مرزا جہلمی کی نئی گمراہی...کیا انسان جنت میں منی/چھوٹا خدا بنا دیا جائیگا؟؟

[optimistic]

Yes that is correct. the word authentic and sahih gets thrown around a lot but when you look into it, its really not that accurate. So many hadith labeled authentic really aren't.


Depends on which scholar you are talking about, and no not all scholars held or hold this belief. Sunnah is the living tradition that has been mass transmitted. Hadith is events narrated at the narrator's own discretion whether to narrate it or not. And there is a great margin of error some 200 plus years after an event has transpired to be recorded down with precise details word for word after having gone through a long chain of narrators. Do a little test, some event few of your friends must have attended a few years back, tell them all to write it down with as much detail as possible without discussing it among themselves and then read the each's account of the account there will be great disparities among them. Even totally made up memories that never happened, because thats just how the brain works

If something was so important why would not The Prophet s.a.w make 100% sure it would reach the masses, not just tell something to one person and leave it up to him how to handle it.



Hadith is a great source of knowledge and I encourage everyone to read it, I myself have read the entire Sahih Bhukari all 7000 plus hadith. But its not your source of sunnah, deen, hukum or aqeeda.



I know its not easy. I was like you, maybe even two steps ahead of you for the majority of my life I believed that the Sahih is the most authentic book after the Quran in the entire world. And every word in it holy and needs to followed to the Tee. But once you delve into in, things start to clear up. And then there is something new I've come across that even puts the entire Sahih Bhukari into question and this is not some nathu pathu but a learned Mufti.

In the end my rational mind tells me, something that is so contradictory, hard to prove, surrounded in controversy, heavily disputed, goes against the Quran in many places, makes no rational sense many times, no effort by the prophet or sahaba was ever made to preserve it. Cannot have any sunnah or deen in it and is better left alone in context of religion.

Ok i guess you are also trying to wrap it up. I would like to say that as per my understanding, Sunnah was also recorded in text and that's how it reached you. You also refer to earlier scholars to learn sunnah, and I don't understand how those scholars could have conducted their research on Sunnah without learning what prophet actually stated on certain matters. Whether concerning deen, aqeedah or hukum. But I can agree that it's not the only source. And that last sentence is the key point where in my opinion people take extreme positions. Nevertheless, this discussion did give me some point to ponder. Thanks for that. Take care.

 

[Citizen X]

Ok i guess you are also trying to wrap it up. I would like to say that as per my understanding, Sunnah was also recorded in text and that's how it reached you. You also refer to earlier scholars to learn sunnah, and I don't understand how those scholars could have conducted their research on Sunnah without learning what prophet actually stated on certain matters. Whether concerning deen, aqeedah or hukum. But I can agree that it's not the only source. And that last sentence is the key point where in my opinion people take extreme positions. Nevertheless, this discussion did give me some point to ponder. Thanks for that. Take care.

Nah I always open to a good discussion. I think what you are struggling with is, is if a text is written down then how can it be wrong? Because in todays world that is how we proceed. To understand this you have to go back to understand why first of all there was a need for books on Hadith.

Prophet s.a.w was a huge personality without a doubt. And once he passed away, people still wanted to hear about him and what he used to do and how he was in life etc etc. This is just human nature. Like today for example we love to hear about famous personalities too, hence biographies are so popular. Whole industry is based on this today like all these filmi gossip news etc etc and this is not some cheap hollywood celeb we are talking about here, he is the king of kings, ruler of the believers. Allah's final Prophet and Messenger s.a.w

So people started to narrate the hadith and people would come and listen, you also have to understand Arab culture was also an oral culture and this was also what kept most people busy during off working hours. But over time these started to get convoluted, just to get more wah wah and draw more audiences people started to exaggerate and add lies to them. Some started to abuse hadith for their own personal gain, supposing someone wanted to his wife to do something she didn't want to, he knew she would not listen to her, but knew she wouldn't refuse the word of the Prophet so he would tell her that in a form of a hadith, which was totally fabricated, one of the reason I am guessing we have so many hadith that are anti women, like majority of the dwellers of hell fire will be women, a womans testimony is equal to half of that a man, woman are not as smart as men etc etc.

This is also when hadith about a mahdi started, because people were sick of the tyranny of the rulers of Sham so to rally the troops and raise morale hadith about a knight in shining armour rising descending on to a white minaret in Sham who would come and establish just rule. And then the shia went a step further and incorporated these into their deen.

