Okay, the top of that image is how it displays for me using the ArTranslit template and the bottom is how it displays with your reversion. How does look to you? It is using the same entities but without the template? Does it display properly or does it look like vandalism to you? 02:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Absolutely fine. This is extremely odd. For me, it inserted 'life can be hard but i don't care cause i am very strong and i can fight it.i am totally cool' after every use of the ArTranslit template.

Source: Bukhari no. 4981, Muslim no. 152 – [Sahih]. إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَرْفَعُ بِهَذَا الْكِتَابِأَقْوَامًا وَيَضَعُ بِهِ آخَرِينَ. The Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) said, “Indeed Allah, through this Book, raises some peoples and lowers others.”. We resort to the source of all solutions and the source of all peace and relief, Our Beloved, Our Creator. PDF: Al-Bukhari's Authentic Hadiths: Menstrual Periods Bk. His Arabic book is titled 'The Cleansing of Bukhari and Muslim from useless Hadiths' Sahih Al.

It's stopped doing it now. Maybe there's some malware at this end? 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Ahh, should explain everything. Maybe it's time we protect (or semi-protect) that template.

I'm going to revert back to the template version. 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks! I saw that, but not knowing templates well, thought it was another example of the message generated by the bug, rather than the text creating it.

02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Need Translation The article does not say what the Arabic word hadith actually means. From context I suppose it must be something like 'saying.' I recommend that someone who knows the exact meaning put an English translation of the word in the lead paragraph. 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Hopefully the new introduction will satisfy this suggestion.

08:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Supertouch What Happened? It has been almost a month, at least as far as I can tell, since anyone has contributed to this page which is very much a work in progress. Some of the POV commentary is rather trivial. 09:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 09:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Lead Paragraph needed This daunting article needs a Lead Paragraph!

Please be brave and write a good one, or resurrect an old copy if you can find one.- 13:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC) What Happened Part Two I had been gradually adding to this entry over the past week or more provided primary refernces for an entry that has at best secondary refernces. As I am able to translate directly from the Arabic source books this seems appropriate. However, my efforts were in vain as everything I did was deleted (I think you refer to this as a reverted) by a user with no apparent attachment to any Islamic subject matter nor any previous posts, edits or anything relating to this page in particular. I am sure it is obvious that I am a new contributor to Wikipedia due to formatting issues, although researching in the Western academic mode is something I am experienced with.

I am sure that I had formatting issues, however, would it not have been more productive to simply make edits to my efforts as opposed to the heavyhanded approuch of eradicating them? If the problem was content that should have been discussed as I referred almost entirely to well accepted and reputable Sunni scholars whose works make up the core of classical hadith studies. I posted perhaps silly sounding posts previously on this discussion page hoping for some sort of feedback from those actually involved in the progress of this page but received none.

Where is the Hadith task force? I would like to share my work with the readers of this entry as I feel it is beneficial and informative and provided English readers the opportunity to read from the works of classical scholars whose works are as of yet not translated.

As I am currently working on this project independent of Wikipedia I plan to continue my work regardless of acceptance here or not. Does anyone have thoughts on the subject? I would like to repost my research, however am hesitant to do so as perhaps there is a legitiment reason my previous efforts were done away with. Please respond. 03:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Supertouch I'm no expert here, but your additions seem OK by normal WP standards--though it is usual to just give the references and not the explanation, for an article like this the problems of translation might well make it necessary. () 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Thank you for reponding, DGG.

I am unclear as to what you mean by 'explanation.' If you mean an explanation of the translated passage then I think I provided that by translating the meaning of the passage as opposed to a word for word translation. In addition, I thought the context of each translation was clear. 07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Supertouch 07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC) I didn't see any problems with your edits.

I also note the user who reverted them (who does not seem to have edited this page before) stated that he/she had not actually looked at all the edits before reverting, simply stating 'this is clearly necessary.' The necessity is not apparent to me, at least.

In any case, it is only one person's opinion that caused the reversion of your edits, not a Wikipedia policy or user consensus. Go ahead and edit the article as you think best.

