What are the Hadiths and how are they relevant to Islam?

Ok well, another member brought up the Hadiths in another thread and I would like to explore this with you and learn more.

Thanks to that member btw.

Who are the Hadith

Over time, during the first few centuries of Islam, it became obvious that many so-called hadith were in fact spurious sayings that had been fabricated for various motives, at best to encourage believers to act righteously and at worse to corrupt believers' understanding of Islam and to lead them astray

So the Hadiths are a series of saying or text that originate from individuals used as what I can see as politically or with zealotry.

From what I can see these books are written separate to the Qur'an.

Hadith Wiki

The hadith literature is based on spoken reports that were in circulation in society after the death of Muhammad. Unlike the Qur'an the hadiths were not quickly and concisely compiled during and immediately after Muhammad's life.[3] Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries, generations after the death of Muhammad, after the end of the era of the "rightful" Rashidun Caliphate, over 1,000 km (620 mi) from where Muhammad lived.

Ok, so far here's what I've learned.

#e and Sunni Islam are Hadith sects of Islam and use the Hadiths to determine Sharia law. These are not exactly Muslim in the traditional sense, or Muslims who live by the Qur'an and not by Sharia law.

So apparently there are two different versions of Islam alive in todays world, one is based on the Qur'an and one is a Sunni/ #e based Hadith sect that derives it's laws from either the four books or the six books.

Anyway let's start there and see if we can't end some of the ignorance around this topic.

In addition to that which you have shared, it's prudent to point out that Islam was 250+ years old before the first load of Hadith were compiled.

Some say it was for reasons to do with guidance.

There is speculation that Muslims after Muhammad passed still wanted answers...
So others started to compile what they considered Muhammad's actions and sayings on matters political, financial, and lawful.


There are others (Quranists) like myself who believe these Hadith were compiled to add man to the religion.
For personal and political gain in the region.



Many Hadiths are contradictory to the Quran.
Many are barbaric.



Now...

Many Hadith are beautiful... but IMO, if you cannot accept the bad, don't be hypocritical and accept the good.
That's is just a form of confirmation bias in my opinion.


I'll be back with more later.


Good idea for a thread, onequestion.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Well i appreciate your input and thanks for bringing this to my attention.

So essentially the Hadiths are works of man while the Qur'an is traditionally thought of as works of god?

Is this similar to the Gospel of Jesus and the first 4 books of Jesus?

They are written later on after Christ death, the first if i remember correctly was 80 or so years after his death. They are stories about his life and not political philosophy being the main difference.

Also, you consider yourself a Qur'anist, are most Muslims Qur'anist?

Do Qur'anist believe in Sharia law or is that part of the Hadiths.

Oh Also, you mentioned that the Radical Sect of Islam are Hadithers or however you coined the term, is there a specific Hadith they generate their beliefs from?

a reply to: onequestion

this similar to the Gospel of Jesus and the first 4 books of Jesus?

I haven't heard of these 4 books of Jesus, but I assume there is a similarity.
I know EnlightenedServent is very knowledgable on this sort of thing, he may be able to help with that, and of course much else.

are most Muslims Qur'anist?

I wouldn't suggest most Muslims are Quranist, but I would assume a great many are indeed.
What with secularism and growth in the Western world.

Not so much in the Middle East or Asia.

Figures have Sunni standing at 1.2billion ish and Shiite at around 200million ish.

Both of these sects follow different Schools of Thought and therefore different sets of Hadith.
They make up the bulk of the Muslim population worldwide.

But I also wonder how many follow the Hadith and how many are Sunni/Shia because of tradition.



Here is a little website that shows a few contradicting Hadith.
quranic.org...

I shall search for more and we can catalogue them in this thread.

is there a specific Hadith they generate their beliefs from?

There are many Hadith books and different Schools follow different doctrine.
The follow what they consider "Authentic" Hadith.

But the sects do not agree with which are "Authentic" to follow hence the splits between Shia Sunni Salafist Wahhabi & Sufi.

Hadiths are similar to historic papal bulls which even allowed Christians to murder non-believers etc (link). So the relevancy of many today's Hadiths to Muslims is similar to the relevancy of past papal bulls to Christians. Today most believers follow the books which they believe we're inspired by God, not amendments written by ghengis khan wantabe's, written through the centuries.

a reply to: glend

Hmmm... interesting comparison.

