Now More Than Ever It’s Vital for Muslims to Reexamine Our Approach to Hadith in Islam

Just a fantastic article – and I’m not just saying that because he mentioned us. This is concise, supremely helpful and shows a genuine concern for Muslims and others. He is very honest about leaving Islam – which offers a good proof of what I have often said – that we are losing our most honest and intellectually curious people because it is precisely these as opposed to the Salafi DeoBrelwi Living Braindead who find the garbage apologia for hadith and other matters supremely unconvincing and leave. I mean it’s true – what kind of bankrupt intellect considers adultery or homosexuality deserving of harsher punishment than wantonly killing a baby?
          Do check out the original article and his excellent other pieces here:
By Kash Ghazi

Like countless young Muslims around the world, my folks had an ornate, hardbound collection of Sahih al-Bukhari shipped all the way over from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It arrived in an ominous wooden crate on the doorsteps of our small home in rural Idaho. The entire set filled up an entire bookshelf and dwarfed the many academic tomes my professorial father owned in his study.

Sahih al-Bukhari is a collection of thousands of canonical sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that exist outside of the Quran. Collectively, these are known as hadith. According to legend or apologetics (why not both?), Imam Bukhari spent a lifetime traveling far and wide to gather statements attributed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) roughly 300 years after the Prophet’s (pbuh) death. He somehow managed to whittle down some 600,000 sayings attributed to the Prophet (pbuh) to a more reasonable 7000 according to various levels of authenticity.

“I’m not questioning the words of our Prophet (pbuh), but whether he ever made such statements in the first place.”

Ultimately, Sahih al-Bukhari would be one of the main reasons why I abandoned Islam as a young adult for more than a decade. All the confusing and contradictory statements attributed to our Prophet (pbuh) proved way too much for me. As I began exploring academic philosophy as an undergrad, the exceedingly dogmatic answer that only certain scholars could truly understand the hadith seemed a sad, fallacious appeal to authority. Sadder still, my very questioning of the hadith was constantly maligned by other Muslims including my own family as a demonstration of weak faith.

Beyond Belief

Before I delve any further, let me express a constant gripe that I have with many practitioners of faith including my own brothers and sisters in Islam. When we critically evaluate another faith outside of our own we examine it with the finest of critical combs, a monocle and magnifying glass in tow alongside a library of fallacies at the ready lest there be some not-so-obvious failing in logic and consistency.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Islam, many of my fellow Muslims float in the most blissful, rote slumber adrift on proverbial pillows of dogma and apologetics. As a result, we rarely if ever apply the same level of scrutiny toward our own beliefs as we do to others.

So many Muslims employ a litany of exhaustive, syllogistic diatribes lamenting the logical inconsistency of the Trinity or the many seeming contradictions in the Old Testament. They’ll even draw from various academic sources like E.P. Sanders or Elaine Pagels to buttress their many critiques. However, if anyone dares to argue that the hadith are fraught with contradictions and outright falsehoods or that some lauded scholar of old might be incorrect prepare to have countless invectives thrown one’s way including shouts of kafir or apostate. Worse, if you happen to reside in places like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan your very existence might be in jeopardy.

Bear in mind that when it comes to the hadith canon, myself and many other Muslims are not questioning the words of our Prophet (pbuh), but whether he ever made such statements in the first placeA giant red flag exists on any critical level when we as Muslims somehow trust that Bukhari was infallible in his approach and methodology in gathering the hadith. I mean the idea that one man could properly assess the veracity of some 600,000 sayings hundreds of years later is, for all practical purposes, impossible. Essentially, Muslims are granting Bukhari an almost prophetic status. If that’s not a kind of shirk or innovation I don’t know what is.

Even more to the point, a multitude of hadith found in Sahih al-Bukhari vehemently defended by countless Muslims simply run completely counter to our Prophet’s (pbuh) high, noble character and, most importantly, the Quran itself. How could our Prophet (pbuh) be, at once, the embodiment of fairness, kindness and compassion yet demand that camel thieves have their eyes branded, apostates beheaded, captives abused? More importantly, how could The Messenger of Islam be subject to mind-altering black magic and other tall tales without calling into question the full scope of revelation?*

“These hadith malign our Prophet (pbuh) far worse than any cartoon or caricature could ever hope to do.”

