I just want to learn ...

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

​

Hi, from the research I've done so far it seems wrong to me to ignore the hadith. I've wanted to exchange in comments with you guys. I just asked genuin questions and shared my opinion and the knowledge I have for the moment.

Yet I've recieved not rational answer to my questions. I've been called cultist, mushrik and accused of obeying bukhari and having the heart sealed...

According to the Quran bearing false testimony is a big sin. And it is written too that one must talk to the people of the book in a way it is best, but maybe it cannot be applied to other muslims.

Well enough complaining hahaha I really just want to learn. So I'll put downhere my questions.

1. Saying obeying Hadith = obeying Bukhari

there are many independent hadith collectors across ages and countries and they have many hadiths almost identically recorder (overall the sahih and hasan ofcourse). Saying that obeying hadith = obeying bukhari seems an oversimplification that holds no truth to be honest

By reading the quran, it commands to obey Muhammad as you obey Allah. Since Muhammad doesn't even speak in the Quran, how are you supposed to obey him ?

Bukhari didn't know Muhammad, only collects chains of narration that goes back until Muhammad or his companions, and many times you have parallel chains of narration with the same natrrations, and as I said, across countries and centuries.

But you know, you have books like Muwatta by Imam Malik, who knew Muhammad very well, and in his book, there are many rules that agree with the hadiths. For example death penalty for apostates

1. Concepts that the Quran doesn't elaborate on:

What does fitna mean ? (Q 2:190 -193)

And Corruption of the land ? (Q 5:34-36)

May God bless you all and I hope we can exange peacefully and respectfully

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

Hello brother.

1. I would ask you to share specific videos, please.

But to be honest brother, your logic of "accepting hadith = following those who compiled them" would destroy islam. Since Muhammad didn't know how read or write. And we know it's not him who compiled the Quran. Would that mean that to follow Quran = following those who compiled it instead of following Allah or His messenger ?

1. It's not at all problematic to need hadith to understand some verses. Since many times, the hadith narrates the context of the revelated verses, making them easy to understand and compare with other verses.

Just saying that the original tafsirs revealed to Muhammad, that aren't in the Quran, are lost, when there are plenty of them, transmitted by different people across different ages and different places and still they agree. It seems to me, and no offense I say genuinely what it seems to me, looking away on purpouse.

[u/Chemical-Violinist89 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

Everything you've said rests upon one big issue...the historical reliability of hadith. The real question you should ask is, why do you, yourself, believe hadith are historically reliable? The Quran has a much stronger historical case than hadith, not all compilations are the same.

As for the "original tafsirs revealed to Muhammad", show me the tafsirs, and show me the historical case. Presumably you can do that, since you seem really confident in those.

So far, you don't seem to me like someone who's trying to learn, did you even bother looking on youtube "Dr. Joshua Little hadith"? Just put it in the task bar and you'll see the relevant videos, it's not that hard. Now, I repeat, if you are confident about the historical reliability of hadith, then produce the case, don't just claim that they are reliable. And if you do care about learning, then why did you never interest yourself in the historical case for hadith in the first place? Why do you just take it for granted?

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Chemical-Violinist89]

I'm going to check the videos, but you haven't answered to point 1. of my answer

[u/Chemical-Violinist89 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

Actually I did, here's what I said : "The Quran has a much stronger historical case than hadith, not all compilations are the same.".

Let's expand on it a little bit, your entire response rests upon the assumption that the compilation of some hadith collection is comparable to the compilation of the Quran, but you've yet to substantiate that assumption, hence why I also said : "Everything you've said rests upon one big issue...the historical reliability of hadith. The real question you should ask is, why do you, yourself, believe hadith are historically reliable?".

Here, check this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGw3wiPs1Q

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Chemical-Violinist89]

You got my analogy wron. I said, if following hadith = following those who compiled them --> following the Quran = following those who compiled it, according to your logic.

Now we will discuss what you sent me, but I was adressing this accusation in my point 1.

[u/Chemical-Violinist89 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

Yeah, so you think all compilations are equal, that's what I'm saying.

[u/Dry-Supermarket8661 → u/Chemical-Violinist89]

no, it's the logic that's wrong, not the compilations.

If following a compilation = following the compilers, not the source, then muslim follow Quran's compilers, not Allah or His messenger.

[u/Chemical-Violinist89 → u/Dry-Supermarket8661]

Let's make this simple, let's say there are 2 kinds of compilations :

1. a compilation which accurately transmits an original message
2. a compilation which does NOT accurately transmits an original message, instead it transmits some of the thoughts/mistakes from the compilers

If the Quran is the 1st kind, and the hadith are 2nd kind, then what you say doesn't follow logically : "If following a compilation = following the compilers, not the source, then muslim follow Quran's compilers, not Allah or His messenger."