Read on Twitter
Just saw someone post these images which misrepresent the hadith compilations.
In regards to the first image, the "ahadith found" section refers to chains and not the actual text of the hadiths. You can technically hear a hadith from a hundred teachers
1/9
In regards to the first image, the "ahadith found" section refers to chains and not the actual text of the hadiths. You can technically hear a hadith from a hundred teachers
1/9
then refer to it as a hundred reports.
More importantly, there is no reason to believe that the narrations that weren't included in their works were fabrications.
Reports are not included if they do not fall under the subjects that the author chose to compile about.
More importantly, there is no reason to believe that the narrations that weren't included in their works were fabrications.
Reports are not included if they do not fall under the subjects that the author chose to compile about.
Furthermore, even if the scholar assumed that a report is not reliable enough to be included in his book, it doesn't mean that it is a fabrication. Rather, the author feels that the report does not meet the conditions that he has placed upon himself.
However, even if we did entertain this false idea, that the compilers, like al-Bukhari, only included 0.46% of existing reports, why would that mean that the 0.46% are unreliable? On the contrary, this meticulousness should give us confidence, for only this tiny number passed his
strict requirements.
As for the second image, it is even more of a misrepresentation.
Firstly, we do have hundreds of reports that include only three people between the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the compiler, and thousands that can be traced to the third reporter through
As for the second image, it is even more of a misrepresentation.
Firstly, we do have hundreds of reports that include only three people between the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the compiler, and thousands that can be traced to the third reporter through
multiple chains.
There is also a massive misconception that these hadith compilers are the original compilers of the reports. In reality, the vast majority of these reports were already compiled in the works of those that are earlier up the chain.
There is also a massive misconception that these hadith compilers are the original compilers of the reports. In reality, the vast majority of these reports were already compiled in the works of those that are earlier up the chain.
An example of an early compilation is Sahifat Hammam, which would fall under (B) in the image above. The text of the Sahifa is fully included by Imam Ahmad (E) in his Musnad.
Though the strangest thing I find about the image above is the "follow this or you will be
Though the strangest thing I find about the image above is the "follow this or you will be
declaired apostate [sic]."
I'm not aware of any credible scholar that has held this opinion. Classical scholars of hadith were open about critiquing specific reports in the Sahihayn, while the authors of the Four Sunan didn't intend complete authenticity in the first place.
I'm not aware of any credible scholar that has held this opinion. Classical scholars of hadith were open about critiquing specific reports in the Sahihayn, while the authors of the Four Sunan didn't intend complete authenticity in the first place.
Hadith-rejecters will jump through all sorts of hoops in order to avoid accepting the hadiths of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
I'm not aware of any sect in any religion that hates its history as much as hadith-rejecters do.
I'm not aware of any sect in any religion that hates its history as much as hadith-rejecters do.