And also think of it how would the munafiq and enemies of Islam attack Islam. They cannot make changes or make additions to the Quran that is impossible to do, so what is much easier to do and much softer target, hadith.

So to stop this Imam Bhukari decided to shift through all these fake, fabricated and dhaif hadith and recorded the correct ones into a single collection. But this was 200 plus years after the Prophet s.a.w had passed, but you can imagine how hard that must be in a time and culture where there were no written records kept, no internet, no electronic media, no newspapers. So each hadith had to be verified by talking to people and then judging on those basis and those chains if the Hadith was sahih or dhaief. Today historians can't get 100% facts right about events that happened less than a 100 years ago, imagine how hard it would have been back then. And we have to factor this aspect in hadith too.

Imam Bhukari collected I think 300,000 hadiths, out of which he only put 7000 and change into his collection out of which most are just repetitions of the same event narrated by different narrators. So in total in has only 2,602 unique hadiths

But like I mentioned even the authenticity of the actual Sahih is in doubt today as in not that the Imam Bhukari did anything wrong, but that we don't have a verifiable copy of his actual collection, every copy of Sahih Bhukari we have today is from a single unverifiable, unknown student of his Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Al Frabri. In the science of hadith a hadith cannot be classified even if one of the narrators in the chain is unverifiable or unknown. So technically the entire Sahih Bhukhari we have today is technically Dhaif i.e weak according to hadith sciences itself.

Major scholars have outright refused to debate on this issue, like Johnathan Brown, Yasir Qadhi and the likes and I can see why, if the hadith is put into question 98% of the deen they preach ( not necessarily practice) vanishes into thin air, get labeled as heretics and lose all their following i,e $$$$

So thats what I meant is its better to stay away from hadith in the sense of taking any deen from it. As historical reading its absolutely amazing and one can and does learn a lot but to derive deen from something so contentious wouldn't be wise.

Also on another note there are 50 plus recognized hadith collections, how is it the Allah's s.w.t own book in which he says he has completed his deen in it, is in just one book, but then is followed by 50 more collections of deen written by men!

Watch this from 24:26. This addresses you entire question.

 

[Wake up Pak]

 

[optimistic]

Nah I always open to a good discussion. I think what you are struggling with is, is if a text is written down then how can it be wrong? Because in todays world that is how we proceed. To understand this you have to go back to understand why first of all there was a need for books on Hadith.

Prophet s.a.w was a huge personality without a doubt. And once he passed away, people still wanted to hear about him and what he used to do and how he was in life etc etc. This is just human nature. Like today for example we love to hear about famous personalities too, hence biographies are so popular. Whole industry is based on this today like all these filmi gossip news etc etc and this is not some cheap hollywood celeb we are talking about here, he is the king of kings, ruler of the believers. Allah's final Prophet and Messenger s.a.w

So people started to narrate the hadith and people would come and listen, you also have to understand Arab culture was also an oral culture and this was also what kept most people busy during off working hours. But over time these started to get convoluted, just to get more wah wah and draw more audiences people started to exaggerate and add lies to them. Some started to abuse hadith for their own personal gain, supposing someone wanted to his wife to do something she didn't want to, he knew she would not listen to her, but knew she wouldn't refuse the word of the Prophet so he would tell her that in a form of a hadith, which was totally fabricated, one of the reason I am guessing we have so many hadith that are anti women, like majority of the dwellers of hell fire will be women, a womans testimony is equal to half of that a man, woman are not as smart as men etc etc.

This is also when hadith about a mahdi started, because people were sick of the tyranny of the rulers of Sham so to rally the troops and raise morale hadith about a knight in shining armour rising descending on to a white minaret in Sham who would come and establish just rule. And then the shia went a step further and incorporated these into their deen.

And also think of it how would the munafiq and enemies of Islam attack Islam. They cannot make changes or make additions to the Quran that is impossible to do, so what is much easier to do and much softer target, hadith.

So to stop this Imam Bhukari decided to shift through all these fake, fabricated and dhaif hadith and recorded the correct ones into a single collection. But this was 200 plus years after the Prophet s.a.w had passed, but you can imagine how hard that must be in a time and culture where there were no written records kept, no internet, no electronic media, no newspapers. So each hadith had to be verified by talking to people and then judging on those basis and those chains if the Hadith was sahih or dhaief. Today historians can't get 100% facts right about events that happened less than a 100 years ago, imagine how hard it would have been back then. And we have to factor this aspect in hadith too.

