Facebook logo
Email or Phone Password
Keep me logged in
Forgot your password?
Sign Up


            Original Post 20th July 2013

                    Original Link: https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/299908280146306


    ...Within the crucial period of the earliest generations of the new Muslims, are you really telling me dear friend that the Quran was spread in the same manner as hadith?


    Then 'please!' consider why you do not exhibit any scruples whilst interpreting the perfect Divine source 'primarily' through the filters of weaker, fallible secondary sources.



      Bassam Zawadi Hi Joseph Islam

      May you perhaps slightly tweak your diagram so that it takes into consideration:

      - The mutawaatir ahaadith that you reject.

      - The ahad ahaadith with mutawaatir acceptance (which what ultimately matters) by the Muslim community that you reject. 

      - The mutawaatir sunnah practice of the Muslim community that you reject. 

      - The different Qur'anic readings which are not Hafs that you reject. 

      That would be a more comprehensive diagram to look at, no?
      Joseph Islam I was expecting a calling from you dear brother Bassam Zawadi. As promised, I await your presence on the QM Forum where we have already exchanged lovely and respectful discourses from your orthodox perspective. I trust that you are well dear brother. All the best to you always. As-salam alaykum 
      Nadeem Muhammad Salam,

      this is a mutawaatir hadith
      ' "Whoever invents a lie and attributes it to me intentionally, let him prepare his seat in the Fire."

      1. According to several reports, it appears that Abu Hurayrah has fabricated some hadiths, and some of his narration is simply against the Quranic teachings and goes against it such as 

      He narrated that the Prophet had said: "No one will be entered Paradise by his deeds." They said: "Nor you, messenger of Allah." He said: "Nor I." [ Al-Bukhari's Sahih, vol. 4, p.p. 6.] which contradicts (Surely this is a reward for you, and your striving shall be recompensed) 76:22 and several other verses.

      2. There are several reports which indicate that Abu Hurayrah was beaten several times by Umar RA and the other companions did not like him due to his excessive reporting.

      3. He reported more hadiths than the prophet wives or even the caliphs while he lived the least with the prophet.

      Considering the above, and taking into account that Abu Hurayrah is found in so many isnad... Should his hadith be rejected or not?
      Bassam Zawadi Hi Nadeem, thanks for your questions. 

      They aren't related to this thread, hence I would appreciate you private messaging me your questions (especially the first one, since I did research on it just last week, so the answers are still fresh in my mind  )
      Nadeem Muhammad Ok.. message me your view on it then.
      Mubashir Inayet Content is more important than transmission. There are Sunni and Shia hadith collections.There is Sunnah according to Salafis and Sufis, Shias and Sunnis.

      We reserve the right to judge all reports and practices by the Criterion. No compulsion in Deen 
      Joseph Islam Yes dear brother Mubashir Inayet

      In my humble opinion, an endeavour that is primarily founded on the subjectivity of 'trustworthiness' of a transmitter as opposed to 'content' is a flawed enterprise.

      This is especially true of one that is based on oral transmissions compiled at times CENTURIES after the time they attempt to narrate. 

      Even if a hadith is later accepted by billions but was originally only an 'ahad' transmission is still in ESSENCE only a single source of testimony! You cannot change that. 'Something which is 'mashshur' (well-established) is not necessarily founded on truth.

      There is a matter known as false consensus. 

      However it is often easy to accuse others to have come to a false consensus such as billions of Christians and tacitly mock the sincerity of their founding fathers but to feel haughtily exempt that such a mistake could not have been repeated by the particular religion one belongs to. 

      Once again, I feel it is a case of double standards.


      As-salam alaykum
      Bassam Zawadi A good future discussion 

      - Compilation after centuries into a book doesn't equate to "popping out into existence" centuries later. In most cases all the early first century compilations were discarded because more comprehensive compilations came later and there was no need for the earlier compilations. 

      - Equating "transmission" with "acceptance" is another flaw. A hadith transmitted by one person at a time doesn't entail that the community during that time didn't know about it and accepted it as a belief or practice. 

