, here is a proposal that 1) condenses the current two Hallaq paragraphs significantly, 2) ditches the undue weight on Ibn al-Salah's "Bukhari+Muslim=certainty" theory, and 3) keeps the main point that Code16 wants to see: mutawatir hadiths are the most reliable ones, but are also extremely rare. I have also toned down the weasels/POV wordings a bit:
Wael Hallaq has argued that the most central problem associated with Prophetic hadith has been their authenticity. From the legal theoretician's point of view, hadiths can be divided into
mutawatir and
ahad: hadiths transmitted via numerous
chains of narrators and the other hadiths respectively. The medieval scholar
Al-Nawawi argued that any non-mutawatir hadith is only probable and can not reach the level of certainty. Scholars of Islam like
Ibn al-Salah (d. 1245 CE), al-Ansari (d. 1707 CE), and Ibn ‘Abd al-Shakur (d. 1810 CE) could however only find a few hadiths that fell into the mutawatir category, totalling to "no more than eight or nine."
[1]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |registration=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
Pinging Code16 and FreeatlastChitchat to see if they agree. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The "Orthodox response" appears to be suddenly controversial. The article shouldn't be a he-said-she-said collection of contradictary opinions; but that doesn't justify simply removing the section and all it's content William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
[copied from my (Louis P.'s) user talk page ]
There is a difference between "wajib" (obligatory) and "sunnah" (recommended). Washing one time is obligatory (wajib) , more than one time is recommended (sunna). That distinction is known from many other similar topics like the prayer. In some narratinos a prayer is done and in some its not. Its not a contradiction because it just means some prayers are Sunnah and some Wajib.So there is also no contraction in terms of being an example because that was common method to show, that something is obligatory or not. The same rule applies for ablution.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/226422/the-obligatory-parts-and-sunnahs-of-wudoo
Whitemonth ( talk) 22:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit 23.06.2020:
From Wikepedia "a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility or incongruity between two or more propositions". Thats not the case because its logically possible to wash my hands once and another time thrice. But there is another wrong preassumption, that everything in the hadith is always obligatory (Any source for that ?). There is difference between "saying" and "actions". If the prophet would SAY different things, it could be ambigous for the follower but ACTIONS are not the same. For example there are narrations where he is riding a camel , in another narrations he is riding a horse and in some he is walking. These are not cotradicting each other. It cant be said, its not clear what Muslims should do becaue all of them are allowed. In some narrations the prophet prays in certain times and in some not. These are not contradicting because both are allowed if the prayer is not obligatory. Contradicton would appear if he ORDERS different rulings. I hope its more clear
And what the reliability of the website "Uncorrupted Islam", the author is unknwon and there is no explanationn from credible person to the narrations. Looks like what christian missionaries do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemonth ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit: wikiislam is not a reliable source and anyway is just citing the hadith (like the second source) without any scholarly opion how they understood this narrations or if they saw contradictions. How I said before , there is a difference between ORDERS and just ACTIONS. Only because there are narrations that the prophet sometimes walked and sometimes was riding a camel, there is no contradiction between them. Most of the narrations are like that and there was no contradcition seen. Maybe you have reliable sources where scholars saw contradictions between them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemonth ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
RIPMamba
Debresser
Drmies (admin),
HyperGaruda @
RIPMamba: @
Debresser: @
Drmies: (admin), @
HyperGaruda:
Greetings all you regular participants. (Sorry if I missed anyone)
I would like to propose a change in the structure of the article. Here's why:
I'll quote from the lede:
But that's the last you hear of this traditional Islamic hadith studies in the article except for how it missed disqualifying hadith that should not be sahih. It seems to me that traditional Islamic hadith studies is hadith criticism -- the original hadith criticism -- and the article should say something about it.
Another intro feature I think is lacking is why hadith and criticism of it is important.
