« Philippines: Mistaken for Islamist, One-Armed Man May Sue |
| UK: Terror Tapes Given Out At Dewsbury Mosques »
November 8, 2005
Why There is No Islam without the Hadiths
** This is the first of a four part series regarding the difficulties faced in reforming Islam. Funk Soul Bruhva offers an excellent response to a "Quran only" Muslim, Ameer during a debate as to why the Hadiths cannot be separated from the Quran as a way to minimize the violence and oppression in Islam.
Qur'an-only Muslim, You Say?
There seems to be a growing number of Muslims who call themselves "Quran only" Muslims. Now why would that be anything to boast about, let alone be a trend? If you haven't read the Hadith, the answer may not be apparent. For in the Hadith, are the accounts of Mohammad's deeds and examples. This is the only place they are found, for the Quran is supposedly the world of Allah. No person can come to know Mohammad without knowing the Hadith. The reason a growing number of Muslims want to invalidate the Hadith, is that the Hadith depict Muhammad as a most unsavory person: a selfish, egotistical pirate, serial-murderer, sex-addict, pedophile, plagiarizer, liar, and bigot.
So it all comes down to this: If the Hadith Collections of Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim are true, Muhammad was the most evil man who ever lived, Allah was the most demented god ever conceived, and Islam was the most vile doctrine ever imposed on humankind. If, however, the Hadith Collections are untrue, then nothing is known of Muhammad, the conception of his god, or his formation of Islam. There is no rational reason to believe it, observe it, suffer under it, or die for it.
So, let's begin by examining how the Quran repeatedly commands Muslims to obey the prophet and follow his example:
Obey the Messenger (Mohammad):
Qur'an 4: 64 "We sent not a messenger but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah."
Qur'an 4:80 "He who obeys the Messenger obeys Allah."
Qur'an 5:92 "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and beware!"
Qur'an 24:53 "Say: 'Swear not; Obedience is (more) reasonable.' Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger."
Qur'an 48:10 "Verily those who swear allegiance to you (Muhammad), indeed swear their allegiance to Allah."
These are but a few listed commands to obey Mohammad. It is, in fact, a recurring theme found throughout the Qur'an. Let's see here, "He who obeys the Messenger obeys Allah". This sounds a lot like a confession to me.
Next I will highlight where the Qur'an orders Muslims to follow Mohammad's example:
Follow Mohammad's example:
Qur'an 33.21 "Verily in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example for him who looks unto Allah and the Last Day."
Qur'an 60.4 "There is for you an excellent example, a pattern in Abraham and those with him[ie: Mohammad], when they said to their people: 'We are through with you and with what you worship besides Allah. We reject you. Hostility and hate have come between us forever, unless you believe in Allah only.'"
Qur'an 6.83 "And this was Our argument which we gave to Abraham against his people. And We gave him Ishaq (Isaac) and Yah'qub (Jacob) [Oops. Abraham was given Isaac and Ishmael. Jacob came later]; each did We guide, and Nuh (Noah) did We guide before, and of his descendants, David and Solomon, and Job and Joseph and Moses and Aaron; and thus do We reward those who do good (following Muhammad's example in the Sunnah). And Zachariah and Yahya (John), Isa (Jesus) and Elias; every one was of the good [i.e. Muslims]; And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot and every one We preferred above men and jinn."
Those of sound mind who have studied the Qur'an and Hadith understand that Mohammad merely repackaged moon-god worshiping Arab paganism into the form of a monotheistic cult. Monotheism was a big trend during those times with Judaism and Christianity as the major monotheistic religions gaining power. Mohammad wanted a piece of the action for himself, and so created his own religion by plagiarizing both Judaism and Christianity, as well as other bits and pieces of information he came across, like the work of Greek scientist Galen. Mohammad then mixed it all together with Arab pagan customs and ideas, like jinn, Hajj, praying to Mecca, prostration, etc. Some of these pagan practices, in fact, have become pillars of Islam. The Hadith only serve to confirm this, another reason why some Muslims wish to ignore or discard the Hadith.