If still objects, you can discuss the edits on this talk page -- that's what they're for. 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Before proceeding, just wanted another opinion; should I simply revert to the way this page was before they were reverted by Perspicacite - that seems the easiest and most straightforward. 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Well, I see there have been 22 edits to the page since that reversion. If you don't want to undo other people's edits (most of which are probably in different sections from yours) you could either: 1.

Go through the subsequent edits, make a list of the ones you think are good, and re-incorporate them after you revert. Go back to a pre-reversion version of the article and cut-and-paste your edits from that version into the current version. 16:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Curiousity I can't help but be curious as to the cause of Perspicacite's aversion to well referenced material.

The grading of this page returned to unreferenced status after his edits/reverts. Good job Perspicacite, you must be proud. —Preceding comment added by ( • ) 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pronunciation How is 'hadith' pronounced? Like it's written? This should be clarified. () 15:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC) The th ist pronounced like a normal f.

The word is pronounced Hadif. -- () 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Initially, I transliterated the word hadith phonetically to indicate its pronounciation: hadeeth. This indicates the long 'e' sound. The word is NOT pronounced with an 'f' sound as there is an independent letter representing the 'f' sound. The sound is the same, or very similar, to the 'th' sound at the end of the word 'with.' It should also be noted that there are two distinct letters representing the English 'h' sound.

The 'h' in this particular word is released from the mid-section of the throat, higher in the throat than the other 'h' sound. Both are while pronounced while releasing the flow of breath as opposed to containing it. () 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Supertouch Hadith, Hadiths, Ahadith The online Webster Dictionary gives the plural as hadith or hadiths. So does the Wordweb online Shouldn't the article conform to accepted English usage and use hadith or hadiths and not ahadith? () 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Ahadith is the plural in Arabic, however this does not necessarily carry over to English as it is not easily recognizable as such. If you have a reference change it.

I have also heard that hadith is both the singular as well as the plural - that is without the addition of the s. If I can find it before you make your changes I will post it. I am sure there are other issues similar to this on this page.

If you do make this change make sure you change ever instance of plural usage to the same form for the sake of uniformity. () 08:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Actually, I think I got them all. () 13:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Examples of Hadiths I note that an essentially anonymous editor has gone through and removed all examples of hadiths that might be contentious. I also note the following comment: 'This site Requires clean up!!! Kindly read thru the exapmples of hadith given.

The egs of hadith given seem to be predominantly touching exclusively on only one area of the prohet's life. There appears to be a rather calculated and sinister effort to malign the prophet here. Altho it gives the impression of objectivity, it really is not. The selected examples of the hadith is sequenced, spatially arranged and designed in a way so as to to portray the last prophet of God in an undesirable light.Anti-islamic in orientation.

Unfairly Prejudicial towards islam please READ CAREFULLY AND THOROUGHLY.' I think that this comment raises several matters for consideration. • Are these really hadiths?

If any are not, they must be removed forthwith. • Are these hadiths reliable? If any are not accepted as completely reliable, then this information must be noted. • If the choice of example is unrepresentative, then we need an agreed mechanism to work out a representative sample of hadiths. Just removing the contentious ones is simply a blatant attempt at censorship. • If the spatial arrangement of the hadith is anti-Islamic or unfairly prejudicial towards Islam, a better arrangement might be to arrange the quotations under two headings: one containing hadiths that would win general agreement from readers and another containing hadiths that might be contentious for one reason or another. I put back the examples of hadiths that another editor had removed to stop censorship of the article.

However, I do agree that the present arrangement could be improved on. How do other editors think this information could be arranged? —Preceding comment added by ( • ) 11:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC) For some time now the idea of having random hadith displayed as examples has seemed almost bizzare to me. In spite of the fact that it is only logical to provide an example of the subject of a descriptive article, it seems distracting to have such a large block of example hadith right in the middle of this article. Wouldn't it be sufficient to provide links to the major collections of hadith, translated into English of course, so that a curious reader or a researcher can search through on his or her own?

