Almost 100 organizations around the globe will protest

[Baluug]

I give up on this thread.I thought I could maybe show people why we need Sharia law and why it is necessary in a Muslim society.Instead,I see people asking s*t*u*p*i*d questions like "Oh,so you're saying Muhammad is God?"Subxaanallaah!!What the hell is wrong with you,Socod?Muhammad SCW was a prophet sent by God,he made absolutely NO mistakes.It matters not if he is infallible or not.But you're on the losing side of the debate,I know,but you can come up with better arguments than that,can't you?If not,then give up.

[Maxamed Caday]

Maybe this will help settle the argumentation:

 

Sahih al-Bukhari, No. 2300 - Narrated Um Salama (the wife of the Prophet):

 

Allah's Apostle heard some people quarreling at the door of his dwelling. He came out and said, "I am only a human being, and opponents come to me (to settle their problems); maybe someone amongst you can present his case more eloquently than the other, whereby I may consider him true and give a verdict in his favor. So, If I give the right of a Muslim to another by mistake, then it is really a portion of (Hell) Fire, he has the option to take or give up (before the Day of Resurrection)."

 

 

Also, read this hadith. When you read it, one of two things will happen to you. Either you will increase in your disbelief, or you will increase in your emaan.

 

Saheeh al-Bukhari

No. 346 - Narrated Abu Dhar:

 

Allah's Apostle said, "While I was at Mecca the roof of my house was opened and Gabriel descended, opened my chest, and washed it with Zam-zam water. Then he brought a golden tray full of wisdom and faith and having poured its contents into my chest, he closed it. Then he took my hand and ascended with me to the nearest heaven, when I reached the nearest heaven, Gabriel said to the gatekeeper of the heaven, 'Open (the gate).' The gatekeeper asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel answered: 'Gabriel.' He asked, 'Is there anyone with you?' Gabriel replied, 'Yes, Muhammad is with me.' He asked, 'Has he been called?' Gabriel said, 'Yes.' So the gate was opened and we went over the nearest heaven and there we saw a man sitting with some people on his right and some on his left. When he looked towards his right, he laughed and when he looked toward his left he wept. Then he said, 'Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious son.' I asked Gabriel, 'Who is he?' He replied, 'He is Adam and the people on his right and left are the souls of his offspring. Those on his right are the people of Paradise and those on his left are the people of Hell and when he looks towards his right he laughs and when he looks towards his left he weeps.'

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Baashi:

However, our prophet’s sayings and conducts are infallible because Mohamed’s actions (pbuh) have been informed and guided by Allah’s divine directives.

 

But they weren't Allah's messages. Whatever is purported to have been said by the prophet (scw) in the hadiths were his words. Allah repeatedly said this in the Quran. I will provide the verses later.

 

Therefore, the prophet’s recorded and validated sayings are a source of law.

 

Then Allah must have lied in the Quran when he said the only biding law for muslims is that found ONLY in the Quran. Either the Hadiths are right (written 250 years after the prophet's scw death based on hearsays) or the Quran is wrong. I believe the Quran is the unchanged, true words of Allah and Hadiths are unreliable, secondry source.

 

I'm not suggesting we should get rid off of the Hadiths, they are needed source for practicing Islamic faith. Without them, one can't fully practice Islam. The problem I have with them is when some elevate them to the status of Allah's laws which aren't as Allah said this in the Quran.

 

The Hadiths disagree with the Quran many times, how is that possible if hadiths are words of Allah? The punishment of adultry in the Quran is 100 lashes while hadiths say it should be death by stoning. Yet, the Sharia Law (which claims to be Allah's law), disregards what Allah ordered in the Quran and goes with Hadith punishment for adultry.

 

The Sharia law is evidently man made law once you see through its thinly layered veneer of its alleged divinity. Most of the Sharia law stipulations are from the Hadith which are not words of Allah, changing/updating Sharia law is not only needed but imperative.

 

Now if I understood you correctly you are not saying that Muslims are not obligated to heed the prophet’s narrations and approvals!

 

Yes, muslims as is written in the Quran by Allah are to obliged to follow only his words found in the Quran. However, a muslim can follow the prophet's narrations if one desires. There is nothing against that to the best of my knowledge.

 

I mean I can understand if one questions the authenticity of a particular

Hadith

(need validation) when in doubt but to argue that Muslims are free to reject the

Sharicah

because it rests its authority on the

Qur’an

in conjunction with

Hadithis

is akin of challenging the authority of the prophet himself.

