Talk:Hadith/Archive 1

Authenticity
The article seems to imply that since the various hadith collections have different amounts of sahih hadith, they are irreconcilable and thus, as a whole, not trustworthy. However, by declaring some of the hadith sahih, the compilers were not declaring all the rest of them to be not sahih.

The article further seems to cast doubt on hadith which have been considered true for over a millennium by traditional Muslims by mentioning the conflict of interest which may occur in reporting them accurately. But this is something which could affect all scholarship, especially of history, as their work has a great affect on people's thought and behaviour. Would it then be proper to cast doubt on all works of scholarship, and only trust knowledge one obtains first hand? This trust in scholarship is one of the hallmarks of civilized man.

Traditional Muslims believe that those Islamic scholars of hadith whose work has been accepted over the ceturies were of noble character and were primarily interested in conveying the truth, as all other groups of humanity trust their scholars to explain reality to them. To imply that Islamic scholars have been, for some reason, not trustworthy, is condescending towards the religion being discussed here, unless the view that Muslims take is also included in the article.

- I would reply to the above to say that it is not appropriate for an objective encyclopedia to pretend that the traditional dogma of any religious scholar, no matter how revered by the faithful, is rational and reliable. Yes reason is judged as "condescending toward ... religion" and that's a sign that it's doing its job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.43.2 (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Formatting problems in Hadith accepted by Shi'a Islam section
The quote box is making the article page look unkempt. If someone could clean it up, it would be good. I tried to but the right-to-left style of Arabic makes it hard for me since I don't know Arabic and can't read it properly to remove it. VarunRajendran

The word "Sahabah" is misspelled.
H. S.

---

Some inconsistencies in usage here. Please indicate if this is wrong:


 * sira is the life of Muhammad, during which the revelation (Qur'an) was dictated, and during which he spoke the authentic hadith
 * sunnah consists of both hadith and sira (example)
 * hadith are validated by isnah, "backing", a science of its own
 * hadith are extremely significant as social rules and moral guidance

If this is all so, why aren't there separate links in this article to sira and sunnah, and why doesn't this article list some undisputed hadith?

The article on isnah already describes the process, and on early Muslim philosophy already describes the significance of this in the Islamic culture of scholarship.

So, this article should be only about the actual hadith, while a sunnah article can be about the use of the sira and hadith in practice today and in history...?

It wouldn't matter much except there are some redundancies here with isnah.


 * Isn't it isnad? EofT

The science of hadith validation is called: Mustalah-ul-Hadeeth, `Uloom-ul-Hadeeth Diraayah or `Ilm Diraayat-il-Hadeeth, not "isnah" or isnaad. An isnaad is the chain of narrators that precedes the text of a hadeeth. I do not know what "isnah" is, or what language it is, and I failed to find any such word in Al-Mawrid Arabic-English Dictionary. Uflinks

Hadith mentioned as examples:

 * ''"why doesn't this article list some undisputed hadith"


 * I read that and, voila, it does now! --Striver 14:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Could we see first class links to all the major hadith collections (six in all?) so readers can assess how they differ in their character, and (ideally) whether a specific cited hadith is considered authentic by all collections, just five, four, three, two, or just one? EofT


 * The MSA USC has a good collection of hadith online that is indexed and searchable with two search interfaces. "MSA USC Hadith Search". However, it doesn't have all six collections. That being said, the first two (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) are very good starting points.  If they both include the same hadith, then the hadith is considered to be "agreed upon."

---

I removed the following sample hadith:
 * "The search for knowledge is a sacred duty imposed upon every Muslim. Go in search of knowledge, even to China."

I have heard that the above hadith is false. I can't be sure, but in the case of hadiths, it's better to remove it if in doubt. If someone can find an authoritative reference, feel free to put it back in. --Aidfarh 02:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The first segment of this hadith is indeed authentic. Suyuti has gathered the various routes of transmition of this hadith in an individual book entitled, "Juz'un fehi Turuq Hadith..." He does mention this words, although in reversed order, as number 18 (pg. 20). Suyuti remained silent concerning its level of authenticity, however, Ibn al-Jawzi says this hadith is not authentically attributed to the Prophet mentioning criticizm of two the narrators and then quoting ibn Hibbaan as saying, "This hadith is false having no origin to it." ("al-Mawdoo'aat al-Kubraa;" vol. 1, pg. 347-9, no's 427-9 Adwaa'a al-Salaf edition.) I did not restore it to the text of the article as I don't see much point in the mention of more or less random hadith being mentioned. Supertouch (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC) ---

This sentence is inaccurate:


 * Different branches of Islam (Sunni and Shi'a) and different schools within these branches accept different hadith collections as genuine.

The six major collections of hadiths were written after the death of the 4 madhab imams of Sunni, so how could the different schools accept or not accept them? However, I'm not sure how to correct the sentence.--Aidfarh 02:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

---

"The whole earth was been created as a place of worship, pure and clean."

'was been created' is grammatically wrong. Shouldn't it be either 'was created' or 'has been created'? K. Sperling 11:12, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

About the Collections
I don't understand. Are these six different interpretations or has each author added on to what the previous one compiled? There is a lot of ambiguity in both the articles on the Hadith and the Sunnah that needs to be simplified for the novice.MPA


 * Different people collected different ahadith (sayings of the prophet) at different times. Some of the sayings naturally overlap.  Ghazali who was much latered added on to and used Bukhari... but I don't think Muslim, Bukhari, etc. used each other's work. gren 00:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major revision
A new editor, KhalidAzam, arrived and made a major revision on the article, in the direction of Muslim piety, leaving out everything that might hint that the hadith were in any way confusing, contradictory, or imperfect. He/she probably made some good edits, but I think I lost track of them in my quest to find everything that had been dropped.

I reverted, as a temporary measure. I have to leave for a RL duty now, but as soon as I can, I will sit down and try to merge the two versions. I have long been intending to add material on Western academic scholars' views of hadith, and this is probably a good occasion. I'm not trying to play revert war, I'm just pressed for time and I don't want the critical material suppressed, even briefly. Zora 03:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, ten hours later, a new article is in place. I don't regard it as finished. It needs a bibliography and I want to edit the links, which look to me like pious Muslim links with no reference at all to Western scholarship. I think I included MOST of the major points that KhalidAzam tried to make, with this exception: I left out the detailed typology of hadith and hadith evaluation. I think this belongs on another page. If we're not going to outline Western academic historical methods, it seems to me POV to detail the Islamic methods. There might already be a page on Western-style academic history and if there isn't one on Islamic science of hadith, perhaps there ought to be.


 * There are probably also some mistakes (typos, errors of fact) in the article and I'll be very grateful to the editors who point them out. Zora 05:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. I removed the sample hadith because they weren't sourced and I couldn't tell if they were hadith that would be accepted by all three of the major Islamic traditions (Sunni, Shi'a, and Ibadi). Links to hadith collections are probably better. Zora 05:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I did some editting and then I added a little section (hope you don't mind). There is limited opposition in the Muslim world (much western Muslims I believe) to hadith in some form or another... I put in a few reasons for generic opposition. If you think its POV then you can state in the section that it is a minority view... but I do think it is worht stating... especially since they are from accepted Muslim sources mostly. I think we should try to see if there is any western scholar in support of hadith because, well, I believe that's probably more balanced. I, myself, have a problem with hadith but they should be presented in a neutral light. Also, those who don't accept hadith as guidance don't necessarily deny inspiration. They just don't believe in necessity... I mean, since we can get inspiration from anywhere... hadith could be like poetry to someone I suppose? O_O  I also have another problem... I would want to discuss the idea of hadith contradicting Qur'an and then hadith viewed as bad or inhumane.... but I think that gets really POV really fast and I am definitely not qualified to do that.... because, in the end, the often questioned hadith are the minority... so.. not sure if/how to deal with that issue. I'd say general expansion is more important. gren 07:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want a hadith that's accepted by Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi, one is given in http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/exisnad.html : - Mustafaa 21:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Abu Huraira reported the Prophet saying: (that Almighty Allah has said) Every act of the son of Adam is for him; every good deed will receive tenfold except fasting. It is [exclusively] meant for me, and I [alone] will reward it. He abandons his food for My sake and abandons drinking for My sake and abandons his pleasure for My sake. When any one of you is fasting he should neither indulge in sex nor use obscene language. If anyone reviles him he should say, "I am fasting." The one who fasts has two [occasions] of joy: one when he breaks the fast and one on the day when he will meet his Lord. And the breath [of a fasting person] is sweeter to Allah than the fragrance of musk.