Sadly, just about all the harsh, deviant edicts by the likes of ISIS and Al-Qaeda are drawn from the hadith not the Quran. Stoning adulterers? Death to apostates? Check and check. These brutal mandates simply do not exist in the Quran. They are found exclusively in the hadith. Worse, upon closer inspection the maddening hermeneutics involved defy reason and, above all else, common sense.

Hadith on Stoning and Supposedly Lost Verses in the Quran

Let’s be clear: Stoning anyone for anything including adultery is nowhere to be found in the Quran. In fact, the Quran stipulates a very explicit, non-lethal punishment for adultery and that’s only if one can provide four witnesses of the physical act itself. However, the hadith that recommend stoning as punishment (borrowing from the Old Testament) found in Sahih al-Bukhari is considered mutawatir — a term fraught with its own interpretations by scholars themselves, but one that implies a kind of consensus to the point of infallibility within the context of Islamic apologetics. It’s the main reason why many Muslims vehemently defend the arcane, brutal mandate of rajm or stoning.

In a somewhat reasonable essay on crimes and punishments in Islam for the Yaqeen Institute, Jonathan Brown, a popular Islamic scholar and associate professor at Georgetown University, sought to dispel false notions of harshness and wanton cruelty often attributed to Islam. Unfortunately, Brown inadvertently and almost comically exposes the egregious exegetical contortions necessary to justify stoning as a punishment in Islam.

While discussing stoning, Brown mentions that Islamic scholars of old accepted the fact that the Quranic verses on stoning were removed in their entirety, yet still remained enforceable by Divine decree (naskh al-tilawa):

“Most pre-modern Muslim scholars had no problem with the notion that the Quran originally included a verse stating ‘The noble man and woman, if they commit zinā, surely stone them both,’ but that God ordered the verse removed while maintaining the ruling intact. The famous Shāfiʿī/Ashʿarī Hadith scholar Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066) stated that he knew of no disagreement on the possibility of a verse of the Quran being removed in its entirety (naskh al-tilāwa) while its ruling remained…”

Such an argument fails the most basic kind of syllogistic logic especially if we remain inside the boundaries of Islamic dogma and apologetics. As Muslims, we accept the Quran as a source of Divine perfection, the very words of God Almighty. In fact, for Muslims, only the Quran is considered perfect, without error. We also accept that God is omniscient, having complete knowledge of all things. How then are we supposed to wrap our heads around the notion that God would somehow remove a verse but still insist that we act upon it? It beggars belief.**

But wait, there’s more! Muslims have also argued that the very verse in question was accidentally removed because a sheep ate the pages it was written upon. It sounds like a joke made up by Pamella Gellar, David Horowitz or some other Islamophobic moron, but, unfortunately, it exists in the hadith canon. The purported hadith is even graded sound by many:

“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” Source

“You’re a Modernist, Bro!”

I’m sure some Muslims reading this will accuse me of innovations and yielding to progressive, postmodern norms. Or maybe they’ll accuse me of being a Quranist — a Muslim who draws his or her faith solely from the Quran. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

It’s all the scholar worship, extra-canonical labyrinths outside of the Quran and exegetical failings that are the actual innovations. All these odd and terrible hadith written hundreds of years after the death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and literally in direct contradiction to the Quran are the novel and false constructs. These hadith malign our Prophet (pbuh) far worse than any cartoon or caricature could ever hope to do.

It bears repeating for the umpteenth time: With the context of Islam, only the Quran is considered perfect, free from error, the very words of God Almighty. This perfection does not extend to any other form of scripture including Sahih al-Bukhari.

