No god but God - Hadith

pg 164

As rigorous as scholars like al Bukhari and Ibn al Hajjaj were in scruntinizing each hadith for the signs of correct transmission, the fact is that their method lacked any attempt at political or religious objectivity. The bulk of what are considered to be sound traditions were deemed so not because their isnads (chain of transmission) were particularly strong, but becaue they reflected the majority beliefs and practices of the community. In other words, the hadiths were collected, and the Sunna developed, specifically to create a sense of Islamic orthodoxy or othopraxy by legitimizing those beliefs and practices that were already widely accepted by the majority of the Ulama, and eliminating those that were not. While some hadith may in fact contain an authentic historical core that can be taced back to the Prophet and his earliest Companions, the truth is that the Sunna is a far better reflection of the opinions of the ninth-century Ulama than of the seventh-century Ummah. After all, to quote Jonathan Berkey, "It was not Muhammad himself who defined the Sunna, but rather a memory of him."

Sunnipath: More Women In Hell

Sunnipath Answer: More Women In Hell: hadiths and women in Islam

I really enjoyed his answer.  Very open look at things.  Check it out.

I'm really hoping the school has a class on Hadiths....would be ever so helpful.

Hounds and Hadiths

Ok I'm just going to say it because I know that at one point in time all of us studying Islam have thought this:

Hadiths suck.

Yeah I said it!  Hadiths have caused me an unbelievable amount of stress.  It seems that  no religion can go without some corruption.  People changed the Bible to fit their needs and  misused it to fulfill the vendettas of certain people.  It was wrong to do so, but they did it anyway.  Hadiths, to me, seem to be the corrupt portion of Islam.  Since the Qur'an seems to have gotten through unscathed, people had to taint something.  They always go for a source of power; what better source than the words of the prophet.  When I first started studying  I use to come to My Love fuming over hadiths that condemned women or told muslims to kill non-muslims.  I was irate.  “You cannot possibly believe this!”  I would say to him to which he would reply “I don't.  If it disagrees with the Qur'an then don't worry about it.”

Now that philosophy has been helpful, but its not that simple.  You can't simply ignore every hadith you disagree with because some of them are ingrained into the practice of Islam.  There are a slue of hadiths that are so imbedded the prophet himself would not be able to change them.  A lot of them blatantly go against the Qur'an, but people continue to follow them and the scholars sure haven't tried to change anything.

It just goes to show you can't believe everything you read.  The issue is where do you draw the line?  At what point can you say “Ok, I do not agree with this but I am willing to accept it.”

My best example is the dog issue.  I bawled like a hysterical child when I learned I would not be able to have a dog as a muslim.  I love dogs.  I want a dog more than I want a child.  They are wonderful animals, so loving and generous.  Even now I am thinking of my dog who I loved with tears coming to my eyes.  She was my family.  I miss her so much.

The hadiths against dogs are rather ridiculous.  I recall the one that mentions if you hear a dog barking a jinn is near so beware.  Ok, beware because the DOG IS WARNING YOU!  It doesn't say the dog brought the jinn!  I just don't know how the dog became the evil bringer of Satan.  I hate these hadiths, they seem so against the character of the prophet and of God.  

http://muttaqun.com/dogs.html

Here is a website that shows how these hadiths go against the Qur'an

http://www.submission.org/pets/dogs.html

 

When I learned this I almost quit right then and there.  I wanted nothing to do with a religion that fully believed these things about the amazing animal that is the dog.  But as I learned I realized that these hadiths are heavily saturated in cultural practices and may in fact not be related to the messenger at all.  Here in the west I get “Yeah I like dogs but we can't have one in the house.  They are dirty and make our homes unclean for prayer.  But I totally like them.”  Most in the west seem to not have the hatred for dogs but would not own one out of fear of them being dirty.  I have a feeling they have no clue why they can't have a dog.  My Love sure didn't know until I told him.

I know that if I ever become a muslim I will not be able to have a dog.  If I ever marry, there is no way his family will ever approve.  Most likely they are terrified of dogs.  Even if I never married I still couldn't have one because the community would shun me for owning one.  They certainty would not want to enter a home that angels could not enter.  Heaven forbid.  

And this is when you get to the part of “disagree but accept.”  In the end what is more important?  I have not gotten to the point of acceptance yet.  I do feel that finding a religion that brings me closer to God is more important than me owning a dog.  But I will NEVER agree with the horrible treatment of dogs that some muslims condone.  Nor will I ever agree with those hadiths.  I may never learn to accept it.

“If it disagrees the Qur'an, it disagrees with Islam”

Peace Out.