      - There are no double standards. A crucial difference is that Muslims believe that Christians aren't following their authoritative forefathers (i.e. the disciples of Jesus) because most Christians themselves admit that the authorship of several of the NT books are disputed, while orthodox Muslims are generally confident about the sources of the transmissions of the hadith literature. So no double standards at play here, just a failure to highlight the not so very nuanced difference (for I feel the difference is obvious) between Muslims and Christians on the utilization of the historical method. 

      But again, we may expand on each of these points further inshallah after Ramadan. 

      Joseph Islam God willing, as discussed we will go into this in detail as you say after Ramadan dear brotherBassam Zawadi

      Just so that you are prepared, from an academic perspective, I will of course strongly challenge a contention based on a 'circular argument' (i.e. secondary sources proving secondary sources or secondary sources arguing against aspects of secondary sources). 

      For example, if I assert that even early Muslims accused each other of falsehood with regards the integrity of the secondary sources contending with your comparison with Christian academia, you will undoubtedly find this 'circular'.

      As a specific example, as you will know being an academic that the 'Rayy' scholars were so influential that they were ardent in their resistance towards the two works of the Sahihyan accusing al Bukhari and Muslim of 'insolence'. They perceived the works as 'elitist'. There seems to be 3 principle concerns from the Rayy scholars of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim's period regarding their works. Certainly in regards to Muslim's Sahih:

      (1) The works are impertinent glory seeking 
      (2) They disagree with Muslim's judgement on the reliability of some transmitters arguing that the criteria is flawed subjective [Note 2] and
      (3) The compilation is in a manner that could hinder the use of OTHER Ahadith that would not have quite the shine of this compilation. A fear that a 'definitive' 'Sahih' book would be used at the exclusion of other worthy materials.

      This was not restricted to Imam Muslim's work. Imam Bukhari found his own criticism for example from younger experts such as al-Nasai for omission of certain Ahadith. 

      The chief critics of Muslim’s ‘Sahih’ for example were Abu Zur'a al Razi and his colleague Muhammad b. Muslim Ibn Wara alRazi (d.270AH). There was so much prominence attached to people like Abu Zur'a that other elite scholars such as Ishaq b. Rahawayh said of Abu Zur'a:

      'Any hadith that Abu Zur'a al-Razi does not know has no basis' (Note 3)

      So Islamic secondary sources used to criticise others. It is an unsolvable quagmire of endless disputes.

      However, I look forward to our 'academic' discussions. Let us leave it to that God willing. This is not the space nor appropriate platform for such a discussion.

      Look forward to seeing you after Ramadan iA.



      (1) Canonization of al-Bukhari and Muslim, Formation and Function of Sunni Hadith Canon. J. Brown.
      (2) ibid as above
      (3) "Ibn 'Adi, al-Kamil, 1:141" ibid (1) and (2) J. Brown
      Bassam Zawadi Oh yes, I will be happy to discuss those specific examples. At the same time, I recommend that you fully prepare to ensure that your arguments are consistent (e.g. you don't rely on sources proving the transmission of the Qur'an, while at the same time attack those very same sources in other areas of authority or perhaps a certain argument you use against the Hadith cannot equally be used against the Qur'anic canon, etc.) and that you be prepared to provide primary references for your arguments (e.g. Cite directly from the Ahlul Ra'iy scholars those views you attributed to them, instead of a Western orientalist's personal interpretation of the matter for example). 

      Joseph Islam The example was only cited to explain what I meant by circular argument. That is all. The example itself is irrelevant to me as it is one that is based on secondary sources. That was the point I was making. I trust that you will see that. 

      With regards transmission of the Quran that is a matter we have already discussed on an agreed platform and I am happy to revisit a topic (if you wish) that we both felt was exhausted. Furthermore, as you will have noted I have never made use of secondary sources to 'prove' the 'transmission' of the Quran. 

      If anything I have strongly argued that secondary sources introduce doubt as to its transmission.