 

The Sharia law is mockery of TRUE sharia law-- the one found in the Quran. To say the Sharia law is Allah's law is to disobey Allah. Allah said there is no law other then Quranic Law. No Mohammed's (scw) sunnah according to the quran, the only sunnah is Allah'w sunnah found in the quran. The current Sharia law is based on alleged prophet's (Scw) sayings, the ulema consus in addition to the quran. It is obviously not only word of Allah but that of fallible man as well.

 

Do this and you are challenging, by logical extension, the

Qur’an

(the very basis of Islam) itself for it reached us through the prophet Mohamed. What will then become of your conviction in Islam being the true religion worthy of practice?

 

I don't see the logical extension you're implying. The prophet (scw) was a mere messanger, like all the other prophets before him. His duty was transfer the words of Allah told to him by angel Gabrial to us. Would I listen and follow the prophet more then anyone else on Islamic matters? Of course I would. But would I follow what is alleged to be his words when they contradict Allah's words? No.

 

My guess is that you are confusing

Hadiths

with

Fiq

. I’m not a learned fella (and I stand corrected if I err here) but

Hadiths

are recorded and validated sayings of prophet Mohamed pbuh whereas

fiq

is opinions of the classical jurists. The latter can be challenged by knowledgeable and enlightened

culima

.

 

I'm aware that the opinion of the Ulema on particular issues is part of the Sharia law. This only strengthens my case in that it shows that the Sharia law is not only Allah's law, not even alleged prophet's sayings, but opinions of fallible man. How can you have man made laws next to Allah's laws and call it a biding Allah's laws for all muslims?

 

FYI there is an ayah in the

Qur’an

that commands the faithful to obey whatever the prophet asks them to do and vice versa.

 

I'm not aware of what that verse says EXACTLY. But there are many ayas that say follow ONLY words of Allah and no one else.

[Rahima]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FYI there is an ayah in the Qur’an that commands the faithful to obey whatever the prophet asks them to do and vice versa.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I'm not aware of what that verse says EXACTLY. But there are many ayas that say follow ONLY words of Allah and no one else.

Nay, by your Lord, they will never become believers until they choose you as judge to settle the matters in dispute between them. (al-Nisa’, 4.65)

 

Surely there is for you in God’s Messenger an excellent example for him who aspires to God and the Hereafter, and mentions God oft. (al-Ahzab, 33.21)

 

Say (O Muhammad!): ‘If you love God, follow me so that God loves you.’ (Al ‘Imran, 3.31)

 

O you who believe! Obey God and His Messenger, and do not turn away from him. (al-Anfal, 8.20)

 

We have not sent a Messenger save to be obeyed by God’s leave. (al-Nisa’, 4.64)

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

He believes that Sharia law is outdated, yet, as he demonstrated in this argument with you, he does not understand the definition of Sharia law, nor does he acknowledge the authenticity of its sources!

 

Where did I say I do not understand the definition of Sharia law? You're putting words into my mouth.

 

The prophet, he claims, is a fallible man.

 

We can argue till the cows come home whether he was fallible man or not, the question is: is what is alleged to be his words equal to Allah's words? I contend not.

 

He admits that he knows nothing about Sharia law but still urges us to get rid of it!

 

Once again you are attributing things I haven't said. Where did I say I know NOTHING about Sharia law. If I knew NOTHING of sharia law, how would I know the hadiths are one of its source?

 

So far I sense that you think I and other detractors of Sharia are prejudiced or ignorant of it. But the reality is far from that. My rejection is postjudice as suppose to prejudice and not from ignorance but knowing the results of sharia law at practice both in the past and the present.

 

A person doesn't need to know what Nazism is to know it's evil and impractical. Is that opinion based on prejudice or ignorance? No. Nazism has history, therefore no possibility of prejudiced opinion. Further, Nazism history informs one of its impracticality. Therefore, one is fully with in right to reject Nazism without possessing deep understanding of Nazism philosophy.

 

Is it the Quran that people question? Is it possible to do so and remain Muslim?

 

Personally I don't question the Quran. But I respect other muslim's right to question the Quran. I don't judge others since I can't ascertain truthfully their true intentions.

 

is it possible to question authentic ahadeeth?

 

Why not? Authentic hadith only legitimacy its established chain of narration. That is not the same thing as them being true.

 

How will it be understood and interpreted?

 

The Quran requires no extreneous sources to understand it or interpret it. This is what Allah said in the Quran. I will post the relevant ayas in the future insha'allah.

 

Will each individual have his/her own way of reading it?