Where the papal bulls something addressed by Mr Luther during the protestant reformations?

a reply to: onequestion

Do not know perhaps some christians could weigh in.

a reply to: onequestion

I did some research and found a good video that answers some of your questions.



It basically says that hadith is essential because without it muslims for instance would not know how much in a day they have to pray, Quran tells muslims to pray but not how much and how to pray , in hadith it is also recorded how much 'zakat' (alms) they have to give, Quran tells muslims to give zakat but it does not mention how much. All these kinds of things are basically recorded in hadith, correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for asking this question, it forced me to do some research.

a reply to: WombRaider69

Oh I get it now..

The Hadith is some bs interpretation by people who wanted to control Islam.

So being Muslim is more about following the Qur'an and really has nothing to do with the Hadith, which is how I would interpret that if I were a Muslim.

Would I be wrong if I said that the Muslims who follow the Hadith are like Catholics and the Muslims who follow th Qur'an are like Christians post Martin Luther?

You know, more biblical, less Judiasm and more Gospel

a reply to: onequestion

Islam like any of the religions is made up by clerics

You want to learn some truth you have to go around the gatekeepers, the clerics.

Muhammad left some guidance but not much. For example he didn’t pick an heir when he died.

Its mainly a by mouth tradition as most religions were

The Hadith’s are what you make of them their not necessarily all the linear truth as they are recorded oral statements

Believers, like any religion rely on the “experts” the clergy who btw don't even suppose to exist in Islam…

It’s better than the chain of evidence in Christianity since they have centuries of gaps in their lore and the clerics without a doubt created and maintain Christianity

There is also a tradition of mystics, the opposite of crazies like ISIS, known as Sufis...Buddhist types, very peace loving
And truth seeking. Rumi was a Sufi...Omar Khayyam was a Sufi
The Taliban murder them and so does ISIS.

Sufis number Jesus as their symbolic head. But claim to be the true followers of a hidden tradition taught by Muhammad to the foremost...the Esoteric.

Muslims accept Hadith’s as reasonable aspects of the faith but don’t totally rely on them as they are oral traditions.

In Islam if you have a problem or question…The tradition says: Go to the Quran first the Tradition of the Prophet, Hadith, and next and then your own brain or learned ones amongst you

The schools of thought all have their own Hadith’s they use to justify their sect

a reply to: onequestion

That's not really accurate

Every school of thought has its Hadiths it relies on and the 5 pillars and the Quran and the learned men within their own community
one of
Sahih Bukhari is a very popular and well known and one of the most reliable Hadith collections

hadithcollection.com...

a reply to: onequestion

Hadith and Sunna are collections of the supposed teachings, sayings, and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions. There are many different sets of Hadith and Sunna, each with varying levels of acceptance. As in, different denominations and "schools of thought" accept the authenticity of different Hadith & Sunna. And even when different denominations accept the same Sunna and Hadith, they may have vastly different interpretations of them.

In theory, nothing in Islam overrules the Qur'an. But in practice, many denominations and cultures seem to ignore the Qur'an and focus on their interpretations of specific Sunna and Hadith. There are some Salafis who are notorious for this, as they seem to believe the Qur'an is incomplete (though to say that out loud is basically blasphemous).

This is also why it's important to note what translation of the Qur'an someone is referring to, since each editor adds things in parentheses (or in separate editor's notes) that try to link a specific passage in the Qur'an to their interpretation of a specific Sunna, Hadith, cultural practice, or fatwa. For instance, I usually link to the Pickthall translation because it's a pretty easy read for native English speakers.

And for the record, Sunnis are literally "followers of the Sunna". And the Prophet Muhammad and the 1st 9 Caliphs all banned religious teachings from anything other than the Qur'an. In fact, the 1st 2 Caliphs personally destroyed collections of Hadith (with the 2nd Caliph having everyone gather their collections into a pile and then burning them). I spoke more on all of this in one of my old threads (here, specifically #8-11).

Oh yeah, I think some Hadith and Sunna make sense and agree with my views. I think many others are ridiculous, contradict the Qur'an, or were conveniently "discovered" when a specific ruler needed more authority in a specific situation. Needless to say, I don't follow them or even read them anymore. This is also one reason some Muslims don't consider me a "real Muslim", regardless of my other actions.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: WombRaider69

Oh I get it now..

