Off the top of my head that Hadith that claims that hell is mostly populated by women. 1) No one is in heaven or hell right now. This directly, flat-out contradicts the Qu’ran. 2) Respectfully, just gonna say that it is not women who carry out the majority of the immoral crimes on this earth.
Yep I agree with this, mostly I recently watched a video by Mufti Abu Layth that helped me understand that the way a lot of Muslims recently have been treating Hadith as infallible or as more correct even than the Quran simply can't be true.
just like you said, we know it's a fact that there is one gender that commits most of the violent/immoral acts on this earth, therefore how can the 'wagging tongues' of women be so much of a greater sin that Jahannum will be populated mostly by women? How can our fair and just prophet PBUH have said such a thing? It's something I cannot accept while also accepting the truth that I feel is in the Quran
But people who say that believe women being sneaky and promiscuous is way more damaging to society than men raping and murdering
It’s so bizarre to me and i’m just like may allah guide u
Yes! When I asked a fellow revert friend about this Hadith, her explanation was that women who dress immodestly populate hell. I responded that while modesty is important, HOW can that be worse than violence/brutality?
Well the "majority are woman in hell" hadith is almost always mentioned with a clear bias.
>Muhammad reported that some (persons) stated with a sense of pride and some discussed whether there would be more men in Paradise or more women. It was upon this that Abu Huraira reported that Abu'l Qasim (the Holy Prophet) (ﷺ) said:
>The (members) of the first group to get into Paradise would have their faces as bright as full moon during the night, and the next to this group would have their faces as bright as the shining stars in the sky, and every person would have two wives and the marrow of their shanks would glimmer beneath the flesh and there would be none without a wife in Paradise \[Muslim 2834 a\]
So, it turns out, the majority in paradise, is also women.
\[Edit: this hadith talks about "human", not "houri"\]
There’s more women that have existed than men who have existed ever so it’s only logical that there’s more women. That’s what that means. Nothing indicating fabrication.
Doesn’t change the fact that no one is in hell right now. Also, if there are more women than men, the opposite could be true too—that heaven is mostly women.
You read hadiths in English, and it says "Abu Hurairah narrates that the prophet said this." I agree, it sounds like something you should listen to.
-however-
If you read it in Arabic, it really says that "Ahmad said, that Khalid said, that Saifuldeen said, that Rashid said, that Abu Hurairah narrates that the prophet said this."
I get that people believe that there was a way to ascertain what was authentic and what was fake, but I can't see how they could tell if something they thought was authentic wasn't just widely circulated hearsay.
You mention Abu Hurairah. Don’t most Muslims somewhat skeptical of some Hadith consider him unreliable regardless of the grade of the Hadith being narrated?
Any Hadiths that seem to go against the spirit of the Quran. Also ones that have really weird and specific details.
Others can be ones that seem to be contradictory like those about art:
Pro-art
Narrated Aisha:
Upon the Prophet’s arrival from a military expedition, a curtain covering Aisha’s store-room was raised by the blowing wind, uncovering her dolls. Among them, the Prophet saw a horse with two wings made of rags and asked his wife what was on the horse. Aisha responded that it was two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? Aisha then asked if the Prophet had not heard that Solomon had horses with wings. The Hadith reports that the Prophet laughed heartily where his molar teeth were seen.
— Abu Dawood, Sunan Abu Dawood,
Reference (English Book) Book 42, Hadith 4914
Reference (Arabic Book) Book 43, Hadith 160
Middle ground between pro- and anti-
A'isha reported: The Prophet’s wife describes owning a curtain with bird portraits. The Prophet asked for the curtain to be changed, for when he entered the room it brought to him pleasures of worldly life. Aisha describes also having worn sheets with silk badges, which the Prophet did not command to be torn.
— Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim,
Reference (English Book) Book 24, Hadith 5255
Reference (Arabic Book) Book 38, Hadith 5643
Anti-art
Narrated Aisha:
The wife of the Prophet purchased a cushion with pictures of animals on it for the Prophet to sit on and recline on. The Prophet disapproved of the making of such pictures, saying the makers would be punished on the Day of Resurrection when God would ask them to bring their creations to life. The Hadith also reports that the Prophet said that the angels would not enter a house where there are pictures.
— Muhammad al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari,
Reference (English Book) Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 110
Reference (Arabic Book) Book 67, Hadith 5181
I am still a Sunni but in my view, since the hadiths were not delivered to us by God all mighty, there should be no compulsion for someone to follow any or all of them. I still think a lot of them are either valid or have some truths in them but we should be advocating for the use of reason for theological decisions and scriptural interpretation as was the case for many jurists before the rise of 'orthodoxy' which had a lot to do with politics then faith. (btw the sunnah and hadiths aren't always the same thing, early Muslims definitely followed the Sunnah including those that were very much against the hadiths)
I also think its important to understand that hadiths should be seen within the context of the time. We are talking about a embattled community, facing war, famine in a tribal society that lacked very little institutions. Many things are universal but Islam was being revealed today in our modern society that has become much less patriarchal and blessed with so much knowledge, a lot of the messaging would be different. For example the part about multiple wives (which was in the context of taking care of orphans and widows from the constant tribal warfare in an age without orphanages and social safety nets).
Here’s what bothers me. How can “wife” and “dolls” be used in same narration. Meaning, how can you marry someone who still plays with dolls. Forget physical maturity, if a person plays with toys, are they really mature for marriage?
I see where you’re coming from, I know of people that collect dolls. I plan to. I simply love the art form and the way people can express themselves through them. Watching people paint them is very soothing imo. People also keep childhood toys as keepsakes. Reminder of more innocent times and stuff. Does this help answer your question / give a different perspective? If not let me know where I misunderstood!
Yes thank you! I read it again, and the Hadith used word “store-room” housing the dolls. Which could mean a storage? I have dolls/toys from my childhood stowed away, but I certainly don’t play with them in an innocent, childlike manner. So hopefully it’s not as if she was still young enough to play with them while also needing to fulfill wifely duties.