It’s really no wonder why so many young Muslims are abandoning faith today. The frustration and fatigue that such odd and distorted theological assessments create are beyond measure. The innumerable contradictions between the Quran and Sahih al-Bukhari make one feel spiritually drawn and quartered.

It’s vital for us to recognize that there exists a dogmatic stranglehold on Islamic exegeses concerning the hadith in many of our communities online and elsewhere. These are rooted in uncritical methodologies, scholar worship and patently false claims of consensus (‘it’s ijma, bro!) funded by the seemingly endless coffers from bastions of draconian rule like Saudi Arabia. These are nothing but an outright disservice to our Prophet(pbuh) and our profound, beautiful faith.


* An invaluable, though sometimes caustic essay on Bukhari that’s a must read for Muslims is Have You Been Blackmailed with Bukhari Yet?

** To be fair, even Brown insists that naskh al-tilawi is insane. However, he falls well short of denouncing stoning as un-Islamic and simply yields to a rote interpretation veiled in academic hubris.


25 thoughts on “Now More Than Ever It’s Vital for Muslims to Reexamine Our Approach to Hadith in Islam

  1. Salaam alaykum akhi,

    May Allah bless you and your family. Again, another wonderfully written article and I couldn’t agree more!

    Muslims really need to wake up and question the entire hadeeth literature. In my humble opinion, this should of happened hundreds of years ago but then again I’m sure anyone who questioned it was either silenced or put to death. How anyone can put hadeeth at the same level of the Qur’an and even above it is really sickening! Hadeeth that mention stoning adulterers, death to apostates, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) being bewitched, prophet Musa (pbuh) running around naked chasing a stone, and the likes are just ridiculous! You said: “These hadith malign our Prophet (pbuh) far worse than any cartoon or caricature could ever hope to do”. I totally agree bro!

    I always say that if I had not read the Qur’an for myself, I hardly think that I’d be muslim today. I thank and praise Allah that I’m still muslim and i am very attached to His Book. Brother, I never read together with the Qur’an any hadith books, nor tafsirs, or books of Fiqh. I simply picked it up and read it several times and it blew me away!! If one translation didn’t make sense, I would simply check other ones online. All this information is at our finger tips! The more I read, the more I’m attached to it. I learned 3 fundamental methods to understand the Quran:

    1 – Arabic language. Although I don’t speak it but I can study key works and their meanings.
    2 – The context of the Verses.
    3 – The totality of the text.

    Let me give you an example to demonstrate my point. Hadeeth worshiping monkeys like Ahlal Hadeeth, Salafi’s, and others tell you that the Qur’an says: “Ask those if you don’t know”. They say, see! this means we need to go to the Mulla’s, the Shiekhs, the Imams, the muhaditheen, and the scholars. But a close examination of those verses (in context) says to ask those who are reading the Scripture before you (yaqra’oonalkitaba Min Qablika) {chapter 10:94}. Two other other verses that are similar to this in the Quran say to ask the people of the message (ahlaththikri). Well, who are the people of the message? The verse says:

    And We sent not before you except men to whom We revealed [Our message]. So ask the people of the message (ahlaththikri) if you do not know. {16:43} & {21:7}

    Who are the men who Allah revealed or inspired before Muhammad (pbuh)? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or even have to ask a Mulla to figure it out. It’s obviously talking about the prophets and the Messengers that came before.

    It’s really that simple. The Qur’an tells you that it’s clear proof (Bayyinatin), it’s a guidance (Hudan), its the best Hadeeth (Ahsanal Hadeeth), its consistent (Mutashabihan), it’s a light (Noorun), it’s a mercy (Rahmatan), a healing (Shifa’un), a glad tidings (Wabushra), it’s wisdom (Hikmatan), a clear Book (Kitabun Mubeen), it’s detailed with Knowledge (Fassalnahu Ala Ilmin), etc. The Qur’an also tells us that it is a clarification for ALL THINGS (tibyanan likulli shay-in), the Criterion (Alfurqan), has the Best explanation (Wa Ahsana Tafseera), and has every kind of example (Min Kulli Mathalin).