The Hadith is some bs interpretation by people who wanted to control Islam.

So being Muslim is more about following the Qur'an and really has nothing to do with the Hadith, which is how I would interpret that if I were a Muslim.

Would I be wrong if I said that the Muslims who follow the Hadith are like Catholics and the Muslims who follow th Qur'an are like Christians post Martin Luther?

You know, more biblical, less Judiasm and more Gospel

Not necessarily. A lot of Hadith and Sunna agree with the Qur'an or repeat what's in the Qur'an. And some things simply make sense. Also, there's a passage in the Qur'an that I'm too lazy to look for that tells us to follow the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. Though it doesn't tell us to follow everything attributed to the Prophet. So the problem is determining what is authentic and what makes sense to you.

Remember, Islam is a personal journey. And a person is not considered a "Muslim" until we go through puberty and decide to submit to God on our own. Any Muslim can "switch" sects or denominations depending on what they learn or feel (just like how Christians can change denominations).

Then add in the fact that many Muslims don't even have copies of the Qur'an, don't have translations in their native language, or only get their "dosage" of Islamic teachings from local Friday prayers (kind of like the Christians who only hear from the Bible when they're at church).

One reason I started rejecting Sunna & Hadith is because some included cultural metaphors and stories that were supposed to get a specific point across. But I always saw the metaphors the opposite of how they were supposed to be taken lol. One example compares praying "on time" to offering a camel, praying "late" to offering a goat/sheep, and praying extra "late" to offering an egg. Well in my eyes, the camel's a slave that needs to be set free; the goat/sheep produces milk or fur in exchange for food and shelter and thus are our partners; and the egg is a like an unborn community member that should be protected and sheltered. But I was supposed to see the camel as being the most valuable. So I basically said "why not just tell people to pray sooner than later? Using metaphors from a specific culture won't translate to other cultures".

ETA: And then you have passages like this in the Qur'an, which further adds to the confusion as to what a "Muslim" is or isn't. Just remember, the Prophet Muhammad is our final messenger, not our only messenger.
Qur'an 2:136, Pickthall translation (here)

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

a reply to: enlightenedservant

So what hadiths do the radicals tend to stick too and use as their power source to convert other confused and mentally ill people?

a reply to: onequestion

No offense, but that's a pretty vague question. As I stated, there are a lot of different collections of Hadith. And every denomination and "school of thought" has its own interpretations of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sunna. Plus they have their own regional and/or tribal traditions & interpretations, 1400 years of separate rulings and writings to argue over, and much more. Then there are "fatwas" which are basically just glorified suggestions, though members of specific communities may feel inclined to follow the fatwas of their accepted leaders. (note: a "school of thought" is like a separate sub-denomination of an established denomination.)

This is why there's no single set of "Sharia laws". A Sunni community in Nigeria can have vastly different interpretations, teachings, and traditions from a Sunni community in Algeria. And both can be vastly different from a Sunni community in Qatar or Florida.

However... The groups that are the most notorious for being terrorists are Wahhabis (though they usually consider themselves Salafis). Wahhabis are a separate sect that was started in the 1700s & they follow the interpretations of a dude named Wahhab (hence the name lol). Anyway, they believe they are following an "untainted" form of Islam and typically view the rest of us as heathens, fake Muslims, misguided innovators, etc. You'll have to research on your own to find out the specific versions of Hadith and other teachings they follow, because I refuse to spread their stuff or look into it any further. Though to be fair, not all Wahhabis preach violence & terror, as it almost seems like there are 2 major sects of them, a violent sect and a nonviolent one.

Anyway, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra Front, ISIS, Al Shabaab, and the Taliban all follow forms of Wahhabism. Or to be more exact, they seem to "follow" Wahhabism in exchange for backing from wealthy powerbrokers, intelligence agencies, etc. Saudi Arabia's royal family made a blood pact w/the original Wahhab innovator and Saudi Arabia is the most powerful Wahhabi country in the world to this day. Qatar is also Wahhabi controlled, and the West are staunch allies of both Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And to further add to the confusion, most of ISIS's foot soldiers and lone wolves don't seem to know even the basics of Islam, much less the detailed teachings of Wahhabism. Many seem to just be pissed off and/or misguided poor recruits who want "vengeance" for Western wars, status (like people who join gangs), and other personal reasons like that.