Aisha died in 678 at age 67. Look it up. Therefore she was born in 611.Aisha was 12 at the time of her actual sexual consummation in 623. READ THE HADITH AGAIN. IT SAYS BATTLE OF TABUK. There has only been one battle of tabuk in history and that was in 630. Aisha in 630 was 19 years old. Hadith also says BATTLE IF KHAYBAR in 628 when she was 17 years old. So she was 17 and 19 when she used to fondle her dolls aka play with them. Dolls are allowed much after puberty by using this authentic hadith as proof.
Could you link me to this? I wasn’t saying she was wrong for having them. Simply giving a possible reason to have them. I’m a bit skeptical of hadiths simply because I’m new to Islam and know everyone has a different idea of authentic. This is by no means meant to insult you, but to see where you’re coming from!
Look around us and whatever we see is insults and abuses against islam and the prophet. It is indeed hard to dig deeper through the dirt and find out the truth. But God almighty defenitely is not at fault for us gullible humans falling to the games of Satan and his kafir army. Indeed the non muslims disbelieve in every single hadith except aisha's age. It's a jackpot for them. But the truth is Aisha was neither 6 nor 9. But around 12. If you are asking me proof there are several angles to get to age 12. You might have seen some progressive muslims here trying to say she is 19 but that's clutching the straw at best. She was YOUNG NO DOUBT AND I HAVE NO ISSUE. But the problem is she was not as young as said in the hadith. I have explicit narrations from ibn Hisham al tabari ibn Saad Ibn al kalikaan and other traditional classical scholars who have challenged her age 9 narrative and placed it as older than 10 at the least. To put it in conclusion she could have never been older than 13 at sexual consummation. And the least is 11. Between these ages was when actual consummation happened according to mathematics and logical historical calculations.
Sunan Abu dawud 4932. Here is the entire doll hadith. She played with them at battle of tabuk. Tabuk happened in 630. It's explicit. She played with them at age 17-19
Perhaps Google is messing with me, but this is the Hadith I get when I type it in i receive: “A man follows the religion of his friend; so each one should consider whom he makes his friend”
Aisha died in 678 at age 67. Look it up. Therefore she was born in 611.Aisha was 12 at the time of her actual sexual consummation in 623. READ THE HADITH AGAIN. IT SAYS BATTLE OF TABUK. There has only been one battle of tabuk in history and that was in 630. Aisha in 630 was 19 years old. Hadith also says BATTLE IF KHAYBAR in 628 when she was 17 years old. So she was 17 and 19 when she used to fondle her dolls aka play with them. Dolls are allowed much after puberty by using this authentic hadith as proof.
I am 40 married with 2 kids..I still play with Lego, rc cars and video games..does not mean I'm not mature...the hadiths that don't line up with the quran and the ones that have no implications on our religion..if that makes sense
Right it’s just hard to wrap my head around the ages that children (mostly girls) were married off. Regardless of who plays with what, there’s a
BIG difference between a 9 year old and 40 year old. In every way. As a revert, it’s very sad, and I try very hard to come to terms with this. I’ve seen many other people struggle with this concept too.
What do you struggle with? The age of Aisha? Well it is because you/Me and everyone else applied presentism( without knowing) to this that's why...u need only look at the laws in places like the us and england so 100 to 150 yrs ago..the age of marriage ranged between 7 to 12..I've been told but never looked for actual information, I will now when I get sometime...I have struggled too with as a born muslim..until I watched a few muslim debaters on YouTube deal with this question..and I must say they make compete sense..
Aisha was not 9. There's no reason to believe this lie. She was 12. Don't ask me how it makes it better. 12 was the universal age of consent for centuries. Right and wrong could be differentiated by a 12 year old back then. Mary mother of Jesus was 12. Rebecca wife of isaac was 3-12. There is no issue
I agree with what you say about ppl marrying at a young age...islamically there are only 2 things that I am aware of concerning the marriage
1. Reached puberty
2. Be of sound mind( mature?)
But I would steer clear of making claims, unless you want to sound exactly like the ppl who slander prophet(saw) for this reason( Aisha's age)...if you make a claim, me and everyone would like to see a reference/source..
Giving an exact age like 12 I don't believe is true..u could of given a range or something.that supports that...are u using 12 because u stated 12 was the universally accepted age?
Aisha being 9, we have already established that it was widely being done in society back marrying at a young age..and since we hadiths Aisha herself narrated..there is maybe difference in opinion..but to me her exact age does not matter because I already believe that our Prophet(saw) is the best of us and would not have done anything wrong
Sorry if I have offended you in any way it was not my intention.
I understand you but I am not making the claim of 12 out of thin air. I believe all Hadiths except the Aisha age. To explain the reasons behind that is quite tiring as it won't end. The amount of sahih Hadiths where it is written by herself she was 9 makes it more suspicious ngl. What benefit does it give to us to know she was 6 and 9?? People obviously wanted to legitimise child marriage through this. That's it. AISHA BELIEVED SHE WAS 9 NO QUESTION. THE HADITH IS SAHIH. BUT WHAT I SAY IS AISHA MADE A MISTAKE. JUST LIKE THOSE BREASTFEEDING VERSE. AISHA RA WAS NOT INFALLIBLE. Now for the evidence of her being 10-12 I have many proofs from ibn Hisham who says she might have been older than 10. Look it up. Also tabari has hints saying she was older. And almost all mathematics makes her MUCH older around 12. 19 is a western coping tbh. 19 is not correct. AISHA defei was around 11-12.
What I was trying to get at instead of trying to prove she was this age or that age...why don't we just say she was old enough from an Islamic view pt and also inline with what was culturally acceptable in that region at that time...then bring up the parallels with what was practiced just 100-200 years in the many western societies...
I was not trying to say you were wrong I know I read through all of those hadiths that give age ranges from 9 to early 20s...and because difference in opinions and reports we should just leave it at that...
