Hadith is to Islam as the Talmud is to Judaism right ? Traditions of men...
the Quran says that Allah revealed the Scripture AND the Wisdom ie to Moses, Jesus and of course to our prophet SAW.
It is important to understand that wisdom is something that can easily be lost. When i often talk about the mythos of religion, there is wisdom inherent in even a contradiction between 2 scriptures..
look at the verse in my sig.
As for hadith here's my overall issue...i don't generally have problem with hadith unless i suspect they were politically or sectarian motivated
eg
when the Ummayads and Abbasids were in power, their rivals were primarily the shia who had their own political leanings and their own sources of hadith. Now it is most certainly a fact that the actual bloodline of the prophet were shia..and they were also imprisoned and killed BY the Ummayads and Abbasids yet despite that I still do believe the syeds (the bloodline of the prophet) who became shia were 'wrong' because they elevated their own lineage with the implication being that they should be running things because they're a special bloodline. get it? they were turning into israelites/jews with that attitude. islam is not about that, every man has his own merit.
However that doesnt mean the ummayads and abbasids were good, some were some weren't.
The game changer were the hadith collections producted in the abbasid era. The abbasids ruled from persia..the hadith imams were all persia. Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, al Tirmindhi, Abu Dawood
here's the list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutub_al-Sittah
an example of a politically motivated hadith is one where we're told the Imam Mahdi will have an army from KHOROSAN who will carry the black flags.
At the time the Abbasids were that army, they carried black flags and ruled Khorosan (present day iran/afghanistan).
It also was a zoroastrian prophecy (in the bahman yast) of a righteous leader with an army who would carry black flags and come from iran.
it was easily feasible that the abbasids were aware of various prophecies/beliefs that were prevalent amongst those people and basically 'took on that role' in a way and maybe people even believed they were going to fulfill it.
here's an example of shia vs sunni
the shia believe in 12 imams all from THE bloodline of the prophet ie from his daughter and grandsons.
the sunni believe in 12 rulers all from Quraysh
i believe the Aisha hadith is another major one because Aisha is universally hated by shia and they accused her of being, promiscuous to sa the least. So how would the sunni side defend her? easy
give her child bride status.
people like Mufti Abu layth are being attacked wholesale by salafist types for delving deep on various hadith far better than i can (because he's actually a qualified mufti)
YET even he doesnt reject hadith, he rejects certain narrations and his attitude is based on the extent of knowledge he has on them
he, like i do on a very small level compared to him, looks at hadith like historical sources that should be scrutinused.
Then there are people who be like
"well there was an imam called imam Suyuti and he was also a mufti, but he was wayyyy better and he didnt disagree with hadith"
but it's fair to say way back in the day im sure muslims were often, not perturbed by what they read like we are. We are challenged far far more because we live in an extreme age where all sorts of wild shit goes on. people think our age is more enlightened but it isnt. people went doing honour killings back then and there would not have been a need for it (btw im talking about the 15th century, so only 500 years back) like there is now. people are obv more aware now and do challenge things. perhaps if imam suyuti did challenge hadith in his own time it could have been dangerous in other ways...it is stupid for people to refer to previous imams/muftis etc because they're not here today and it is a way of discrediting abu layth without directly confronting the core topics he criticises that are from hadith.
Btw, as i said, the word in the Quran is 'scripture AND WISDOM'
wisdom.....
not 'sunnah'
these people have changed the meaning to 'Quran and sunnah'
and furthermore sunnah refers to the traditions of our prophet SAW which is not a bad thing, but the hadith became the defacto standard of 'sunnah' which is wrong because sunnah is what the prophet actually did...and hadith are historical sources of information that attempt to record the sunnah and hence the wisdom.
Now in the Quran in one instance it says
Pickthall: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
this is not in the bible, it's in the Talmud.
this is actually an angle that lends credibility to hadith just like it would to the Talmud
of course most muslims who've ever mentioned the talmud previously inc myself, are usually verynegative
that says a lot doesnt it?
ie certain wisdom given to a prophet may not be recorded in scripture but known through the oral tradition.
Btw take it from me, as someone who is very much a believer in bible prophecy..the hadith prophecies are one of the most impressive things about islam as a whole. guys like colgate don't realise ive been reading Sahih Bukhari hadith since i was 10, i have the whole collection in the room next door that my dad purchased when i was a kid.
A guy who last year said the Quran is sorcery, is supposed to tell me about my own religion?
can you please take him? i don't want these type of entities in my religion, we have enough of them already.
