#12 in Books about Islam
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World (Foundations of Islam)

Sentiment score: 4
Reddit mentions: 9

We found 9 Reddit mentions of Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World (Foundations of Islam). Here are the top ones.

Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World (Foundations of Islam)
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
    Features:
  • Oneworld Publications
Specs:
Height9.03 Inches
Length5.88 Inches
Number of items1
Weight0.95019234922 Pounds
Width0.9 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 9 comments on Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World (Foundations of Islam):

u/n3wu53r · 11 pointsr/islam

sunnah.com has hadiths from Sunni books

But watch out, you can't just read hadith as a laymen and think you can correctly derive rulings and interpret them like a scholar.

Also check out his other book: http://www.amazon.com/Hadith-Muhammads-Legacy-Medieval-Foundations/dp/1851686630

It has a section about Shia hadith.




>From what I understand, hadiths in Shi'a Islam also deal with the Imams in some way.

In Shiism, the Imams are divinely appointed. If I have an Isnad going to the 10th Shia Imam, were that Imam says "The Prophet ﷺ said ...", according to Sunnis this only proves that the 10th Imam ages later is attributing something to Muhammad ﷺ. The isnad does not go to the Prophet ﷺ or even the tabi'un/companions. However since the 10th Imam is infallible in Shiism, this enough proof. If it is confirmed the 10th Imam said this, he can't be wrong so it's true. If I am wrong, a Shia here should correct me; don't wanna misrepresent.

Also, go out to /r/shia.

u/LIGHTNlNG · 10 pointsr/islam

> I am not Muslim myself, but I do enjoy learning about Islam. Correct me if I am wrong, Muslims are encouraged to read the Hadith in order to understand how the Prophet (pbuh) and other Muslims lived during that time.

Hadith compilations weren't meant for the average person to just pick up and try to understand on one's own. You can easily derive the wrong conclusion reading that way, especially if you don't know the context of each hadith, the Arabic language, the authenticity of the hadith, or how they work. I find new Muslims making this mistake too. You need a teacher or learn with other Muslims in a class type setting or something.

If anyone wants, here is some introductory information on hadith:

____HADITH/SUNNAH____

u/Axiom292 · 5 pointsr/islam

>is Sahih Al Bukhari considered totally checked and true by all Muslims? What about specifically Sunni?

Sahih al-Bukhari is one of many compilations of hadith. All the ahadith within are sahih (authentic) according to the conditions of Imam al-Bukhari. Every hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari is accepted as authentic by all Sunni Islamic scholars, not Shias.

>if you disagree with something that is supposed to be a totally sahih hadith -- is that "haram"?

Yes, to deny a sahih hadith is fisq (transgession). To deny a hadith that is mutawatir (sahih through multiple chains) is kufr (disbelief).

>Is Sahih al Bukhari considered THE definition of the Prophet?

No. Firstly, Sahih al-Bukhari does not contain every sahih hadith - there are hundreds that are not found in Sahih al-Bukhari or even Sahih Muslim (which are together known as the Sahihayn - the two Sahihs). Secondly, we do not reject all other ahadith just because they are not at the level of sahih.

FYI most hadith compilations are not intended for use by layman. There are volumes of books devoted to the interpretation of hadith - Ibn Hajar's Fath al-Bari, for example, is a sharh (commentary) on Sahih al-Bukhari.

Edit:

(Your comments aren't showing up since you're using a new account)

>Do different schools of Islamic thought differ on the answer to these questions? For example Hanafi vs Maliki?

No. Scholars of all four madhhabs accept the ahadith in Sahih al-Bukhari as sahih. However the different madhhabs differ on the interpretation and applicability of individual ahadith.

>I understand compilations like Bukhari were made 100-200 years after the Prophet.

Clarification: Bukhari was not the first compiler of hadith.

>What is the common answer to the question of - how do we know that these actually were his sayings? I know there is the "chain" of relayers, but what is it beyond that?