    For the love of Allah, why would I bother going anywhere else when the Qur’an tells me all of the above??? No wonder people get misguided, confused, frustrated, and inevitably leave the faith. Every single time I watched one of those ‘why I left islam’ video on Youtube, 10/10 times was because of them quoting hadeeth!! Even if they quote Qur’an, its ALWAYS misquoted and taken completely out of context!

    I really don’t care if people wanna call me a Quranist because even the prophet Muhammad (pbup) was one. He only followed that which was REVEALED to him (See verses 6:50, 6:106, 6:155, 7:203, 10:15, 46:9). He was also commanded to follow the religion of Ibrahim (pbuh) (See verses 3:95, 6:161, 22:78). Neither did the prophet (pbuh) follow so the Sunnah but instead was commanded to say:

    And, [moreover], this is My path (siraTee), which is straight (mustaqeeman), so follow it (fattabi’oohu) ; and do not follow (wala tattabi’oo) [other] ways, for you will be separated from His way. This has He instructed you that you may become righteous. {6:153}

    Did you get that bro? The prophet’s path or way was “SiraTee Mustaqeem” and was to follow what was revealed to him, and to follow the way of Ibraheem (pbuh). Where does it say to follow the Sunnah??? Even the word Sunna has absolutely NOTHING to do with the prophet in the Qur’an.

    But then again, who am I to talk bro? I don’t have a PHD in Hadeeth sciences or a degree in Islamic theology. Well guess what? Neither did any of the companions of the Prophet!

    May Allah reward you for your honest and thought provoking articles bro. I must also say that your article on “have you been black mailed yet by Bukhari’ was brilliant! Keep up the great work!

    Salaam 🙂


  2. The problem with rejecting Hadith is that this renders large portions of the Quran unintelligible.
    A number of verses refer to ambiguous events, places, and persons that we would have no reference for if not for the commentaries that arose in the 1-2 centuries after Muhammad’s death.

    There’s also the fact that there are instances where the Hadith/Scholars restrain the Quran. An example is the Quran calling for the thief to be amputated, while the Hadith specify this can only be carried out if the stolen item is worth a certain amount.

    More importantly however, is the issue of Jihad. Specifically, that without the Hadith, one could (and people have) interpret a verse like 9:29 as a call to aggressive war against Christians/Jews until they either convert or pay the Jizya. When scholars restrain this verse, its often done by using Hadith about how this verse was revealed in a specific context (defense against the Romans), and isn’t meant as a general command as a Quran-only reading may indicate.

    Related to the above, is the fact that the Jizya option is only available for “people of the book”, meaning after a war with Hindus/Buddhists, a Quran-only approach could require them to either be killed or expelled if they didn’t convert. This was restrained historically by some Hadith, but also by Muslim conquerors simply refusing to engage in genocide, which morphed into religious dictate because by “consensus”, Muslim now considered Hindu/Buddhists people of the book who could be tolerated and taxed. This concept of “consensus” being able to modify religious law isn’t found in the Quran.

    • This comment makes me wanna die and lose my faith in humanity (again). This is why it is a very bad investment to spend your time dialoguing with Muslims.

      You see, this waffle is a classic example of what happens every single time someone cautions against overindulgence in hadith: you start getting Mexican dramas with people calling you ‘Quranist’. So according to these muppets, it has to be one extreme (Quran only) or full indulgence in hadith. The prospect of reassessing the hadith corpus never occurs to them. The fact that the author didn’t advocate the wholesale rejection of hadith doesn’t occur to them.

      And here we have the standard arguments: you can’t understand the Quran without hadith (there are plenty of bits you can’t understand even with hadith). The insincerity of this question from anyone other than an apostate is manifest in that it begs the bigger question of what is the point of an infallible and mass transmitted text if it can only be understood through speculative and single chain reports. It’s also idiotically circular in that it insists that God cannot insert esoteric or even impossible to interpret verses into the Quran, and then ‘solves’ this problem by introducing hadith. We are then left with the infinite regress of what to do with the hadith we do not understand and that are ALSO metaphorical or can’t be understood, like the sun bowing to the Arsh, or God putting his ‘hand’ on the back of Adam and extracting his progeny and dooming the ‘black ones’ to Hell and so on. So the the commentaries on hadith must be ‘necessary’ too. And then the commentaries on THEM. And so on ad infinitum. Just stupid – and exactly what Muslims tend to believe nowadays.