The Hadith tell the stories of Mohammad's search to plagiarize Jewish scripture, at any price, which the Jews were happy to charge, and why Mohammad hated them so afterwards, and why Muslims still hate Jews today. Not only did the Jewish Rabbis charge Mohammad a high price, they also recited to him slightly inaccurate stories (Mohammad couldn't read). The rabbis likely knew what Mohammad was up to.
From the Hadith, Mohammad's Sunnah (or example) has become the basis for Islamic law-the most oppressive, repressive, violent and male-chauvinist code on earth. Muslims follow Mohammad's example, which is why they tend to be the most irrational, male-chauvinist and violent people on earth.
Muslims are also ultra-sensitive when comes to criticism of their "prophet" - much more so than criticism of Allah. Why is this? Could it be that most Muslims, deep inside, realize Mohammad was an immoral and evil man, therefore criticism should be hushed and quashed; questions should not be asked? Even drawing his face is prohibited. What is there to hide? Why do some muslims deny the Hadith? Is there something in there that disagrees with their human side? The answers can be found in the Hadith themselves, chronicled initially by Ishaq, then by Bukhari, Muslim and Tabari.
Below is an example of a Muslim, "Ameer", attempting to deny the validity of the Hadith, and thus try to sweep Mohammad's evil character under the carpet. Many Muslims, as the one below, go so far as to say that "fake" Hadiths exist. I suppose, perhaps, it must have been the Jews who made the fake Hadiths [sarcasm].
The problem with that excuse is that Ishaq, Bukhari, Muslim and Tabari are considered by Muslim scholars themselves as "Sahih Hadith". They are the most authenticated and accepted Hadith by the scholars. How can an ordinary Muslim dispute them? So when I'm debating with Muslims, I only reference Ishaq, Bukhari, Muslim and Tabari. There can be no argument to their authenticity, so any argument put forth a Muslim, means they are challenging the highest scholars. That could constitute heresy.
Below the Muslim's denial of the validity of the Hadith, is my rebuttal:
-----------------------------------------------
Ameer wrote:
I don't find things in the Qu'ran objectable [sic] but many Hadiths are objectable [sic], so I don't really follow Hadiths. Firstly, there are so many fake ones. And even if they were true, if they go against Islam's teaches, they are still wrong. I think the best thing to do is just not take Hadiths seriously.
---------------------------------------------
Aye, there's the rub.... not taking them seriously is impossible.
Without the Hadith, you cannot know Mohammad.
Without knowing anything about Mohammad, you cannot follow his example, and there is no Islam. If you doubt the Hadith you doubt the entirety of Islam, and therefore are apostate/murtad/kafir (whatever applies to you).
In fact, 4 out of 5 of Islam's Pillars would not exist without the Hadith, and the Qur'an would be indecipherable.
Bukhari:V1B2N7 "Allah's Apostle said: 'Islam is based on (the following) five (principles):
First Pillar: To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle.
The Qur'an orders Muslims to obey the Messenger. If you don't know what he ordered, that's impossible. The Qur'an alleges that it's entirely composed of Allah's commands, not Muhammad's, so you'd be out of luck. The Qur'an also tells Muslims that they must follow the Messenger's example, yet the only place that example is established is in the Sunnah. Therefore, Islam's First Pillar is utterly meaningless, and impossible to implement, without Ishaq and Tabari.
Second Pillar: To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly.
Once again, that's not feasible. The "compulsory congregational prayer" isn't described in the Qur'an. There aren't even any clues. In fact, the Qur'an says that there should be three prayers, none of which it depicts, and the Hadith demands five. The only explanation of the obligatory prostration is found in the Sunnah-and even then it's never described by the prophet himself. Muslims are performing a ritual without Qur'anic precedence. As such, the Second Pillar is rubble. However if we take a look at the pagan rituals of the times, we can see where this practice originated.
Third Pillar: To pay Zakat. (Bukhari:V1B2N7)
How is that possible when the terms of the Zakat are omitted from the Qur'an? The first to commit them to paper was Ishaq. A century later, Tabari referenced Ishaq's Hadith. The only reason Muslims can pay the Zakat is because Ishaq explained it to them.