The fact that the contributors to this page have been unable to agree on the hadith to use as examples is also troubling. There are a number of well known hadith that provide a general picture of the religion of Islam that would seem to serve as examples much more effectively than random - and questionable - hadith. For example, the long hadith of Jibreel or 'Islam is based upon five.' One or two of those should be enough to provide the reader with a clear picture of the subject he or she is reading about as oppossed to confusion. Any thoughts? () 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC) The reason for the inclusion is that many Hadiths are contentious amongst sections of the Islamic community, leading to some being accepted by certain groups whilst others are not.as mentioned throughout the article itself. The amendments were merely endeavouring to provide the reader with some examples of this contention.

Now obviously some here have taken offence to the inclusion of this material in the article. As Michael Glass pointed out, many anonymous editors have just removed the material without rhyme or reason. Others like Itaqallah sought to remove all the material claiming different reasons at each point. First, that the material lacked sources. When it was pointed out the source was the respected Islamic University in Malaysia, the material was then removed on the grounds of being 'unencyclopedic primary source spam'.

Not content with this, the final accusation made was that the material was “cherry-picked selections of hadiths you (myself) personally believe to be controversial”. Ie, the inference that these were not actually controversial but merely “cherry-picked” selections I wished to post for some apparent reason. In response, it begs the question, if the material wasn’t “controversial”, why do all and sundry wish to remove it without a plausible reason? - () 14:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Your sequential narrative misleadingly suggests that I have changed my stance, which is not the case. Can you show me the IUM link which apparently declares these particular hadith 'controversial'?

It looks to me like you have taken it upon yourself to infer which hadith are and aren't controversial, and believe that these must be mentioned in the article. This is in fundamental violation of our policy. It is indeed unencyclopedic primary source spam, and it is indeed a cherry-picked selection.

If you want to provide 'examples of this contention,' then the content and its contentious nature needs to be by a reliable secondary source. As for your rhetorical question, whether or not these are controversial is irrelevant, their insertion violates the aforementioned content policies and should thus be removed. 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC) One simple way round the complaint about labelling hadiths as controversial is to change the label to examples of hadiths that are possibly controversial. Then it is up to the reader to decide what is controversial and what is not. That, I believe, deals with the problem of labelling hadiths as controversial. However, there are other charges: that the selectiion is unencyclopedic. But who is to determine what is encyclopedic and what is not?

Is there a rule in Wikipedia to say that this or that is or is not encyclopedic? A second charge is that it is primary source spam. This is an interesting neologism, but I don't believe is is mentioned in the rules of Wikipedia.

A third charge is that this is a cherry picked selection. This is another interesting phrase, but I don't know if it is mentioned in the rules of Wikipedia. However, there are certain things that have not been mentioned. No-one has written that any one of the hadiths selected is wrong, or misquoted, or mistranslated, or bogus.

Are there other hadiths that should have been included? Is there any information on how such hadiths have been applied, or ignored? Instead of censoring this information, why not expand it? () 09:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Isn't that like saying they are 'possibly significant'? If they aren't really controversial, which I believe is the case, then what's the point of including them in the first place? How can we say they are 'possibly controversial' when that conclusion is (hence, ), and where are the sources to explain how exactly these precise narrations are of significance?

Excessive primary source usage is problematic, as: '.' Regards, 11:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Let's be specific about which hadith are possibly controversial: • The order to kill those who give up the faith. • Cutting off hands for stealing. • the notion that angels will curse a woman for declining to sleep with her husband.

• the Prophet marrying a girl of six and consummating his marriage with her when she was nine years old Now it may be that some do not regard having intercourse with a nine year old is possibly controversial. In my country, and most western countries, having sexual contact with a nine year old girl is a criminal offence. Therefore I think we can quite fairly say that this particular hadith is possibly controversial.' () 12:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Without a supporting reliable secondary source, this remains your own.

This is not really the place to draw focus on those hadith you find objectionable. 12:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Interesting comment.