To that end I have written a couple of sections for the article, that would follow the lede and precede the
Arguments for existence of false hadith section. Since that section starts out
and since sahih hadith are hadith approved by traditional Islamic hadith studies, I think the flow of the article would be enhanced not damaged.
A number of scholars, (including Joseph Schacht, Daniel W. Brown) have credited the overriding importance of hadith of Muhammad in Islamic law/fiqh to second century scholar al-Shāfiʿī (767–820 CE), [2] founder of the Shafi'i school of fiqh, who wrote/preached sometime around a century and a half after the death of Muhammad.
Prior to Shafi'i, Islamic legal scholars had regarded Prophetic sunnah as only one source of law among many -- other sources being the traditions of other caliphs and of leading early Muslims, [3](these legal pragmatist scholars were known as ahl al-raʿy); or rejected the authority of hadith because they thought there was no way to be absolutely certain about its authenticity (these speculative theologians were known as ahl al-kalām). [4]
But Al-Shafi‘i preached that hadiths
"from other persons are of no account in the face of a tradition from the Prophet, whether they confirm or contradict it; if the other persons had been aware of the tradition from the Prophet, they would have followed it". [5] [6]
The fact that Shafi'i felt the need to continually insist on his point in his writing suggests (to Joseph Schacht) that he was not upbraiding the occasional deviant/heretic, but working to establish his doctrine as orthodoxy, something it had not yet become. [7]
Belief that Muslims must obey the Prophet and follow his sunnah comes from verses in the Quran such as 3:32, 5:92, 24:54, 64:12. [8] Hadith had been passed down by oral transmission until around the third century of Islam [9] and some questioned how closely they followed Muhammad's actual teachings and behavior in authenticity and spirit, but Al-Shafiʿi argued that Muslims must obey the hadith using a "simple proposition: having commanded believers to obey the Prophet, God must certainly have provided the means to do so." [10]
Al-Shāfiʿī thought hadith so important that even the Qurʾan was "to be interpreted in the light of traditions (i.e. hadith), and not vice versa", [11] [12] and that “the command of the Prophet is the command of God.” [13] [14]
Not only was Sunnah considered divine revelation ( wahy), and records of it (i.e. hadith) the basis of Islamic law ( Sharia), but the number of verses pertaining to law in the Quran are relatively few, while hadith give direction on everything from details of religious obligations (such as Ghusl or Wudu, ablutions [15] for salat prayer), to the correct forms of salutations, [16] and the importance of benevolence to slaves. [17] In the words of J.A.C. Brown, “the full systems of Islamic theology and law are not derived primarily from the Quran. Muhammad’s sunna was a second but far more detailed living scripture, and later Muslim scholars would thus often refer to the Prophet as `The Possessor of Two Revelations`”. [18]
"Criticism" of hadith in the sense of weeding out fraudulent accounts and establishing a core of authentic "sound" (sahih) hadiths -- was taken on by the classical Islamic science of hadith (ʻilm al-ḥadīth, also "hadith studies"). This science became a "mature system", [19] or entered its "final stage" [20] with the compilation of the classical collections of hadith in the third century of Islam, roughly a century after al-Shafiʿi's passing. [Note 1]
The establishment of this elaborate system of evaluating the authenticity of traditions science/discipline was important in Islam for a number of reasons: After the third century of Islam the triumph of Al-Shafiʿi's doctrine meant that the supreme importance of the Sunnah of the Prophet was undisputed. [21] The status of Hadith as primary sources of Islamic law gave them great power as "ideological" tools [22] [23] in political/theological conflicts. [9] But since hadith were transmitted orally over 100-150 years, [9] until the classic collections of hadith of third century of Islam were compiled, there was no written documentation to verify the chain of transmission of a hadith. [19] Forgery "took place on a massive scale" [24] which threatened to undermine hadith's divine legitimacy of reports of the Prophet. [Note 2]
The system of judging the authenticity (sihha) of hadith is based on three criteria in hadith studies:
These criteria in turn are based on other premises:
