This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
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 |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hadith. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hadith at the Reference desk. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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 |
I have added a citation template as I have not been able to find references. If no references can be found, I will move to delete the entire last paragraph. Even if sourced, I would still delete as it is not in line with WP:NPOV (specially WP:UNDUE) and WP:FRINGE, unless an editor disagrees. All interested editors are invited to discuss the merits of leaving the paragraph vs removal. Mbcap ( talk) 05:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
look it up, speaks volumes about veracity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.34.142 ( talk) 03:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the following due to the given reasons
Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 03:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Now, to the matter at hand, where I have been asked for an opinion: you all need more opinions, from experts. You can't tell me that I'm the best one you can find on this subject matter. ( Malik Shabazz, how well-versed are you on the topic of hadith?) I consolidated the references so it doesn't look like that text has so many references; yes, Code16, I find that the one scholar is given a LOT of weight with extensive quotes etc. (These quotes really should be condensed/removed.) The best thing you can do is trim it and find more sources. Doug Weller, maybe you have an opinion here also. Drmies ( talk) 16:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Drmies you will do just fine; and Shabaz was "made" to retire as far as my personal opinion is concerned(his is by far the dirtiest dysysop I have witnessed ever). However Dougweller is quite an expert so his input will be valuable. Now to matter at hand. The current version of the article has three basic problems which I will list below. We can discuss them together or separately as you wish. (Code 16 apparently agrees with my other edits, even though he does not wish to state it, I would also like to state that HyperGaruda is quite right, I misunderstood prophetic as being concerned with prophecy at first but I am certain now that it means pertaining to the prophet)
Agreed with both @
Drmies: and @
HyperGaruda:. Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to look into this. I'll follow both your suggestions and take the following steps for now:
Further opinions by expert editors are welcome. Also, a content dispute case has been opened on this issue as well at: [ [1]] cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 17:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Update: I've taken out Israr Khan's material since he isn't needed anyway now that Wael Hallaq is present. Also, please not that FreeatlastChitchat's 3rd point above actually SUPPORTS the creation of an "authenticity" section here (although he doesn't seem to realize it.) This is the main Hadith page, and its "criticism" section should highlight the main point of academic criticism of hadith, obviously, in clear and simple terms. FreeatlastChitchat has no choice to admit that "authenticity" is the main problem of hadith. He has also given up arguing that the paper misrepresented. Finally, his argument that Wael Hallaq is not a qualified expert "per se," doesn't even merit much of a response, given Hallaq's credentials. You can't be an expert in 'Islamic Law' without having a scholarly understanding of Hadith, since it is one of the most important sources of this entire academic field. This is why he published a peer-reviewed paper on it (how more obvious can his expertise on this issue get? The professor is publishing papers on this issue lol.) cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 17:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Since you've given up arguing the other points, we'll proceed as if you are in agreement that Hallaq is a reliable source and that there is no misrepresentation of his paper. Now, as for this last argument of yours, it's also critically flawed and easily refuted.
This brings up another important issue, concerning the current category structure for the criticism, which will also fix the weight issue. I think that the criticism categories should be based on Subject Matter. For example:
The material for creating all of these categories is already present. We know that Muslims have made critiques that aren't only specific to Muslims, as in, non-theological (e.g. ethical, logical, empirical critiques) which are already cited. And other Westerners also belong in authenticity and these other categories. Thus, it doesn't even make sense to categorize based on the religious background of the critics in the first place. So instead of taking the authenticity category OUT, we should be adding these other categories IN, and grouping all the present material accordingly. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 07:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 09:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Succession
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
I am a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia so forgive me if this question is retarded: What is the point of posting content in sections which have their own article? Shouldn't this article be relatively brief, explaining to non-Muslims and non-Arabic speaking persons what a hadith is, leaving them to further investigate specific aspects of hadith as included in the See also portion of the article? And also, after reading through this article there seems to be unnecessary repetition of information.