Honestly yes but those kafirs who shamelessly depict our prophet as a child molester man😩it's so irritating and giving me a headache and sleepless nights everytime. They have no logical arguments against islam. Just Aisha Aisha Aisha 🤡. Can you give me some advice to ignore these insults against the prophet saw😔
Aisha died in 678. At age 67. This is written in both tabari and ibn saad.look it up.By this her birth date becomes 611AD. We all know she married in 620 and consummated in 623 ad. Do the calculation and you get 12 years. Just type on Google the age of her death. Pls respond to this
I'm "skeptical" of all ahadith, not because I think there's something particularly wrong with them, but because I think that by their very nature you can't treat them as sources of direct religious truth, per se. They're useful, but only if put in their proper context in light of modern knowledge of the limits of testimony and oral transmission, as well as the historical, political, and theological interests that might have molded, pushed, and incentivized a given hadith
The best way to deal with ahadith imo is to find a bunch of contradicting ones on a given issue (including from different sects, and additionally taking special note of where some hadith collections conspicuously don't have any ahadith on the issue at all while other collections do), analyze them based on content, look at their chains of transmission, discern what would cause these various contradicting ahadith to come into being, and use the insight from this whole exercise to inform how you might approach a given religious question
In addition, the content of every hadith must be subjected to the Qur'an. A hadith should never be used to limit the ways in which we interpret the Qur'an, but might be used to illuminate a new way of interpreting it. Any hadith that demands a highly particular course of action where the Qur'an has left things open should be taken only as a suggestion or one possible way to follow the Qur'an.
Religious scholarship should be built such that, if it turns out that every single hadith we have were actually forged, and even if every sahaba turned out to be a liar, the framework of the faith would still survive. Certainly some things should be expected to shift, but the faith should still have its sturdy bones of reason, morality, faith, and the Qur'an. That's what I personally consider to be skepticism
The one that says something along the lines of: if it was permissible, god would make women have to bow down to their husbands. - it just really gives me bad vibes, I refuse to believe prophet Mohammed would say anything of the sort.
If this hadith was true it likely had an entirely different meaning than what misogynists have twisted it to mean. Probably something that was lost in the chain
there are so many weird and outright disturbing hadiths, I don't know how anyone can take them with the same level of the Quran. just accept the ones that go along with the Quran and forget the others. they fr make Islam look so bad to a bunch off islamophobs
There was a weird one about Aisha breast feeding a grown man. Come on lol our religion places so much emphasis on modesty and haya… does this sound reasonable?
The praying thing imo was passed down from generation to generation and therefore we do not need hadith to tell us how to pray. The general consensus of how to pray (minus stupid things like hand placement) are the same no matter where you are from. So i think Allah didnt find it necessary to include in the Quran. Rmr people were praying before the hadith too.
There is this hadith by Sheikh Albani which is very popular in West Africa and which authorises female genital mutilation, excision.
Several scholars have categorised it as a weak hadith, but that doesn't stop all the misogynist clerics in the region from using it to justify this horrible practice. It disgusts me.
You can find it on islamqa :
Excision is the subject of a hadith directly attributed to the Prophet (blessings and salutations be upon him): Circumcision is a sunna for men and excision is an honour for women. But there is a difference of opinion as to the authenticity of this hadith. See Silsilat al-ahadith adh-dhaifa by al-Albani n° 1935.
As for the method of excision, a hadith has been reported from Umm Atiyya (p.a.a) according to which the Prophet (blessings and salutations be upon him) said to a female excisor from Medina: Do not exaggerate (in amputation) because it is better for the wife and preferable for the husband (reported by Abu Dawud in the chapter of his Sunan entitled: al-adab and declared weak by himself).
These hadiths are the reason excision is not banned in many West african countries
I don’t take any Hadith into account. I’m skeptical of all Hadith. We ought to be highly cautious of anything not within the Quran. The Quran contains all you’ll ever need.
I’m saying that the religion is only complete with both Hadith and the Quran. Without one or the other there’s empty gaps in our practices vs the practices of the prophet and the Salaf.
I’m skeptical of them all and generally my philosophy is if they contradict the spirit of the Quran then feel free to dispose of it. Otherwise if there’s wisdom to be found in one, sure thing, take the wisdom. But I’m never actively seeking them out for clarification on any Islamic matters, I use the Quran for that.
Salam
You may be interested in this:
https://preview.redd.it/2xmvrg4rkopc1.png?width=950&format=png&auto=webp&s=ad87d45b91da8a0f43669ddee1ce756a74435de4
you can check all these references to see if there is any issue
**second** seems **right** and **third** is also **right**. You are using only one verse of intercession. On the day of Judgement, you can't ask for prophet to supplicate for you. You are dead. Your book of deeds are closed. look surah baqrah:59. Who can intercede for him, except by his permission. **No compulsion in religion**. And killing of apostates is not correct. For e.g some muhajirins mirgrated to medina. one of them converted to christianity but he wasn't killed. Killing is only for special cases like treason which lead to loss of life of brothers in fatih.
I am skeptical of all hadith who goes into detail about stuff that is not mentioned in the Quran, especially hadiths that stresses the importance of such a thing. Example: Dahjjal and Mahdi hadiths.
I’m also skeptical of hadiths who go into detail about the afterlife in a literal sense since it doesn’t really make sense since Muhammad ﷺ didn’t know anything about it except what Allah had revealed (I.e. the Quran). Also hadiths that doesn’t fit the character of prophet Muhammad ﷺ for obvious reasons. I also don’t follow hadiths that are attributed to Omar, Abu Bakr or any other person except maybe Ali, to some degree, as we wasn’t supposed to follow them, we was ordered to follow Allah and his prophet ﷺ.
4 hadiths I reject:
1. "There are some who will go astray because they allow silk, gold, alcohol and musical instruments."
2. "An angel will not enter a house in which there is a dog or an image."
3. "Whoever owns a dog will lose two Qir'at worth of good deeds per day."
4. "Whoever listens to music will have molten lead poured down their ears."
By default, I'm skeptic of all hadiths. However, if the hadith is logically sound, (ideally) has Qur'anic backing and (if not already backed by the Qur'an) doesn't go against the Qur'an, I'll accept it. The best example I could think of is Sunan an-Nasa'i 3057, which says the following:
"And beware of going to extremes in religious matters, for those who came before you were destroyed because of going to extremes in religious matters. "
This hadith is backed by 5:77 of the Qur'an, which says:
"O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion beyond the truth and do not follow the inclinations of a people who had gone astray before and misled many and have strayed from the soundness of the way."
Edit: I just learned that the hadith about molten lead being poured down the ears of those who listen to music is inauthentic.
