Anti Hadeeth Must Renounce Prophet Musa AS for Punishing Apostates

SInce Saidina Musa AS ordered the killings of apostates of his time, i dare the Anti Hadeeth sect to RENOUNCE Saidina Musa openly.

Anti Hadeeth MUST call him (Saidina Musa) names and call him anti Quran for punishing apostates as he did below:

02:54

YUSUFALI: And remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker." Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: And when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Ye have wronged yourselves by your choosing of the calf (for worship) so turn in penitence to your Creator, and kill (the guilty) yourselves. That will be best for you with your Creator and He will relent toward you. Lo! He is the Relenting, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

I challange Anti Hadeeth sect around the world to renounce Saidina Musa AS for his actions mentioned in 02:54.

And here is the rest of it. Read more!

Refuting mostmerciful.com: Bukhari Rejecting Thousands of Hadeeth

Akbarally made a very stupid claim about Imam Bukhari. He claims that

"Imam Bukhari declined to propagate the falsehood in the name of the Prophet (s.a.s.). In the process he "REJECTED" hundreds of thousand Hadeeths... Can anyone call Imam Bukhari a 'Munkar-e-Hadeeth' - a rejecter of Hadeeths? The issue before us is very similar. It is the time for a second revision.Read to know why and how to do it... ".

His claim can be read at www.mostmerciful.com/bukhari--munkar-e-hadeeth.htm. This article will produce a link that will refute Akbarally stupid and libelous claim 1000%. The links is www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html The article is reprinted as follows:

1. Introduction

Over the years, Christian missionaries have solidified their reputation for embracing zealous new recruits. One fresh addition to this delegation of holy servicemen is the neophyte, Andrew Vargo. More often than not, the missionaries have overlooked the academic backgrounds of these fresh recruits, apparently intoxicated by their impassioned hatred for Islam. Mr. Vargo has recently tried his hand as a student of comparative religion, introducing some of the most fantastic ideas yet to the discourse. Among these ideas is a rather boastful claim concerning the collection of ahadith by the great Muslim scholar, Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH). The highlight of Vargo's claim lies in the following:

In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak! For example, Bukhari collected over 600,000 reports, but kept only 7,397 as true!

This is one of the most popular claims concerning the vast collection of ahadith of al-Bukhari in the Christian missionary literature and comes with fanciful explanations. For example, Anis Shorrosh, a well-known Arab missionary, says:

... Bukhari, collected twenty thousand of them, of which he rejected ten thousand, accounting them untrue. Of the remaining ten thousand he accepted only 7,275, declaring the rest to be untrustworthy. Abu Da'ud accepted as authentic only 4,800 rules out 50,000.[1]

Similarly we find Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb claiming that:

...Bukhari, considered to be the most reliable collector, admitted that of the 300,000 hadith he collected, he considered only 100,000 might be true. He then narrowed this number down to 7,275, many of which are repetitions so that the total number is in fact near 3,000. That means that even he admitted there were errors in over 295,000 of them![2]

Nearly a similar statement is repeated by Geisler in his Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics to cast doubts on the miracles performed by the Prophet Muhammad.[3] Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, on the other hand, labels what al-Bukhari did not include in his collection as "apocryphal".

As to the abundance of the apocryphal traditions, we learn that the famous authority al-Bukhari choose only 7,000 out of a host of 600,000 traditions that were current in his on time.[4]

Similar statements were made by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, who quoted a "Muslim scholar".[5]

Not surprising is the case of Rand Corporation, who have published an interesting report on Islam entitled "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies". The report has two fold agenda: firstly, to try to create a version of Islam that suits the post-9/11 Western agenda and secondly encouraging creation of divisions in the Muslim society at home and abroad. The Rand Report's recipe to achieve this aim is to encourage and promote the so-called modernist Muslims and play one section of the society against another to split the Muslim society. A small example of it can be seen when the report uses the material from the hadith-rejectors (not surprisingly!) to claim "objectively" that:

Even if that were not the case, objectively speaking, there is little doubt that hadith is at best a dubious, flawed instrument. Consider that Al-Bukhari is the compiler of what is generally considered to be the most authoritative and reliable collections of hadith. He collected 600,000 hadith, examined them for their authenticity, eliminated all but 7,600 of them, deleted some for redundancy, and was left with a collection of about 4,000.[6]

As we shall see, feisty statements such as the above only prove to be self-defeating in the end. This article intends to examine missionaries' thesis in light of the scholarship of Imam al-Bukhari, and thereby ascertain the actual worth of their claim.

To appreciate the broader perspective, we will also include a discussion of Imam Muslim's ahadith collection, insha'allah.
2. Imam Bukhari & The Nature Of His Collection

Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler, Abdul Saleeb, Abdul-Haqq and Benard have practically begged the question for us already - where exactly did Imam al-Bukhari mention that among the 600,000 ahadith in his collection, only 7,397 are to be accepted as 'true'? They maintains the missionary tradition of conveniently omitting any references that would not support their thesis; the mark of a true academicians, indeed! Once again, it is left to the Muslims to enlighten the ill-informed missionaries on this matter.