      For example, it is secondary sources such as hadith that tell us that:

      - Verses of the Quran were missing and a goat ate the stoning verse with regards to adultery [1] 
      - That the Prophet of God introduced the Satanic verses [2]
      - That Caliph Uthman burnt the extant copies of the Quran [3]
      - That there was a missing suckling verse (Ten clear sucklings which made the marriage unlawful, then it was later abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and then was somehow removed or missed from the Quran altogether [4]
      - That there was a missing Ibn Adam verse (regarding Ibn Adam's possession of a wadi of property) [5]
      - That there was a missing 'pleasing' verse from the Quran (regarding those that were slain at Bi'r Mauna which included the verse "Inform our tribe on our behalf that we have met with our Lord. He has been well pleased with us and has satisfied our desires) [6]
      - And many others, from al-Baraa, verses that were lost with dead Muslims, cancelled and repealed verses and those forgotten by the Prophet himself and those lost by Quranic reciters [7]

      Can you see dear brother why I don't have these discussions on Facebook and have a dedicated platform for this kind of discussion? 

      Therefore, please can I once again, kindly and sincerely, request that you do not post such contentions on my personal Facebook page which you know will lead to a debate. I have already provided you with a platform for discussion.

      This is also why I do not write on your wall. Can you at least reciprocate the sincere gesture?


      Thank you dear brother Bassam Zawadi


      [1] SUNAN IBN MAJAH, Book of Nikaah, Number 1944, Hadith in Arabic, [online] http://hadith.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=192&TOCID=638&BookID=29&PID=1934 [Accessed 13th April 2011]
      [2] AL TABARI, Ta'rikh Volume 1
      [3] SAHIH BUKHARI, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, Translator: M. Muhsin Khan. Source: University of Southern California Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement, Translation available [online]http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/061-sbt.php [Accessed 11th March 2013] 
      Such narrations have the potential to open up serious contention for the Shia that a 'Usurper' of power had been somehow responsible for the Quran's preservation and therefore the true Quran had to exist with their infallible Imams.
      [4] SUNAN IBN MAJAH, Book of Nikaah, Number 1944, Hadith in Arabic, [online] http://hadith.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=192&TOCID=638&BookID=29&PID=1934 [Accessed 13th April 2011]
      [5] BURTON. J, The Collection of the Qur'an, Cambridge University Press 1977, First published 1977, First paperback edition 1979, Re-issued 2010, Pages 82-83, Note (31) and (32) quoted. Note (31) - Burhan al Din al Baji, Jawab, MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur majami no. 207, f.17. Note (32) Itqan, pt 2,, p.25
      [6] BURTON. J, The Collection of the Qur'an, Cambridge University Press 1977, First published 1977, First paperback edition 1979, Re-issued 2010, Pages 48-49, Note (3). Note (3) Ibid. p26 (from previous reference Itqan, pt2)
      [7] SAHIH MUSLIM, Volume 1, Book 5, Book of Zakat (Kitab al-Zakat) Number 2286, Translator: Abdul Hamid Siddiqui, Source: University of Southern California Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement, Translation available [online] http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/005-smt.php [Accessed 11th March 2013]
      Mubashir Inayet Transmission of the Quran is preserved by Allah. How He does it is His business. No such preservation is promised by Allah to reports and practices (existing in sectarian versions with each sect claiming to be on the right path)!!
      Joseph Islam Absolutely dear brother Mubashir Inayet. From a believers perspective, (1) There is no religious authority granted to these sources by the Quran (2) There is no Divine protection afforded to these sources. Once you enter the quagmire of secondary sources to debate this, then expect endless arguments ad infinitum! 

      The Shia' and Sunni and the arguments between them are great examples! However, you will note how they take a united front when protecting the very sources which is a direct cause of endless disputes amongst them which has led to much slaughter throughout Islamic history right to this day. Alas, many will not see. 'Scripting' or 'mental engineering' since birth for many is a tough nut to crack!
      Bassam Zawadi Hi Mubashir,

      From a believer's perspective with blind faith yes, but a critical minded person wouldn't take the historical method utilized (if any method even exists) by the Qur'an only Muslim seriously. He will simply ask you to prove historically that the verse promising preservation wasn't inserted itself and the Qur'an only Muslim could do nothing but ask the person to blindly believe. 