Drawing attention to the fact that sexual contact with a 9 year old is against the law is deemed original research. No doubt it is as much original research as pointing out that killing those who give up their faith is at variance with the idea of freedom of religion. () 15:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Personal opinions aren't relevant here, Michael.

To claim hadith are controversial by way of your own deductions (which amount to ) is original research. 15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Another interesting comment. It appears that judging the hadiths by modern standards of human rights is anachronistic.

I'd say the basic problem here is that the controversies need to be properly sourced. Trying to maintain that sexual contact with a nine year old girl and ordering the killing of people who change their religion are not controversial is a nonsense. However, according to the august rules of Wikipedia, we need a duly constituted authority to declare that something controversial is controversial before we can say that something controversial is controversial. () 23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Assertions must be positively. Incidentally, I wonder how many encyclopedic entries on 'hadith' you've read which entertain a section for 'controversial' hadith. You don't find that sort of thing on other serious reference texts like Britannica or the. Perhaps because such narrations don't contribute anything of significance towards the understanding of hadith literature.

23:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC) So now we have agreed that calling murder in the name of religion and sexual contact with a 9 year old girl cannot be called controversial because someone in authority has not said that these things are controversial. The laws of Wikipedia, in their wisdom tell us so. So let us cease and desist from the wicked thought of calling a spade a spade. And let us not say anything about this being censorship. We are simply following the rules of Wikipedia, which, we are told, tell us that no-one may declare that the emperor has no clothes unless someone in authority says so. And we all know that the little boy who blurted out this inconvenient truth is not an authority, so his opinion simply doesn't count.

Nevertheless, these hadith are still - we won't say controversial, we'll simply say of interest to others. Some people have been so bold as to comment on these, shall we say, more interesting texts. I propose that we point this out in the article, with links to the places where these comments are made. That way we don't have to make - heaven forbid! - any value judgments, but we simply point to others who have made comments on some of the more, shall we say surprising, hadiths? () 13:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I personally don't see how focusing on one or two hadith of personal moral concern to you or other authors actually contributes to the understanding of hadith literature in general.

Sarcasm and appeals to emotion aside, if you believe there is something truly noteworthy about a certain hadith, then they belong in more specific articles (i.e. ) in their appropriate context.

The underlying assumption is, of course, that we have discussing such, as opposed to opinion pieces on polemical websites. 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Another interesting comment. Labelling a protest against murder and apparent child abuse as sarcasm and an appeal to emotion. Yes, people do get emotional about sexual contact with 9 year old girls. Yes, people do get emotional about the notion of slaughtering people who give up their faith. It's called moral outrage.

And one way of expressing moral outrage is by using sarcasm. Please note that this sense of moral outrage is not just felt by polemicists, it is also felt by many other people as well. When voices rise in protest about some of the statements in the Hadiths, and there are reports of this in the media, then I believe that it is appropriate to mention this in this article. () 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I'm glad you find my comments interesting. Concerning your personal moral outrage, Wikipedia is the place for it. You can vent it on a blog or a forum, if you like. I don't see the need to repeat my comments on verification, reliable sourcing, and demonstration of significance to the general understanding of the topic - it's all viewable above and linked above.

14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Please read my comments carefully. I know Wikipedia rules well enough to know that personal comments have no place in articles. I will search for suitable comments about the hadiths and link them if I can to this article. Nevertheless, I want to state without equivocation that I find the hadith that I have objected to morally repugnant and disgusting, and I don't believe that I would be alone in my feelings of revulsion.

09:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Hadith 'review' I noticed this article and a few linked ones about the Turkish 'revising' of Hadith, and I figured it'd be a useful addition to the page.? Links below: -- () 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC) After checking the links, I certainly think that it would be useful to link them to the article. () 03:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC) I don't see this in the article. Was this done? () 04:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Okay, I found it now, in. () 05:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Itaqullah's most recent edit You have refered to my translation of Suyuti's explanation of the terms sanad and matan as an 'attempted rendering'.