Evaluation was "almost exclusively" of the chain/ isnad of the hadith, and not the content ( matn). [Note 3]
The work of ʻilm al-ḥadīth criticism of hadith is found in major collections of hadith ( Kutub al-Sittah, "The six books") of the third century of Islam. Perhaps the most famous collector of hadith and practitioner of ʻilm al-ḥadīth, and author of one of the six books, Muhammad al-Bukhari, reportedly devoted 16 years to sifting nearly 600,000 narrations, [30] and eliminated all but approximately 7400 (this includes different versions of the same report and repetitions of the same report with different isnad, i.e. chains of transmitters). [30]
I'm sure there are other parts of the article that will need to be rewritten if these changes are made. Hope you think this will be an improvement and will give me some feedback. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 17:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Schacht-OoMJ-1959-152
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EMHME-80
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I removed a huge chunk of that was just references to wordpress blogs and random youtubers. And left whatever was cited to academic sources. However many of thee stuff is all over the place, not in the correct sections. Western Oriental Textual Criticism is mixed in with Islamic Textual Criticism, then many of those things are redundantly repeated word for word or paraphrased in other sections. I believe someone who actually academically specializes in this topic should rewrite it. Zegoy ( talk) 01:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
MENJ-stoning-monkeys
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The Statistics about the Hadith Rejection by Bukhari & Muslim
Name of Narrator No of Hadiths In Saheh Bukhari In Saheh Muslim Bukhari rejected how may Hadith Muslim rejected how many hadith Abu Huraira RA 5374 1004 1121 4370 4253 Ayesha Siddequa RA 2200+ 741 503 1459 1697 Abu Saeed Al Khadri RA 1170 180 204 990 966 Anas bin Malik RA 2286 792 558 1494 1728 Abdullah bin Abbas RA 1660 321 594 1339 1066 Abdullah bin Umer RA 1630 714 586 916 1044 Jabir bin Abdullah RA 1540 281 445 1259 1095
I collected this data from authentic Books about Hadith Compilers, Introduction to Hadith and Asool e Hadith of very famous, renowned Sheikh ul Hadiths from Salfi, Ahl e Hadith ,Deoband ,Ahl e Sunnah wal Jamat factions.
The following was
deleted 9 June 2021 by 2601:40d:4281:8670:e54e:5f02:cc84:9582 (talk):
Being a munkir-i-hadith or denier of hadith, is considered an act of unbelief by many Muslims.
[1]
Here is the edit summary for the deletion:
(Removed incorrect line. The source quoted for this line only says that rejecting Hadith while believing it to be the true words of Mohammed would be disbelief, but of course the topic of Hadith criticism and the wording of the deleted line is referring to a situation in which someone does not believe a Hadith should be considered the words of Mohammed, a situation that the source itself mentions would not be considered disbelief.)
Here is a quote from the citation in support on the deleted line: Allah, may He be exalted, has enjoined upon the believers complete submission to the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his hadith and rulings, to the extent that He, may He be glorified, swore by His divine self that whoever hears the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), then rejects them and does not accept them, has nothing to do with faith at all. [ https://islamqa.info/en/answers/115125/ruling-on-one-who-rejects-a-saheeh-hadith
I guess you can say whoever hears the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), then rejects them and does not accept them, ..., is a little ambiguous. Does the rejecter "reject Hadith while believing it to be the true words of Mohammed" (quote from the delete-er above) i.e. believe those words to be "the words of the Prophet"?; or do they hear what mainstream Muslims call a sahih hadith and reject it as something to obey?
In any case I put it to you that this article -- "Criticism of Hadith" -- includes both weeding out fraudulent hadith and criticism of what mainstream Muslims call a sahih hadith. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 21:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Louis P. Boog I would like to voice my agreement with the 2021 comment by @ Zegoy that this page needs a rewrite. Pogenplain ( talk) 17:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}}
template (see the
help page).