Fourth Pillar: To perform Hajj.
Nope. That's impossible too. The only explanations of the Hajj are in the Sunnah. No aspect of the pilgrimage can be performed without referencing the Hadith. Muslims would be lost without it.
Do you suppose Allah will redeem himself and explain the final pillar in his "perfect, detailed, and final revelation to mankind?"
Fifth Pillar: To observe fast during the month of Ramadan. (Bukhari:V1B2N7)
Although the Qur'an does indeed describe the fast, without the Hadith, Muslims wouldn't know why Ramadhan was so special (unless they researched Arab paganism). The accounts of the meaning of Ramadan are in their Traditions - initially chronicled by Ishaq and then copied by Bukhari, Muslim, and Tabari.
Funny thing is, the one pillar that is actually described in the Quran, is actually a borrowed pagan ritual Qusayy invented pre-dating Mohammad's Islam. Qusayy's family took a cut on merchandise sold during the "truce of the gods" fairs of Ramadhan. Ramadhan and all the associated customs that go along with it (stoning of the devil, circumambulation of the ka'aba, the ka'aba stone itself, walking the mountains, etc.) are all of pagan origin.
If you follow the Qur'an, it is incumbent upon you to follow Mohammad's example and obey him. The only way to do this is to accept the Hadith.
You have a serious dilemma to ponder, Ameer.
Funk Soul Bruhva
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to borrow from this essay in your on-line debates with Quran-Only Muslims.
All the Best,
-Funk Soul Bruhva
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at November 8, 2005 4:45 PM
Comments
Funk Soul Bruhva, I thank you for your comments however I find them weakly substantiated.
The Qu'ran is the infallible word of God. The very purpose of the coming of the Qu'ran (as the last testament) was as a first hand account of God's words, unlike the Gospel which was essentially compiled several hundred years after the death of Christ based on second hand accounts. The very fact that you advocate the same (as the Hadiths were collected and compiled some 300 years or so after the death of the Prophet) means that you are asking us as Muslims to go backwards. In fact, IF it was important to God and the Prophet to have these Hadiths, can you explain to me why they would not have been compiled and approved by the Prophet during his lifetime? The reasons for this, if you know your Islamic history are political and have precious little to do with Gods message.
Quran only muslims- are true Muslims. There is no way around that fact.
Lets look at your arguments above:
You state the following examples as your irrefutable proof that Hadith is sanctioned in the Qu'ran:
Qur'an 4: 64 "We sent not a messenger but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah."
Yes- and I don't see how this advocates a Hadith??
Qur'an 4:80 "He who obeys the Messenger obeys Allah."
Yes- because The messenger's will and message is that of Allah's. This is not proof that Hadith's are sanctioned (at a time when they DID NOT EXIST). You are reading it for it to mean something you want it to mean.
Qur'an 5:92 "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and beware!"
The messenger is acting out the will of God. This does not advocate using 2nd hand accounts of what he says as a definition of Islam.
Qur'an 24:53 "Say: 'Swear not; Obedience is (more) reasonable.' Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger."
As above
Qur'an 48:10 "Verily those who swear allegiance to you (Muhammad), indeed swear their allegiance to Allah."
This reads to me like someone who beleives in the Prophets message is at one with Allah, because the message that has come via him (The Quran) is from God.
None of these examples have any basis in any sort of real argumentative logic. You are not using the fact that the Quran advocates the hadith to back your argument. Your using the fact that the Quran advocates Muhammad. But the Quran does NOT advocate the collection of 2nd hand accounts of what Muhammad said compiled by 3rd parties to define Islam to an individual.