It helps to remember that Osama bin Laden didn't start "falling from grace" in the eyes of the West or Saudi Arabia until he clashed w/the Saudi royals for not allowing his fighters to defend Saudi Arabia before the Gulf War. Before that, he was seen as a war hero (as these 2 links from 2yrs after the 1991 Gulf War show, HERE and HERE). The West has used Wahhabi foot soldiers in proxy wars since the Cold War, like in Chechnya, the Balkans, Afghanistan (vs Russia), and even in Libya to serve as "boots on the ground" against Qaddafi and now in Syria to serve as "boots on the ground" against Assad.

A lot of muslims will take the easy route and say "Quran only". I cannot say that is WRONG, per se, but I don't believe it is the rightest way either.

I'll try to be short so as to assist in reading, but I'll also try to be comprehensive.

So during the life of the Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet would make a certain statement or perform a certain action, or even be notable in his inaction to something. His followers followed his example in their day to day life and behaviour.
After Muhammad died, there was an oral tradition of remembering these (in a similar way to the oral tradition of the Quran). At some point, much after the death of Muhammad, people got the idea to collect and compile all these narrations. Since the original people who had remembered these had all died, the compilers went to their followers and their followers followers, and asked them.

So you have the "chain" at the start of the hadith (without which many scholars refuse to accept it as authentic) with something like "I heard Abu Huraira narrate that the Prophet said..." or even to the level of "I heard one of the Followers say that Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet did...". Now you might consider this a very suspicious and dangerous game of chinese whisperers, and so did the compilers, so they gave hadith a good rating if there were multiple different sources with multiple different chains that said the same hadith. In more comprehensive hadith collections, they have the same hadith repeated over and over with all the different chains or narrators, or sometimes even with after completing the text of one hadith, having a line at the end saying something like "Aaisha added that the Prophet also said...".

So you have hadith of different levels of authenticity, depending on whether there is a link missing in the chain (one link wasn't living in the same time as the following link, so they couldn't have heard it from them, for example), whether a link in the chain was known for being part in some fabricated hadith, whether it contradicted another hadith that was better established, how many different chains of narrators there are, whether it contradicts the Quran, etc. Using this approximate methodology, there are 2 major collections of Hadith followed by Sunni muslims (well, 6, but the other 4 aren't at the level of the first two), and 4 major collections followed by the Shi'ites. Most of these books contain repeated hadith, although some have hadith that are exclusive to specific books.

Whew, now that we're done with that, I should come to madhabs. Now a 'madhab' is basically a "school of thought" or school of interpretation. In the modern world, there are 4 different "official" Sunni madhabs and 2 Shi'a madhabs (there are outliers like the wahabis and the Quran-only groups of course. Sufis do not generally follow separate madhabs, they are usually part of one of the Sunni or Shia ones). In historical times, there were numerous different madhabs. While an individual muslim may not necessarily adhere to any specific madhab, geographic distribution, tradition, what teachers they have and what their family follows usually establishes some madhab of theirs.

The reason I bring up madhab is because each of these schools of thought interpret things differently. They all approximately accept the same Quran and the same Hadith, but interpret them differently. It is usually stuff along the lines of how to stand while praying, whether eating shrimp is allowed, and which specific hadith they use to justify their opinions. For example, one school of thought may say that X narrator is not so trustworthy as Y, so they accept hadith with Y but not with X. Another may say that X hadith contradicts Y, but through logical deduction, X applies to this and this, while Y applies to that.

Madhabs can be considered as shorthand sets of interpretations. So instead of dedicating their life to investigating the hadith and hadith scholarship, many muslims simply subscribe to one of the madhabs. I guess the idea is that instead of investigating the Quran and Hadith and what they mean and combining that information to come up with a unified understanding, for most people it is easier to just accept a pre-existing body of work that has done that already.

So when someone (usually a non-muslim trying to denigrate Islam) tells you "Shariah law says this!" or "All muslims must do that!", they're almost always talking nonsense, because there is no monolithic sharia law, only different interpretations.

Personally, I am not really a follower of any single madhab, but I regularly read up on their opinions when I pick up some new dimension of Islamic jurisprudence. Likewise, I am not a hadith scholar, so I have to rely on their judgements. Following that, my understanding is that while hadith are important, their importance does not trump the Quran, so if something is found conflicting, go with the Quran. Also, my approach to hadith is different than my approach to the Quran. With Hadith, you have to have a well established understanding of the background of each narration, in what context it was said, who said it, and how (or even if) it is applicable or it an be interpreted for today.