Moldy loofah (
talk) 06:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
24.88.249.59 ( talk) 01:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is a copy of the paragraph from /info/en/?search=Hadith
Each hadith consists of two parts, the isnad (Arabic: 'support'), or the chain of transmitters through which a scholar traced the matn, or text, of a hadith back to the Prophet.[6][7][8] Individual hadith are classified by Muslim clerics and jurists as sahih ("authentic"), hasan ("good") or da'if ("weak").[9] However, there is no overall agreement: different groups and different individual scholars may classify a hadith differently. Now all of you, convert to Islam.. jkjk do what you want, you're going to hell anyways - a proud Christian!
Although I am not a Muslim. I considered the last sentence offensive against Muslim and should not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.249.59 ( talk) 01:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Made a large edit here which Tokenzero noted had a number of problems. Amongst other things, I had tried to use the arabic plural form of hadith -- namely ahadith. At his suggestion I'm reverting my changes and will follow the MOS:ISLAM practice of using the singular form for plural as well, so I propose everybody use "hadith" -- not "hadiths" or "ahadith" -- as the plural of "hadith" in this article. ... in case anyone cares. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@ VenusFeuerFalle: can you give more explanation on why you deleted so much information here? such as:
The theological importance of hadith comes from several verses in the Quran such as:
Say: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away, he (the Prophet) is only responsible for the duty placed on him (i.e. to convey Allah’s Message) and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on the right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to convey (the message) in a clear way. (An-Nur 24:54) [1]
In God's messenger you have indeed a good example for everyone who looks forward with hope to God and the Last Day, and remembers God unceasingly. (Al-Ahzab 33:21) [2] [Note 1]
I haven't reverted your edits but they seem highly problematic. --- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Shafi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).[reposted from User talkpage of Mhhossein ]
The theological importance of hadith comes from several verses in the Quran such as (The claim is not back up by any source, it is only concluded from the following statements within the section):
Say: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away, he (the Prophet) is only responsible for the duty placed on him (i.e. to convey Allah’s Message) and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on the right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to convey (the message) in a clear way. (An-Nur 24:54) [1] !(a webpage about introduction to Islam, without any research or academic viewpoint)!
In God's messenger you have indeed a good example for everyone who looks forward with hope to God and the Last Day, and remembers God unceasingly. (Al-Ahzab 33:21) [2] [Note 1]
Yes, the entire section was build upon this. Next one: "derived solely from the hadith" (I changed to "reported in hadiths" since not all practises are on hadiths alone, there are even other sources apart from the Quran which simply derived over time as folkloric pracitises or they derived from exegesis of the Quran n combination with the hadith. Regarding the source given, I could not find the reference, but probably because the page number is not shown at GoogleBooks (have not found it in my libary). The most close I found was "As Nawawi explains, when the ulama have arrived at certainty about a stance derived from the Qur'an and Sunna as a whole, all individual Qur'anic verses and Hadiths must be interpreted to accord with it." Not sure if this cites the statement above, but I think it does not matter, since it is evident from that follows and that is self-evident. This is also the reason I did not removed it and would not eve remove, if the source actually makes no explicit statement. But I thought it should be rewritten (the "solely")).
Here we have the next: " Almost all Muslims, therefore, can be called Hadithists (i.e. believers in hadith), and maintain that the hadith" (as stated in the edit-summary, the term "hadithiss" seems to be invented. Never encoutnered any scholar who refered to non-Quranites as "hadithists". The term simply does not exists (there is also no source given, which could have introduced the term).)
"Quranists, on the contrary, hold that if the Quran is silent on some matter, it is because Allah did not hold its detail to be of consequence; and that some hadith contradict the Quran, evidence that some hadith are a source of corruption and not a complement to the Quran." (This is a statement about the belief of a specific group, what should have been sourced. Also, it implies about the Quran, it is silent about something, a point Quranites would disagree entirely, since they hold the Quran does not need explanation but is complete already. For example the prayers, usually regarded by opponents of Quranism, as relying on the hadith, Quranits use Quran-verses only to perform prayer. This debate was also written below. But since this implies as dispute, not supported by any reliable source, I removed it. It leads to an ongoing discussion Quranites and non-Quranites have and we are not a forum for discussion, we add discussions, when we have unbiased sources for them and not write that either we think or we think others might think. It is not a blog, neither is it an essay.)