For/Against clarifications
The anon editor changed the style of my intro for "against hadith". I had set it up to be in the same style as the "for hadith", it was not POV because it was asserting that under an against hadith view, not as a truth. Since that was changed I had to change the for hadith argument to match in the same style... we can't have one say "hadith are good" and the other saying "the minority of Muslims who reject hadith say". Also "the minority of Muslims who critcise hadith" is ambiguous construction... is it "the minority of Muslims critcise hadith and those that do critcise say XXX" or "the minority of those Muslims who reject hadith say XXX" It's also just redundant with the intro... it's not POV, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm not even Muslim...  and we can't assert the majority opinion as more factual, that's bad reporting. gren 19:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Points offered for consideration: Among both Sunni and Shia Muslims, reliance on hadith is not just a "majority opinion," but a central doctrine of faith. I mean, it is a comparitively tiny group that rejects ahadith; the group is quite vocal on the Internet, though.


 * Saying this is a "majority/minority" issue is a little bit like saying that "most Christians" accept the doctrine of Jesus' divinity. You could dig and dig and find a couple of Unitarians who might waffle on the issue, but among actual Christian worship communities, you'd be hard pressed to find a functioning congregation that was willing to come out "against" this principle. Same deal with any masjid you walk into, I'm willing to predict; rejection of ahadith is generally considered heresy. (And there are arguments from Qur'an for considering it so.)


 * I'm not saying we should ignore the Qur'an-alone people, but that the current version suggests a level of acceptance of the "anti-hadith" viewpoint that is just not borne out in any masjid I've ever been to. I know there are some Qur'an-alone communities, but they are a nearly invisibly thin slice of the pie.BrandonYusufToropov 20:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. Suspicion of some hadith claimed to be sahih is fairly common, but the idea that all hadith are wrong and misguided is such a tiny minority position it really doesn't deserve as much coverage as it's getting in this article currently. It seems disproportionate. - Mustafaa 21:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Mustafaa and Brandon, it isn't prevalent at all.... the problem I had was wanting to mention it... but, there was no point in just listing one with the argument is based on a few things... I don't think it should be removed but it should be made clear that it is a tiny minority... I'm not sure what way you believe is best.  It's also hard categorizing people... as Mustafaa said people to question some hadith... most Muslims I know don't seem to know what to do with some hadith and just live their lives ignoring them.... that kind of thing makes it hard for classification and statistics and all... but, help me make it seem to be proportionate without removing the information. gren 21:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems like we're agreed on general direction this next edit needs to take. If no one else has dug in on this rewrite by then, OK for me to take a pass at it tomorrow morning? BrandonYusufToropov 21:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Brandon's edits
We had concensus above that it should not be seen that "against hadith" arguments take precedence of that it be implied that many people follow that view. There was no concensus on removal of information which you did. You also added POV statements. To say  "Qur'an alone," are often regarded as heretics by mainstream Muslims. is silly without a notable source because Shias and Ibadis and Sunnis all accept different books and emphasize different evidences. There is no concensus on hadith as a whole. You also removed the for and against section headings while removing most of the against information and very little of the for. I don't disagree that this needed work but I do disagree that providing only the majority view is wise especially when the concensus on what books to accept widely varies. I just did a change keeping my view but hopefully making it more acceptable. We do need more discussion about Shia vs. Sunni view of which hadith are accepted so that the against hadith view looks less large in comparison but I do think it has a right to be there. Since my work was just deleted last time without much talk I would appreciate if we have some talk about reaching a compromise before that happens again... just out or courtesy? I know this is not perfect but I think presenting Islam as a hegemonic and making it seem like these people's view should not be accepted is a bad move, but I do realize they are not widely accepted. Let's discuss. gren 03:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but note that you are quoting the Qur'an in support of the "against" side, and not quoting the Qur'an in support of the "for" side.


 * It's like saying, in Gospel, "Christians claim to believe in Jesus as the only begotten Son of God ... BUT here are some chapter and verse citations of where the New Testament appears to disagree with them." Then not quoting anything from the Bible in support of the mainstream position. Does that really belong in an article about Christian doctrine?


 * As it stands, the article is classic "Qur'an-alone" polemics, and really not neutral -- nor, I'm afraid, reflective of reality in the Muslim world. it looks very much like a splinter group has hijacked the article. I can't imagine a mainstream Muslim saying this is NPOV.


 * I think the article has taken a huge leap backward, and I'm curious to hear what other people think should happen next. BrandonYusufToropov 12:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Brandon, I liked your edit, and I'm unhappy that Gren has reverted it. Gren, do you think you could give on this? The long quotes really really unbalance the article, and I think Brandon is right in saying that Qur'an-only Muslims are a fringe group. I do think they get their due in his edit. All of us have worked together fairly harmoniously in the past, and I'd like to keep that pleasant relationship going. Zora 12:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about this in terms of the "apostasy debate" and... I do think all of that data deserves to be present in one way or another. How about a separate page for it? (please help with title) that is linked to from the hadith page.  That would be fine by me, but I do think I am right in saying that such things shouldn't be deleted.  Also, I feel the "they are considered heretics" remark is bad because I'm not sure they are considered any more heretical than Sunni would consider shia or vice-versa.  Is that good for everyone? (help me with a page title... Qur'an only Muslim doesn't sound right...?  I didn't think I was being dis-harmonious :( gren 14:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I made an edit that should be acceptable... providing that the other page should be acceptable? (I'm not sure why it wouldn't be...?). I don't think any group that is marginalized finds things to be POV... for instance I do question why Ibadi has a section there... they are pretty marginal too.  I'm not trying to just complain but do you think we should edit the Ibadi section on the same basis?  Ok, at least I think those edits should satisfy everyone for now... help with a page title would be nice though. gren 15:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your reverting most of what I had, and this is really not about "pride of authorship." I mean, if we can accomplish a good article with a better rewrite, I'll support the better rewrite. BUT -- in your latest revision, I really don't think you've grasped the central fact that these people are in fact seen as heretics, apostates, whatever you want to call this excluded category, by mainstream Muslim scholars. I do remember coming across a Sunni fatwa that explicitly accepted Shia jurisprudence and practice as Muslim in nature, and made the point that Shia were not to be mistaken for kafir. I have never heard even a whisper of such approval from a scholar regarding the Qur'an-alone folks. Consider this fatwa from Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti via Islamonline.net:


 * Question On news groups such as SRI and other I came across group of people who claim they are Quranites (Follower of Quran only) and they reject Hadith and Sunna. Some of them are follower of Khalifa Rashad and some are not. But all of them have non-traditional beliefs; such as they do not consider praying salaat as it is been known among the Sunni and Shia madhabs. Since they reject Hadith and sunna and also reject history they seem to reject certain traditional views held by main stream Muslims, such as salaat and hadj and fasting. They believe salaat can be offered in your heart. Their claim is that since Quran is complete there is not need for Hadith and Sunna . Their attitude mainly has been very insulting to Sunni and Shia. They make fun of Bukhari and any Hadith mentioned in Bukhari or other sources, some time they even go as far as making fun of prophet (pbuh) while refuting Hadith and Sunna. My Question is, Are these group of people Muslim? Should we consider them Muslims?