For example, there is a hadith that literally has just the Prophet saying "Vinegar is a good condiment". Now one could go the literal way and assume that vinegar is a morally superior condiment. Or they could understand that the Prophet had sat down to eat, was enjoying food, and stated his appreciation for vinegar. Or you could interpret the context and reach the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with vinegar (some muslim groups today have objections to non-synthetic vinegar because it is made from alcohol), there is nothing wrong with dinner conversation (some people think it is better to eat in silence), or that everything Muhammad ever said wasn't an edict from God (some people go to the extreme and think the instruction to follow the Prophet's example extends to personal preferences and clothing and language spoken).

Sorry for the long post. Hope it was helpful!

You know how this thread looks if one glances over quickly?

2 setting the bait, already knowing they set the right move for a friendly conversation,
and bamm
whole info flyers are handed out, no there is more than just the Quoran.

What is this? Agents get tohether? A little not official lower security levels cultural exchange?

a reply to: babloyi

Well said. You were about 500 times more thorough in your explanation than I was lol.


The only thing I'll add is that I can't necessarily say it's easier to strictly follow the Qur'an. Learning it and applying it's words to modern situations is actually challenging in its own way, because it's so detailed. It also gives me a different perspective on things, kind of like "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

In other words, I see all of our modern "tests" as mere variations of the same spiritual tests that have happened since the times of Adam and Eve. I break down every situation to its simplest moral/immoral form, then apply the Qur'an's teachings to that. It helps me remember that all of the back & forth bickering and rationalizations are man-made distractions, and that all I need to do is remember God's direct teachings and I'll be fine. Or to put it yet another way, only God can get me into Heaven and nothing can stop me from getting to Heaven if God wants me there. So as long as I follow Him, it's all good.

I guess it also helps that I'm not a Muslim because of my parents or even because of any of the Prophets. In short, I'm a Muslim strictly because of my personal experiences and conversations with God, His Angels, and Shaytan. I'm literally a "Muslim" in the sense that the Prophets were Muslims; as in, I physically submit to God after getting put in check because of my spiritual defiance, inquisitiveness, doubts, and the such. If it was only up to any human scholars or preachers, I never would've become a follower of any specific religion. And I only care about Arabic because the Qur'an is written in a beautiful form of it.

I studied many other religions and even many occult sects but the Qur'an was the only one that satisfactorily explained what I was going through. And even now, I still ask God directly for guidance and answers, which He gives. Though sometimes, it's indirectly and sometimes it's in blunt responses like "All life is precious" or "We never said we'd let you succeed". And other times, it's in hilariously overly complex, "Rube Goldberg machine"-like ways which remind of His sense of humor lol.

That should probably explain why I take all of the other "scriptures" with a grain of salt. I've studied extensively how different scriptures from different religions have come about, but I bind myself to none of them. Though I can still find good lessons in any of them. And it probably doesn't help that I get to see my Dad (an Imam) debate the theories and create interpretations with other Imams, elders, and scholars. In some ways, their rulings and interpretations just seem like a bunch of old people giving their opinions on things they can't prove (not to sound mean, of course). And I also am blessed to have several old friends who are now preachers, yet I tend to know the scriptures better than they do. Kinda makes it hard to take the words of men too seriously, especially when I have the direct words of God to refer to.

a reply to: onequestion

To follow Islam is to follow the Quran, hadiths and the biography of Muhammad. There are over 700,000 hadiths but most have been rejected as unauthentic and narrowed down to hundreds or thousands. However, this is what leads to the high divergence of opinion among scholars and Imam's and why there is so much strife in the Islamic world. And this is one of the leading topics which still remains to be addressed when discussing Islamic reformation. Whilst all Muslims will claim the Quran to be perfect in every way, there remains a wide net of varied opinions resulting in 73 sects. One of which doesn't even believe Muhammad was a prophet, if you can imagine that. But the point here being, all of Islam is hinged on the Quran first which is in itself dichotomous when consulting with contradicting hadiths which may or may not be actual stories or spoken words of Muhammad. Even members themselves admit to not knowing the Quran or follow particular hadiths. Without a leading body to instruct Islam how to proceed with their ideology, there will be no consensus to what Islam really is other than a "personal" subjective understanding.