Imam al-Bukhari's actual words have been reproduced below:

* The two sahih collections did not gather the totality of the authentic ahadith as proved by al-Bukhari's testimony: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic for fear of [excessive] length.(Footnote 2)"

Footnote 2 says:

He [al-Bukhari] meant that he did not mention all the turuq [parallel chains of transmission] for each and every hadith.[7]

To reiterate this in elementary English, Imam al-Bukhari selected only a few authentic ahadith from his vast collection. However, he left out certain traditions, despite their authenticity, simply to avoid excessive length and repetition in his Al-Jami` (a discussion about which is given below). If anything, the privilege to make such a gesture is highly complimentary to the authenticity of the Islamic traditions. In another tradition, Imam al-Bukhari is also reported to have said:

He said, I heard as-Sa`dani say, I heard some of our companions say, Muhammad Ibn Isma`il said: I selected/published [the content of] this book - meaning the Sahih book - from about 600,000 hadiths/reports. Abu Sa`d al-Malini informed us that `Abdullah Ibn `Udayy informed us: I heard al-Hasan Ibn al-Husayn al-Bukhari say: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic what I could not get hold of."[8]

The above quotation reflects Imam al-Bukhari's gallant honesty to admit that he was not able to collect each and every authentic tradition that existed in his day. Rather, his Al-Jami` is only a partial collection of authentic traditions, despite its massive volume. Furthermore, it should be clarified for the missionaries that the notion of a partial collection of authentic material is quite different from the notion of a partially authentic collection of material. However, it is not our aim to offer a course on propositional reasoning. Thus, we leave the point with the hope that they will eventually comprehend this piece of preschool logic.

Professor Mustafa al-Azami, who offered a devastating critique of Joseph Schacht's work, again clarifies the misunderstanding of many orientalists on this issue:

Al-Bukhari did not claim that what he left out were the spurious, nor that there were no authentic traditions outside his collection. On the contrary he said, "I only included in my book al-Jami` those that were authentic, and I left out many more authentic traditions than this to avoid unnecessary length." He had no intention of collecting all the authentic traditions. He only wanted to compile a manual of hadith, according to the wishes of his Shaikh Ishaq b. Rahwaih, and his function is quite clear from the title of his book al-Jami` al-Musnad al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar min umur Rasul Allah wa Sunanhi wa ayyamih. The word al-Mukhtasar, 'epitome', itself explains that al-Bukhari did not make any attempt at a comprehensive collection.[9]

Yet, the missionaries seem to be living under the delusion that the 600,000 ahadith of Imam al-Bukhari's collection somehow means 600,000 separate narrations or bodies of text. His sloppy study of this issue becomes clear when one learns that a hadith is comprised of both a text (matn) and a chain of transmission (isnad). In the science of hadith, the same text with ten chains of transmission is regarded not as one hadith but rather as ten hadiths, despite the fact that the text attached to each chain is the same in every case.

Professor Mustafa al-Azami adds:

Now it is clear that when traditionalists give enormous numbers for the traditions, they mean channels and sources of their transmission, and do not mean real numbers of hadith.[10]

Nabia Abbott, a prominent orientalist who conducted an extensive study on hadith literature, observed that the phenomenal growth of the corpus of this literature is not due to growth in content but due to progressive increase in the parallel and multiple chains of transmission, i.e., isnads:

... the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission.[11]

Take a highly simplified example of one Companion narrating a single hadith from the Prophet to two students: these students themselves teaching that narration again to two pupils each and so on until we reach the time of al-Bukhari and his contemporaries. We will find that in al-Bukhari's generation at least 16 individuals will be hearing the hadith from their respective teachers. Because each individual chain of transmission counts as a separate hadith, what started out as a single narration transmitted by one Companion only, has evolved within a short period of time to 16 ahadith; an increase of 1600%. The true nature of affairs, however, being far greater, with a far greater number of Companions transmitting a far greater number of narrations to a far greater number of students. This then is the form in which proliferation took place, the dispersion of narrators and chains of transmission. Using the mathematical application of geometric progression, Nabia Abbott concludes:

... using geometric progression, we find that one to two thousand Companions and senior Successors transmitting two to five traditions each would bring us well within the range of the total number of traditions credited to the exhaustive collections of the third century. Once it is realised that the isnad did, indeed, initiate a chain reaction that resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhari seem not so fantastic after all.[12]

The implications of explosive increase in of the isnad is dealt with here.
3. Imam Muslim & The Nature Of His Collection

Imam Muslim along the similar lines to that of Imam al-Bukhari , is reported to have said:

The translation of which is:

[...]. Imam Muslim said: "I have not included in my present book any thing but with proof [regarding authenticity] , and I have not left out anything but with proof". He also said: I did not include everything that I judge authentic/Sahih, I only included what received a unanimous agreement, i.e., what fulfilled all the criteria of authenticity agreed upon [by the scholars].

And Muslim has presented [his collection] to the scholars of his time, like Imam Abu Zar`ah, and retained what was void of defect, and left out what had some defect.[13]

From the above quotation, it is clear that Imam Muslim's collection is also a partial collection of authentic material and not a partially authentic collection of material. He followed a certain set of criteria that demanded a proof for the inclusion of each and every hadith in his collection.
4. Conclusions

Imam al-Bukhari's collection of ahadith was maintained to be authentic on account of his authority, and it has been maintained as authentic ever since. The missionaries' assertion, that Imam al-Bukhari regarded almost 99% of his own collection as spurious, is among the most rash and foolhardy statements ever dared by Christian missionaries. On the contrary, the 7,397 refers to the number of hadiths that Imam al-Bukhari chose to include in his Al-Jami` and left out many authentic narrations from his vast collection for the fear of excessive length.

Again, according to the Vargo:

In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak!