      I don’t know where you got this ‘hadith tells you that Hindus and Buddhists are ‘People of the Book’ because in fact it is hadith that restricts this statement to Jews and Christians whereas the Quran does not (and also makes extensions to the Sabians – presumably of Harran – which at that time included all kinds of polytheistic groups including Hindus and Buddhists). Ditto with Zakat, which the Quran does not restrict just to Muslims but hadith does and many other such examples. Even a casual glace makes it obvious that it is the partisans of hadith that insist that People of the Book are Jews and Christians only. Abu Hanifa in fact was one of the few to argue that ‘People of the Book’ included everyone who had a religious text. I bet you can’t show any other mainstream scholars who say that and they certainly did not get this from hadith, so you are waffling rubbish again.

      Hadith restrict us from violence – stupid statement again. In fact there are many more violent hadith, including those that mandate and justify the killing of women and children (‘they are from amongst them’ the Prophet allegedly replies in the ‘canonical’ collection of Muslim when the Sahabah complained about the trampling of babies by horses in nightime raids), mandate the burning and killing of dissenters, gays and apostates and the stoning of adulterers – NONE of which are even hinted at in the Quran. So to solve the ‘problem’ of violent verses in the Quran , we need to bring in thousands of violent hadith (and then solve THAT problem). You are obviously the kind of person who thinks that full castration with a rusty razor is a good way of solving the problem of an itchy groin. Leave alone the fact that just as with your banal statement about People of the Book, the issues of violence and Jizya are exacerbated, not solved by hadith even in the particular examples you mentioned.

      It’s bad enough that we have to get into debates about 9:29 with non-Muslim Islamophobnes but now we have to deal with the hideous reading comprehension and foolishness of Muslims too:

      [And] fight against those who – despite having been vouchsafed revelation [aforetime]- do
      not [truly] believe either in God or the Last Day, and do not consider forbidden that which
      God and His Apostle have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth [which God has
      enjoined upon them] till they [agree to] pay the exemption tax with a willing hand, after
      having been humbled [in war].


      Stupid people will interpret anything anyway they like. They can interpret ‘My Little Pony’ as a call to set up a paedophile state and mass murder Jews. The Quran (and most other stuff) is not aimed at morons. We don’t need hadith to understand this verse, we need a functioning brain. First of all, it is talking about ‘people humbled in war’. It doesn’t mention Jews and Christians at all – that is your and other peoples stupid interpretation from hadith. Only a world class twit would assume this means you should go and humble the whole planet in war. We know this in three or four ways:

      Pure Reason – no point going into rational arguments with you though
      Quran expressly prohibits murder of any person for any crime (except murder)
      Intertextual and linguistic analysis of the many verses to do with fighting make it clear that you can’t declare ‘War on everyone’
      Hadith fail to clarify it – in fact it is the Muttawatir Amali (transmitted practice) of the Sahabah (and everyone else) that no one, ever tried to ‘humble’ all non Muslims in war. If they tried it they wouldn’t be around to tell us about how it went because they would have got dealt with by the rest of the planet being murdered and then probably urinated on. Kind of like Osama Bin Laden, the last person to try that.

      But in spite of this, like an Evangelical I can spin any verse how I want. Then I should also believe that God forgets, breathes etc, because I would be a brain-dead literalist and unable to benefit not only from the Quran but also ‘Harry Potter and Who Bloody Cares’ or any other book that requires you to have language processing skills.