 * Answer The answer is no, they are not Muslims.


 * We don't need to (and shouldn't) argue the rightness or wrongness of Al-Hanooti's position, but I do think we should make it clear that "Quranites" (or whatever they are called) are rejected explicitly and vigorously by mainstream scholars, not just seen as some variant school (like Shia). There's a world of difference. This pattern of belief is way, way out there, to the point of being condemned explicitly by people who have a stated intent to forge bonds of union among fellow Muslims. BrandonYusufToropov 16:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I try not to take fatwa machines such as Islam online as serious doctrine or representations of the Muslim world... I think the fact that he makes false assertions in his fatwa attests to that? Could you possibly help with a more notable source? gren 21:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's a notable source:



"If anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger he is indeed on a clearly wrong path." [Al-Ahzab, 33:36]

"Whatever the Messenger giveth you, take it, and whatever he forbiddeth, abstain from it." [Al-Hashr 59:7].

And then there's:

ANTI HADITH IDEOLOGY IS KUFR

http://www.jamiat.org.za/aljamiat/antihadith.html

INDISPENSIBILITY OF HADITH

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=232

THE DEVIATION OF THOSE WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH THE QURAN TO THE EXCLUSION OF HADITH

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=44

ON THE OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF THE PROPHET

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=204

BrandonYusufToropov 00:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

"Narrated by Imam Bukhari: the prophet said, 'talk to Bukhari, he knows his stuff'" (Bukhari) ~_~ I'm thinking there must be a distinction between those who reject hadith because they don't think it can accurately represent the Sunna and those who would reject the prophet. If stupidity and oversimplification are rampant in majority Islamic discourses then I am not in a position to remove that bias from wikipedia too. gren 01:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * G, what exactly are you asking or advocating in the above note? I thought we were trying to confirm that rejecting the Qur'anists forcefully was the majority position, which it is.


 * Also thought we were trying to determine whether an entry stating that many Muslims consider those who reject hadith to be heretics/apostates/deviants from Islam was "silly." Does it still seem "silly"?


 * As for stupidity and oversimplification, one can find it in abundance, I promise you, at www.submission.org 09:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I was advocating a dislike of oversimplification of the views of another in an attempt to discredit their argument. It offered little in the way of what I think should be done with the article.  If the sheik said the above then let us proffer his filth and let him be damned.  ~_~ How is that for dramatics?  It's pretty clear that I don't exactly respect people who take such lopsided views of others for the sake of propaganda, nor do I respect "The complete idiot's guides" which probably leaves us at odds.  As for submission.org well, I really can't, nor do I want to disagree with you there.  I would like good sources to be quoted, quoting from a variety of non-online sources would be nice... and from different perspectives... I'm not well read enough to assert what the majority of scholarly works say on this issue and I don't think we can ascertain what Muslims en masse believe about many of these issues.  gren 09:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If one wanted to identify two things that Muslims do agree on "en masse," Item 1 would be the Qur'an and Item 2 would be the binding nature of authenticated ahadith. This is my whole point, G. If you feel this is not true, then you should cite evidence.


 * For my part, I was writing with a view to what should and shouldn't be in the article. Soooo........The present language describing how mainstream Muslims view Quranists seems watery and tentative to me, so I'm going to make an edit. BrandonYusufToropov 10:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If the Qur'an-alone folks call themselves Quranites, then that's probably what the article should be called. I think Gren has a good idea in setting up an article just to discuss their views. That's exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia is good at -- taking something that's just a blip in the news, that regular encyclopedias won't touch for another twenty years, and putting out info that makes sense of what's happening right now.

When I was working on my big revision of hadith, I had a vague idea that these folks existed, and thought that they might be Salafis or Qutbis, but a check on those strains of belief showed that I was wrong. I would appreciate having it spelled out for me. Zora 20:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is I think they call themselves Muslim and try to avoid being labelled as a sect... I don't exactly trust Brandon's biases any moreso than I do mine... I think we need to avoid showing only neo-traditional (it's funny because I read Ibn Hazm and he's a lot less conservative than modern day readings) points of view because those with influence and those with big web sites state them... we cannot ignore interpretations of Fazlur Rahman or Iqbal... oh well POV happens gren 21:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio
Striver, I left the name of the hadith collection there, since I can't evaluate whether it's important or not. However, you linked it to an article you created which was pure copyvio, from. Don't do that! It exposes Wikipedia to public contempt and possible legal problems. Zora 6 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

You are right, thanks for pointing that out. Is the problem solved now?

--Striver 6 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)


 * The article may not be a copyvio now. But what is the point of the article, or listing this hadith collection? It is not at all clear that it is worth attention. Zora 6 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)

Surely a list of all major hadith colections are relevant?

I have herd that collection being mentioned in several ocasions and it has been commented by several known scholars.

--Striver 6 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)


 * Anyone can make a hadith collection and organize it according to some principle. I could make a collection of hadith. As I understand it, there are hundreds of books with collections of hadith. Surely we can't list them all here. That's what makes the question of "why THIS one?" important. I don't regard your "I heard of it" as convincing. If you know of a list of hadith collections, we could link to that. Starting out on a project to list them in an article that's already long just doesn't make sense. Zora 6 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)


 * Ok, i won't be stubborn, ill come back when i have a longer and better motivated list :)


 * --Striver 6 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Hadith and Qu'ran

 * While both hadith and Qur'an have been translated, most Muslims believe that translations of the Qur'an are inherently deficient, amounting to little more than a commentary upon the text. There is no such belief regarding hadith. Practicing Muslims cleanse themselves (wudu) and pray before reading or reciting the Qur'an; there is no such requirement for reading or reciting hadith. Even for Muslims who accept the hadith, they are clearly of inferior rank.

There is something wrong with this paragraph and in particular with the sentence I bolded; it either contradicts itself or fails to make something clear. It states that translations of the Qu'ran are regarded as deficient, that translations of hadith are not deficient (?) and then that hadith are treated as inferior to what is written in the Qu'ran. This needs clarification somewhere. Perhaps the author meant that hadith are not even regarded as commentary? (But then, that would make them seem completely worthless, which doesn't appear to be the case.) 82.92.119.11 19:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. As the author of the dubious prose in question, I think what I was trying to highlight was the status of the Qur'an as a text believed to have sublime but untranslateable qualities. Hadith lack those qualities, hence can be translated. But ... if it's confusing, it can be dropped. Do you have any suggestions? Zora 20:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Most narrated hadith
I KNOW that "someone" is going to turn up and say that this is "gsdg-dfkls-shia-pov-lsdkjfgh", so i addres it on the talk page first:

Im going to add the most narrated hadith ever: "man kunto mawla fahaza alion mawla"

It is a factual UNDISPUTED fact, that is factual AND undisputed, that this is THEEEEEeeeeEEEee most narrated hadith ever. Further, it is FACTUAL and UNDISPUTED.

Just to make that clear before all hell brakes loose...

--Striver 13:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Zora did came, Yes, Zora did revert, Yes, Zora did label the MUSLIM POV as SHIA POV due to ZORA POV. Yes, Zora did not bother to explain anything. Yes, everything as it has always been.


 * Zora, EXACTLY WHAT PART OF THAT IS NOT ACCEPTED BY SUNNIS? --Striver 18:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Striver, referring to Zora's revert on this diff... well, the first part doesn't seem so bad, but I haven't read this article in a while. For "Most Authentic Hadith" the key issue to this is site neutral reliable sources.  You have claimed that Sunni and Shia agree on this... so, you have to cite representative Shia and Sunni sources backing you up.  Your analysis in, "[o]ddly, the second part has not been included in either" is basically an attack on Sunnis... you are saying it's the most reliable but the Sunnis ignore this truth... which obviously is not there story it's your story.  Most importantly cite sources.  I don't agree with Zora's edit comments, I don't know if it's Shia POV or what it is, to me it's just something that should be reverted because you haven't sourced it in the least... find reliable sources and then there can at least be a debate about your sources. gren グレン 21:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Most narrated hadith" is an insupportable claim. I gather this refers to "the most separate eyewitnesses". However, if all the eyewitness claims funnel through a few narrators in the next link of the isnad, it doesn't mean much other than that those narrators were willing to make large claims. There is also the question of exactly what words were supposedly used, under what circumstances they were uttered, and what they mean. It may be one of the more disputed hadith, but the article on hadith is not the right place to discuss it. If I had to guess at which hadith were the most often CITED, they would probably be the ones re salah, which all the scholars agree is impossible to fully describe from the Qur'an, and requires resort to tradition.