We should wonder whether the neophyte is as quick to demonstrate the same puerile enthusiasm over the question of his own religious texts. Regardless, we will quote the famous trial of Imam al-Bukhari to show how maqlub[14] (changed, reversed) ahadith can be identified with ease by a scholar of hadith:

The famous trial of al-Bukhari by the scholars of Baghdad provides a good example of a Maqlub isnad. The traditionists, in order to test their visitor, al-Bukhari, appointed ten men, each with ten ahadith. Now, each hadith (text) of these ten people was prefixed with the isnad of another. Imam al-Bukhari listened to each of the ten men as they narrated their ahadith and denied the correctness of every hadith. When they had finished narrating these ahadith, he addressed each person in turn and recounted to him each of his ahadith with its correct isnad. This trial earned him great honour among the scholars of Baghdad.[15]

Finally, it is worth citing a significant trend in modern Western scholarship of the Prophetic traditions of Islam. For the past several decades, criticism of these traditions has been the Orientalist's whipping post, an opportunity to invalidate the traditions of Islam, which culminated in the work of Joseph Schacht, mentioned earlier. However, this position has practically been reversed in recent times, with the advent of academic honesty on the part of Western scholars. Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University has made the following counter-criticism of Schacht's traditional position:

Accepting Schacht's conclusion regarding the many traditions he did examine does not warrant its automatic extension to all the traditions. To consider all Prophetic traditions apocryphal until proven otherwise is to reverse the burden of proof. Moreover, even where differences of opinion exist regarding the authenticity of the chain of narrators, they need not detract from the authenticity of a tradition's content and common acceptance of the importance of tradition literature as a record of the early history and development of Islamic belief and practice.[16]

The position of Esposito perhaps reflects the growing attitude among Western educational institutions that entertain any study of Islam and its traditions. This is simply evidenced by the fact that Professor Esposito has become one of the reigning authorities on Islam in the West, whose textbooks are considered university standards for courses on Islam.

Considering the missionaries' abuse of hadiths to denigrate the Prophet(P) of Islam, it would be too generous to assume that Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler and Abdul Saleeb "misunderstood" the nature of the collection of Imam al-Bukhari. As for the Rand Corporation's report, their "objectivity" lies in the unverified use of source material. An honest misunderstanding entails at least some understanding of the issue, which doesn't even seem to be their case. Perhaps the Christian missionaries might consider beginning a genuine study of the science of hadith before they embarrasses themselves further.
Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Abu Hudhayfah for providing us necessary help and allowing us to use his material.

And Allah knows best!

References

[1] Dr. A. A. Shorrosh, Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View Of Islam, 1988, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, p. 22.

[2] N. L. Geisler & A. Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent In The Light Of The Cross, 1993, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 165.

[3] "Muhammad, Alleged Miracles Of", in N. L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics, 2002, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 512.

[4] A. A. Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith With A Muslim, 1980, Bethany House Publications: Minneapolis, p. 45.

[5] J. Ankerberg & J. Weldon, Fast Facts On Islam, 2001, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), pp. 50-51.

[6] C. Benard, "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies", 2003, Rand Corporation, p. 67.

[7] Muhammad Ajaj al-Khatib, Al-Mukhtasar al-Wajiz fi `Ulum al-Hadith, 1991, Mu'assasat al-Risalah, p. 135.

[8] Abi Bakr Ahmad Ibn `Ali al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad Aw Madinah as-Salam, 1931 (1349 AH), Volume II, Maktabat al-Khanji, Cairo & Al-Maktabah al-`Arabiyyah, Baghdad and Matba'at as-S'adah near the State Department, Cairo, pp. 8-9.

[9] M. M. al-Azami, Studies In Early Hadith Literature, 1992, American Trust Publications: Indianapolis (USA), pp. 305-306.

[10] ibid., p. 306.

[11] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II [Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition], 1967, University Of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 2.

[12] ibid., p. 72.

[13] Al-Imam Muhyee ad-Din Abi Zakariyya Yahya bin Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sahih Muslim Bi Sharh al-Imam al-Nawawi, Volume I, 1994/1414, Dar al-Khair, p. 1.

[14] A hadith is known as maqlub (changed, reversed) when its isnad is grafted to a different text or vice versa, or if a reporter happens to reverse the order of a sentence in the text.

[15] S. Hasan, An Introduction To The Science Of Hadith, 1995, Darussalam Publishers: Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) available online, quote taken from here.

[16] J. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, 1998, Oxford University Press, p. 81.

Read more!

Refuting mostmerciful.com: Abu Hurairah

This is a refutation of an article written by Akbarally about Abu Hurairah at www.mostmerciful.com/abu-hurayrah.htm.

The funny thing is that Akbarally described this article as "A Hadeeth from "Sahih Muslim" that directly contradicts the Revealed Text of the Qur'an". Yet, after careful consideration, it turns out that such hadeeth DOES NOT contradict the Quran after all.AFirst, let me highlight the fact that all enemies of Islam attacks Abu Hurairah. This includes Orientalist, Anti Hadeeth, Shiaas, Modernists etc. The list has just got longer and the latest to join the list is Akbarralli Meherally.

For a good defence of Abu Hurairah, feel free to surf http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/in_defense_of_abu_hurairah.htm.

Now, lets see the article below. The question now, is there really a contradiction between the hadeeth and the verses he quoted?


ARGUMENT #1”

The verse:


54. Your Guardian-Lord is God, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, t he moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!

Then the hadeeth:

Narrated by Abu Hurayrah:
Allah's Messenger took hold of my hands and said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created the clay on Saturday and He created the mountains on Sunday and He created the trees on Monday and He created the things entailing labour on Tuesday and created light on Wednesday and He caused the animals to spread on Thursday and created Adam (peace be upon him) after Asr on Friday; the last creation at the last hour of the hours of Friday, i.e. between afternoon and night.



MY QUESTION IS, WHERE IS THE CONTRADICTION???????????


The verse talks about the number of days Alllah created Heaven and Earth (“As Sama Wa Al Ard”).