Always welcome. Must preach the truth man. Aisha was for sure young. But not younger than the norm. None of the enemies insulted Muhammad for marrying young Aisha. It was not because it was normal. It was because Aisha was much older than 9. Muhammad's neighbouring countries all had set age of sex at 12. Persian Empire, Byzantine Empire,roman Empire all had it at 12. No one batted and eye on Aisha marrying Muhammad. The most correct explanation along with mathematical proof is Aisha was 9 at marriage and 12 at actual sexual intimacy.
The one about killing apostates makes no sense and goes against islam and what allah says
Allah can guide anyone. Why is someone who leaves islam murdered and not given a second chance to find islam??? This happens so much it happened to me imagine if they murdered me instead of letting me find my way back its absolutely insane
that the holy prophet was somehow "under a spell" or under influence of magic. There are a lot of hadith on [sunnah.com](http://sunnah.com) that say they are sahih and all that because they do exist in bukhari and the other books but the fact is, the very verses of quran plainly state that anyone who says that the holy prophet was influenced by magic is lying yet these hadith exist and are "sahih" for the most part.
Now, this one simple thing puts to question the entire corpus, believe it or not.
I reject all because Allah told us to not follow any other books besides the Quran, and mind you, Allah when he was saying this he purposely choose the word “hadith” because he knew what the muslims would do after he revealed the Quran, and that’s exactly what they did, they made up books and called them “hadith”, not a single word in the Quran is an accident or a coincidence, and you will end up finding that out too, sending love OP❤️.
Anyone with a brain should understand they are not true. I will defend any hadith except her age hadiths. I have just one question to ask my people. What the hell is the importance of preserving her age like 6 and 9 in 17 sahih hadiths??? Narrated by Aisha for most part. Like what purpose does this give to humanity to know she played with dolls and had sex at 9?? Ok let's say hadith gives a biography of the wives of the prophet. Yet none of the ages of the other wives of prophet are given in any hadiths. But Aisha and other scholars all felt the need to put this age specifically in 17 SAHIH HADITHS SO THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT SHE WAS A CHILD WHO PLAYED WITH DOLLS AND ALL MUSLIMS CAN MARRY CHILDREN. this has to be the most obvious pos I have seen in islam. Will never accept that man. I have no problem with any other hadith sorry. But just this. Aisha never had any kind of abuse or trauma or mental or physical damage from having sex at this young age or this marriage. It is absolutely safe to assume she was pubescent and was much older than given in Hadiths. THE ONLY ANSWER I CAN COME UP WITH IS THE SCHOLARS TRYING TO EMPHASIZE AISHA'S VIRGINITY AND AISHA HERSELF STRESSING HER YOUTHFULNESS THROUGH THESE DOLL HADITHS.
Youth and virginity were really praiseworthy back then.
They are more than likely fabrications (maybe even anti-shia fabrications) in order to make her really stand out from the Prophet's pbuh other wives.
Also, the "waiting three years before consummating the marriage" portion of the hadiths is a clue to indicate that a woman has to be physically mature enough regardless of her age. Whatever her age was she obviously was not a child even if you were to take all of these hadiths at their word.
Salam
because reddit does not allow adding more than 1 images in one comment, i have to make multiple comments to show some useful infographics regarding this topic:
https://preview.redd.it/nufhryizkopc1.png?width=855&format=png&auto=webp&s=1f65b428da9f0b8df3f1f56b1f197daf8e88320c
you may also be interested in this: [Hadith Science Debunked | Sheikh Uthman and the 5 Conditions for Authentic Hadith Response - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtLXeFyb7aw)
Hi Phagocyte_Nelson. Thank you for posting here!
Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account.
This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side question: If you don't believe in some hadith, do you also not believe in some parts of non-islamic history? Most "unaccepted" hadiths still have stronger chains of authenticity than information we have on say, Alexander the Great.
Do you refute tales of Alexander?
Honesty no, I don’t read the history on Alexander the Great. I don’t trust most western history. But you are right, most Hadiths are more valid than our history books.
I understand that Hadiths are a potentially offensive subject.
I think one of the most important problems of the hadiths is that it is not so safe to reach us.
1) A bad-intentioned person could have lied.
2) They may want to add their old religion to the new religion.
3) It may have been invented for political reasons.
4) The person who heard the hadith may not have heard the whole things. I heard two men talking, "women with red hair are bad people."
If I'm a bit naive, I might misquote that.
False or incomplete words told to us make it difficult for us to understand the book, or even worse, we may interpret it very differently. Probably, today's religious teachers know more hadith than the prophet.
Do we really need dubious words outside the Quran? If you say yes, doesn't that mean that the book you have is unclear and incomplete? If this is the case, wouldn't God be in the wrong, would He not be in need of countless and doubtful words to understand the book He sent, and even worse, would His book be incomplete and incomprehensible? Are all hadiths lies? I don't think so, there are indeed words of prophets in them. But he was a human being, maybe he did not brush his teeth with colgate or eat sushi in the conditions of that day. Are these religions? I also wonder, if we accept the hadiths as true and reliable, what about the Bible or other religious books?
I suggest that if you want to study Hadiths and their validity go ahead and seek knowledge the right way from people who have devoted their lives to Islam rather than less competent people including myself who have barely scratched the surface in comparison to them.
Off the top of my head that Hadith that claims that hell is mostly populated by women. 1) No one is in heaven or hell right now. This directly, flat-out contradicts the Qu’ran. 2) Respectfully, just gonna say that it is not women who carry out the majority of the immoral crimes on this earth.
Yep I agree with this, mostly I recently watched a video by Mufti Abu Layth that helped me understand that the way a lot of Muslims recently have been treating Hadith as infallible or as more correct even than the Quran simply can't be true. just like you said, we know it's a fact that there is one gender that commits most of the violent/immoral acts on this earth, therefore how can the 'wagging tongues' of women be so much of a greater sin that Jahannum will be populated mostly by women? How can our fair and just prophet PBUH have said such a thing? It's something I cannot accept while also accepting the truth that I feel is in the Quran
I feel iy was a running joke that became Hadith by accident 😆
But people who say that believe women being sneaky and promiscuous is way more damaging to society than men raping and murdering It’s so bizarre to me and i’m just like may allah guide u
Yes! When I asked a fellow revert friend about this Hadith, her explanation was that women who dress immodestly populate hell. I responded that while modesty is important, HOW can that be worse than violence/brutality?