If you have a particular problem with this translation fix it instead of deleting it - that is much more productive. Although your user page states you are able to communicate in Arabic, I suspect you don't have the original book in front of you otherwise you would have simply fixed it as opposed to deleting it. () 12:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Hi Supertouch. As I posted on your talk page, can you think of a way to express this passage in a clearer and simpler manner? As it stands it is quite clunky and convoluted, and detriments readability. The basic facts are that the matn is the text and the isnad is the chain of narrators/route of transmission.

Keep things succinct and simple, and don't unnecessarily enter into confusing or long-winded elaborations. This isn't the place to be translating word for word, the best thing to do would be to summarise any genuinely informative comments in a coherent and succinct manner. 16:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Okay, I've tried to rearrange the text a bit so as to retain the gist of what you wrote. There's one sentence that needs a bit of clarification and I've tagged that one. 22:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Sufi Hadith Collections?

Among the branches of Islam mentioned in the article, and the hadith collections accepted by each branch, Sufism finds no mention. Is there such a thing as sufi hadiths? Are there sufi hadith collections like there are sunni and shia hadith collections?

If so, what are they and shouldn't mention be made in the article? —Preceding comment added by () 04:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Standardise case In the middle of sentences, the article switches between Hadith and hadith. Should lowercase or uppercase be used? I believe we should have agreement on which to use. (•) 08:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC) I believe this is. The standard insofar as the MOS is concerned is that it is capitalized.

() 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Reliability of Hadiths? I think there should be a section on this, because it is well known that not all hadiths are true, and some are quotations from different individuals. I would suggest adding a section regarding this matter as to explain in detail the reliability of hadiths. -- () 06:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC) I believe that is already addressed under the 'Science of Hadith' section (number six). () 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Templates The massive templates in Islam articles really seem to mess things up.

This article is no exception. I have an experimental template on Hadith collections, which is presently in a hybrid state; I have the basic format in mind, which I borrowed from.

It's actually a navbox with show/hide options, ideal for storing large quantities of info. Comments appreciated. Thanks.:) Lol. For a moment I was confused why Gauss' law and Coulomb's law were listed as hadith collections:-).

Looks good to me. 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Major citation problems Hey is anyone up for helping me source some of this? Personally I don't like the notion of ad-hoc sourcing unsourced additions, but I also don't like the prospect of having to essentially napalm half the article because it's not sourced. It's a tedious process and I'm afraid in a lot of these things I have a hard time knowing where to start. Wikisource hasn't been much help, and this article is starting to bug me, an article of this importance to Islamic theology should really be in better shape.

() 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Orientalist changed to Non-Islamic in headings Orientalist is used primarily as a term of abuse for non-Islamic Western scholars. It's not as nasty as 'missionary', which is used freely on some Islamic websites, but it's still pejorative. I changed it to Non-Islamic, which I think is more neutral.

However, I'm open to other suggestions. I hope this doesn't turn into another of those Wikibattles. I just came here to see if there was any mention of the textual tradition (what are the earliest manuscripts and where are they held). () 23:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Supertouch reverted, because some academics are Muslim. I would have used Academic, but at one point, one Muslim editor was insisting that Muslim seminaries (which assume the truth of Islam and the Islamic traditions) were academic. How about Academic in the Western tradition? I'm not particularly attached to any of my alternatives, but I do protest the use of Orientalist.

That was once a simple descriptor, like sociologist or philosopher, but it is so no longer. () 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Rewrote Sunni/Shi'a section I rewrote for nuance and better English style. I don't think that the substance is all that different.

I also put the sentence re the Qur'an Alone Muslims off in another section. Didn't really belong in a discussion of Sunni/Shi'a differences. It's short, as these groups are peripheral. () 19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Originating from ->allegedly originating from ->concerning To say that the hadith originated from the words and deeds of Muhammad is to say that they're all reliable historical reports (which even Islamic scholars wouldn't accept).