      Also, I don’t known where the hell you got this ‘Jizya option is only available to Jews and Christians and Hindus get killed according to Quran’ garbage from. You’ve been spending too much time with Evangelical Christians while simultaneously high on PCP + MDMA +/- CRACK to get that from ‘reading’ the Quran. Even mentalist Salafis like HT don’t believe that crap:

      You come straight out of a comic book. The only STANDARD piece of waffle you didn’t bring out of the portfolio whenever anyone urges restraint on the obvious overindulgence of hadith is that ‘without hadith you won’t know how to pray’. Sheesh.

      I’m not even going to DIGNIFY the remark about the cutting of hands. What a fail.

      THIS is why Muslims are failing: a guy writes a beautiful piece to help out, seeing as we JUST SAW ISIS (remember THEM?!) justify literally everything they did using hadith – straight out of Bukhari no less.

      I want you to know that I genuinely resent wasting my time with unthinking and careless individuals like you. Go listen to a Jonathan Brown talk about how to rape your slaves or something.

  3. So i was careful to say, and I should have made it clearer, that I don’t necessarily agree that the “correct” interpretation of Jihad in the Quran is aggressive and potentially genocidal, simply that such an interpretation has been posited by classical Islamic scholars and modern laymen, without reference to Hadith. At least with Hadith (and the weight of “consensus” that it introduces), there is a mechanism for overruling the more extreme interpretations (like the letter released by Islamic scholars telling ISIS slavery is wrong because it was abolished by consensus).

    I’m also a bit confused by your response visa-vis the Quran being incomprehensible without Hadith. Are you arguing it was already a bit incomprehensible anyway, so it doesn’t matter? Or are you denying that such ambiguities exist (I can cite several verses that without Hadith would be meaningless gibberish). I just didn’t really see a coherent response to this dilemma.

    Lastly, yes, I assumed that this was a paper advocating for Quranism (Quran-only Islam), as I didn’t want to insult the author by assuming the alternative. Which is the author simply advocates picking and choosing which Hadith to accept, depending on how he personally feels about them. Trying to eliminate Hadith based on soundness of transmission would be futile, as some of the most illiberal Hadith are some of the most well-attested (several classified as Mutawatir).

    • You are confused period kiddo.

      Ditto your understanding of Muttawatir and consensus, which is a totally different concept to hadith. We’ve produced a whole site and a book about these matters so we have no need to repeat that kind of stuff (i.e that there is only one Muttawatir hadith agreed by CONSENSUS and so on and it’s not illiberal at all) here.

      This is why I don’t waste my time with people like this. The internet just allows people who would be too banal to hold a dialogue to nonetheless express their stupidity at length. We should respond by enduring it no more than public urination or littering however.

      Listen kid, you are not qualified to have or understand this discussion. Your response reinforces that. You will disagree but that’s part of how you ended up this confused yet overconfident. It’s actually really sad that there are so many genius people in the poorer countries who could be the next Avicenna or Einstein but never even get a chance to learn to read and die after short and painful lives but people of this ‘calibre’ have time and computers and people let them into higher education. This is the bad side of universal literacy and access to the internet. Sad face.

      Well done for calling the Quran jibberish though.

      Now get lost please! I take great pleasure in banning you and removing your cultural pollution from this site!

  4. Greetings.

    ‘Salafi DeoBrelwi Living Braindead’ Either this is slander or it is gheeba. Either way it is ugly.

    I have a question if you are rejecting hadiths and thus leaving Ahlus Sunnah why call yourself Ashari?

    Why not be more honest and change your blog name to Submitters Assemble or Pervesis Assemble?

      • I know all the Quran only propaganda I was very into it in the 1990s when I first became a Muslim. I also have a very long list of reasons why I rejected it.

        Hadiths are an informational resource for Mujtahids and no one apart from fools ever thought they were infallible or on a level with Quran.

        Hadith science is all about probability and likelihood, not certainty. I think that a lot of the confusion on this has come from pseudo-Salafis who treat Hadiths as if they are Quran verses.