      Also, as a Quran-only Muslim one can interpret 15:9 in a number of ways to as to not totally reject the verse, yet at the same time believe in a non-100% fully transmitted Qur'an.

      The Qur'an only Muslim displays no respect for history and hence would find great difficulties in defending his system of belief objectively and soundly.
      Mubashir Inayet Hello Basam! Actually the Quran only Muslim relies on the claims made by the Quran and comes to believe in them after a careful study. The Book inspires such a Muslim in a way that he feels he has grasped a rope that will not fail him. The pristine description of the blessed Messenger given in the Quran seems much better than what exists in sectarian versions of reports and history. No body is saying reject all history. What is being asked is to study secondary sources material but: Buyer beware! Judge it by the Criterion. That's all. No compulsion in Deen. If you feel you are not getting much traction here, then you are free to go and exist in your comfort zone and preach your version of Islam to an audience of zombies and robots. Sorry this page seems more for "Those who Think"  
      Bassam Zawadi So only accept historical facts which are in line with your personal interpretation of the Qur'an?

      hmmm... I don't know much about the level of "thinking" process here.
      Mubashir Inayet That is right. When Allah asks us to consider and think and study His Word, I take it He trusts our thinking abilities. Therefore, we all are accountable to Him based on our sincere study of His Word. On the Day of judgement, we will not be able to get away by saying "But Basam said this or Joseph said that, Bukhari said this and Tabari said that". We are all students on the path of learning, Sir! Just a reminder  

      As I read recently:

      "......For me, the key difference with the Quranists and the Traditionalists lies in the question of authority. With the Traditionalist, they claim their authority comes from the Prophet himself and thus from Allah. Meaning, they are speaking on behalf of the Prophet who has divine sanction. That’s why they can’t be wrong and that is why they can – with the consent of Sharia – KILL those who disagree with them under some blasphemy law. 

      With the Quranist, we recognise that we are making a HUMAN attempt to understand the Book of Allah. Therefore, differences are not (or should not be) an issue at all. Rather, the variety of understandings should help us get into the Quran more deeply. Of course the Quran is easy to understand but it’s also infinitely deep. We can practise it by reading 3 ayat (Ch 103 – Al-Asr) but spend a lifetime getting into it’s philosophy. That’s what keeps us on the path. Endless research..."
      Joseph Islam Also I'd like to add that one can pay respect to history, engage with it and the works of scholars as an ardent enquirer, yet STILL RETAIN the prerogative to conclude that it is a fallible enterprise. Many so called 'Quran-centric' folk are not dimwits but intellectually seasoned individuals that have at times spent a lifetime engaging with Islamic sources.

      In other words, why does 'informed opinion' regarding the source’s integrity have to equate with disrespect? 

      Is that not what ‘informed’ opinion is? One which has been reached after personal intellectual labour?

      I certainly have made it clear throughout as below that I have much regard for both history and past scholars but have framed it in the need for personal enquiry.

      That is what a 'critical minded person' does. He / She 'critiques' and evaluates perspectives and does not follow the masses blindly.

      "However, it is also unreasonable to suggest complete corruption of the Islamic secondary sources. Classical scholars should be fully appreciated in the endeavours they have made to pass on their efforts to succeeding generations of Muslims. However, it is also a mistake to consider them as 'authorities' in such a way that their works become the source of guidance themselves and beyond reproach. Classical or modern works should always be understood, appreciated and critically evaluated in the light of the Quran."