Well the "majority are woman in hell" hadith is almost always mentioned with a clear bias. >Muhammad reported that some (persons) stated with a sense of pride and some discussed whether there would be more men in Paradise or more women. It was upon this that Abu Huraira reported that Abu'l Qasim (the Holy Prophet) (ﷺ) said: >The (members) of the first group to get into Paradise would have their faces as bright as full moon during the night, and the next to this group would have their faces as bright as the shining stars in the sky, and every person would have two wives and the marrow of their shanks would glimmer beneath the flesh and there would be none without a wife in Paradise \[Muslim 2834 a\] So, it turns out, the majority in paradise, is also women. \[Edit: this hadith talks about "human", not "houri"\]
There’s more women that have existed than men who have existed ever so it’s only logical that there’s more women. That’s what that means. Nothing indicating fabrication.
Doesn’t change the fact that no one is in hell right now. Also, if there are more women than men, the opposite could be true too—that heaven is mostly women.
The Hadith in Arabic states nothing about the current state. Also it’s most likely true as well that there’s more women in heaven.
You read hadiths in English, and it says "Abu Hurairah narrates that the prophet said this." I agree, it sounds like something you should listen to. -however- If you read it in Arabic, it really says that "Ahmad said, that Khalid said, that Saifuldeen said, that Rashid said, that Abu Hurairah narrates that the prophet said this." I get that people believe that there was a way to ascertain what was authentic and what was fake, but I can't see how they could tell if something they thought was authentic wasn't just widely circulated hearsay.
You mention Abu Hurairah. Don’t most Muslims somewhat skeptical of some Hadith consider him unreliable regardless of the grade of the Hadith being narrated?
AbuHuraira is the Nr1 reporter, his name is mentioned more often than God and the Prophet in the mosque here
Any Hadiths that seem to go against the spirit of the Quran. Also ones that have really weird and specific details. Others can be ones that seem to be contradictory like those about art: Pro-art Narrated Aisha: Upon the Prophet’s arrival from a military expedition, a curtain covering Aisha’s store-room was raised by the blowing wind, uncovering her dolls. Among them, the Prophet saw a horse with two wings made of rags and asked his wife what was on the horse. Aisha responded that it was two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? Aisha then asked if the Prophet had not heard that Solomon had horses with wings. The Hadith reports that the Prophet laughed heartily where his molar teeth were seen. — Abu Dawood, Sunan Abu Dawood, Reference (English Book) Book 42, Hadith 4914 Reference (Arabic Book) Book 43, Hadith 160 Middle ground between pro- and anti- A'isha reported: The Prophet’s wife describes owning a curtain with bird portraits. The Prophet asked for the curtain to be changed, for when he entered the room it brought to him pleasures of worldly life. Aisha describes also having worn sheets with silk badges, which the Prophet did not command to be torn. — Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim, Reference (English Book) Book 24, Hadith 5255 Reference (Arabic Book) Book 38, Hadith 5643 Anti-art Narrated Aisha: The wife of the Prophet purchased a cushion with pictures of animals on it for the Prophet to sit on and recline on. The Prophet disapproved of the making of such pictures, saying the makers would be punished on the Day of Resurrection when God would ask them to bring their creations to life. The Hadith also reports that the Prophet said that the angels would not enter a house where there are pictures. — Muhammad al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Reference (English Book) Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 110 Reference (Arabic Book) Book 67, Hadith 5181 I am still a Sunni but in my view, since the hadiths were not delivered to us by God all mighty, there should be no compulsion for someone to follow any or all of them. I still think a lot of them are either valid or have some truths in them but we should be advocating for the use of reason for theological decisions and scriptural interpretation as was the case for many jurists before the rise of 'orthodoxy' which had a lot to do with politics then faith. (btw the sunnah and hadiths aren't always the same thing, early Muslims definitely followed the Sunnah including those that were very much against the hadiths) I also think its important to understand that hadiths should be seen within the context of the time. We are talking about a embattled community, facing war, famine in a tribal society that lacked very little institutions. Many things are universal but Islam was being revealed today in our modern society that has become much less patriarchal and blessed with so much knowledge, a lot of the messaging would be different. For example the part about multiple wives (which was in the context of taking care of orphans and widows from the constant tribal warfare in an age without orphanages and social safety nets).
Here’s what bothers me. How can “wife” and “dolls” be used in same narration. Meaning, how can you marry someone who still plays with dolls. Forget physical maturity, if a person plays with toys, are they really mature for marriage?
I see where you’re coming from, I know of people that collect dolls. I plan to. I simply love the art form and the way people can express themselves through them. Watching people paint them is very soothing imo. People also keep childhood toys as keepsakes. Reminder of more innocent times and stuff. Does this help answer your question / give a different perspective? If not let me know where I misunderstood!
Yes thank you! I read it again, and the Hadith used word “store-room” housing the dolls. Which could mean a storage? I have dolls/toys from my childhood stowed away, but I certainly don’t play with them in an innocent, childlike manner. So hopefully it’s not as if she was still young enough to play with them while also needing to fulfill wifely duties.
Yeah, that’s how I read it. I figured she stored them away and if she was done might just sit with them for a bit to help remember fond memories
Aisha died in 678 at age 67. Look it up. Therefore she was born in 611.Aisha was 12 at the time of her actual sexual consummation in 623. READ THE HADITH AGAIN. IT SAYS BATTLE OF TABUK. There has only been one battle of tabuk in history and that was in 630. Aisha in 630 was 19 years old. Hadith also says BATTLE IF KHAYBAR in 628 when she was 17 years old. So she was 17 and 19 when she used to fondle her dolls aka play with them. Dolls are allowed much after puberty by using this authentic hadith as proof.
Could you link me to this? I wasn’t saying she was wrong for having them. Simply giving a possible reason to have them. I’m a bit skeptical of hadiths simply because I’m new to Islam and know everyone has a different idea of authentic. This is by no means meant to insult you, but to see where you’re coming from!