The Hadeeth DOES NOT MENTION “As Sama Wa Al Ard” at all. So, how can the hadeeth contradicts the Quran?

MORE ISSUES THAT Akbaralli Did Not Address

Perhaps Akbaralli should not have been so one-track mind in understanding Al HAdeeth of the Prophet SAW. Perhaps he needs to widen his mind and consider other possible angle or issues that requires addressing before coming to his conclusion


a. The verses uses the word “Ayam” which means “days”. The question now is, does “days” in the verse the same as “days” known to us right now? For one, before the Creation, there was no day and night?
b. The hadeeth talks about Creations of God other then Heaven and Earth. So, where is the contradiction?
c. The other possible explanation is that God Created Heaven and Earth in Six Days but His ENTIRE CREATIONS took Him seven days?
d. Can we simply assume that when God says Heaven and Earth, he’s referring to His entire creations? I think that’s a faulty conclusion.


CONCLUSION

Akbarally is at it again. Claiming something which is never an issue. Making a mountain out of nothing.

It seems this is the trademark of all Anti Hadeeth. U depend on wrong accusations, half truth, misinterpretation and deception to advance your case.

What a bunch of losers u all are.
Read more!

Refuting mostmerciful.com: Prayers

This is a refutation to Akbarally's article entitled at "ALLAH REVEALS
11 DIVINE TESTIMONIES THAT DO MAKE CRYSTAL CLEAR HIS COMMANDMENTS FOR
~THE DAILY ESTABLISHED PRAYERS~

at www.mostmerciful.com/message-of-quran-with-eleven-quranic-testimonies.htm. The refutation is taken from an article posted on Sangkancilnet some years ago, entitled "There are more than 3 salats in the Quran" at www.malaysia.net/lists/sangkancil/2000-11/frm00058.html
Assalamualaikum,

Maybe a lot of people are wondering why i am
saying this. The reason is due to the ARABIC UNDERSTANDING of verses
related to SALAT and NUMBER OF SALATS mentioned in the Quran.

02:238
" Guard your solats dan the solat al wusta..."
(prayers) as-solati (and prayer of) al-wusta ( the
middle).....

1)The word used in this verse is AS SOLAWATI.
This word is the PLURAL or JAMAK form of the word
SOLAT. Jama' here indicates that number of salats is
THREE and ABOVE. Therefore the TOTAL NUMBER of salats
mentioned by ALLAH SWT is THREE AND ABOVE.

2) Then, the word AS SOLATUL WUSTA is attached to
AS SOLAWATI with a WAU ATFA. Since they both are ISM
MA'RIFAH, then AS SOLATUL WUSTA is NOT part of the
AS SOLAWAT mentioned.

Therefore, the number of SOLAT mentioned in 02:238 is
MINIMUM FOUR, thus far.

3) Since AL WUSTA means THE MIDDLE, then IF the
solat is four, the SOLAT AL WUSTA will not be IN THE
MIDDLE.

Therefore to make the SOLAT AL WUSTA to be WUSTA,
the number of solat would have to be MINIMUM FIVE
times. Read more!

Refuting mostmerciful.com: Hadeeth

A Refutation of the article entitles “'MYTHS AND REALITIES OF HADITH -- a critical study'” www.mostmerciful.com/hadith-book.pdf written by akbarally meherally

INTRODUCTION

For one not suspecting the intention of this particular article, one might think that the writer is honest in his analysis. But, upon reading and analysis, one will find that the entire article contains nothing but an implicit attempt to smear the good name of Al Hadeeeth
OBSERVATIONS

One will see that the writer adopt a very simplistic method in determining the meaning of a hadeeth. For instance he claims that:

“Any hadith that disagrees or is opposed to what has been revealed in the Holy Qur'an
should be discarded, even if it is a Sahih hadith or a Qudsi hadith.”

But, what should be questioned is that has the writer actually proved the existence of contradiction at all?

His entire discussion revolves around attacking Imam Bukhari, the Isnad system (which have been proven to be credible even by western Orientalists), a few hadeeths out of thousands that is viewed by the writer to be “strange” and his countless unfounded accusations that a certain portion of Al Hadeeth contradicts the Quran.

Let me rebutt the entire by the categories shown above

THE ISNAD SYSTEM: IS IT CREDIBLE OR NOT?

The writer, Akbarally Meherally(from hereon will be known as AM), quoted a statement from an unknown character name Brother Malik. And, he says:

“To understand the background to the development of Hadith literature one must sift
through the history of Islam from about 250 years after the time of our Prophet… during
the first century of the Prophet's era no hadiths were written down… Stories circulated by
word of mouth but they were never written down because the view was well known that
the Prophet and the companions did not want anything of the kind to be done, and so
there was a very strong feeling against the writing of any sort of 'Hadith' literature. The
so-called 'Science of isnad' -- touchstone of a hadith's authenticity -- has tremendous
flaws in it. How, then, can we go on giving credence to something that was not written
down and yet which, some 250 years after the fact, Bukhari supposedly managed to trace
back to its source (i.e. the Prophet) by establishing all the links in a chain which cannot
possibly have been genuinely reconstructed! How he (Bukhari) managed to do this
without written records, bridging a gap of about eight generations, and simultaneously
establishing not only biographical data but also a compelling analysis of the mental
faculties of his subjects defies belief! One can quote several hundred hadiths that not only
contradict the Qur’an but also clearly do damage to the Prophet's good name.”

One can see that AM relies on sources which are lazy, unfounded and also ignorant of the subject at hands. How AM can rely on simplistic statement like this really baffles me.

For those whom actually studied the Isnad system in detail, it has been concluded that the Isnad system is a sound system for verification of a status of Hadeeth.