This article gave a neutral account of hadith accepted by three Islamic traditions. There's no need for this particular hadith to be discussed here. It is better discussed under Shi'a Islam. So far as I can tell, Striver's intent in putting it here was simply to rouse controversy and upset people for his amusement (see his comments on this talk page). Trolling on Wikipedia is not nice. Zora 23:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Long section on Shi'a hadith
Someone added a long section re hadith accepted by the Shi'a, complete with long quotations presumably in Persian. When did this sneak in? While the English Wikipedia is increasingly adding one word glosses in foreign languages/writing systems as supplements to English transliterations, long quotes in a language 99% of the users can't read are useless.

I agree that the Shi'a section ought to be expanded, but I don't think that section helped. I'm reading Momen's book on Shi'ism right now, may be able to add more info later. Of course, any editors who can add info are welcome. Just try to make it NPOV and concise. The Shi'a section shouldn't be longer than the Sunni or Ibadi sections. Zora 01:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora it is good that you want any section to be expanded, but your statement "The Shi'a section shouldn't be longer than the Sunni or Ibadi sections." has no support in Wikipedia guidlines, a section is as long as it needs to be, not as long as some other section is. If it is to long, we use break out articles. --Striver 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Going into much more detail in the Shi'a section would send an implicit message that Wikipedia considers the Shi'a of more importance than the Sunni. IF an expanded section gets too long, it should go into a breakout article. But first it has to filled with something substantive, not just quotes in Persian. Zora 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Implicit messag can be explicitly neutralized, and of course does not long quotes in Persian have anything to do here.--Striver 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sunni attitudes towards hadith
I was the one who, months ago, wrote that bit re Sunni accepting hadith as reliable. I think I was wrong. It's more complicated. Sunni laypeople are buying and studying books of hadith, especially the Salafi, but, as several critics have warned, they tend to use Bukhari and Muslim exclusively, and to believe EVERY hadith uncritically. Sunni scholars believe that it's much more complicated than that, and that hadith have to be weighed carefully. Hence I don't think there is as much of a contrast between the Sunni and Shi'a scholars as Striver says (though I think it can be argued that the Shi'a scholars have more leeway). There is probably a contrast between the attitudes of lay Sunni and Shi'a, with the Shi'a being much more willing to leave interpretation to the mullahs.

I have a lot more reading to do ... Zora 05:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * hadiths have to be weighed carefully since one can never be completely sure of the source of the hadith. with the quran its different since it has never changed over so many years. MuslimMineral (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me sources that Quran is indeed unaltered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.106.25 (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Transliteration
In the opening when the Arabic is given, would it not be appropriate to include the diacritical marks; e.g. "ḥadīth"? Not sure what the preference is for the pl. I'm talking about: straight al-ḥadīth or more phonetic reflection of the sun letter: aḥ-ḥadīth, in any case, just throwin' it out there for someone more capable than I. Also in many books, the academic trend has been increasingly to use diacritics with more advanced typesetting technology available. I know its one of the first things I look for when perusing a book - as plain Anglicizing just plain frustrates me. Khiradtalk 04:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There are two POVs on the matter. One is that hadith is a foreign word and that it should be given an exact transliteration. The other is that it has been naturalized into English, as a term of art in Islamic studies. I know that I've read a fair number of scholarly books where the names are carefully typeset to include the diacriticals, but "hadith" is left plain. Myself, I think it would be a good idea to do it up properly ONCE, and leave it plain afterwards. But that's only one opinion, and I'm just starting to learn Arabic. Zora 04:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should be moved to a different page with the name Hadeeth. The word transliterated should be Hadeeth not Hadith and the plural should be spelled Ahaadith. Soleado (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary Transliteration!!!
As this atricle is in English the transliteration of Arabic words should be kept to a minimum! For example the word fitnah appears in this text - this is NOT a word easily understood by the average English speaker. Please think before you transliterate!!! Supertouch (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Link
Maybe this is of intrest? --Striver 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Springcleaning
I just went through the article and cleaned out excresences and inconsistencies. Some editors had added links to the text praising their teacher, or their own tradition of hadith analysis. Some editors just added their own rules and classifications in the science of hadith section, without checking to see if their additions were repetitions of material already there, or contradicted it. The section was a complete jumble.

Some editor seems to feel that just giving the Arabic version of words is discrimination, and that Turkish should be included as well. I've seen this in other Islam-related articles. Iranian and Pakistani editors tend to do this too, with Persian and Urdu. That way lies madness.

I don't think I made any major changes, but other editors may wish to give the article a glance and see what they think. Zora 01:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) How many languages can one possibly be expected to include in an article? English, Arabic, Turkish, Persian and Urdu each mentioned in every transliterated instance would be incredibly tedious to read not to mention unnecessary. Arabic is used because, like it ot not, this is the mother language of Islam - the word hadith is actually used in hadith! The other four mentioned languages should only be mentioned on the page of an article in each respective language... 212.71.33.86 09:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Supertouch212.71.33.86 09:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Suffix "peace & blessings be upon him"
Isn't this to abandon a neutral POV?

Is this true?

They cite sura :


 * Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the Law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper. (Yusuf Ali translation)

They take this and other Qur'anic verses to require Muslims to follow authentic hadith.Reza1 04:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like this is a call for the removal of the "PBUH". Since I do not find this honorific used in my printed resources (I have consulted Collier's, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, and Encyclopedia Brittanica,) and thus seems more affectation than information, I second this motion for removal, not just here, but throughout Wikipedia, posthaste. TravellerDMT-07 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The fallacies of anti-hadith arguments and classical refutations of the Qu'ran-only modernist heresy
Is it just me or does that heading sound biased?

Hypehuman (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does sound biased. However, how neutral does 'Anti-hadith arguements' does sound? 212.71.33.86 18:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Supertouch

Revert needed
This needs a revert, but i dont have time. --Striver 23:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