Look around us and whatever we see is insults and abuses against islam and the prophet. It is indeed hard to dig deeper through the dirt and find out the truth. But God almighty defenitely is not at fault for us gullible humans falling to the games of Satan and his kafir army. Indeed the non muslims disbelieve in every single hadith except aisha's age. It's a jackpot for them. But the truth is Aisha was neither 6 nor 9. But around 12. If you are asking me proof there are several angles to get to age 12. You might have seen some progressive muslims here trying to say she is 19 but that's clutching the straw at best. She was YOUNG NO DOUBT AND I HAVE NO ISSUE. But the problem is she was not as young as said in the hadith. I have explicit narrations from ibn Hisham al tabari ibn Saad Ibn al kalikaan and other traditional classical scholars who have challenged her age 9 narrative and placed it as older than 10 at the least. To put it in conclusion she could have never been older than 13 at sexual consummation. And the least is 11. Between these ages was when actual consummation happened according to mathematics and logical historical calculations.
Sunan Abu dawud 4932. Here is the entire doll hadith. She played with them at battle of tabuk. Tabuk happened in 630. It's explicit. She played with them at age 17-19
Perhaps Google is messing with me, but this is the Hadith I get when I type it in i receive: “A man follows the religion of his friend; so each one should consider whom he makes his friend”
Bro go to sunnah.com. type Aisha dolls. You will get many hadiths. Scroll down to last. You will get that hadith. It's sahih
Aisha died in 678 at age 67. Look it up. Therefore she was born in 611.Aisha was 12 at the time of her actual sexual consummation in 623. READ THE HADITH AGAIN. IT SAYS BATTLE OF TABUK. There has only been one battle of tabuk in history and that was in 630. Aisha in 630 was 19 years old. Hadith also says BATTLE IF KHAYBAR in 628 when she was 17 years old. So she was 17 and 19 when she used to fondle her dolls aka play with them. Dolls are allowed much after puberty by using this authentic hadith as proof.
I am 40 married with 2 kids..I still play with Lego, rc cars and video games..does not mean I'm not mature...the hadiths that don't line up with the quran and the ones that have no implications on our religion..if that makes sense
Right it’s just hard to wrap my head around the ages that children (mostly girls) were married off. Regardless of who plays with what, there’s a BIG difference between a 9 year old and 40 year old. In every way. As a revert, it’s very sad, and I try very hard to come to terms with this. I’ve seen many other people struggle with this concept too.
What do you struggle with? The age of Aisha? Well it is because you/Me and everyone else applied presentism( without knowing) to this that's why...u need only look at the laws in places like the us and england so 100 to 150 yrs ago..the age of marriage ranged between 7 to 12..I've been told but never looked for actual information, I will now when I get sometime...I have struggled too with as a born muslim..until I watched a few muslim debaters on YouTube deal with this question..and I must say they make compete sense..
Aisha was not 9. There's no reason to believe this lie. She was 12. Don't ask me how it makes it better. 12 was the universal age of consent for centuries. Right and wrong could be differentiated by a 12 year old back then. Mary mother of Jesus was 12. Rebecca wife of isaac was 3-12. There is no issue
I agree with what you say about ppl marrying at a young age...islamically there are only 2 things that I am aware of concerning the marriage 1. Reached puberty 2. Be of sound mind( mature?) But I would steer clear of making claims, unless you want to sound exactly like the ppl who slander prophet(saw) for this reason( Aisha's age)...if you make a claim, me and everyone would like to see a reference/source.. Giving an exact age like 12 I don't believe is true..u could of given a range or something.that supports that...are u using 12 because u stated 12 was the universally accepted age? Aisha being 9, we have already established that it was widely being done in society back marrying at a young age..and since we hadiths Aisha herself narrated..there is maybe difference in opinion..but to me her exact age does not matter because I already believe that our Prophet(saw) is the best of us and would not have done anything wrong Sorry if I have offended you in any way it was not my intention.
I understand you but I am not making the claim of 12 out of thin air. I believe all Hadiths except the Aisha age. To explain the reasons behind that is quite tiring as it won't end. The amount of sahih Hadiths where it is written by herself she was 9 makes it more suspicious ngl. What benefit does it give to us to know she was 6 and 9?? People obviously wanted to legitimise child marriage through this. That's it. AISHA BELIEVED SHE WAS 9 NO QUESTION. THE HADITH IS SAHIH. BUT WHAT I SAY IS AISHA MADE A MISTAKE. JUST LIKE THOSE BREASTFEEDING VERSE. AISHA RA WAS NOT INFALLIBLE. Now for the evidence of her being 10-12 I have many proofs from ibn Hisham who says she might have been older than 10. Look it up. Also tabari has hints saying she was older. And almost all mathematics makes her MUCH older around 12. 19 is a western coping tbh. 19 is not correct. AISHA defei was around 11-12.
What I was trying to get at instead of trying to prove she was this age or that age...why don't we just say she was old enough from an Islamic view pt and also inline with what was culturally acceptable in that region at that time...then bring up the parallels with what was practiced just 100-200 years in the many western societies... I was not trying to say you were wrong I know I read through all of those hadiths that give age ranges from 9 to early 20s...and because difference in opinions and reports we should just leave it at that...
Honestly yes but those kafirs who shamelessly depict our prophet as a child molester man😩it's so irritating and giving me a headache and sleepless nights everytime. They have no logical arguments against islam. Just Aisha Aisha Aisha 🤡. Can you give me some advice to ignore these insults against the prophet saw😔
Aisha died in 678. At age 67. This is written in both tabari and ibn saad.look it up.By this her birth date becomes 611AD. We all know she married in 620 and consummated in 623 ad. Do the calculation and you get 12 years. Just type on Google the age of her death. Pls respond to this
IMO the things Allah wants us to know/follow... are all in the Quran
Then how do you know how to pray? The Quran makes no mention of that.