Abdul Malik is under the impression that Hadeeth is transmitted in secret and that between the time of Imam Bukhari and the Prophet, there is like a vacumm. What he doesn’t realize is that the Hadeeth of the Prophet SAW is popular and taught to millions of Muslims throughout the period between Imam Bukhari and the Prophet SAW.

The need for verification of hadeeth doesn’t arise except for the fact there exist attempts by enemies of Islam to introduce fabricated and false words attributed to the Prophet. The attempt by enemies of Islam was detected long before the time of Imam Bukhari but most “tashih” (verification) was done by “Fuqaha” before the time of Imam Bukhari.

What Imam Bukhari has done is that he introduced a standard that’s above everybody else’s and he analyzed all the Hadeeth that’s available or known to the Muslim world at his time.

He then recorded all the hadeeth he has managed to collect in his book “At Tarikh Al KAbeer” and from there he collected 7000+ and put it in his “Aj Jami As Sahih”.

That’s why we find western analysts like Nadia Abboott or J. Robson defending the reliability of the Isnad system.

AM, on the other hand, relied on an obscure character name Bro Abdul Malik.

WRITINGS OF AL HADEETH

AM argues that the Prophet had prohibited the writings of the hadeeth during his time. What AM didn’t write is that the hadeeth that he relied upon:

“Al-Muttalib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab said:
"Zayd ibn Thabit entered upon Mu'awiyah and asked him about a
tradition. He ordered a man to write it. Zayd said: The Apostle of Allah
(peace be upon him) ordered us not to write any of his traditions. So he
erased it."

is UNAUTHENTIC. He then wrote for several pages on the Prophet’s prohibition of writing the hadeeth.

AM also missed out a monumental book written by MM Azami which has extensive records of earlier writing of the Prophet’s words (entitled “Studies in early Hadith Literature)

It’s weird that for a Phd student like AM, he should be open enough to accept all literature with regards to the subject and not pick and choose the materials he likes and dislike.

Suffice to say, is entire case against the writing of the Prophet’s word is empty and baseless

FAILURE TO PROVE CONTRADICTION

Here shall show how AM had failed to prove existence of contradictions from the examples he provides

Case #1

“Allah's Messenger said:
On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups, one sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned on easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. slaves of yours. He will say: Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians; then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy”.

7 From ‘110 Hadith Qudsi’. Hadith No. 8 on page 19/20. Translated by Syed Masood-ul-Hasan, Revision
and Commentaries by Ibrahim M. Kunna, published by Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1996/1417H.
.
The commentary to this hadith reads:
This Hadith is sound and mentioned in Mustadrak of Hakim.
Below are verses of the Holy Qur’an that speak of the final just and fair judgment by
Allah.
We shall set up scales of justice for the Day of Judgment so that not a soul will be
dealt with unjustly in the least. And if there be (no more than) the weight of a
mustard seed We will bring it (to account): and enough are We to take account.
Q. 21:47”

AM then claims that the hadeeth contradicts the verse. My question is, HOW?

One: We see clearly that the Hadeeth is an indication of Mercy from Allah SWT to his humble servants.

Second: The verse of 21:47 talks about all souls will be accounted for all their deeds during their life. Incidently, the Hadeeth points to the accounting process as well.

Third: The hadeeth addresses Allah Mercy AFTER those people have been accounted for.

So, where is the contradiction? In short, the hadeeth addresses the mercy of Allah SWT AFTER the “accounting” process mentioned by Allah SWT in 21:47

As for the Jews and Christians, they are already condemned to hell for eternity. Putting sins upon them does not make any difference at all.

So we see AM interprets the Hadeeth in any way he wishes and immediately comes to the conclusion that it’s contradictory.

Yet, we see that it’s not.

CASE #2: AM tries to paint a negative picture of Sahih Bukhari. He then tried to quote MM Azami out of context. I quote:

“A prominent Muslim scholar of our times, Dr. Muhammad Mustafa Azami, M.A., Ph.D.
and Professor of Science of Hadith, University of Riyadh, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia writes:
Many scholars criticized Bukhari's work. The criticism concerns about 80 narrators and
some 110 ahadith. 13
The number of questionable narrators mentioned above is very high. Dr. Azami has in
the footnote given references of the following two prominent works of the fourteenth
century Muslim scholars, based upon which he has made the above statement:
1. 'Abdur Rahman b. Abu Bakr Suyuti's book ‘Tadrib ar-Rawi’, ed. by A.
R. Latif, Cairo, 1379, vol. I, page 134.
2. Ibn Hajar's book ‘Hadyal-Sari’, Cairo 1383, vol. II, page 106. (Unquote)

What AM deliberately left out is:
a. Both Ibnu Hajr and As Suyuti defended the “Sahih” status of Sahih Bukhari.
b. The scholar that doubts the “80 narrators andsome 110 ahadith” is Ad Daruquthni
c. AM fails to quote Ibnu Hajr’s book “An Nukat” which rebuts Ad Daruquthni on the 80 narrators and 110 hadeeth altogether
d. Even MM Azami openly admits that both SAhih Bukhari and Muslim is 100% authentic

At this point, one cannot but notice the evil nature of AM article. It’s nothing but half truth, misquotes, misinterpretations and half baked attempts to highlight the works of the great Imam of the past.

Case #3 : Misunderstanding of Al Hadeeth on Future Happenings

AM quotes this hadeeth”

“Below I have quoted a hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah that is not Qudsi and can be
found on the internet at an Islamic website. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The Jews were split up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians were split up into seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my community will be split up into seventy-three sects. (Sunan Abu-Da’ud, Book Number 40, Hadith Number 4579.”