ink of the scholar
hi, iv read in quiet a few places that this hadith the ink of the scholar is more precious than the the blood of a martyr is commonly accepted to have been fabricated can anyone confirm or deny? heres a link to one site http://www.islamchannel.tv/HadithSection/ScienceOfHadith.aspx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.47.132.194 (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Neutral Standpoint
This article seems to be fairly biased and without a neutral standpoint, particularly in the discussion of Non-Muslim views on Hadith, which only quotes positive perceptions. It could use a fair clean-up to make it unbiased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abdul Muhib (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
 * You are always welcomed to add more material if you feel something is missing. --Striver 10:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see the criticism section expanded; at the moment it might as well be deleted. Gtadoc 23:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Male Circumcision
What has the Sunnah/Hadith got to say about Male Circumcision? Is it compulsory or just stonrgly recommended practice in Islam? Any quotes and other necessary citations to support this topic? --Fantastic4boy 06:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is debatable, some believe it is required, some do not. See wikipedia article on circumcision. --Machi4velli 02:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Science of Hadith
In what way is it a science? --Machi4velli 03:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Arabic transliteration template broken
This edit in May 2006 introduced some kind of rogue code into the transliteration. Searching on ArTranslit shows the template has been vandalised to write nonsense into articles with Arabic names. Does anyone know how to mend it? Tearlach 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it might be a problem with your fonts... what the edit did was change this article from using Template:Lang-ar to using Template:ArB. The first (with its vars) uses:
 * Arabic: &lrm;
 * The second uses:
 * Arabic:  &lrm;
 * So, it's a different of how the Arabic is shown with the different templates.... I don't know where exactly the problem lies... you'll have to tell us more about what the nonsense looks like. gren グレン 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you were talking about the transliteration template. I see, let me look at that. Okay, it just uses:
 * For me the output is fine. The entities used to produce the characters look like a mess... but it displays properly on the page... what does it display for you? gren グレン 02:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For me the output is fine. The entities used to produce the characters look like a mess... but it displays properly on the page... what does it display for you? gren グレン 02:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, the top of that image is how it displays for me using the ArTranslit template and the bottom is how it displays with your reversion.
 * How does the result of this edit look to you? It is using the same entities but without the template?  Does it display properly or does it look like vandalism to you? gren グレン 02:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely fine. This is extremely odd. For me, it inserted "life can be hard but i don't care cause i am very strong and i can fight it .i am totally cool" after every use of the ArTranslit template. It's stopped doing it now. Maybe there's some malware at this end? Tearlach 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, this edit should explain everything. Maybe it's time we protect (or semi-protect) that template. I'm going to revert back to the template version. gren グレン 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I saw that, but not knowing templates well, thought it was another example of the message generated by the bug, rather than the text creating it. Tearlach 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Need Translation
The article does not say what the Arabic word hadith actually means. From context I suppose it must be something like "saying." I recommend that someone who knows the exact meaning put an English translation of the word in the lead paragraph. Fumblebruschi 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Hopefully the new introduction will satisfy this suggestion. 212.71.33.85 08:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Supertouch

What Happened?
It has been almost a month, at least as far as I can tell, since anyone has contributed to this page which is very much a work in progress. Some of the POV commentary is rather trivial. 212.71.33.86 09:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)212.71.33.86 09:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph needed
This daunting article needs a Lead Paragraph! Please be brave and write a good one, or resurrect an old copy if you can find one.-69.87.202.28 13:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What Happened Part Two
I had been gradually adding to this entry over the past week or more provided primary refernces for an entry that has at best secondary refernces. As I am able to translate directly from the Arabic source books this seems appropriate. However, my efforts were in vain as everything I did was deleted (I think you refer to this as a reverted) by a user with no apparent attachment to any Islamic subject matter nor any previous posts, edits or anything relating to this page in particular. I am sure it is obvious that I am a new contributor to Wikipedia due to formatting issues, although researching in the Western academic mode is something I am experienced with. I am sure that I had formatting issues, however, would it not have been more productive to simply make edits to my efforts as opposed to the heavyhanded approuch of eradicating them? If the problem was content that should have been discussed as I referred almost entirely to well accepted and reputable Sunni scholars whose works make up the core of classical hadith studies. I posted perhaps silly sounding posts previously on this discussion page hoping for some sort of feedback from those actually involved in the progress of this page but received none. Where is the Hadith task force? I would like to share my work with the readers of this entry as I feel it is beneficial and informative and provided English readers the opportunity to read from the works of classical scholars whose works are as of yet not translated. As I am currently working on this project independent of Wikipedia I plan to continue my work regardless of acceptance here or not. Does anyone have thoughts on the subject? I would like to repost my research, however am hesitant to do so as perhaps there is a legitiment reason my previous efforts were done away with. Please respond. Supertouch 03:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Supertouch
 * I'm no expert here, but your additions seem OK by normal WP standards--though it is usual to just give the references and not the explanation, for an article like this the problems of translation might well make it necessary.DGG (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reponding, DGG. I am unclear as to what you mean by "explanation." If you mean an explanation of the translated passage then I think I provided that by translating the meaning of the passage as opposed to a word for word translation. In addition, I thought the context of each translation was clear... 212.71.33.95 07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Supertouch212.71.33.95 07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any problems with your edits. I also note the user who reverted them (who does not seem to have edited this page before) stated that he/she had not actually looked at all the edits before reverting, simply stating "this is clearly necessary."  The necessity is not apparent to me, at least.  In any case, it is only one person's opinion that caused the reversion of your edits, not a Wikipedia policy or user consensus.  Go ahead and edit the article as you think best.  If User:Perspicacite still objects, you can discuss the edits on this talk page -- that's what they're for.  Fumblebruschi 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Before proceeding, just wanted another opinion; should I simply revert to the way this page was before they were reverted by Perspicacite - that seems the easiest and most straightforward... Feedback? 212.71.32.88 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)212.71.32.88 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I see there have been 22 edits to the page since that reversion. If you don't want to undo other people's edits (most of which are probably in different sections from yours) you could either:
 * 1. Go through the subsequent edits, make a list of the ones you think are good, and re-incorporate them after you revert.
 * 2. Go back to a pre-reversion version of the article and cut-and-paste your edits from that version into the current version.
 * Fumblebruschi 16:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Curiousity
I can't help but be curious as to the cause of Perspicacite's aversion to well referenced material. The grading of this page returned to unreferenced status after his edits/reverts. Good job Perspicacite, you must be proud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertouch (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How is 'hadith' pronounced? Like it's written? This should be clarified. Malick78 (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The th ist pronounced like a normal f. The word is pronounced Hadif. --يس (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Initially, I transliterated the word hadith phonetically to indicate its pronounciation: hadeeth. This indicates the long 'e' sound. The word is NOT pronounced with an 'f' sound as there is an independent letter representing the 'f' sound. The sound is the same, or very similar, to the 'th' sound at the end of the word 'with.' It should also be noted that there are two distinct letters representing the English 'h' sound. The 'h' in this particular word is released from the mid-section of the throat, higher in the throat than the other 'h' sound. Both are while pronounced while releasing the flow of breath as opposed to containing it. Supertouch (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)SupertouchSupertouch

Hadith, Hadiths, Ahadith
The online Webster Dictionary gives the plural as hadith or hadiths. So does the Wordweb online Shouldn't the article conform to accepted English usage and use hadith or hadiths and not ahadith? Michael Glass (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Ahadith is the plural in Arabic, however this does not necessarily carry over to English as it is not easily recognizable as such. If you have a reference change it. I have also heard that hadith is both the singular as well as the plural - that is without the addition of the s. If I can find it before you make your changes I will post it. I am sure there are other issues similar to this on this page. If you do make this change make sure you change ever instance of plural usage to the same form for the sake of uniformity. Supertouch (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I got them all. Michael Glass (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples of Hadiths
I note that an essentially anonymous editor has gone through and removed all examples of hadiths that might be contentious. I also note the following comment:


 * "This site Requires clean up !!!... Kindly read thru the exapmples of hadith given. Check again. The egs of hadith given seem to be predominantly touching exclusively on only one area of the prohet's life. There appears to be a rather calculated and sinister effort to malign the prophet here. altho it gives the impression of objectivity, it really is not. The selected examples of the hadith is sequenced, spatially arranged and designed in a way so as to to portray the last prophet of God in an undesirable light.Anti-islamic in orientation. Unfairly Prejudicial towards islam please READ CAREFULLY AND THOROUGHLY."