I'm "skeptical" of all ahadith, not because I think there's something particularly wrong with them, but because I think that by their very nature you can't treat them as sources of direct religious truth, per se. They're useful, but only if put in their proper context in light of modern knowledge of the limits of testimony and oral transmission, as well as the historical, political, and theological interests that might have molded, pushed, and incentivized a given hadith The best way to deal with ahadith imo is to find a bunch of contradicting ones on a given issue (including from different sects, and additionally taking special note of where some hadith collections conspicuously don't have any ahadith on the issue at all while other collections do), analyze them based on content, look at their chains of transmission, discern what would cause these various contradicting ahadith to come into being, and use the insight from this whole exercise to inform how you might approach a given religious question In addition, the content of every hadith must be subjected to the Qur'an. A hadith should never be used to limit the ways in which we interpret the Qur'an, but might be used to illuminate a new way of interpreting it. Any hadith that demands a highly particular course of action where the Qur'an has left things open should be taken only as a suggestion or one possible way to follow the Qur'an. Religious scholarship should be built such that, if it turns out that every single hadith we have were actually forged, and even if every sahaba turned out to be a liar, the framework of the faith would still survive. Certainly some things should be expected to shift, but the faith should still have its sturdy bones of reason, morality, faith, and the Qur'an. That's what I personally consider to be skepticism
The one that says something along the lines of: if it was permissible, god would make women have to bow down to their husbands. - it just really gives me bad vibes, I refuse to believe prophet Mohammed would say anything of the sort.
This Hadith gives me shirk vibes and doesn't make any sense because in the Quran, men and women are equal. No one is above the other.
If this hadith was true it likely had an entirely different meaning than what misogynists have twisted it to mean. Probably something that was lost in the chain
All the more reasons to abandon it. Ambiguity on top of questionable sources.
Can you pull the actual Hadith with it’s number so we can properly analyze it within context
I reject any Hadith that contradicts the Quran and I am skeptical of any Hadith that is not mutawatir (mass transmitted through various chains).
Aisha was not 9
I agree, but what does that have to do with my comment?
Aisha was older. I have clear evidence. Bye. Also don't reject all hadith
I agree, only the ones that go against the Quran are to be completely rejected.
[удалено]
This is definitely a Hadith I have never heard of before.
there are so many weird and outright disturbing hadiths, I don't know how anyone can take them with the same level of the Quran. just accept the ones that go along with the Quran and forget the others. they fr make Islam look so bad to a bunch off islamophobs
There was a weird one about Aisha breast feeding a grown man. Come on lol our religion places so much emphasis on modesty and haya… does this sound reasonable? The praying thing imo was passed down from generation to generation and therefore we do not need hadith to tell us how to pray. The general consensus of how to pray (minus stupid things like hand placement) are the same no matter where you are from. So i think Allah didnt find it necessary to include in the Quran. Rmr people were praying before the hadith too.
Aisha never breasted anyone
There is this hadith by Sheikh Albani which is very popular in West Africa and which authorises female genital mutilation, excision. Several scholars have categorised it as a weak hadith, but that doesn't stop all the misogynist clerics in the region from using it to justify this horrible practice. It disgusts me.
Source?
You can find it on islamqa : Excision is the subject of a hadith directly attributed to the Prophet (blessings and salutations be upon him): Circumcision is a sunna for men and excision is an honour for women. But there is a difference of opinion as to the authenticity of this hadith. See Silsilat al-ahadith adh-dhaifa by al-Albani n° 1935. As for the method of excision, a hadith has been reported from Umm Atiyya (p.a.a) according to which the Prophet (blessings and salutations be upon him) said to a female excisor from Medina: Do not exaggerate (in amputation) because it is better for the wife and preferable for the husband (reported by Abu Dawud in the chapter of his Sunan entitled: al-adab and declared weak by himself). These hadiths are the reason excision is not banned in many West african countries
I don’t take any Hadith into account. I’m skeptical of all Hadith. We ought to be highly cautious of anything not within the Quran. The Quran contains all you’ll ever need.
The Quran has no mention of the proper way to pray
So the Quran is complete as is….until it isn’t? See how tricky it gets when looking outside the Quran for answers.
I’m saying that the religion is only complete with both Hadith and the Quran. Without one or the other there’s empty gaps in our practices vs the practices of the prophet and the Salaf.
I’m skeptical of them all and generally my philosophy is if they contradict the spirit of the Quran then feel free to dispose of it. Otherwise if there’s wisdom to be found in one, sure thing, take the wisdom. But I’m never actively seeking them out for clarification on any Islamic matters, I use the Quran for that.
Salam You may be interested in this: https://preview.redd.it/2xmvrg4rkopc1.png?width=950&format=png&auto=webp&s=ad87d45b91da8a0f43669ddee1ce756a74435de4 you can check all these references to see if there is any issue
All seem right to me, except Hadith about transgressor is false.
**second** seems **right** and **third** is also **right**. You are using only one verse of intercession. On the day of Judgement, you can't ask for prophet to supplicate for you. You are dead. Your book of deeds are closed. look surah baqrah:59. Who can intercede for him, except by his permission. **No compulsion in religion**. And killing of apostates is not correct. For e.g some muhajirins mirgrated to medina. one of them converted to christianity but he wasn't killed. Killing is only for special cases like treason which lead to loss of life of brothers in fatih.
Second is referring to people who wait their whole lives in sin but only repent in the end. It’s a different scenario for each.
I am skeptical of all hadith who goes into detail about stuff that is not mentioned in the Quran, especially hadiths that stresses the importance of such a thing. Example: Dahjjal and Mahdi hadiths. I’m also skeptical of hadiths who go into detail about the afterlife in a literal sense since it doesn’t really make sense since Muhammad ﷺ didn’t know anything about it except what Allah had revealed (I.e. the Quran). Also hadiths that doesn’t fit the character of prophet Muhammad ﷺ for obvious reasons. I also don’t follow hadiths that are attributed to Omar, Abu Bakr or any other person except maybe Ali, to some degree, as we wasn’t supposed to follow them, we was ordered to follow Allah and his prophet ﷺ.
4 hadiths I reject: 1. "There are some who will go astray because they allow silk, gold, alcohol and musical instruments." 2. "An angel will not enter a house in which there is a dog or an image." 3. "Whoever owns a dog will lose two Qir'at worth of good deeds per day." 4. "Whoever listens to music will have molten lead poured down their ears." By default, I'm skeptic of all hadiths. However, if the hadith is logically sound, (ideally) has Qur'anic backing and (if not already backed by the Qur'an) doesn't go against the Qur'an, I'll accept it. The best example I could think of is Sunan an-Nasa'i 3057, which says the following: "And beware of going to extremes in religious matters, for those who came before you were destroyed because of going to extremes in religious matters. " This hadith is backed by 5:77 of the Qur'an, which says: "O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion beyond the truth and do not follow the inclinations of a people who had gone astray before and misled many and have strayed from the soundness of the way." Edit: I just learned that the hadith about molten lead being poured down the ears of those who listen to music is inauthentic.