"A classical example is salat (the five daily prayers of Islam), which is commanded in the Quran, and considered by all Muslims to be an obligatory part of Islamic religious practice, one of the five pillars of Islam." (More Essay-Style, when referring to an exmaple provided by the author of the article, tells about a dispute. Since the dispute is well known, I shortened it to " An example are the obligatory prayers, which are commanded in the Quran, but explained in hadith." and added it to the section above, but the conclusion made up by the author of the article (still the author of the article, not a source!) was removed by me, that is the " demonstrating to Hadithists that hadith "validly" fulfill the Quranic command of ritual prayer"-part."
Although I think the following part " However, hadith differ on these details and consequently salat is performed differently by different hadithist Islamic sects. [Note 2] " is still unencessary, I kept it, since I think it does not violent any WikiPedia Guidelines, nor that it is biased. But the removed content (or in another case adjusted content), was rather like an Essay, providing two points of arguements with a final conclusion, based on the opinnion of the former author, only supported by Webpages, which only confirmed one side of the arguement."
Just to sum it up. My objection was not solely based on the sources used as explained above.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 19:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I put it to you @ VenusFeuerFalle: that if the term "Hadithist" is difficult to find it is because so few Muslims are anything but, that the term is seldom used. I submit this also explains the lack of scholarly discussion on whether hadith/sunna are true Islam. There is so little disagreement. I have included IslamQA as a citation. You may not like IslamQA but you can't accuse it of lacking scholarly support.
I'd like to do a better job of editting the article but I am short on time.-- BoogaLouie ( talk) 00:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Shafi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hi, I don't know how relevant this is to this page, but I found a Prayer book from the 1800s on archive.org. One of the authors is described as "Hadith" but I assume that means that the contents are part of the tradition of what Muhammad said as described on this page. I was thinking of making a link to the book from the external links section, but I'm guess there are many, many examples of such books. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 21:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Ithil Nan thayakkama kaatuvathai pondru na ethilum kaatuvathu illai endru rasool Saw kooriyathu
103.155.32.198 ( talk) 18:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
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 |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hadith. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hadith at the Reference desk. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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 |
I have added a citation template as I have not been able to find references. If no references can be found, I will move to delete the entire last paragraph. Even if sourced, I would still delete as it is not in line with WP:NPOV (specially WP:UNDUE) and WP:FRINGE, unless an editor disagrees. All interested editors are invited to discuss the merits of leaving the paragraph vs removal. Mbcap ( talk) 05:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
look it up, speaks volumes about veracity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.34.142 ( talk) 03:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the following due to the given reasons
Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 03:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Now, to the matter at hand, where I have been asked for an opinion: you all need more opinions, from experts. You can't tell me that I'm the best one you can find on this subject matter. ( Malik Shabazz, how well-versed are you on the topic of hadith?) I consolidated the references so it doesn't look like that text has so many references; yes, Code16, I find that the one scholar is given a LOT of weight with extensive quotes etc. (These quotes really should be condensed/removed.) The best thing you can do is trim it and find more sources. Doug Weller, maybe you have an opinion here also. Drmies ( talk) 16:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Drmies you will do just fine; and Shabaz was "made" to retire as far as my personal opinion is concerned(his is by far the dirtiest dysysop I have witnessed ever). However Dougweller is quite an expert so his input will be valuable. Now to matter at hand. The current version of the article has three basic problems which I will list below. We can discuss them together or separately as you wish. (Code 16 apparently agrees with my other edits, even though he does not wish to state it, I would also like to state that HyperGaruda is quite right, I misunderstood prophetic as being concerned with prophecy at first but I am certain now that it means pertaining to the prophet)
Agreed with both @
Drmies: and @
HyperGaruda:. Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to look into this. I'll follow both your suggestions and take the following steps for now:
Further opinions by expert editors are welcome. Also, a content dispute case has been opened on this issue as well at: [ [1]] cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 17:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Update: I've taken out Israr Khan's material since he isn't needed anyway now that Wael Hallaq is present. Also, please not that FreeatlastChitchat's 3rd point above actually SUPPORTS the creation of an "authenticity" section here (although he doesn't seem to realize it.) This is the main Hadith page, and its "criticism" section should highlight the main point of academic criticism of hadith, obviously, in clear and simple terms. FreeatlastChitchat has no choice to admit that "authenticity" is the main problem of hadith. He has also given up arguing that the paper misrepresented. Finally, his argument that Wael Hallaq is not a qualified expert "per se," doesn't even merit much of a response, given Hallaq's credentials. You can't be an expert in 'Islamic Law' without having a scholarly understanding of Hadith, since it is one of the most important sources of this entire academic field. This is why he published a peer-reviewed paper on it (how more obvious can his expertise on this issue get? The professor is publishing papers on this issue lol.) cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 17:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Since you've given up arguing the other points, we'll proceed as if you are in agreement that Hallaq is a reliable source and that there is no misrepresentation of his paper. Now, as for this last argument of yours, it's also critically flawed and easily refuted.