 

I hope so. But muslims should reach consus based on the time, needs, environment with the help of the quran.

 

How will it be Islam?

No one knows the answer to that question. It is a meaningless question and totally irrevelant.

 

Socod Badane believes in the Pillars of Islam but does not believe in the Hadeeth! How does he suggest Muslims should pray? How Zakat should be paid? Will knowing the details of Ramadan be necessary?

 

I've already said I don't reject the hadiths in their totality. There is a big difference between hadiths explaining how the five pillars of Islam should be performed and others which ban music or order death by stoning for adulterers. I reject all hadiths other then those commenting on how to perform the five pillars.

 

Without the guidance of the hadeeth, what criteria does he propose?

 

The quran, common sense and your conscience.

 

What skills should one have to interpret the Quran?

 

No skills. The quran is self explanatory and easily understandable to all as said in the Quran itself. Will provide the verse soon. If you disagree, note you're arguement then is with Allah and not me.

 

Would you need to be able to read Arabic or does a simple translation sound ok?

 

Isn't the Quran for all humanity or is it for arab speakers only? The arguement the quran can only be understood fully by arabic speakers only, is complete red herring not to mention its contradiction to Allah in the Quran. The Quran can adequetly be translated into many languages. My favourite being English since it has far greater vocabulary then arabic.

 

This makes one wonder if he understands the ‘science’ of Hadeeth! He cites the rejection of some weak ahadeeth as evidence of his argument.

 

Being student of science, I wouldn't call the authentication method of hadiths 'science' exactly.

 

From my readings the hadiths are authenticated through what is called Isnad, where scholars try to established an unbroken chain of narration going all the way back to the person who heard from the prophet. If such unbroken chain exists, the hadith is authentic. However, authentic hadith are only authentic not true. That is why the distinction is made of calling them authentic and not true. For it is true that anyone of the ppl in the established chain of narration could have passed on a different hadith then when alleged from the prophet (scw).

 

Imaam Bukhari when he was compiling Sahih Bukhari hadiths disgarded more than 85% (some sources say even greater) of all the hadiths he collected as unreliable and unauthentic. Despite the stringent critieria he used to compile sahih hadiths, the uncertainty of narrator's version being identical to the prophet's is unresolved.

 

There was a lot more scrutinising than the simple ‘I don’t like the look of this hadeeth’ methodology that Socod is using.

 

More lies about what I said. This is the third time you claimed I said what I didn't. You making this a habit.

 

Even if one refuses, one will still have to come up with a better alternative.

 

No problem. The alternative should be man made laws -- by muslims.

 

Surely, a reasonable, logical and just alternative is not likely to be refused by the scholars (and if it is, they’ll have a very good reason for doing so).

 

Who are these scholars? What school of Islamic thinking do they belong to? Taliban? Wahabism? Shia? The Islamic world is fractured into God knows how many sects and schools of thoughts, the idea there is objective 'scholars' that command the allegience of muslims is a fantasy.

 

Could the critics of Sharia law go against common sense? Isn’t that what they’re after in the first place?

 

What is considered 'common sense' changes with time and environment.

 

It seems to me that two of those sources are articles of faith that no person claiming to be a Muslim can deny and remain (at least in the traditional sense) a Muslim.

 

Many muslims deny totally or partialy sahih hadiths, they still consider themselves muslims(who doesn't take pictures, listen to music or indulge in clan hatred and violence?). For someone who rejects most of the hadiths, I don't consider ppl who follow them even when disagreeing with Allah's commands in the Quran as being nonmuslims or disobeying Allah. Leave the judgement of who is a muslim and who is not to Allah.

 

 

One can speculate as to the reasons for such assaults on Sharia laws. One can point the finger at conspiracy theories, hidden enemies and weak Muslims.

[qb]

 

No conspiracies or hidden agendas. The rejection of the Sharia by me is based on its impracticality, its claim to being Allah laws when its not, contradicting Allah's commands in the quran and being impractical, unfair and outdated.

 

As long as Sharia Inc. proponents don't push for the sharia law in the West where I live and stop making it biding law in Islamic states, you won't hear from me. If some muslims find the sharia law acceptable, fine be me. Just don't tell me it is Allah law and I must follow it.

 

[qb]Many of us find Socod Badane’s ignorant (don’t get too upset, Socod. It was by your own admittance) rejection of the hadeeth irritating, annoying and very offensive.

 

Offensive? What is so offensive about the truth?

 

The boy clearly demonstrates that he’s not a charlatan.