      Also see: 


      So if one has reached the conclusion that the Quran stands as the sole religious authority, that its compilation and dissemination is not analogous to the Hadith corpus or wider secondary sources and that such compilations were in fact a later enterprise by fallible humans attempting to salvage history, then they have a full right to argue that perspective.
      Bassam Zawadi In other words if I may summarize the necessary implications of your view.... You have a personal interpretation of the Qur'an and that forces you to reject everything else that contradicts it. This is instead of looking at everything and trying to harmonize them all together. Gotchya!
      Bassam Zawadi Ofcourse you have a "right" Joseph 
      Joseph Islam Ah! God bless, we do have some common ground brother Bassam Zawadi. But I do believe more common ground than we often may think. If you were to evaluate our core beliefs, the sentiments behind our religious practices and the need to commit to righteous deeds, I believe there will be a lot of common ground. For the sake of argument, you know as well as I, that one can even split hairs!
      Joseph Islam Thanks brother Mubashir Inayet for your views as well 
      Mubashir Inayet Not really. I judge all secondary sources by the Quran and find that more often than not, it agrees with those who judge by the Quran as well. As I am a student, I continue to learn and grow. I do not insist "My way or the highway". We have seen the kind of sectarian interpretations of the Quran are doing to promote harmony where secondary source material is being read into the Quran. !!  
      Bassam Zawadi and we have seen that hadith rejection lead people to claim to be prophets (e.g Rashad Khalifah) and dupe people as well  No need for stereotyping 
      Mubashir Inayet And we can tell by the Quran that such people are wrong!! Quran wins again!  
      Mubashir Inayet BTW which collection of hadith? Six of Sunnis or four of Shias is better, Sir?
      Mubashir Inayet I apologize to Brother Joseph for turning his page into a debating club, against his wishes. All the best. Over and out!!
      Joseph Islam No need to apologise brother Mubashir Inayet, Thanks for sharing your views 
      Bassam Zawadi Mubashir whose interpretation of the Quran? Yours or Rashad Khalifas? It all comes down to a debate, same with Sunnis and Shias. Over and out! 
      Nadeem Muhammad All attempt to explain the Quran are interpretation... irrelevant from whoever it may be coming from... Even Ibn Kathir when he says that a Bull is holding the earth between his horns and the bull is standing of a big fish and the fish name is Nun... just in an attempt to explain 'Nun' 
      Lambe Mushtaq Ahmed Ahad – Is one
      Is this the base root of Hadith, which is normally said as ( Muslims secondary sources) or
      Hadith word is taken from Qur'an ( to mean secondary source) ?
      Ahadith is plural of Hadith or Ahad?
      Please clarify if possible.
      Mubashir Inayet Yet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed accepted ahadith and claimed to be a Prophet!! Since none of us Allah's messengers, a healthy debate over interpretation of Quran helps promote growth. Realizing we are students on the path of learning, at least we don't declare those who don't agree with us as deviants ! As for which interpretation? Use your God given brains to decide by The Criterion. You will not be held accountable for what others believe  
      Bassam Zawadi God given brains, uh huh. Okay thanks.
      Mubashir Inayet Was not uh huh! for God when he wants us to us them! Welcome, happy reading! 
      Nadeem Muhammad No one should feel ashamed at any time to use his God give brain 
      Joseph Islam I am sure no right minded person would ever advocate that God would gift humans with a brain and then expect them to forgo its usage! After all, God sees those that do not use their 'aql' (intellect) as the vilest of all animals (8:22).
      Nadeem Muhammad 2:218 – We have explained/explained…
      3:118 – We have made clear/explained…
      57:17 – We have made clear/explained…
      2:221 – We have explained/made clear…
      24:18 – Allah explains/made it clear…
      etc etc

      I have ZERO idea which part of the above wording is obscure and unclear so that the people are constantly going over it but yet fail to see the explanation given.
      Nadeem Muhammad كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَفَكَّرُونَ 2:219
      Thus Allah makes clear to you the verses [of revelation] that you might give thought.

      إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ 16:12
      Indeed in that are signs for a people who reason.

      إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ 16:67
      Indeed in that are signs for a people who reason.

      كِتَابٌ أَنزَلْنَاهُ إِلَيْكَ مُبَارَكٌ لِّيَدَّبَّرُوا آيَاتِهِ وَلِيَتَذَكَّرَ أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ38:29
      [This is] a blessed Book which We have revealed to you,, that they might reflect upon its verses and that those of understanding would be reminded.

      And many more...
      See Translation