Imam Bhukari collected I think 300,000 hadiths, out of which he only put 7000 and change into his collection out of which most are just repetitions of the same event narrated by different narrators. So in total in has only 2,602 unique hadiths

But like I mentioned even the authenticity of the actual Sahih is in doubt today as in not that the Imam Bhukari did anything wrong, but that we don't have a verifiable copy of his actual collection, every copy of Sahih Bhukari we have today is from a single unverifiable, unknown student of his Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Al Frabri. In the science of hadith a hadith cannot be classified even if one of the narrators in the chain is unverifiable or unknown. So technically the entire Sahih Bhukhari we have today is technically Dhaif i.e weak according to hadith sciences itself.

Major scholars have outright refused to debate on this issue, like Johnathan Brown, Yasir Qadhi and the likes and I can see why, if the hadith is put into question 98% of the deen they preach ( not necessarily practice) vanishes into thin air, get labeled as heretics and lose all their following i,e $$$$

So thats what I meant is its better to stay away from hadith in the sense of taking any deen from it. As historical reading its absolutely amazing and one can and does learn a lot but to derive deen from something so contentious wouldn't be wise.

Also on another note there are 50 plus recognized hadith collections, how is it the Allah's s.w.t own book in which he says he has completed his deen in it, is in just one book, but then is followed by 50 more collections of deen written by men!

Watch this from 24:26. This addresses you entire question.

No i never implied that what is written down can't be wrong I actually believe in the opposite, apart from Quran, nothing is 100% authentic. But ok I would look more into the topic. Just one question, going by your logic that one takes deen completely from Quran and Sunnah without Hadith, was that also the position of Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa? Also, If this is the case then Shia's must also be correct in their deen, as they also believe to follow Sunnah right (of course Imamat can always be discussed directly from Quran). How else do you prove that you follow correct Sunnah as compared to them.

Also, where is the evidence for the Farabi claim, I don't think it's a known fact, I couldn't find it.

 

[Citizen X]

Just one question, going by your logic that one takes deen completely from Quran and Sunnah without Hadith, was that also the position of Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa?

That was pretty much the position of Imam Malik, even though he wrote the first ever hadith collection called the Muwatta century maybe even two ahead of Bhukari and he was very fond of hadith. He grandfather was a Sahaba, His father a Tabi and he himself a TabiTabieen. He was born, raised and died in Medina. Never left Medina and understood, studied and taught deen in the way he saw the people of Medina practicing it, who were pretty much all Tabi or tabatabieen. The closet generation to the Prophet s.a.w after the Sahaba.

This also makes you think the closer you get to the Prophet the less hadith there are and the further you go way from him the hadith keep increasing like I said today there are over 50 collections ( not books but collections, many collection having multiple books ) of recognized hadith, from Imam Maliks 1700 hadith to today possible over a million, how is this possible? Knowledge is lost over time, not increase

As for Imam Hanifa, he was pretty much the polar opposite, he relied heavily on hadith and very strict and literal in his interpretations. A precursor to Salafi and Wahabism I would say. I guess being a Pathan made him kardak in things, They were originally from Kabul after all.

Also, If this is the case then Shia's must also be correct in their deen, as they also believe to follow Sunnah right

There is no Sunnah that is in contradiction to the Quran or not mentioned in it, Sunnah is derived from the Quran, Aqeemu Salah, how do we do that, the Sunnah. Imamat is neither mentioned in the Quran and goes against it as well.

Also, where is the evidence for the Farabi claim, I don't think it's a known fact, I couldn't find it.

You won't find much is because everybody refuses to acknowledge it, refuse to debate it and generally sweep it under the carpet. Like I said if Bhukhari becomes questionable then 98% of what they preach vanishes into thin air in turn they lose their following, get labeled as heretics and eventually no more $$$$'s, A few people have tried to refute it and ave pretty much failed miserably.

But here is the proper video discussing this issue, with all references given.

 

[Mughal1]

If anyone has any time one should use it to help decode message in the quran as the top most priority instead of taking up secondary issues which cannot be solved without help of the quran. For a detailed explanation of things about the quran, deen of islam and pakistan see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.