 

The Boy? I'm a man in his early 20s, hardly a 'boy' by any standard. Kindly, don't call me a boy again.

[Us_Marines]

A lot has being said since the last time i posted a message.what a debate. There is points that i do agree with SB, there should be seperation between state and religion.There should be no SL in the west.try that in the Muslim world.

the prophet (SAW) was fallible.there is no dought about that and the sheriah is not out dated law.There is no problem with sheriah law but there is no real enforcers.Til the day scholars become just and fair let state and religion be seperate.

[NGONGE]

This tedious style of quoting every sentence is counterproductive and only derails the discussion or leads to pointless digression.

 

With all due respect, Soco, you really don’t know what you’re talking about here. You keep promising to provide ‘verses’ but you still strongly continue with your argument (one that is nonsensical and mere hearsay without those phantom verses).

 

For now, I shall ignore everything else you wrote (including what words I allegedly attributed to you) and deal with your next quote alone.

 

quote:What skills should one have to interpret the Quran?

 

 

No skills. The quran is self explanatory and easily understandable to all as said in the Quran itself. Will provide the verse soon. If you disagree, note you're arguement then is with Allah and not me.

 

quote:Would you need to be able to read Arabic or does a simple translation sound ok?

 

 

Isn't the Quran for all humanity or is it for arab speakers only? The arguement the quran can only be understood fully by arabic speakers only, is complete red herring not to mention its contradiction to Allah in the Quran. The Quran can adequetly be translated into many languages. My favourite being English since it has far greater vocabulary then arabic.

How will you know that the translation is accurate, saaxib? We are talking about cautious socod who does not accept authentic ahadeeth because they might not be ‘true’! What if the French translation is closer to the truth than the English one?

 

Now let us get back to your ignorance and lack of knowledge on this subject. You, my dear brother, are the other side of the coin to those Islamic mannequins! Can you speak Arabic?

Do you understand the miracle that is the Quran and why it is considered a miracle?

What you read in English, brother, are not the Quran but rather a simple translation of the words. It does not have the same impact and the meanings are not as sharp.

 

Socod, there are (and have been) a whole load of discussions amongst Muslim scholars, intellectuals and linguists over the acceptability, usefulness and point of translating the Quran into languages other than Arabic. Your words, your whole style and your attitude show (nay prove) that you are not aware of half these things nor know much about the subject you’re attempting to heartily discuss.

 

I’ll briefly return to your preference to read in English and your outrageous claim that English has far more vocabulary than Arabic! Who says? You?

 

 

For someone that claims to be a scientist, you’re very sloppy with your facts, saaxib.

 

From reading your words and trying to sift through the waffle, I can see that you do have a genuine gripe and are frustrated with some issues of hadeeth and translation. However, you’re too hasty with your proclamations and final judgments. Try to brush up on the ‘science’ of hadeeth again. Work out how the Isnad system works. Find out why some ahadeeth were rejected (don’t just use it as evidence for your nonexistent argument without understanding it).

 

Ask yourself why, as a scientist, would you accept some ‘ahadeeth’ and reject others (the method and system used to obtain both is the same after all).

 

Go away, refine your argument, work out your protests and position. What you’re presenting us with here are nothing but simple brush off and tantrums (from a scientist no less!).

 

PS

You’re not a boy, man.

[Maxamed Caday]

No devout Muslim would ever dare to go against the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah, but it is regrettable to note that some of the liberal elite tend to raise the slogan that the Book of God (i.e. the Qur'an) is enough and that there is no need at all for the Sunnah of the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him. Slogans like this are raised mainly by people who want to get rid of the Islamic Law (Sharee'ah) completely. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, himself was well-aware that such ill-natured opinions would arise and hence gave a clear warning of this as reported by Al-Miqdam ibn Ma'di Karib, one of his Companions:

 

"I have indeed been given the Qur'an and something similar to it besides it. Yet, the time will come when a man leaning on his couch will say, 'Follow the Qur'an only; what you find in it as halaal, take it as halaal, and what you find in it as haraam, take it as haraam.' But truly, what the Messenger of God has forbidden is like what God has forbidden."

(Reported by Abu Dawud and Darimi.)