This brings up another important issue, concerning the current category structure for the criticism, which will also fix the weight issue. I think that the criticism categories should be based on Subject Matter. For example:
The material for creating all of these categories is already present. We know that Muslims have made critiques that aren't only specific to Muslims, as in, non-theological (e.g. ethical, logical, empirical critiques) which are already cited. And other Westerners also belong in authenticity and these other categories. Thus, it doesn't even make sense to categorize based on the religious background of the critics in the first place. So instead of taking the authenticity category OUT, we should be adding these other categories IN, and grouping all the present material accordingly. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 07:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 09:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Succession
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
I am a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia so forgive me if this question is retarded: What is the point of posting content in sections which have their own article? Shouldn't this article be relatively brief, explaining to non-Muslims and non-Arabic speaking persons what a hadith is, leaving them to further investigate specific aspects of hadith as included in the See also portion of the article? And also, after reading through this article there seems to be unnecessary repetition of information.
Moldy loofah (
talk) 06:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
24.88.249.59 ( talk) 01:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is a copy of the paragraph from /info/en/?search=Hadith
Each hadith consists of two parts, the isnad (Arabic: 'support'), or the chain of transmitters through which a scholar traced the matn, or text, of a hadith back to the Prophet.[6][7][8] Individual hadith are classified by Muslim clerics and jurists as sahih ("authentic"), hasan ("good") or da'if ("weak").[9] However, there is no overall agreement: different groups and different individual scholars may classify a hadith differently. Now all of you, convert to Islam.. jkjk do what you want, you're going to hell anyways - a proud Christian!
Although I am not a Muslim. I considered the last sentence offensive against Muslim and should not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.249.59 ( talk) 01:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Made a large edit here which Tokenzero noted had a number of problems. Amongst other things, I had tried to use the arabic plural form of hadith -- namely ahadith. At his suggestion I'm reverting my changes and will follow the MOS:ISLAM practice of using the singular form for plural as well, so I propose everybody use "hadith" -- not "hadiths" or "ahadith" -- as the plural of "hadith" in this article. ... in case anyone cares. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@ VenusFeuerFalle: can you give more explanation on why you deleted so much information here? such as:
The theological importance of hadith comes from several verses in the Quran such as:
Say: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away, he (the Prophet) is only responsible for the duty placed on him (i.e. to convey Allah’s Message) and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on the right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to convey (the message) in a clear way. (An-Nur 24:54) [1]
In God's messenger you have indeed a good example for everyone who looks forward with hope to God and the Last Day, and remembers God unceasingly. (Al-Ahzab 33:21) [2] [Note 1]
I haven't reverted your edits but they seem highly problematic. --- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Shafi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).[reposted from User talkpage of Mhhossein ]
The theological importance of hadith comes from several verses in the Quran such as (The claim is not back up by any source, it is only concluded from the following statements within the section):
Say: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away, he (the Prophet) is only responsible for the duty placed on him (i.e. to convey Allah’s Message) and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on the right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to convey (the message) in a clear way. (An-Nur 24:54) [1] !(a webpage about introduction to Islam, without any research or academic viewpoint)!