To say that they allegedly originated from the words and deeds stresses the fact that they may be false -- but the description is wordy and legalistic. To say that they are narrations concerning the words and deeds is less wordy and, while accurate, less blunt. () 23:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Qur'an Alone Muslims The article is being edited by anons whom I suspect of being Qur'an Alone Muslims, attempting to use this article for proselytization. They keep deleting the mention of the small size of the groups. I will try to come up with a cite for that statement, but I don't think anyone who has studied the sociology of modern Muslim sects would disagree.

I put in a section for these folks just to get them OUT of the Shi'a section, where they don't belong. But I figure that we give them that degree of visibility, it is only fair to let readers know that they're not a large and influential group. Heck, they're even outnumbered by the Ibadis, who really should be mentioned. Do we have any Ibadi editors here? And the article needs to be rewritten to take into account the most recent scholarship on hadith, which some kind editor added in a separate section.

It's going to take me some time to read the books listed and make appropriate changes. If other editors here HAVE read these books, perhaps you could have a go. () 00:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC) I've got fairly good google-fu, but I'm turning up very little on the numbers of Qur'an Alone Muslims. The closest I get is, which is a Unitarian Universalist encyclopedia of religion. It focuses on Rashad Khalifa and his followers (who seem to have split into two small groups in the Tucson area). The Pew Research Center report on Islam in the US mentions Sunni and Shi'a as the dominant groups and groups everyone else as Non-specific and Other, adding up to 34%.

I would guess that VERY FEW of those are QA Muslims. They would probably be 'Yes, I'm Muslim, but I never go to the mosque' Muslims. () 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Hadith as Scripture Someone added Aisha Musa's book on hadith as scripture.

I hadn't heard of this, but checked it out. The author has a PhD from Harvard and teaches at a university in Florida. I can't speak for the quality of the book, which I haven't read, but it seems like a reasonable addition -- even if I suspect that one of the Qur'an-Aloners added the citation:) () 18:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I removed mention of the book from the text of the article as it was already in the further reading section. Musa's article was recently deleted due to a copyright violation (I nominated it for CSD).

() Quran Alone Muslim editor A new editor added a fairly argumentative bit to the top of the hadith page, saying that hadith were inauthentic and nonsensical. I rewrote this to what I hope is a more neutral comment.

Several months ago, editor Supertouch was deleting all references to Qur'an Alone Muslims, arguing that they were so few that they didn't count. I didn't have the energy at the time to fight back. Even though it seemed like censorship to remove the references. Supertouch is gone, and we have one (seemingly) Qur'an Alone editor trying to add material to the page again. I do think that it makes sense to point readers in the direction of the Qur'an Alone article, even if we don't give their position much space in the Hadith article proper. I'm not a Qur'an Alone Muslim; I'm not even a Muslim.

However, I do strongly believe in fairness, especially to minorities. I also removed someone's odd comment that all hadith were collected during the reign of one particular caliph. That simply isn't true; it took centuries for the corpus to accrete. I believe that even Muslim scholars would agree to this. There are other problems with this page, but I'm swamped with other, RL, work right now. Sorry I can't do more. () 04:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC) According to all Muslims, some hadith are inauthentic.

No one claims 100% authenticity. Qur'an alone is different than traditional Islamic teaching, since they nearly completely reject hadith.

() 03:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Edits by Imadjafar Imadjafar has removed the statement that some Qur'an-Alone Muslims do not accept hadith and has added a whole section arguing against hadith on the basis that the Qur'an is sufficient. This seems to me arrant proselytizing for a Qur'an Alone position. I would undo it immediately if I weren't tired and under work pressure; I don't have time or energy for an extended tussle. Reversion might also seem self-interested, as it was my attempt at a compromise between the Muslim majority and the QA minority that was deleted. I can only ask that other editors concerned view the edits and take appropriate action. () 09:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Try to remain neutral between Sunni and Shi'a One editor added words to the lead para saying that Shi'a treat the words and deeds of the twelve imams as hadith.

I don't know that this is strictly true, and if it is, it is true only of Twelver Shi'a. There are other Shi'a sects, such as the Ismaili. I removed those edits. While I was at it, I removed two links to other WP articles, links I'd been meaning to remove for some time. Linking to hadith praising Abu Bakr and Umar (leaving aside the question of the reliablity of those hadith) is pro-Sunni and anti-Shi'a. Nor would these hadith collections shed any light on hadith in general. I was putting off doing this because I hate getting pulled into Sunni-Shi'a fights.