I think that this comment raises several matters for consideration.
 * Are these really hadiths? If any are not, they must be removed forthwith.
 * Are these hadiths reliable? If any are not accepted as completely reliable, then this information must be noted.
 * If the choice of example is unrepresentative, then we need an agreed mechanism to work out a representative sample of hadiths. Just removing the contentious ones is simply a blatant attempt at censorship.
 * If the spatial arrangement of the hadith is anti-Islamic or unfairly prejudicial towards Islam, a better arrangement might be to arrange the quotations under two headings: one containing hadiths that would win general agreement from readers and another containing hadiths that might be contentious for one reason or another.

i put back the examples of hadiths that another editor had removed to stop censorship of the article. However, I do agree that the present arrangement could be improved on. How do other editors think this information could be arranged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Glass (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For some time now the idea of having random hadith displayed as examples has seemed almost bizzare to me. In spite of the fact that it is only logical to provide an example of the subject of a descriptive article, it seems distracting to have such a large block of example hadith right in the middle of this article. Wouldn't it be sufficient to provide links to the major collections of hadith, translated into English of course, so that a curious reader or a researcher can search through on his or her own? The fact that the contributors to this page have been unable to agree on the hadith to use as examples is also troubling. There are a number of well known hadith that provide a general picture of the religion of Islam that would seem to serve as examples much more effectively than random - and questionable - hadith. For example, the long hadith of Jibreel or 'Islam is based upon five...' One or two of those should be enough to provide the reader with a clear picture of the subject he or she is reading about as oppossed to confusion. Any thoughts? Supertouch (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason for the inclusion is that many Hadiths are contentious amongst sections of the Islamic community, leading to some being accepted by certain groups whilst others are not ..as mentioned throughout the article itself. The amendments were merely endeavouring to provide the reader with some examples of this contention.


 * Now obviously some here have taken offence to the inclusion of this material in the article. As Michael Glass pointed out, many anonymous editors have just removed the material without rhyme or reason. Others like Itaqallah sought to remove all the material claiming different reasons at each point. First, that the material lacked sources. When it was pointed out the source was the respected Islamic University in Malaysia, the material was then removed on the grounds of being "unencyclopedic primary source spam". Not content with this, the final accusation made was that the material was “cherry-picked selections of hadiths you (myself) personally believe to be controversial”. ie, the inference that these were not actually controversial but merely “cherry-picked” selections I wished to post for some apparent reason.


 * In response, it begs the question, if the material wasn’t “controversial”, why do all and sundry wish to remove it without a plausible reason? - Davehas12 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your sequential narrative misleadingly suggests that I have changed my stance, which is not the case. Can you show me the IUM link which apparently declares these particular hadith 'controversial'? It looks to me like you have taken it upon yourself to infer which hadith are and aren't controversial, and believe that these must be mentioned in the article. This is in fundamental violation of our no original research policy. It is indeed unencyclopedic primary source spam, and it is indeed a cherry-picked selection. If you want to provide "examples of this contention," then the content and its contentious nature needs to be verified by a reliable secondary source. As for your rhetorical question, whether or not these are controversial is irrelevant, their insertion violates the aforementioned content policies and should thus be removed.  ITAQALLAH   13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One simple way round the complaint about labelling hadiths as controversial is to change the label to examples of hadiths that are possibly controversial. Then it is up to the reader to decide what is controversial and what is not. That, I believe, deals with the problem of labelling hadiths as controversial. However, there are other charges: that the selectiion is unencyclopedic. But who is to determine what is encyclopedic and what is not? Is there a rule in Wikipedia to say that this or that is or is not encyclopedic? A second charge is that it is primary source spam. This is an interesting neologism, but I don't believe is is mentioned in the rules of Wikipedia. A third charge is that this is a cherry picked selection. This is another interesting phrase, but I don't know if it is mentioned in the rules of Wikipedia. However, there are certain things that have not been mentioned. No-one has written that any one of the hadiths selected is wrong, or misquoted, or mistranslated, or bogus. Are there other hadiths that should have been included? Is there any information on how such hadiths have been applied, or ignored? Instead of censoring this information, why not expand it?  Michael Glass (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't that like saying they are "possibly significant"? If they aren't really controversial, which I believe is the case, then what's the point of including them in the first place? How can we say they are 'possibly controversial' when that conclusion is unverified (hence, original research), and where are the sources to explain how exactly these precise narrations are of significance? Excessive primary source usage is problematic, as: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Regards,  ITAQALLAH   11:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's be specific about which hadith are possibly controversial:
 * The order to kill those who give up the faith.
 * Cutting off hands for stealing.
 * the notion that angels will curse a woman for declining to sleep with her husband.
 * the Prophet marrying a girl of six and consummating his marriage with her when she was nine years old
 * Now it may be that some do not regard having intercourse with a nine year old is possibly controversial. in my country, and most western countries, having sexual contact with a nine year old girl is a criminal offence. Therefore I think we can quite fairly say that this particular hadith is ''possibly controversial." Michael Glass (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Without a supporting reliable secondary source, this remains your own original research. This is not really the place to draw focus on those hadith you find objectionable.  ITAQALLAH   12:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment. Drawing attention to the fact that sexual contact with a 9 year old is against the law is deemed original research. No doubt it is as much original research as pointing out that killing those who give up their faith is at variance with the idea of freedom of religion. Michael Glass (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal opinions aren't relevant here, Michael. To claim hadith are controversial by way of your own deductions (which amount to presentism) is original research.  ITAQALLAH   15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another interesting comment. It appears that judging the hadiths by modern standards of human rights is anachronistic. I'd say the basic problem here is that the controversies need to be properly sourced. Trying to maintain that sexual contact with a nine year old girl and ordering the killing of people who change their religion are not controversial is a nonsense. However, according to the august rules of Wikipedia, we need a duly constituted authority to declare that something controversial is controversial before we can say that something controversial is controversial. Michael Glass (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Assertions must be positively verified by reliable sources. Incidentally, I wonder how many encyclopedic entries on "hadith" you've read which entertain a section for "controversial" hadith. You don't find that sort of thing on other serious reference texts like Britannica or the Encyclopedia of Islam. Perhaps because such narrations don't contribute anything of significance towards the understanding of hadith literature.  ITAQALLAH   23:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So now we have agreed that calling murder in the name of religion and sexual contact with a 9 year old girl cannot be called controversial because someone in authority has not said that these things are controversial. The laws of Wikipedia, in their wisdom tell us so. So let us cease and desist from the wicked thought of calling a spade a spade. And let us not say anything about this being censorship. We are simply following the rules of Wikipedia, which, we are told, tell us that no-one may declare that the emperor has no clothes unless someone in authority says so. And we all know that the little boy who blurted out this inconvenient truth is not an authority, so his opinion simply doesn't count. Nevertheless, these hadith are still - we won't say controversial, we'll simply say of interest to others. Some people have been so bold as to comment on these, shall we say, more interesting texts. I propose that we point this out in the article, with links to the places where these comments are made. That way we don't have to make - heaven forbid! - any value judgments, but we simply point to others who have made comments on some of the more, shall we say surprising, hadiths? Michael Glass (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see how focusing on one or two hadith of personal moral concern to you or other authors actually contributes to the understanding of hadith literature in general. Sarcasm and appeals to emotion aside, if you believe there is something truly noteworthy about a certain hadith, then they belong in more specific articles (i.e. Aisha) in their appropriate context. The underlying assumption is, of course, that we have reliable scholarly sources discussing such, as opposed to opinion pieces on polemical websites.  ITAQALLAH   21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another interesting comment. labelling a protest against murder and apparent child abuse as sarcasm and an appeal to emotion. Yes, people do get emotional about sexual contact with 9 year old girls. Yes, people do get emotional about the notion of slaughtering people who give up their faith. It's called moral outrage. And one way of expressing moral outrage is by using sarcasm. Please note that this sense of moral outrage is not just felt by polemicists, it is also felt by many other people as well. When voices rise in protest about some of the statements in the Hadiths, and there are reports of this in the media, then I believe that it is appropriate to mention this in this article. Michael Glass (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you find my comments interesting. Concerning your personal moral outrage, Wikipedia is not the place for it. You can vent it on a blog or a forum, if you like. I don't see the need to repeat my comments on verification, reliable sourcing, and demonstration of significance to the general understanding of the topic - it's all viewable above and linked above.  ITAQALLAH   14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments carefully. I know Wikipedia rules well enough to know that personal comments have no place in articles. I will search for suitable comments about the hadiths and link them if I can to this article. Nevertheless, I want to state without equivocation that I find the hadith that I have objected to morally repugnant and disgusting, and I don't believe that I would be alone in my feelings of revulsion. 09:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hadith 'review'
I noticed this article and a few linked ones about the Turkish 'revising' of Hadith, and I figured it'd be a useful addition to the page...? Links below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264903.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3437878.ece