Secondly - and this one is rather laughable- your argument for the Hadith is a hadith itself!! The hadith states that there are 5 pillars of Islam that constitute the definition of a Muslim. This is based on a hadith by Bukhari: "Allah's Apostle said: 'Islam is based on (the following) five (principles)"
You cannot use a hadith as proof that hadiths are valid! I argue that the five pillars are an important part of Islamic life- any Quranic or historical reference on Islam can show you that. But Quranically it does not state that if you do not do these 5 you are not a muslim. And you are right, that the Qu'ran does not tell us how to pray. This is based on a tradition that has been passed down through the ages. But maybe by God's standards you are no less a muslim if you pray differently. Is a child who may not know the prayers any less valid? In my view the ommission is not a mistake. Allah knows all- we pray like Muhammad did because we know it, it has been passed down from one muslim to the next for generations. But if we prayed differently we would be no less of a Muslim. The act of prayer is the submission- not how its done.
And in a final point to address your assertions that the Quran states we should follow hadith- you were not able to produce any significant verses in the Quran that sanction the hadith. All you were able to produce was verses which state that Allah sanctions Muhammad. It is clear when you approach the argument logically that both are mutually exclusive of the other. This is why your argument is rather feable. This, and logic on it's own would be reason enough to dismiss your proposition, but in order to be completely clear, I include verses from the Quran- which any Muslim must agree is the word of God, not man (like the Hadiths)- and is therefore infallible.
"These are God's revelations that We recite to you truthfully. In which message/ hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?" 45:6
"48:23 (Such has been) the practice (approved) of Allah already in the past: no change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah."
"Obey God and obey the messenger. If you shall turn away then the sole of the messenger is to deliver the message (the Quran)" 64:12
"It (the Quran) is a revelation from the Lord of the universe. Had he (Muhammad) uttered any other teachings, We would have grabbed him by the right, and We would have severed his Wateen (Major artery of the heart), none of you could have helped him." 69:43-47
In fact, it may be that all Hadiths are not wrong. Perhaps some of them are accurate, but we as humans have no way of knowing which ones are accurate. It was not ordained by our creator and these are man made texts that have very little to do with true Islam.
I'm sorry, but wake up and learn about the faith.
Posted by: findspek
at August 3, 2007 6:21 PM
Funk Soul Bruhva,
In answer to your statment that the Gospels were written hundreds of years after Christ;
CANONIZATION OF THE BIBLE
The New Testament
Things U should Know
There has always been controversy surrounding the 66 Books of the Bible as Divine Revelation. Many ask why other Gospels were never incorporated. One of the simplest answers is; these gospels did not match up to the criteria’s that were set in place when the need arose to canonize the Bible. The need arose because of the Marcion Controversy (130 AD), spread of false doctrines, false writings and persecution.
The criteria’s for canonization fell into five major categories;
Authorship; written by a prophet or a prophetically gifted person, an eyewitness, or else a close associate to an apostle. Audience: Written to all generations with God’s message not confined to one audience, but relevant to all people across all generations and times. General Acceptance and usage of the Church: Written by an authentic source, teaching correct teaching, generally accepted as the Word of God, consistent with church practices, doctrine and tradition. Teaching and Conformity: Written in accord with previous revelation without contradicting earlier inspired writings as God’s truth remains the same and cannot contradict itself. Time of Writing: Written around the time of the Apostles; between 40-90 AD
The Early Church did a great job of Historical Criticism in setting the canon. Nothing in the modern canon was written after 130 AD, with most of the works being significantly older. Many books were claimed to be old, but the Early Church distinguished those from true accounts of the 1st 100 years after Jesus.
The New Testament canon was not completely settled until the fourth century; however its basic form was recognizable by 150 AD. The following 200 years of development and refining dealt more with peripheral books. Canonization of the Bible is attributed to three major councils. The Council of Laodicea (AD. 363) accepted all the books of the New Testament except the Book of Revelation. The Council of Carthage (AD. 397, 419), chaired by Augustine, accepted all 27 New Testament books, while the Council/s of Hippo (AD 393, 394, 426) reaffirmed the Council of Carthage.
Thus if you are faced with the infamous question as to why such and such gospel was not included; or for that matter the Gospels were written hundreds of years after Christ you will know what to say.
In Christ
Cyber Defender of Biblical Faith and Principles
Posted by: CyberDefenderofBiblicalFaith&Principles
at March 9, 2008 3:38 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)