In God's messenger you have indeed a good example for everyone who looks forward with hope to God and the Last Day, and remembers God unceasingly. (Al-Ahzab 33:21) [2] [Note 1]
Yes, the entire section was build upon this. Next one: "derived solely from the hadith" (I changed to "reported in hadiths" since not all practises are on hadiths alone, there are even other sources apart from the Quran which simply derived over time as folkloric pracitises or they derived from exegesis of the Quran n combination with the hadith. Regarding the source given, I could not find the reference, but probably because the page number is not shown at GoogleBooks (have not found it in my libary). The most close I found was "As Nawawi explains, when the ulama have arrived at certainty about a stance derived from the Qur'an and Sunna as a whole, all individual Qur'anic verses and Hadiths must be interpreted to accord with it." Not sure if this cites the statement above, but I think it does not matter, since it is evident from that follows and that is self-evident. This is also the reason I did not removed it and would not eve remove, if the source actually makes no explicit statement. But I thought it should be rewritten (the "solely")).
Here we have the next: " Almost all Muslims, therefore, can be called Hadithists (i.e. believers in hadith), and maintain that the hadith" (as stated in the edit-summary, the term "hadithiss" seems to be invented. Never encoutnered any scholar who refered to non-Quranites as "hadithists". The term simply does not exists (there is also no source given, which could have introduced the term).)
"Quranists, on the contrary, hold that if the Quran is silent on some matter, it is because Allah did not hold its detail to be of consequence; and that some hadith contradict the Quran, evidence that some hadith are a source of corruption and not a complement to the Quran." (This is a statement about the belief of a specific group, what should have been sourced. Also, it implies about the Quran, it is silent about something, a point Quranites would disagree entirely, since they hold the Quran does not need explanation but is complete already. For example the prayers, usually regarded by opponents of Quranism, as relying on the hadith, Quranits use Quran-verses only to perform prayer. This debate was also written below. But since this implies as dispute, not supported by any reliable source, I removed it. It leads to an ongoing discussion Quranites and non-Quranites have and we are not a forum for discussion, we add discussions, when we have unbiased sources for them and not write that either we think or we think others might think. It is not a blog, neither is it an essay.)
"A classical example is salat (the five daily prayers of Islam), which is commanded in the Quran, and considered by all Muslims to be an obligatory part of Islamic religious practice, one of the five pillars of Islam." (More Essay-Style, when referring to an exmaple provided by the author of the article, tells about a dispute. Since the dispute is well known, I shortened it to " An example are the obligatory prayers, which are commanded in the Quran, but explained in hadith." and added it to the section above, but the conclusion made up by the author of the article (still the author of the article, not a source!) was removed by me, that is the " demonstrating to Hadithists that hadith "validly" fulfill the Quranic command of ritual prayer"-part."
Although I think the following part " However, hadith differ on these details and consequently salat is performed differently by different hadithist Islamic sects. [Note 2] " is still unencessary, I kept it, since I think it does not violent any WikiPedia Guidelines, nor that it is biased. But the removed content (or in another case adjusted content), was rather like an Essay, providing two points of arguements with a final conclusion, based on the opinnion of the former author, only supported by Webpages, which only confirmed one side of the arguement."
Just to sum it up. My objection was not solely based on the sources used as explained above.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 19:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I put it to you @ VenusFeuerFalle: that if the term "Hadithist" is difficult to find it is because so few Muslims are anything but, that the term is seldom used. I submit this also explains the lack of scholarly discussion on whether hadith/sunna are true Islam. There is so little disagreement. I have included IslamQA as a citation. You may not like IslamQA but you can't accuse it of lacking scholarly support.
I'd like to do a better job of editting the article but I am short on time.-- BoogaLouie ( talk) 00:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Shafi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hi, I don't know how relevant this is to this page, but I found a Prayer book from the 1800s on archive.org. One of the authors is described as "Hadith" but I assume that means that the contents are part of the tradition of what Muhammad said as described on this page. I was thinking of making a link to the book from the external links section, but I'm guess there are many, many examples of such books. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 21:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Ithil Nan thayakkama kaatuvathai pondru na ethilum kaatuvathu illai endru rasool Saw kooriyathu
103.155.32.198 ( talk) 18:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)