A hadith has two parts - the sanad/isnad (chain of narrators) and the matn (the text). Scholars of the past memorized thousands of hadiths word for word along with their isnads. The authenticity of a hadith is judged primarily on evaluation of its isnad. It needs to be possible for each narrator to have met each successive narrator. There are volumes of books devoted to ilm ar-rijal - biographical evaluation - which include details of each narrators memory, trustworthiness, piety, knowledge, students, teachers, date of birth and death, etc. Narrators are judged as strong, rejected, unknown, trustworthy, etc. The strength of a hadith is judged by its weakest link. Multiple isnads strengthen a hadith, as do supporting narrations. There is much more to it, please take a look at this book:

Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature by Mustafa Azami

>I understand Kufr to be when one denies the oneness of God or his prophet. Anything else, isn't Kufr -- correct?

Kufr is disbelief. Each verse of the Qur'an is mutawatir (mass-transmitted at every level of transmission). Similarly if a hadith reached the level of mutawatir there is no possibility for error. So just as denying a single verse of the Qur'an is kufr, so too is rejection of a mutawatir statement of the Prophet SAW.

Edit 2:

>thanks very much for the updated reply -- very thorough and i plan to check out the book. Did you ever read this book? If so, thoughts? I read it, but it was my first book on the topic.
http://www.amazon.com/Hadith-Muhammads-Legacy-Medieval-Foundations/dp/1851686630

Glad to be of help. No, sorry, I haven't read Brown's book, but I've seen others recommending it and I've heard only good stuff about his work.

u/uwootm8 · 3 pointsr/islam

>Very grateful for your reply, uwootm8. I googled "criterion of multiple attestation" in an attempt to learn more about this method. "Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim" will definitely take a look at those too. You mentioned "Ibn Ishaaq", are there other ((early)) Muslim historians who were more scrutinizing to Seerah than him? historians who made sure their stories are (as correct as it can get given the available resources of that time)? Thanks again.

Just FYI the subreddit filters out all submissions from new account, nobody can see them except if they click your username.

I am not certain of how much scrutiny was put in. Given the massive size of ibn ishaaq's collection, I tend to think he wrote everything he heard. There is another early historian named Tabari. He flat out just says that he is not judging anything he hears, he's just writing it down. Perhaps that could indicate how the early historians approached seerah. But, ibn ishaaq is pretty much the primary source nowadays. If you are critical of the work I think you can puzzle out the general life of the Prophet. The Qur'an helps in this regard, as do the hadith.

If you're interested in learning more about hadith, I would recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Hadith-Muhammads-Legacy-Medieval-Foundations/dp/1851686630/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1411856221&sr=8-1&keywords=jonathan+brown+hadith

It's one of the best intro's I've read.

u/Aiman_D · 3 pointsr/islam

Hadith book collections such as Al-Buhkari are basically a collection of hadiths organized topically. It doesn't provide much in the department of context and what rulings can be derived from each hadith. some hadiths were valid for a set period of time for specific circumstances and then the rule changed later. Scholars call this "Al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh" and it is found in the hadith as well as the Quran.

My point is that books like Al-Buhkari are meant as raw data for scholars who study the context and the reasons and the conclusions of rulings in the hadith. Not for the layman to causally read through.

If you want to read hadiths that are organized for the layman here are a few suggestions from the sidebar:


---
____LIFE OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD____

u/Lawama · 2 pointsr/Christianity

>What do you mean by "bias[ed]"? Can you show how Gabriel's Catholicism has impacted his historical arguments in his work?

I haven't read his work. Are you implying a Christian writing about Islam and the Qur'an is not going to be biased? Everyone is biased buddy. It's like referring you to a Muslim scholar who writes about the Bible and Christianity. Of course I'd still love for you to summarize his arguments and his evidences for those arguments.

> This is hand-waving at its finest. You don't like the conclusion of some scholars, so you try to figure out a way to bracket off their research.