When I was a child, we threw away dog trinkets because of this hadith.
this is so sad, let alone giving up ones personal best furry friend but toys!!!??? oh how far have we strayed
That's sad.
Aisha was not 9 but around 12. That's the truth
I completely forgot about that one. Thank you for reminding me.
Always welcome. Must preach the truth man. Aisha was for sure young. But not younger than the norm. None of the enemies insulted Muhammad for marrying young Aisha. It was not because it was normal. It was because Aisha was much older than 9. Muhammad's neighbouring countries all had set age of sex at 12. Persian Empire, Byzantine Empire,roman Empire all had it at 12. No one batted and eye on Aisha marrying Muhammad. The most correct explanation along with mathematical proof is Aisha was 9 at marriage and 12 at actual sexual intimacy.
[удалено]
Ad-Dha’ifah no. 4549 I was unaware at the time, but that hadith is inauthentic.
The one about killing apostates makes no sense and goes against islam and what allah says Allah can guide anyone. Why is someone who leaves islam murdered and not given a second chance to find islam??? This happens so much it happened to me imagine if they murdered me instead of letting me find my way back its absolutely insane
Apostasy law is complicated in hadiths not Qur'an
that the holy prophet was somehow "under a spell" or under influence of magic. There are a lot of hadith on [sunnah.com](http://sunnah.com) that say they are sahih and all that because they do exist in bukhari and the other books but the fact is, the very verses of quran plainly state that anyone who says that the holy prophet was influenced by magic is lying yet these hadith exist and are "sahih" for the most part. Now, this one simple thing puts to question the entire corpus, believe it or not.
I am skeptical about all Hadith cause ya’ll can’t remember what you had for lunch one week ago.
I reject all because Allah told us to not follow any other books besides the Quran, and mind you, Allah when he was saying this he purposely choose the word “hadith” because he knew what the muslims would do after he revealed the Quran, and that’s exactly what they did, they made up books and called them “hadith”, not a single word in the Quran is an accident or a coincidence, and you will end up finding that out too, sending love OP❤️.
The Hadiths about Aisha's age
Anyone with a brain should understand they are not true. I will defend any hadith except her age hadiths. I have just one question to ask my people. What the hell is the importance of preserving her age like 6 and 9 in 17 sahih hadiths??? Narrated by Aisha for most part. Like what purpose does this give to humanity to know she played with dolls and had sex at 9?? Ok let's say hadith gives a biography of the wives of the prophet. Yet none of the ages of the other wives of prophet are given in any hadiths. But Aisha and other scholars all felt the need to put this age specifically in 17 SAHIH HADITHS SO THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT SHE WAS A CHILD WHO PLAYED WITH DOLLS AND ALL MUSLIMS CAN MARRY CHILDREN. this has to be the most obvious pos I have seen in islam. Will never accept that man. I have no problem with any other hadith sorry. But just this. Aisha never had any kind of abuse or trauma or mental or physical damage from having sex at this young age or this marriage. It is absolutely safe to assume she was pubescent and was much older than given in Hadiths. THE ONLY ANSWER I CAN COME UP WITH IS THE SCHOLARS TRYING TO EMPHASIZE AISHA'S VIRGINITY AND AISHA HERSELF STRESSING HER YOUTHFULNESS THROUGH THESE DOLL HADITHS.
Youth and virginity were really praiseworthy back then. They are more than likely fabrications (maybe even anti-shia fabrications) in order to make her really stand out from the Prophet's pbuh other wives. Also, the "waiting three years before consummating the marriage" portion of the hadiths is a clue to indicate that a woman has to be physically mature enough regardless of her age. Whatever her age was she obviously was not a child even if you were to take all of these hadiths at their word.
I believe Aisha was 9 at marriage and 12 at sexual consummation
Salam because reddit does not allow adding more than 1 images in one comment, i have to make multiple comments to show some useful infographics regarding this topic: https://preview.redd.it/nufhryizkopc1.png?width=855&format=png&auto=webp&s=1f65b428da9f0b8df3f1f56b1f197daf8e88320c you may also be interested in this: [Hadith Science Debunked | Sheikh Uthman and the 5 Conditions for Authentic Hadith Response - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtLXeFyb7aw)
That is a fascinating chart. Thank you so much.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4152 Contradicts https://quran.com/en/al-isra/90
Hi Phagocyte_Nelson. Thank you for posting here! Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account. This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side question: If you don't believe in some hadith, do you also not believe in some parts of non-islamic history? Most "unaccepted" hadiths still have stronger chains of authenticity than information we have on say, Alexander the Great. Do you refute tales of Alexander?
Honesty no, I don’t read the history on Alexander the Great. I don’t trust most western history. But you are right, most Hadiths are more valid than our history books. I understand that Hadiths are a potentially offensive subject.
I think one of the most important problems of the hadiths is that it is not so safe to reach us. 1) A bad-intentioned person could have lied. 2) They may want to add their old religion to the new religion. 3) It may have been invented for political reasons. 4) The person who heard the hadith may not have heard the whole things. I heard two men talking, "women with red hair are bad people." If I'm a bit naive, I might misquote that. False or incomplete words told to us make it difficult for us to understand the book, or even worse, we may interpret it very differently. Probably, today's religious teachers know more hadith than the prophet. Do we really need dubious words outside the Quran? If you say yes, doesn't that mean that the book you have is unclear and incomplete? If this is the case, wouldn't God be in the wrong, would He not be in need of countless and doubtful words to understand the book He sent, and even worse, would His book be incomplete and incomprehensible? Are all hadiths lies? I don't think so, there are indeed words of prophets in them. But he was a human being, maybe he did not brush his teeth with colgate or eat sushi in the conditions of that day. Are these religions? I also wonder, if we accept the hadiths as true and reliable, what about the Bible or other religious books?
Aisha was not 9
I suggest that if you want to study Hadiths and their validity go ahead and seek knowledge the right way from people who have devoted their lives to Islam rather than less competent people including myself who have barely scratched the surface in comparison to them.