It’s clear that AM doesn’t know the fact that in Arabic, whenever the word “seventy” is used, it refers to “many”. It shouldn’t be taken in literal form. But, then again, AM relies on many of the hadeeth in literal term to support his “contradiction” theory.

Case #4: Hadeeth on Fly.

There has been so many explanation on this hadeeth. Funny AM only takes the ones he is comfortable with.

Refer to Dr Yusuf Qardhawi in his book “Al Fatawa Al Muasirat” where he explained I detail why this hadeeth makes sense.

Plus, the hadeeth says that we are to dip “the other wing” is an indication of dipping the entire fly. It’s “Majaz” again and AM fail to understand that.


Case #5: He claims the hadeeth below is aganst the Quran plus he claims that this hadeeth is taken from Old Testemenat by Abu Hurairah.

My Comments:

Narrated by Abu Hurayrah in Sahih Al-Bukhari 19.
Allah's Apostle said,
(The Prophet) Solomon once said, 'Tonight I will sleep with ninety women, each of whom will bring forth a (would-be) cavalier who will fight in Allah's Cause.' On this, his companion said to him, 'Say: Allah willing!' But he did not say Allah willing. Solomon then slept with all the women, but none of them became pregnant but one woman who later delivered a half-man. By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, if he (Solomon) had said, 'Allah willing' (all his wives would have brought forth boys) and they would have fought in Allah's Cause as cavaliers.

He then claims that the hadeeth above is contradictory to this verse:
“31: 6: But there are among men those who patronize ridiculous hadiths without knowledge (thereby) misleading (men) from the Path of Allah and throwing a butt of mockery (on the Path): for such there will be a humiliating Penalty."


MY REPLY: First of all, there is nothing wrong with the hadeeth. Prophet Solomon wanted to build an army that will fight for the sake of Allah and he bedded all his wives.

The hadeeth didn’t even say that Prophet Solomon did it in one night. The hadeeth does say that Prophet Solomon has 90 wives.

AM thinks that the hadeeth is ridiculous. AM thinks that the hadeeth should not be part of the Islamic reference.

Yet, AM doesn’t tell us why the hadeeth is ridiculous. Maybe if AM had thought thru the hadeeth, he will see the logic.

As for his reference to 31:06, unfortunately, the verse has nothing to do with the Al Hadeeth An NAbawiy.


Case #6: He claims that the Hadeeth on Camel Urine is against these verses from the Quran:

And thou [Muhammad] (standest) on an exalted standard of character. 68:4
Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone
whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day and who engages much in the praise of
Allah.Q. 33:21
We sent thee not but as a mercy for all creatures.Q.21:107
It is part of the Mercy of Allah that thou dost deal gently with them. Wert thou
severe or harsh-hearted they would have broken away from about thee; so pass over
(their faults) and ask for (Allah's) forgiveness for them; and consult them in affairs
(of moment). Then when thou hast taken a decision put thy trust in Allah. For Allah
loves those who put their trust (in Him).Q 3:159

MY REPLY: My question is how are they contradictory? Especially if the order is a sign of the Prophet’s miracle?

Can AM bring a verse from the Quran that drinking of the camel urine in Sahih Bukhari is NOT or CAN NEVER BE one of the Prophet’s miracle?

Or does AM denies the existence of the Prophet’s miracle altogether.

These dubious examples from AM really underline the real agenda of AM and his group. To undermine Islam and the scholars of Islam.






AM ACCUSES HADEETH OF CLAIMING THE QURAN TO BE INCOMPLETE

AM uses the hadeeth below:

“Hadith narrated by Ibn 'Abbas. Caliph 'Umar said,
I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, 'We do ot find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,' and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”

AM then says that the Hadeeth tries to paint a picture that the Quran is incomplete.

The problem with AM’s claim is numerous. Let me highlight a few big one:

a. AM is completely blank about the concept of “Aborogation” in the Quran. The Quran had clearly confirmed the existence of aborogation in the Quran. The hadeeth above supports the Quran’s notion of the existence of aborogation or “Nasikh wa Mansukh”.

b. In fact, Saidina Umar is referring to the period when the Quran is NOT COMPLETE. That’s because “NAsikh wa Mansukh” occurred when Al Quran was in the process of being sent down by God. It doesn’t occur now that the Quran is complete. Never did the hadeeth ever imply that the current Quran is incomplete now

c. AM is completely ignorant of the fact that the “rajm” is a punishment shown to us by the Prophet SAW.

I think in the 1400 years of Islam, AM is the first to make such claim.

AM then claims that the “rajm” hadeeth contradicts the Quran. Here lies more of his ignorance or selective memory or his bias stance that stopped him from studying deeper.

What he doesn’t know is that:

a. The rule of Rajm doesn’t depend on this hadeeth alone.
b. Hadeeth pointing to “Rajm” is of the level “Mutawateer Maknawi”
c. This proves that the order for “rajm” comes from the Prophet himself.
d. Is AM accusing the Prophet SAW of contradicting the Quran?

Also, all that we are able to see is that they are “Al Am Wal Khas” of the Arabic language in effect. Therefore, there exists no contradiction.


MORE FAULTY CLAIMS MADE BY AKBARALLY MEHERALLY

AM then went beserk again by accusing Sahih Bukhari contradicting the Quran in so many places. He listed them as follows:

a. Punishment for adultery:
b. Extremely adverse comments supposedly made by the Prophet against women:
c. To approach women during their menses, for sexual purposes:
d. Aspects of character ascribed to the Prophet:
e. The circumstances under which and when the parts of Qur'an were supposedly to have been revealed:
f. Celestial Science
g. The companions of the Prophet:
h. Can anyone intercede on our behalf:

BUT, we have seen how AM failed even to prove his first contention – Punishment for adultery- we can safely assume the rest of his example can be doubted.