 

Anas reported that the Messenger of God said: "I have left among you two things; you will never go astray as long as you hold fast to them: the Book of God and my Sunnah." (Reported by Haakim.) The Companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, used to hold the commandments given by the Prophet, peace be upon him, in a very high esteem, making no distinctions between them and those given by God. Once 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood quoted this saying of the Prophet (hadith) while he was delivering a sermon: "May God curse the women who tattoo their bodies and those who pluck their eyebrows; those who separate their teeth to make them look more pretty and those who try to change the creation of God." A woman named Umm Yaqub from the tribe of Banu Asad came to know of these words. She approached Ibn Mas'ood and said: "O Abu 'Abd ar-Rahman! It was reported to me that you have cursed such and such women." He said: "Why should I not curse those whom the Prophet, peace be upon him, cursed and who are cursed in the Book of God as well." She said: "I have read whatever is contained between the two covers (i.e. the whole Qur'an)." Had you been a good reader, you would have discovered it. Did you not read the following verse? "So take whatever the Messenger gives you and keep away from what he forbids you." (Surah Al-Hashr 59:7)

 

As for the Sunnah, it is everything besides

the Qur’ân that came from Allah’s Messenger

(may the peace and blessings of Allah

be upon him). It explains and provides

details for the laws found in the Qur’ân. It

also provides examples of the practical application

of these laws. It is also either direct

revelation from Allah, or decisions of

the Messenger that were then confirmed by

revelation. Therefore, the source of all the

Sunnah is revelation.

The Qur’ân is the revelation that is formally

recited as an act of worship, and the

Sunnah is revelation that is not formally

recited. The Sunnah, though, is just like the

Qur’ân in that it is revelation that must be

followed and adhered to.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Bakar:

If you are not following his saying, then how else would you follow? Hadiths are his actions and hence it is the actions of the prophet (PBUH) we have to at least emulate. Remember! There is verse that say, I am paraphrasing, our prophet never spoke from his desire. Then, can we deny his infallibility? Since he was a messenger of Allah, what other rule or source of information did he convey? Was he not Rahmata Lil Calimeen? He never had lower motives, and that makes him infallible.

Bakar,

 

The prophet (pbuh) was someone worth emulating, no debate from me on that. But so was Abraham, moses, adam, nuux, and all the prophet sent by Allah. Do you emulate them too? If not, why not? They were all divinly inspired like Mohammed (Scw).

 

The prophet's words were divinely inspired, his ways examplary but at the end of the day he was a human being -- fallible man, not God. I'm simply saying you shouldn't make the error of assuming the prophet's words are equal to Allah's words. Allah said his words are found in the Quran and in the Quran ONLY. If it is not in the Quran, then it is not from Allah. Hence, the hadiths (whether they are true or not) are the words of Mohammed (scw).

 

Those who say to be a muslim you must accept the Sunnah of Mohammed (pbuh) are living in fanstasy world. For starters, muslims on the whole don't accept the Sunnah. Some accept the Sunnah in its totality, others pick and choose, while others reject it all together. All consider themselves muslims.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by liibaan:

I give up on this thread.I thought I could maybe show people why we need Sharia law and why it is necessary in a Muslim society.Instead,I see people asking s*t*u*p*i*d questions like "Oh,so you're saying Muhammad is God?"Subxaanallaah!!What the hell is wrong with you,Socod?Muhammad SCW was a prophet sent by God,he made absolutely NO mistakes.It matters not if he is infallible or not.But you're on the losing side of the debate,I know,but you can come up with better arguments than that,can't you?If not,then give up.

How do you know if the prophet (scw) didn't make any 'mistakes'? He had a life you know, before he was chosen by Allah to convey his message. Infallible being must be God. So it is not ****** question to ask if you consider the prophet as a God.

[Socod_badne]

Allah has said in the Quran that the ONLY duty of the prophet was to convey his message contained in the Quran. Those who insist he had additional duty ordained by Allah are clearly in didagreement with Allah. The relevent verse is 29:18 and this is what it says:

 

029.018

YUSUFALI: "And if ye reject (the Message), so did generations before you: and the duty of the messenger is only to preach publicly (and clearly)."

 

 

Some of the Sahih hadiths many muslims use can not possibly be from Mohammed (scw). If the hadiths were truely from Mohammed, then they should always agree with the Quran. This often is not the case. In many cases the hadiths contradict the Quran, the true word of Allah. In those instances the Quran is chosen over the hadiths. But why would a hadith, which purpoted to be from the prophet's mouth -- an infallible being -- contradict Allah's Quran? Since Mohammed (pbuh) was the sole deliverer of Allah's messages, he should be most knowledgeable and therefore not make errors. What can be concluded from this? Tow things. One, Mohammed was fallible man and that explains why what he said in Hadiths contradict what Allah said in the Quran. Two, the hadiths are fabricated documents. Either case, in my view, the hadiths are unreliable.