http://english.sabah.com.tr/E37CBF3720E94379B71B725A901C880F.html

--Doug84 (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After checking the links, I certainly think that it would be useful to link them to the article. Michael Glass (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see this in the article. Was this done? Wiki-uk (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found it now, in History_of_hadith. Wiki-uk (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Itaqullah's most recent edit
You have refered to my translation of Suyuti's explanation of the terms sanad and matan as an 'attempted rendering'. If you have a particular problem with this translation fix it instead of deleting it - that is much more productive. Although your user page states you are able to communicate in Arabic, I suspect you don't have the original book in front of you otherwise you would have simply fixed it as opposed to deleting it. Supertouch (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Supertouch. As I posted on your talk page, can you think of a way to express this passage in a clearer and simpler manner? As it stands it is quite clunky and convoluted, and detriments readability. The basic facts are that the matn is the text and the isnad is the chain of narrators/route of transmission. Good articles keep things succinct and simple, and don't unnecessarily enter into confusing or long-winded elaborations. This isn't the place to be translating word for word, the best thing to do would be to summarise any genuinely informative comments in a coherent and succinct manner.  ITAQALLAH   16:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried to rearrange the text a bit so as to retain the gist of what you wrote. There's one sentence that needs a bit of clarification and I've tagged that one.  ITAQALLAH  22:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sufi Hadith Collections?
Among the branches of Islam mentioned in the article, and the hadith collections accepted by each branch, Sufism finds no mention. Is there such a thing as sufi hadiths? Are there sufi hadith collections like there are sunni and shia hadith collections? If so, what are they and shouldn't mention be made in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.111.195 (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Standardise case
In the middle of sentences, the article switches between Hadith and hadith. Should lowercase or uppercase be used ? I believe we should have agreement on which to use. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 08:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this is already standardized. The standard insofar as the MOS is concerned is that it is capitalized. Peter Deer (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of Hadiths?
I think there should be a section on this, because it is well known that not all hadiths are true, and some are quotations from different individuals. I would suggest adding a section regarding this matter as to explain in detail the reliability of hadiths. --Hamster X (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that is already addressed under the "Science of Hadith" section (number six). MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates
The massive templates in Islam articles really seem to mess things up. This article is no exception. I have an experimental template on Hadith collections here, which is presently in a hybrid state; I have the basic format in mind, which I borrowed from the electromagnetism template. It's actually a navbox with show/hide options, ideal for storing large quantities of info. Comments appreciated. Thanks. :)
 * Lol... for a moment I was confused why Gauss' law and Coulomb's law were listed as hadith collections :-). Looks good to me.  ITAQALLAH   23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Major citation problems
Hey is anyone up for helping me source some of this? Personally I don't like the notion of ad-hoc sourcing unsourced additions, but I also don't like the prospect of having to essentially napalm half the article because it's not sourced.

It's a tedious process and I'm afraid in a lot of these things I have a hard time knowing where to start. Wikisource hasn't been much help, and this article is starting to bug me, an article of this importance to Islamic theology should really be in better shape. Peter Deer (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Orientalist changed to Non-Islamic in headings
Orientalist is used primarily as a term of abuse for non-Islamic Western scholars. It's not as nasty as "missionary", which is used freely on some Islamic websites, but it's still pejorative. I changed it to Non-Islamic, which I think is more neutral. However, I'm open to other suggestions.

I hope this doesn't turn into another of those Wikibattles. I just came here to see if there was any mention of the textual tradition (what are the earliest manuscripts and where are they held). Zora (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Supertouch reverted, because some academics are Muslim. I would have used Academic, but at one point, one Muslim editor was insisting that Muslim seminaries (which assume the truth of Islam and the Islamic traditions) were academic. How about Academic in the Western tradition?

I'm not particularly attached to any of my alternatives, but I do protest the use of Orientalist. That was once a simple descriptor, like sociologist or philosopher, but it is so no longer. Zora (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrote Sunni/Shi'a section
I rewrote for nuance and better English style. I don't think that the substance is all that different. I also put the sentence re the Qur'an Alone Muslims off in another section. Didn't really belong in a discussion of Sunni/Shi'a differences. It's short, as these groups are peripheral. Zora (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Originating from -> allegedly originating from -> concerning
To say that the hadith originated from the words and deeds of Muhammad is to say that they're all reliable historical reports (which even Islamic scholars wouldn't accept). To say that they allegedly originated from the words and deeds stresses the fact that they may be false -- but the description is wordy and legalistic. To say that they are narrations concerning the words and deeds is less wordy and, while accurate, less blunt. Zora (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Qur'an Alone Muslims
The article is being edited by anons whom I suspect of being Qur'an Alone Muslims, attempting to use this article for proselytization. They keep deleting the mention of the small size of the groups. I will try to come up with a cite for that statement, but I don't think anyone who has studied the sociology of modern Muslim sects would disagree.

I put in a section for these folks just to get them OUT of the Shi'a section, where they don't belong. But I figure that we give them that degree of visibility, it is only fair to let readers know that they're not a large and influential group. Heck, they're even outnumbered by the Ibadis, who really should be mentioned. Do we have any Ibadi editors here?

And the article needs to be rewritten to take into account the most recent scholarship on hadith, which some kind editor added in a separate section. It's going to take me some time to read the books listed and make appropriate changes. If other editors here HAVE read these books, perhaps you could have a go. Zora (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got fairly good google-fu, but I'm turning up very little on the numbers of Qur'an Alone Muslims. The closest I get is, which is a Unitarian Universalist encyclopedia of religion. It focuses on Rashad Khalifa and his followers (who seem to have split into two small groups in the Tucson area). The Pew Research Center report on Islam in the US mentions Sunni and Shi'a as the dominant groups and groups everyone else as Non-specific and Other, adding up to 34%. I would guess that VERY FEW of those are QA Muslims. They would probably be "Yes, I'm Muslim, but I never go to the mosque" Muslims. Zora (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hadith as Scripture
Someone added Aisha Musa's book on hadith as scripture. I hadn't heard of this, but checked it out. The author has a PhD from Harvard and teaches at a university in Florida. I can't speak for the quality of the book, which I haven't read, but it seems like a reasonable addition -- even if I suspect that one of the Qur'an-Aloners added the citation :) Zora (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed mention of the book from the text of the article as it was already in the further reading section.
 * PS: A. Musa's article was recently deleted due to a copyright violation (I nominated it for CSD). Supertouch (talk)

Quran Alone Muslim editor
A new editor added a fairly argumentative bit to the top of the hadith page, saying that hadith were inauthentic and nonsensical. I rewrote this to what I hope is a more neutral comment.

Several months ago, editor Supertouch was deleting all references to Qur'an Alone Muslims, arguing that they were so few that they didn't count. I didn't have the energy at the time to fight back ... even though it seemed like censorship to remove the references. Supertouch is gone, and we have one (seemingly) Qur'an Alone editor trying to add material to the page again.

I do think that it makes sense to point readers in the direction of the Qur'an Alone article, even if we don't give their position much space in the Hadith article proper. I'm not a Qur'an Alone Muslim; I'm not even a Muslim. However, I do strongly believe in fairness, especially to minorities.

I also removed someone's odd comment that all hadith were collected during the reign of one particular caliph. That simply isn't true; it took centuries for the corpus to accrete. I believe that even Muslim scholars would agree to this.