I do not have time to comment on the rest of his example, but I shall do it in my next article.

However, it is incumbent upon AM to provide the details of his claim. For now, it’s just simple accusation and estimation only by AM.

HIS CONTEMPT AGAINST ABU HURAIRAH

AM, in the book, has made several accusation against Abu Hurairah, i.e. he takes from Jewish sources, he is forgetful etc.

All of the issues raised by AM on Abu Hurairah are based on lies and hearsay. One should refer to this url for more explanation on Abu Hurairah. http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/in_defense_of_abu_hurairah.htm

Suffice to say that scholars who studies the classical texts in it’s original language have a completely good opinion of Abu Hurairah. Scholars such as:

(a) Dr. Mustafa al-Siba'i (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria), in his thesis, al-Sunna wa Makanatuha fi l-Tashri' al-Islami, (Cairo: 1380/1961);
(b) 'Abd al-Razzaq Hamza (the head of Dar al-Ahaadeeth in Makka and Imam of Masjid al-Haram),Zulumat Abi Raya amam Adwa' al-Sunna al-Muhammadiya, (Cairo: n.d.); and
(c) the definitive response by 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Yahya al-Mu'allami al-Yamani (the Librarian of Masjid al-Haram), al-Anwar al-Kashifa lima fi Kitab Adwa' 'ala al-Sunna min al-Zallal wa l-Tadlil wa l-Mujazafa, (Cairo: 1378) - may Allah have mercy with them all.

It’s weird that AM doesn’t refer to these sources when making his attack on Abu Hurairah.

QUOTING SEVERAL WRITERS ON THE ISSUE OF AL HADEETH

AM then went on to quote from a few “scholars” on the issue of Hadeeth. Before I start commenting on the figures, my question is, why quote people that has zero credibility in commenting on Al Hadeeth of the Prophet.

a. Dr. Sayed Abdul Wadud : He claims there is a Persian conspiracy against the Quran. He claims that the all of the writers of Sunnan Sittah are Persian. Yet, fact shows that only Imam Bukhari is not Arab.
i. Plus, what about the countless scholars of Hadeeth i.e. Ibnu Hazm, Al Hakeem, An Nawawi, Abdullah ibnu Mubarak, Fudail bin Iyadh and many more. They are all Arabs.
ii. Where is the Persian element here? One asks.
iii. Dr Wadud then made a very stupid observation:”[Hadiths} are supposed to be the collection of the sayings and deeds of the Rasool. But had the Rasool himself taken any step to make them a part of “Deen”? Did he try to preserve them as he did in the case of the Qur’an?”
iv. The answer is Yes. MM Azami actually wrote a book on this. So, here we see how shallow this Syed Abdul Wadud is.

b. Dr. Murad Willfried Hoffman
i. He asks this question: “Doubts are justified, because the six orthodox hadith collections were all assembled by the same criteria. In particular, out of sheer veneration of the Companions of the Prophet, isnad (chain of transmission) and matn (text) critique did not go as far as it would have if modern linguistic and sociohistorical analysis had been applied. Given the fact that tens of thousands of fabricated hadiths circulated within two centuries of the Prophet’s death, we simply have to admit that the Sunnah is not as reliable as we would all wish it to be. Let us be cruelly sober: Someone clever and ruthless enough to fabricate the matn of a hadith – be it for political or “pious” reasons – would he not be clever and ruthless enough to also fabricate its isnad?”
ii. Answer: I want to ask Dr Murad Willfried Hoffman, how does one fabricate a sanad? For, for each sanad, there are thousands of corroborations and support. Each “sanad” is a scholar or teacher well known in to their people. Each generation, millions heard and studied the Hadeeth of the Prophet. Imam Bukhari chose the “path” among the millions of each generation among the most renowed and accepted figures hence the term “sanad”.
iii. Such a question above indicates that Dr Willfried is himself not properly studied in the subject of Hadeeth.


c. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, M. D.
i. One will notice that the Shabbir’s criticism is mostly from the “matn” perspective,
ii. He didn’t criticize the sanad or the isnad system altogether
iii. Yet, we all know how uncomfortable certain Muslims are with the “matn” contained in Sahih Bukhari considering they contradict many of the Western values and beliefs
iv. Dr Shabbir can easily be categorized as classic case of “Uncle Tom” because he says: Dr. Ahmed writes the following after quoting numerous passages from Al-Bukhari that are either “disturbing” or “grave insult to aesthetics and common sense”
v. We can tell that Dr Shabbir’s main “religion” is “logic and common sense” and not Islam.
vi. I will also be interested to know his comments on Dr Yusuf Qardhawi’s notice on the existence of “Majaz” in the hadeeth and also the Quran?
vii. Taking the hadeeth in it’s literal form alone is an example of stupidity in the Arabic language
viii. A reference to my website antiantihadeeth.blogspot.com will show many hadeeth misunderstood because of the stupidity of the reader in Arabic.

CONCLUSION

It’s clear that the book contains so much holes and inconsistency. All of Akbarally Meherally claim of contradiction is unsubstantiated. In other words, he doesn’t provide us unquestionable and undeniable evidence of the so call “contradictions”. In fact, many of his so call examples are refuted in this article. The fact remains that we are yet to see one major contradiction between the Al Hadeeth and Al Quran.

Furthermore, it is also very weird that Meherally fail to quote from scholars such as Al Qaradhawy in detail. It’s dangerous considering Meherally depends solely on secondary sources to when making his conclusion. Dr Yusuf had written extensively about hadeeth especially the ones which is considered as “strange”. Yet, Meherelly doesn’t refer to him at all.