Perhaps if I offend both sides at once, I won't be accused of favoritism. () 21:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Caliph Uthman and the Quran Calph Uthman was not he first person to 'urge muslims to write the Quran in a fixed form'.

I am not even sure why this comment was even relevant on an article about Hadith. Regardless, The contents of the Quran had been recorded in writing even during the time of prophet Muhammad.

His Cousin Ali had made a personal copy of the Quran. The first Caliph of Islam collated a copy of the Quran as many of the Memorisers of the Quran were killed in Battle. This version was left to his wife after his wife. C Program Files Windows Live Mail Wlmail Executive Branch on this page. Uthman's concerns was that as the islamic empire had been growing, different dialects of arabic were being spoken and different words were being used in various places of the empire during oral recitations of the quran. Uthman then standardised the language including vowels points in the Quran and used the original language of the quraish (spoken by prophet Muhammad). For reference he used Abu Bakrs Copy. Five copies of this standardised Quran were made and spread to five parts of the empire.

One of these original five is still in existence in Tashkent. Once gain none of this is relevant to the topic of Hadith so I made the edit to delete the wording With reference to your discussions on the Quran, the comments I mentioned maybe be of a differing opinion to you and some scholars. However this discussion is irrelevant to the original point I was making. This article is about hadith collections and nothing to do with the collection of the Quran and therefore the comments made about Uthman and the collection of the Quran are irrelevant to this article. I am assuming you agree with this point as no further amendments were made to the edit I made. Just a final point with regards to 'variant' Quranic readings. Your comments about the Yemini Quran is misleading at best.

What you probably meant to say was that a Quran was found in Yemen written UNDER the present writing, traces of older writing was found and this showed slight variations (in dialect and vowel positioning)to the modern Quran we have today. Even though the newer writing was consistent with present day Qurans.

In other words it this older text which was slightly variant to the standardised text so it was washed away and replaced with the standardised text. This exactly what the Uthmanic Codex was all about.

To standardised the variant dialects and vowel positioning that had crept into the pronounciation of the Quran. Also note that during the time period we are discussing the arabic language was changing and evolving so obviously there would be slight difference between what was written several hundred years ago and now. Your comments about the text naively overlooks one vital point. Please be advised that the Quran is not only read but it is Recited. Therefore if a text has been memorised by hundreds and thousands of muslims and this is being passed down from generation to generation any 'errors' however 'minor' that had previously crept into the written Quran will always be identified. I am sure you have some knowledge about Islam and will appreciate this point. I guess what you need to identify is that when a Quran is read aloud, whether it is in Cairo, Istanbul, Sana or Tashkent or anywhere else, does it sound the same?

I can't really see there is much room for debate here as we are essentially agreeing on the same point. — Preceding comment added by () 07:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Hadith are Muhammad's words? NOT TRUE I removed an anon's edit, which modified the start of the article to claim that hadith are Muhammad's words. Even an Islamic scholar, with no exposure to Western-style academic scholarship, would reject this claim.

Many hadith recount something that Muhammad is reputed to have said, but Islamic scholars can disagree vehemently on whether or not these traditions are reliable. Hence it is not correct to say that hadith ARE Muhammad's words. Also, many hadith recount Muhammad's actions rather than words. As for academics. They would point out that some hadith accepted as authentic by Islamic scholars are just Roman provincial laws adopted by the Muslim conquerors and later given a spurious Islamic origin. () 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC) They're traditions, almost always several times removed from the event by the time they're collected, concerning the words and deeds of the Prophets and Companions.

Reverend And The Makers The State Of Things Rarer there. It is mentioned in the article that they are ascribed 'validly or invalidly', and that there's debate on the study of Hadith. Is there some area you felt was specifically lacking in this regard? () 15:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I wasn't criticizing the article as it stands, which seems to be accurate, but the edit I removed.