 

I have yet to come across any documentations partaining to the Sunnah of the prophet (pbuh) in the first 100 years or so of Islam. Muslims back then did fine without the hadiths. So you could be a practicing muslim and not follow the hadiths. If someone has any material on this subject let me know, I'd like to read them.

 

Allah also said in the quran that it explains everything in 'detail', in other words everything is explained IN the quran. No where does it say you need hadiths to understand the Quran or practice Islam or you need learned scholars to read it for you.

 

006.114

YUSUFALI: Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.

 

016.089

YUSUFALI: One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Can you speak Arabic?

Do you understand the miracle that is the Quran and why it is considered a miracle?

What you read in English, brother, are not the Quran but rather a simple translation of the words. It does not have the same impact and the meanings are not as sharp.

 

Where does it say in the Quran you have to speak to arabic to understand it?

 

What I read in English is EXACTLY what the Quran says. The Quran contains Allah's messages intended to be understood by all ppl. Most muslims don't speak arabic. If Allah intended the Quran to be understood ONLY in arabic then he failed in his mission of conveying his message to all of humanity. I don't believe Allah fails. There is absolutely no reason to think that the Quran can not or should not be translated into other languages. Some languages maybe but certainly not all languages.

 

 

I’ll briefly return to your preference to read in English and your outrageous claim that English has far more vocabulary than Arabic! Who says? You?

 

It is not outrageous claim but a fact. English has more than twice the vocabulary of any language in existance today. This is because english is the amalgamation of various languages from germanic langs., old english, viking or Norse langs., the Normans or old french...the vocabulary of all these languages was added to old english. That is why alot of english words have germanic or norman roots. The vocabulary of English is estimated to be around a million...that is twice its closest rival German.

 

Here are some links you can read about:

 

http://www.danshort.com/ie/timeline.htm

 

http://www.ielanguages.com/enghist.html

[Maxamed Caday]

And from what proves that the writing of hadeeths has preceded from the older times of the Companions is what is found in Tahdheeb (1/470) in the biography of Basheer Ibn Nuhayk. Yahyaa Ibnul Qattaan said: "From Imraan Ibn Hadheer: From Abee Majliz: From Basheer Ibn Nuhayk who said: I came to Abee Hurayrah with my book which I used to write in. So I read to him from it and I said: I heard this from you. He said: Yes." And this text is also related by Tirmidthee (4/396), and by al-Khateeb in al-Kifaayah (no. 283), and Ibn Sa'ad (7/1/no. 162)

[Maxamed Caday]

The Sunnah refers to the commands, prohibitions, sayings, actions and tacit approvals of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam). The whole of the Sunnah falls under the command of Allaah in His Book:

 

"Whatsoever the Messenger gives you then take it and whatsoever he prohibits you from then refrain from it." [sooratul-Hashr 59:7]

 

The taabi’ee, Imaam az-Zuhree said:

 

"Clinging to the Sunnah is to be saved, as Imaam Maalik said, ‘like the Ark of Nooh.’ He who embarked upon it was saved and he who did not was destroyed." [ad-Daarimee]

 

The knowledge of the Sunnah has reached us via means of the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam). The hadeeth refers to a combination of a text and a chain of narration (isnaad) beginning from the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) and ending at the scholar who recorded that hadeeth. There are a number of conditions that the hadeeth must meet based upon which it is divided into two broad categories saheeh (authentic) and da’eef (weak). The authentic hadeeth is that hadeeth from which beliefs and legislation can be derived. The weak hadeeth does not allow us to derive beliefs or legislation from it.

[Maxamed Caday]

The scholars of hadeeth took great care to make sure they collected everything that was narrated from him as a narration, even if it was not authentic. Then they strove to authenticate every hadeeth, and every letter narrated in a narration. So they criticized their conditions and their narrations and they took the most extreme care in quoting. So they would rule a hadeeth to be weak due to a little doubt in the biography of a narrator's character which affected his reliability according to the people of knowledge. So if they doubted in his truthfulness and they knew that he had lied about something in his statements, then they would discard his narrations and they would call his hadeeth fabricated (mawdhoo') or lies (makdhoob), even if he was not particularly known for lying in narrating hadeeths and even though they knew the liar could have been telling the truth.

 

Likewise, they used to check the memorization of every narrator and read his narrations with other ones. So if they found many mistakes from him and his memorization was not good, they would declare his narrations weak, even if he had not been disparaged in his character or his truthfulness. It was feared that his memory might be unreliable in his narrations.