        Real Mujtahids took into account isnad, estimated strength/probability, the context, the Hadiths relationship to the rest of the religion and many other similar factors. They looked at Hadiths just like a historian looks at historical evidence, they didn’t just take them all at face value like moron Salafis do.

        Furthermore the Malikis had a totally independent and superior source of information that generally validated rather than conflicted with the main body of the Hadith corpus, this being as you will know the Amal of

        You reject the Hadiths if you wish, you will still at least have Tawhid although you will have trouble understanding the Quran properly without the context that the Hadiths provide. So to you your way and to me mine and good day to you.

      • Great! Now that you’ve admitted the uncertainty of the Hadiths, a true believer should know that the Qur’ān CONDEMNS following uncertainty and/or using uncertain knowledge as a source of or evidence in religion and describs it as the way of the mushriks (Qur’ān 6:143–8, 10:36, 53:28, 6:116).

        So people who agree that the Hadiths are uncertain yet choose to follow them or use them as a source of or evidence in religion then they’re toeing the same line as that of the MUSHRIKS!

        And it’s amusing to see one Salafi calling other Salafis morons! 😀

        And by the way, I never had any major problem understanding the Qur’ān without the Hadiths, alhamdulillah!

        《والسلام على من اتبع الهدى》

      • That is weak sophistry. There is far more uncertainty in trying to understand the Quran without context giving resources than with them.

      • Salaam my brothers in Islam,

        May Allah bless you and your families.

        I often wondered why Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’alaa) mentions the Bani Israeel and the Yahood so many times throughout the Quran. It’s obviously so that we do not fall into their foot steps and follow their ways or traditions. Have any one of you out of curiosity had a look into Jewish tradition? Let me enlighten you with what Jewish Rabbis have to say especially about their Talmud:

        { The “Written Torah” was transcribed by Moses “from the mouth of the Almighty” and is contained within the Torah scroll. The “Oral Torah” incorporates the traditions handed down from Sinai but not (initially) put in writing, as well as the interpretations and rulings formulated by the sages of each generation. }

        They also say the following:

        { the Oral Torah is equally “the words of the living G d.” }

        As you can see my brothers, the Jews have the Torah which was revealed to them by Allah but they CLAIM that Moses (AS) was given a second revelation! This second revelation apparently explains the Torah and you cannot fully understand the Torah without it. Check out this statement:

        { The Torah’—this is the Written Torah. ‘And the mitzvah’—this its explanation. And He commanded us to fulfill the Torah in accordance with the mitzvah. This ‘mitzvah’ is what is called the Oral Torah.” Indeed, the two are inseparable, as no text can have any authoritative meaning without an accompanying tradition as to what it means and what are the principles that govern its interpretation”. }

        Doesn’t this sound ridiculously like Islamic tradition??? Apparently we cannot fully understand the Quran without the hadeeth! And like the Talmud, Hadeeth wasn’t written down until the second and third centuries!!! When are we ever going to wake up??

        The references to the above statements can be found here:

        I will leave you with the Words of our Rabb and Creator:

        There was certainly in their stories a lesson for those of understanding. Never was the Qur’an a narration (hadeethan) invented, but a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of all things and guidance and mercy for a people who believe. {12:111}

        Allah has sent down the best statement (ahsana alhadeethi): a consistent Book wherein is reiteration. {39:23}

        These are the verses of Allah (ayatullahi) which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement (hadeethin) after Allah and His verses will they believe? {45:6}

        Peace 🙂


  5. ‘Doesn’t this sound ridiculously like Islamic tradition??? ‘

    No not at all.

    I think you should look into who compiled the Talmud and over what time period.

    If you cannot see other better examples of how Muslims are emulating the Jews and Christians I suggest that you look into the subject of headstrong individualism and people rejecting the religion as it was always understood by the sawad e azam and instead making the religion a plaything for their whims.