() 17:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Edits to Quran Alone section by anon An anonymous editor made two changes. He/she changed 'also known as' to 'labeled'. Labeled is the wrong English word. It sounds like a museum exhibit. If 'known as' seems ugly to the anon, perhaps 'sometimes called' would be a good change. Anon also changed 'question religious authority' to 'question authenticity'.

From what I've read of the Quranist writings, they do say that many of the hadith are later concoctions, but they also say that only the Quran is divine and infallible, and that later human assertions about the earliest days of Islam are not to be revered and accepted in the same way. That is, some traditions about the practices of the earliest Muslims may be authentic, but that does not therefore mean that those practices should be followed. I'm open to correction on this, if the anon can quote from some Quranist writings.

The anon made a subtle but important change and I don't think that this should go without discussion. () 07:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Hadith vs. Quran An anon removed the phrase 'as opposed to the Quran'.

I think that this was perfectly good English, but it could be confusing to someone whose English is shaky. He or she might read it as saying that the hadith contradict the Quran. (Invalid hadith might actually be argued to do so, but that's a a gray area, and not what was meant by the original wording.) I therefore changed the phrase to 'but that is not found in the Quran'. I trust that will satisfy everyone. () 20:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Request for comment Proposal for removing prefixes 'Islamic views on xyz' I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in to there Names as in. Like → as it becomes difficult to search the topic.

Please participate in the discussion at Thanks. -- () 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Removed addition by Gamma Draconis Shi'a aren't unique in producing collections of hadith; that's a favorite Sunni pastime too. Probably Ibadi as well:) From what I have read, the world of Muslim scholarship in the last few centuries had become increasingly inward-looking, producing collections and commentaries rather than going in new directions. Also, no need to mention the other hadith collections; we can guess that there are others in addition to the main ones. Also left this note on the editor's talk page.

I don't intend to shut down discussion of the Shi'a hadith traditon; I just think it would be better done in a breakout article that could go into greater detail. Wiki editors usually try to cram too much stuff into the main article. () 19:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Shia and Sunni Textual Traditions Shia and Sunni textual traditions Part of on. • • • and hadith collections differ because scholars from the two traditions differ as to the reliability of the narrators and transmitters. Narrators who took the side of and rather than, in the disputes over leadership that followed the death of Muhammad, are seen as unreliable by the Shia; narrations sourced to Ali and the family of Muhammad, and to their supporters, are preferred. Sunni scholars put trust in narrators, such as, whom Shia reject. Differences in hadith collections have contributed to differences in worship practices and shari'a law and have hardened the dividing line between the two traditions.

This is quite opinion related and it should have a clear statement. Items such as 'shia reject', 'unreliable by the shia' are vague statements. If that was the case then we may as well state 'sunni reject' as the opposite is true as well. Shia's and Sunni's have separate hadiths and many hadiths are similar as well. Hadith is not translated as Tradition The article says translated as tradition but I amend to teachings. () 08:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC) • The word Hadith means Speech, not tradition.

() 08:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC) • The idea behind Hadith was not shown in the article. The Hadith means that chain of sources that heard the prophet and seen him, and then they speak to other generations, and we keep record of all names who spoke about such prophet teaching, deed, act, or behavior. — Preceding comment added by ( • ) 08:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC) This is an of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the. Assessment comment The comment(s) below were originally left at, and are posted here for posterity. Following, these subpages are now deprecated.

The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section. This site Requires clean up!!! Kindly read thru the exapmples of hadith given. The egs of hadith given seem to be predominantly touching exclusively on only one area of the prohet's life. There appears to be a rather calculated and sinister effort to malign the prophet here.

Altho it gives the impression of objectivity, it really is not. The selected examples of the hadith is sequenced, spatially arranged and designed in a way so as to to portray the last prophet of God in an undesirable light.Anti-islamic in orientation. Unfairly Prejudicial towards islam please READ CAREFULLY AND THOROUGHLY. Last edited at 09:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC).

Substituted at 14:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC).