-
How Can The Hadith Be Separate From The Sunnah?
If the the Sunnah is transmitted only through action without writing (The hadith), how can it be trusted.
-
4 Replies
-
How Can The Hadith Be Separate From The Sunnah?
updated 1 week, 3 days ago
4 Members
·
4
Replies
-
Actually it’s more reliable and preserved when it’s not written. Anyone can forge anything into writing/saying, but the true Sunnah (that Allah s.w.t. preserved) is through actions, passing down by generations. The repeated practice of (for example) Prayers seen, learnt, practiced, taught by multiple people in congregation can perfectly by replicated compared to performing rituals by reading instructions.
Which is why we have the Law (Qur’an) and the Method (Sunnah).
Even if you remove all written hadiths from existence, we would still know how to pray, how to perform Hajj etc. (probably with much lesser minor differences, which originated due to conflicts in early hadiths).
Hadiths is not the source of Sunnah, rather hadiths was a human effort to recollect/record as much of Sunnah. Many Hadiths are not Sunnah, and many Sunnah are not found in Hadiths.
Hadiths are also where/how we learn how to pray. Just like a surgeon doesn’t learn surgery from just reading, and a pilot cannot fly by just reading instructions. They all need to watch and learn. That’s why hadiths are not reliable when it comes to practicing the Qur’an, it’s the ongoing amaly tawatur (Sunnah) we need, which is going on since before hadith compilation.
-
Jazakh Allah!
I only have two main problem here. First, there’s no way to confirm a corruption if whatever has been corrupted comes only through action. We can take the sign of the cross for example, which is a gesture commonly practiced by Christians. Nowhere in the bible is it mentioned to perform such an action, but they still do it. Their reasoning is that Jesus (AS) transmitted this through action which is similar to the Sunnah (without hadith of course). Same can be applied to Imam’s who have added biddah to the prayer. If I could only follow one single Imam because it was the only imam around, then I would be going into the same biddah because I would believe it was sunnah.
Also, I do agree that, “A surgeon doesn’t learn surgery from just reading.” However, they cannot just do so by only watching either. A surgeon will watch the action but also read how to perform the action. I definitely wouldn’t want a surgeon who only watched others perform surgery without reading how to actually perform it.
-
According to wikipedia the Christian gesture you are referring only started in 3rd century, that’s centuries after Jesus (AS) though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_crossIt also does not state that Jesus did it nor do Christians seems to present it as a sunnah (they present it as a symbol, different meaning for different churches so there is no consensus at all as to what it even means). And even if they did, its documentation shows that it was adopted later by followers. Similar is the case with most biddah.
Sunnah does not guarantee against corruption such as forgetting/abandonment of an act but as soon as you add something to it, people as a whole will raise objection. So Sunnah is only protected from additions (biddat). Just like it is documented that Jesus did not do that gesture and it was an addition by churches.
Comprehensive understanding what Sunnah is and how it is determined as well as addressing many objections and concerns of biddat:
Discussion 79364And most importantly, the misconception is that Hadith is the only writing. Testimony and written traditions by scholars also exists. Most of our early fiqh scholars started writing down sunnah of Prophet (PBUH) along with Hadiths. Christians never got to do this, they couldn’t even write down the Gospels (in Aramaic) when it was revealed let alone Sunnah of Jesus. Most writing in Greek comes decades after Jesus. So the comparison is weak.
-
The edifice of Sunnah is essentially built on conjecture (ظن), ie. You think a certain action was performed by the Prophet but you don’t have a conclusive evidence whether its true or not. These are non-falsifiable claims with a degree of probability attached to each one of them regarding their truthfulness.
On the other hand, Quran’s claims about its infallibility are falsifiable/testable. For instance, consider Quran’s assertion that it cannot be produced by anyone other than God, and if you claim otherwise then try to produce something like it. No one has been able to meet the challenge. There are also other assertions such as being free from contradictions and internally consistent (4:82, 39:23), hence a proof of its divine origins. The verses of Quran are also referred to as بصائر , i.e physical evidences.
But there is another issue, which is more serious. Sunnah lacks any epistemic basis and is not acknowledged by Quran as a valid source of religious guidance. In simple words, there is no proof in the Quran that Prophet ever issued or delivered any everlasting religious commandments in addition to Quran, other than the administrative and community matters. Rather the contrary is true. When we read Quran, we get the following information about what God and His Prophet have given us:
1. The only thing the Prophet was asked by God to deliver was Quran (3:20, 5:67, 5:92, 5:99, 13:40, 16:35, 16:82, 24:54, 29:18, 42:48, 64:12, 72:23, 72:28).
2. The only thing for which Prophet was accountable and responsible for delivering was Quran (5:67, 24:54).
4. The only thing the Prophet confirmed having received from God was Quran (6:19, 42:15)
5. The only thing God instructed the Prophet to follow was Quran (6:106, 10:109, 33:2, 75:18).
6. The only thing the Prophet himself announced that he followed was Quran (6:50, 7:158, 7:203, 10:15, 46:9).
In the presence of these irrefutable evidences, the onus is on Sunnah followers to furnish evidence for the legitimacy and validity of their purported source for being مستقل بالذات. But no such proof exists.
In addition to the above, the following features of Quran leave no room for admissibility of any other source besides it:
1. It is Complete, Perfect, and Fully Detailed (6:114, 10:37, 12:111, 16:89, 41:3). And sufficient (29:51), requiring no other hadith or book to supplement it (45:6, 68:37).
2. It is free from all doubts and lies (2:2, 10:37, 32:2) and free from any distortion and deviousness (39:28), while no such claims can be made for Sunnah.
3. Quran is free from inspiration of fancy words by enemies of Prophet among Humans and Jinns (6:112-113), while Sunnah is not.
3. Quran is documented and preserved (52:2-3) and divinely protected (15:9, 22:52, 41:42, 56:78, 72:9), while no such claim can be made for Sunnah.
4. Quran is a physical and visible evidence in itself (Basa’ir) (6:104, 7:203, 45:20).
5. Quran is endorsed by testimony from God (and angels) (4:166, 6:19, 11:17), while Sunnah is not.
6. The Prophet will complain against his people on the DoJ for abandoning Quran (25:30), and not for not following Sunnah.
7. We will be questioned about Quran on the DoJ (7:6), not whether we followed Sunnah or not.
To answer your question, whether we can trust Sunnah, no, neither can we trust nor are we required to trust something which is based on conjecture and hearsay. However, if you wish to follow any practice that Sunnah followers (Sunnis) categorize as Sunnah, you can voluntarily do so, as long as it does not violate Quran. (Many Sunnahs actually do violate Quran). But knowing and acknowledging that it is purely voluntary. If you call it divine or mandatory, this would amount to setting up associates with God, as you will be upholding something for which God has sent down no authority (ما انزل اللہ بہا من سلطان).
10:36 Most of them only follow conjecture. While conjecture does not avail against the truth in anything. God is knower of what they do.
10:37 This Quran could not have been produced without God, but it is to authenticate what is already present, and to provide detail to the book in which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