Even when Meherally did refer, he is more comfortable in picking and choosing parts that he likes the most. For instance, he would quote As Suyuti and Ibnu HAjr with regards to the 80 sanad that is being questioned in “Sahih Bukhari” but he left out completely the fact that these two scholars both testifies to the “sahih” status of both books. In shot, nit-picking is the trademark of Meherally work.

So to conclude, Meherally should not question the future of Al Hadeeth. It is the future of those who doubts Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that needs to be questioned. For from now on, they are totally irrelevant to the Muslim Ummah. In short, all their effort are a big waste of time.
Read more!

ANTI HADEETH DILEMMA WITH THE QURAN PT 1

Below is an article that I had previously forwarded to
ROPE. The article explains to us CLEARLY why the Anti
Hadeeth THEORISTS like Ali Mohammed, Sulaiman Yahya,
KASSIM AHMAD etc EMBRACED THE ISA WITH OPEN ARMS.

It is becuase the ENGLISH QURAN that they believed in
DOES NOT show them examples or even mention about the
concept of DUE PROCESS. By their standard,DUE PROCESS
is UNQURANIC.

Since the Quran has specified to us a NUMBER of
punishment for a number of offences such as SARIQ(
Stealing), Zani (Fornication) and many more, we are
REQUIRED to carry put such punishment for such
offences stated in the Quran.

The Anti Hadeeth (GAH) theorist have always
accused the AHLUL HADEETH(AS) as introducing
BACKWARDNESS

and UNPROGRESSIVE ideas in the Muslims mind thus being
the reason for the Muslim ummah backwardness (despite
the fact that 1400 years of history proves them
otherwise).

Here I shall expose to you WHO's idea would actually
STOP the Muslims from progressing and who will not

DUE PROCESS
GAH: There is NO VERSES in the Quran that specifies

DUE PROCESS for the OFFENCES and PUNISHMENT stipulated
in the Quran or otherwise. No orders for Due process
to be given to those SUSPECTED of STEALING,
FORNICATING etc or any offence for that matter.

Therefore, there is no such thing as DUE PROCESS in
the GAH understanding of ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE

Surah 17:73 - And their purpose was to tempt thee
away from that which We had revealed unto thee, to
substitude in Our name something quite different:
(in that case), behold! They would certainly have made
thee (their) friend!

AS: Due Process is DEMONSTRATED clearly by the
PROPHET SAW for ALL offences and their respective
punishment.

The manner of due process by the Prophet SAW is being
practiced even until today in countries which
practices Roman Law.

Conclusion: If we go by the GAH way of ISLAMIC
JURISPRUDENCE then we shall only see
MASSIVE injustice and cruelty being comitted as there
is no such thing as DUE PROCESS being practiced by
the GAH.

AND, for 1400 years the MUSLIMS have enjoyed RULE OF
LAW by following the SUNNAH of the PROPHET derived
from his Sunnah.

AUTHORITY IN CARRYING OUT PUNISHMENT
GAH: No requirement for AN AUTHORITY to carry out
punishment as stipulated in the Quran. Meaning ANYONE
can carry out the punishment regardless of who.

AS: Only a RECOGNISED AUTHORITY has the right to TRIAL
and PUNISH an offender for the offences stated in the Quran.

Conclusion: The GAH way of JURISPRUDENCE will only
introduce ANARCHY and PUBLIC DISORDER not to mention
LAWLESNESS in a country as NO MENTION
of the need for an authority is mentioned in the Quran.

On the other hand, for AS it has been SHOWN by the
PROPHET via his SUNNAH that only a RECOGNISED
AUTHORITY is ALLOWED to conduct trial and execution of
punishment for the offences stipulated in the Quran

In addition, the SUNNAH of the PROPHET SAW taught of
us including the WEST of concepts such as DOCTIRNE OF
SEPERATION OF POWERS, RULE OF LAW, DUE PROCESS
and many more concept which lead the Westeners out of
their BARBARIC PERIOD into their RENNAISSANCE era.
Please refrain from interpreting the QUran with WHIMS
and FANCIES.


REFER SURAH 2:78&79
REFER SURAH 2:59
REFER SURAH3:78
REFER SURAH 39:32

May Allah SWT protect us from the DEVIATIONS being
promoted by the GAH.
Read more!

First Anti Hadeeth, then Anti Quran

Anti Hadeeth makes a lot of noise about certain hadeeth which they think it's absurd i.e. monkey stoning adulteres, drinking camel urine, hadeeth on flies and many more. The question now, what about all the "absurd", logic resisting stories in the Quran. Read bro Bassam Zawadi on the issue Refuting The Argument That There Are "Absurd" Hadith

by

Bassam Zawadi

Many Quranites tend to point out hadith, which may seem strange or too supernatural in order to believe it. This is nothing more than an "appeal to emotion" fallacy. Here is the testimony of one Quranite who became an agnostic...

I was in the middle of laughing at the stories and silently mocking them, when suddenly it hit me that they are no more absurd than the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Moses split the ocean and turned a stick into a snake, or that Solomon had conversations with animals.

So here we see a Quranite who left Islam because he found the virgin birth and Solomon's conversations with animals to be absurd. These are to be found in the Qur'an. Will the Quranites accept this as an argument? They will say that these stories are not absurd and that people must put faith in them. Well then why don't the Quranites do the same with the hadith that they find strange? Who draws the objective standard as to what is too absurd to be true?

This is nothing more than an "appeal to emotion fallacy" and it is to be ignored. Read more!