There are other problems with this page, but I'm swamped with other, RL, work right now. Sorry I can't do more. Zora (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * According to all Muslims, some hadith are inauthentic. No one claims 100% authenticity. Qur'an alone is different than traditional Islamic teaching, since they nearly completely reject hadith. Kavas (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Imadjafar
Imadjafar has removed the statement that some Qur'an-Alone Muslims do not accept hadith and has added a whole section arguing against hadith on the basis that the Qur'an is sufficient. This seems to me arrant proselytizing for a Qur'an Alone position.

I would undo it immediately if I weren't tired and under work pressure; I don't have time or energy for an extended tussle. Reversion might also seem self-interested, as it was my attempt at a compromise between the Muslim majority and the QA minority that was deleted. I can only ask that other editors concerned view the edits and take appropriate action. Zora (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Try to remain neutral between Sunni and Shi'a
One editor added words to the lead para saying that Shi'a treat the words and deeds of the twelve imams as hadith. I don't know that this is strictly true, and if it is, it is true only of Twelver Shi'a. There are other Shi'a sects, such as the Ismaili. I removed those edits. While I was at it, I removed two links to other WP articles, links I'd been meaning to remove for some time. Linking to hadith praising Abu Bakr and Umar (leaving aside the question of the reliablity of those hadith) is pro-Sunni and anti-Shi'a. Nor would these hadith collections shed any light on hadith in general.

I was putting off doing this because I hate getting pulled into Sunni-Shi'a fights. Perhaps if I offend both sides at once, I won't be accused of favoritism. Zora (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Caliph Uthman and the Quran
Calph Uthman was not he first person to "urge muslims to write the Quran in a fixed form". I am not even sure why this comment was even relevant on an article about Hadith. Regardless, The contents of the Quran had been recorded in writing even during the time of prophet Muhammad. His Cousin Ali had made a personal copy of the Quran. The first Caliph of Islam collated a copy of the Quran as many of the Memorisers of the Quran were killed in Battle. This version was left to his wife after his wife. Uthman's concerns was that as the islamic empire had been growing, different dialects of arabic were being spoken and different words were being used in various places of the empire during oral recitations of the quran. Uthman then standardised the language including vowels points in the Quran and used the original language of the quraish (spoken by prophet Muhammad). For reference he used Abu Bakrs Copy. Five copies of this standardised Quran were made and spread to five parts of the empire. One of these original five is still in existence in Tashkent. Once gain none of this is relevant to the topic of Hadith so I made the edit to delete the wording

With reference to your discussions on the Quran, the comments I mentioned maybe be of a differing opinion to you and some scholars. However this discussion is irrelevant to the original point I was making. This article is about hadith collections and nothing to do with the collection of the Quran and therefore the comments made about Uthman and the collection of the Quran are irrelevant to this article. I am assuming you agree with this point as no further amendments were made to the edit I made.

Just a final point with regards to "variant" Quranic readings. Your comments about the Yemini Quran is misleading at best. What you probably meant to say was that a Quran was found in Yemen written UNDER the present writing, traces of older writing was found and this showed slight variations (in dialect and vowel positioning)to the modern Quran we have today. Even though the newer writing was consistent with present day Qurans. In other words it this older text which was slightly variant to the standardised text so it was washed away and replaced with the standardised text. This exactly what the Uthmanic Codex was all about. To standardised the variant dialects and vowel positioning that had crept into the pronounciation of the Quran. Also note that during the time period we are discussing the arabic language was changing and evolving so obviously there would be slight difference between what was written several hundred years ago and now. Your comments about the text naively overlooks one vital point. Please be advised that the Quran is not only read but it is Recited. Therefore if a text has been memorised by hundreds and thousands of muslims and this is being passed down from generation to generation any "errors" however "minor" that had previously crept into the written Quran will always be identified. I am sure you have some knowledge about Islam and will appreciate this point. I guess what you need to identify is that when a Quran is read aloud, whether it is in Cairo, Istanbul, Sana or Tashkent or anywhere else, does it sound the same? I can't really see there is much room for debate here as we are essentially agreeing on the same point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.222.137 (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hadith are Muhammad's words? NOT TRUE
I removed an anon's edit, which modified the start of the article to claim that hadith are Muhammad's words. Even an Islamic scholar, with no exposure to Western-style academic scholarship, would reject this claim. Many hadith recount something that Muhammad is reputed to have said, but Islamic scholars can disagree vehemently on whether or not these traditions are reliable. Hence it is not correct to say that hadith ARE Muhammad's words. Also, many hadith recount Muhammad's actions rather than words.

As for academics ... they would point out that some hadith accepted as authentic by Islamic scholars are just Roman provincial laws adopted by the Muslim conquerors and later given a spurious Islamic origin. Zora (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They're traditions, almost always several times removed from the event by the time they're collected, concerning the words and deeds of the Prophets and Companions. It is mentioned in the article that they are ascribed "validly or invalidly", and that there's debate on the study of Hadith. Is there some area you felt was specifically lacking in this regard? Peter Deer (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't criticizing the article as it stands, which seems to be accurate, but the edit I removed. Zora (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Quran Alone section by anon
An anonymous editor made two changes. He/she changed "also known as" to "labeled". Labeled is the wrong English word. It sounds like a museum exhibit. If "known as" seems ugly to the anon, perhaps "sometimes called" would be a good change.

Anon also changed "question religious authority" to "question authenticity". From what I've read of the Quranist writings, they do say that many of the hadith are later concoctions, but they also say that only the Quran is divine and infallible, and that later human assertions about the earliest days of Islam are not to be revered and accepted in the same way. That is, some traditions about the practices of the earliest Muslims may be authentic, but that does not therefore mean that those practices should be followed. I'm open to correction on this, if the anon can quote from some Quranist writings. The anon made a subtle but important change and I don't think that this should go without discussion. Zora (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hadith vs. Quran
An anon removed the phrase "as opposed to the Quran". I think that this was perfectly good English, but it could be confusing to someone whose English is shaky. He or she might read it as saying that the hadith contradict the Quran. (Invalid hadith might actually be argued to do so, but that's a a gray area, and not what was meant by the original wording.) I therefore changed the phrase to "but that is not found in the Quran". I trust that will satisfy everyone. Zora (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed addition by Gamma Draconis
Shi'a aren't unique in producing collections of hadith; that's a favorite Sunni pastime too. Probably Ibadi as well :) From what I have read, the world of Muslim scholarship in the last few centuries had become increasingly inward-looking, producing collections and commentaries rather than going in new directions. Also, no need to mention the other hadith collections; we can guess that there are others in addition to the main ones.

Also left this note on the editor's talk page. I don't intend to shut down discussion of the Shi'a hadith traditon; I just think it would be better done in a breakout article that could go into greater detail. Wiki editors usually try to cram too much stuff into the main article. Zora (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Shia and Sunni textual traditions
Sunni and Shia hadith collections differ because scholars from the two traditions differ as to the reliability of the narrators and transmitters. Narrators who took the side of Abu Bakr and Umar rather than Ali, in the disputes over leadership that followed the death of Muhammad, are seen as unreliable by the Shia; narrations sourced to Ali and the family of Muhammad, and to their supporters, are preferred. Sunni scholars put trust in narrators, such as Aisha, whom Shia reject. Differences in hadith collections have contributed to differences in worship practices and shari'a law and have hardened the dividing line between the two traditions.

This is quite opinion related and it should have a clear statement. Items such as 'shia reject', 'unreliable by the shia' are vague statements. If that was the case then we may as well state 'sunni reject' as the opposite is true as well. Shia's and Sunni's have separate hadiths and many hadiths are similar as well.

Hadith is not translated as Tradition
The article says translated as tradition but I amend to teachings. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The word Hadith means Speech, not tradition. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The idea behind Hadith was not shown in the article. The Hadith means that chain of sources that heard the prophet and seen him, and then they speak to other generations, and we keep record of all names who spoke about such prophet teaching, deed, act, or behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdusalambaryun (talk • contribs) 08:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)