  6. Salaam brothers,

    Hey Shees1993, I think we should go easy on Patricknelson750. I think he just needs to consult the Ulema, the Fuqaha, Muhaditheen, Mufassireen, Shiekh Ibn Baz, Shiekh Uthaymeen, Ibn Hajar, Imam An-Nawawi, The hanafi’s, the Malikis, Shafi’s, and hanbali’s regarding commenting on this website. He should get a fatwa whether or not its permissible to use his brains. He should also check the Aqidah and the Fiqhi rulings on the issue.

    While your at it, check if its permissible to pick your nose as well because I’m sure there’s a scholarly ruling and a hundred different opinions on it. SubhanAallah! This is what Muslims have turned this religion into. A religion of scholar obsession! This video sums it up perfectly:

    Peace 🙂


    • 😀 Yeah, right, bro! 😀

      Hasan ibn Farhan al-Maliki is an amazing scholar! He was a staunch Salafi himself once, as he mentioned in some of his videos. I’m a great fan of his. He’s one of my favourite research scholars. I’ve watched many of his Arabic videos, and he’s got great knowledge, ma sha Allah!

      I personally would disagree with him on a few minor points, but, besides that, he’s got great knowledge, ma sha Allah! He is/was a student of Ibn Bāz by the way.

      But only those who have the guts to research stuff themselves will understand!

      Some of my other favourite research scholars of Islam are:

      ● Dr Adnan Ibrahim (د. عدنان إبراهيم)

      ● Islam al-Behairy (إسلام البحيري)

      ● Dr Shabir Ally

      ● Javed Ahmad Ghamidi (جاوید احمد غامدی)

      ● Jamal al-Banna (جمال البنا)

      ● Muhammad Asad (Leopold Weiss)

      ● Dr Mohammad Omar Farooq

      ● Mahmud Abu Rayyah (محمود أبو رية)

  7. السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ‬
    it’s hilarious that your critics are too stupid to distinguish between the qur’an centric approach (which this site advocates) & the qur’an only approach (which this site is against.)

    May Allah preserve Asharisassemble.

  8. What is meant by a “Quran-centric” approach then?

    If its rejecting Hadith that contradict the Quran, Ithat’s a very reasonable position to take.

    But if its also rejecting Hadith that offend modern-Western sensibilities, that’s not a reasonable position to take, as if just results in subjective picking and choosing of what to include in the religion, which defeats the whole purpose.

    It seems like this forum has advocated both. I’ve heard great deconstructions of hadith that contradict the Quran, but also condemnation of Hadith based on nothing other than saying they, “embarrass” or “malign” the Prophet’s character.

    I agree its annoying when people strawman your positions to dismiss arguments that make them uncomfortable or challenge orhtodoxy. So could anyone clarify this?

    • It’s clarified ABUNDANTLY on this site in NUMEROUS articles and talks and courses (under ‘Hadith’) and in a book length treatment in our ‘Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith’. I don’t know why you are worried about us though – the main people who are contradicting Quran via hadith are on the other side. So as usual it seems the concern you seem to have is ‘saving’ hadith from us as opposed to Quran from the numerous hadith that contradict it (stoning adulterers for example).

      Good luck with the reflexive dismissal of ‘Western’ sensibilities thing BTW. I hope you are not one of those people who think that people being squeamish about sex with 9 year olds is a sign of being ‘Westernised’. We have never advocated ‘sucking up’ to the West, but rather people like yourself often seem to take great pride in disagreeing with them on the most obvious things – like marrying off 6 year olds is bad. So a mentality based on insistence on agreeing with everything in liberalism is as banal as one based on disagreeing with everything in it. Muslims always think the latter is heroic, even if it leads to a defence of slavery as ‘good for you’.

      • And before anyone goes into millennial ‘my feelings’ snowflake mode, I don’t mean YOU personally defend marrying 9 year olds, but the partisans of hadith, who you seem to sound a but like, do.

  9. In the West today, paedophilia is in the process of being normalized just like homosexuality has been normalized (the most active front is the push for children’s “sexual rights” by the UN).
    In the past, it has not infrequently taken the form of rich Western colonizers forcing poor, politically dominated non-Westerners to sell their children in various ways.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s