Quite funny, coming from someone who hand selected conspiracists, John Wansbrough who believes Muhammad (pbuh) is a manufactured myth, and Patricia Crone who once argued Muhammad (pbuh) doesn't even exist before retracting! I'm definitely the one hand waving.

>But I can explain why Richard Carrier and other Jesus mythicists are wrong and I don't have to appeal to their religious convictions to do so. I can explain why, on purely historical grounds, their position is absurd.

And if you had supplied me with arguments from your sources, I would have refuted them. It wouldn't be hard to refute your hand picked individuals, one who believes the Quran was compiled centuries after Muhammad's (pbuh) death and argues no Jews were present in Hijaz despite historical info. Then the other asserts the opposite, that the Quran was in conversation with mostly Jews and Christians. Quite conflicting sources. Also, your source believes Hadith were invented. If hadith which have isnad or chains of narrators authenticated back to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) are invented, what are we going to say about the pseudo anonymous Gospels which have no chain of narrators leading to Jesus (pbuh)? In any ase, for a brief overview of how Hadith are authenticated read this:

http://ponderingislam.com/2015/01/01/the-hadith-critical-methodology-a-brief-look-at-how-hadith-are-authenticated-in-the-islamic-tradition/

If you're interested in an in depth read:

http://www.amazon.com/Hadith-Muhammads-Legacy-Medieval-Foundations/dp/1851686630

And:

 http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Islamic-Jurisprudence-Civilization/dp/9004121315

> On purely historical grounds, it's not absurd to doubt what we can know about Muhammad. I think someone in the 7th century existed who had something to do with nascent Islam whose name was Muhammad. That's about all we can know.

Not true, simple Google search under 'Non Muslim Sources':

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

Also to add a few things from the link:

>F.E. Peters states, "Few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words... To sum this up: the Quran is convincingly the words of Muhammad, perhaps even dictated by him after their recitation".[10] Peters argues that "The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the 'sources' behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance." .[10]

Your claim that the Quran is the work of many is a minority view. Even your source Patricia Crone says:

>She says we can be "reasonably sure" in attributing all or most of the Qur'an to him.

Also, regarding Crone and Cook from the link:

>Patricia Crone and Michael Cook challenge the traditional account of how the Qur'an was compiled writing that "there is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in any form before the last decade of the seventh century." They also question the accuracy of some the Qur'an's historical accounts.[11] It is generally acknowledged that the work of Crone and Cook was a fresh approach in its reconstruction of early Islamic history, but their alternative account of early Islam has been almost universally rejected.[12] Van Ess has dismissed it stating that "a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it in detail...Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous."[13] R. B. Serjeant states: "Hagarism [the thesis of Crone and Cook]...is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a ‘leg pull’, pure ’spoof’."[14]

Read that? Universally Rejected.

>...but their alternative account of early Islam has been almost universally rejected.

Read what's next? No need to refute!

>a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it in detail...

Regarding John Wansbrough:

> Herbert Berg writes that "Despite John Wansbrough's very cautious and careful inclusion of qualifications such as "conjectural," and "tentative and emphatically provisional", his work is condemned by some. Some of this negative reaction is undoubtedly due to its radicalness...Wansbrough's work has been embraced wholeheartedly by few and has been employed in a piecemeal fashion by many.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam#Reliability_of_the_Quran

As I said previously, I'd advise you not to use them as sources.

Also, if you're going to argue on soley historical grounds, we know infinitesimally less about Jesus (pbuh) than Muhammad (pbuh).

u/Zemrude · 1 pointr/AcademicBiblical

I have stumbled across this book on Hadith, which isn't specifically Quranic, but it does contain a section on academic critical views of the Hadith and their vetting process in Islam.

u/AndTheEgyptianSmiled · 1 pointr/islam

I like these kinds of questions coz I get to use bulletpoints. I love bulletpoints.


Is it okay to use a video of a guy praying certain prayers....