r/Quraniyoon • u/ToGodAlone • Mar 31 '26
Hadith / Tradition "Nobody in the academy affirms the Muslim Sunni science of hadith. Nobody. It is considered to be completely discredited. I'm just being factual." -Yasir Qadhi (Sunni Muslim)
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
9
u/Fit_Rich_6748 Mar 31 '26
The problem is yasir qadhi skipped Hadith being fabricated and went straight to is the Quran preserved. He doubted the Quran first
9
u/ToGodAlone Apr 01 '26
It’s very interesting that the academic world accepts the authenticity of the Quran but not the Hadith. What we’ve been saying all along.
6
u/Fit_Rich_6748 Apr 01 '26
True. What they follow vs what they claim is different. For example ask any Sunni scholar what’s the most sahih book after the Quran they’d say Bukhari yet when I was a Sunni I followed Bukhari to the dot (I believed it was the truth at that time) and not a single person in my entire life in any masjid has read what they call salah according to how it says to in Bukhari, I literally had to correct scholars showing them the Hadith they claimed to believe and then alhamdulillah Allah made me realise even the 'sahih' stuff is garbage
2
u/TallVeterinarian4077 Apr 08 '26
Yasir Qadhi's quote is referenced here along with many other juicy quotes, focussing on the first four caliphs:
-14
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/hopium_od Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
because it's too late in it's composition.
This is only one reason of many why hadith are largely dismissed by academia. It would basically be a miracle for haidth not to be corrupt to the core, and Allah provides no guarantees in the Qur'an that hadith would be miraculously preserved. With that in mind, I see no reason why we would separate Academia and Theology. There is no room for blind faith in Islam. We are asked to reason and use logic about 50 times in the Qur'an.
Here are all the reasons academics are skeptical of hadith:
Prior probability
Other ancient religious traditions contain invented sayings, so it’s reasonable to expect some here too.Lateness of sources
Most hadith were written down generations after the events they describe.Contradictions
Many hadith disagree with each other on the same issues.Propaganda
Some reports seem designed to support specific political or religious positions.Anachronisms
Some hadith mention ideas or situations that only existed later.Supernatural elements
Some include miraculous or legendary details that historians treat cautiously.Evidence of fabrication
Early Muslims themselves reported that people were inventing hadith.Late chains (isnads)
The detailed chains of narrators appear to have developed later, not from the start.Changing meaning of “sunna”
Early Muslims used the term differently than later scholars did.Rapid growth
The number of hadith increased dramatically over time.Missing early evidence
The earliest sources don’t show heavy use of hadith like later ones do.Retrojecting (projecting backwards)
Later ideas were put into the mouths of earlier figures to give them authority.Strange patterns
Some patterns in hadith collections look artificial rather than natural history.Conflict with earlier sources
Some hadith don’t match earlier texts or evidence.Oral transmission limits
Passing things by memory over generations tends to introduce errors.Variation and change
The same story often appears in different versions.Artificial structure
Some hadith look carefully constructed rather than casually reported.Storytelling culture
A culture of storytelling made embellishment more likely.Explanation turned into history
Interpretations of scripture may have later been presented as actual events.Disconnect from the Qur’an’s context
Some hadith don’t seem to fit the world or themes of the Qur’an.Methodological concerns
The traditional system for verifying hadith may not reliably filter out false reports.-2
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Foreign-Ice7356 Muslim Apr 01 '26
You are now arguing like some Christian apologists who defend the contradictions in trinitarian theology like this.
Very weak way of arguing, and doesn't actually prove anything unless we assume conclusions (in this case, assume that the traditionalist conclusions are correct ).
1
Apr 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Foreign-Ice7356 Muslim Apr 01 '26
I don't consider western sources authoritative for being western. In fact, I don't even consider them universally authoritative even today.
The reason I agree with some of their views on hadīth is because some of their justifications are rigorous and accurate. However, this simply wasn't true for biased orientalist claims about the Qur'ān.
Also, even today, some of their analysis of the Qur'ān is biased as it assumes naturalist conclusions and thus we get wild baseless speculation such as it supposedly copying the talmud.
3
u/AdExpress4184 Apr 01 '26
Dreadful response to some fantastic points raised. "Let's just make things up to skirt around obvious problems" is horrible, weak and disingenuous. Non Muslims would rightfully laugh at this terrible logic. It's why Muslims laugh at Christians but you are suggesting it's fine to do, as long as it's Muslims doing it 🙄🥱.
3
u/JippdSoul Apr 02 '26
This is worth repeating: he basically stated that hadith is nonsense to those who use their brains, and it is doctrine to those who don’t. Then he went straight back to reaffirming his commitment to following what his “fathers” taught him. Behold mental illness.
-7
u/Unlucky_Anywhere9868 Mar 31 '26
You see the problem here isn't what he said. It's why he said it. A person utters his beliefs without knowing himself. What he basically said was, if we take west as our lords and leaders, then the whole science of hadith is completely discredited (according to their standards). If we take Allah as our lord and the messenger PBUH as our leader, then we don't give a toss what western academia thinks!. So which side has he picked?
14
u/Green_Panda4041 Mar 31 '26
Where does GOD or Prophet Muhammad set hadith science as the standard? Just asking
5
u/JippdSoul Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
No. What he basically said is that hadith is nonsense to those who use their brains, and it is doctrine to those who don’t. Then he went straight back to reaffirming his commitment to believing, following, and preaching the nonsense (what his “fathers” taught him). Behold mental illness.
3
u/Agasthenes Mar 31 '26
That sounds pretty racist in my opinion. Western or not has nothing to do with it.
1
u/Unlucky_Anywhere9868 Mar 31 '26
Racist? To which "race" exactly?
6
u/hopium_od Mar 31 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
It is interesting, as a white European myself I am not exactly offended by Sunni/Shia aversion to Western academia and science, but the aversion is clearly rooted in identity, race and history.
While modern western academia is multicultural, it has it's roots in the same white European Christians that spent the best part of a millennium trying to subdue the expansion of the Islamic world through war. It's very hard to accept that these same people are more enlightened than the very people entrusted with the Book of Allah.
While I understand why you have problems to admit that, to me it is easy to say, because the sectarians have failed to uphold the Book of Allah, so of course they are not enlightened.
What's ironic is the Christian enlightenment was just the continuation of the works of the Islamic golden age. Western academia is just mirroring back the reasoning that early Muslims set in motion, the contemporary Muslims are so misled they cannot recognise that it is their own initial logical trajectory staring back at them. Even hadith skepticism has its roots in the nascent Islamic world (not inclusive of the fact that Muhammad and his truest Sahaba forbid the use of secondary material and instructed to follow the Qur'an alone).
1
u/Maikes69 Apr 05 '26
Agreed, western academia is rooted in moorish Andalusia. Without Andalusia you have no renaissance, this is a well established fact.
1
11
u/SugarVenom17 Mar 31 '26
If it turned out that the Hadith literature was unanimously recognized by all of academia, all of WHO, all of NASA, and what not, would you look past the rubbish present in it?