Mohammad

"And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others." The Qur'an 47:4

Secondly, the Qur'an recognizes that those with knowledge will deal with certain passages of the Qur'an in a different manner than other people.

The second meaning of 'adalah is the hadith relevant meaning of 'adalah which simply refers to the honesty and truthfulness of the *hadith transmitting Sahabah*. As stated in many places, this is a historical claim first and foremost and may be justified as so.

The reason why this is taken as a dcotrine of ASWJ and none of the early competing heretical sects ever doubt it is because the authenticity of the Qur'an itself is reliant on its accurate and honest transmission. One cannot coherently authenticate the Qur'an without this adalah

Many moderns think hadith studies is an irrelevant field, not knowing the amount of detail, rigour, and pattern recognition pre-moderns were able to do with their minds. Think of the muhaddith as an early, pre-modern, information theorist and applied probabilist. <End Thread>

These are examples of some of the indicators the muhaddithin looked at when determining the reliability of a transmitter. As you can see, most of these indicators really are independent of theology. They are, for the most part, objective historical criteria.

Early critics primarily looked at a transmitter’s reports when analysing his reliability: 1. Are they corroborated? Or exclucive? 2. Do they conflict with others’ transmission? 3. Who does he transmit the report from?

But our friends, the Usūlis, end up projecting their own distorted notion of ‘Adālah onto the Sahabah. What’s the result? They automatically set themselves up for failure because there are tens of examples of Sahabis committing major sins.

It’s a historical discipline, and it’s ultimate purpose is to independently and objectively ascertain the historicity of traditions and reports. Muslims do a disservice to hadith when they present it as a theologically-charged, dogmatic discipline.

The utimate question asked by a muhaddith is: “Do we have sufficient reasons to conclude that the events described in this report actually occured?” Every single technicality in the hadith sciences (directly or indirectly) revolves around this fundamental question.

If I show you, will you stop worshipping Ali?

Do it 10 verses at a time, start by reading them at least twice, then start memorizing, and in each prayer use them so you won’t forget them later on, doing this you can memorize at least one page of the Quran each day. Make sure that you go back to the verses you memorized.

This a false analogy that probably stems from a lack of exposure to the variation present in Sunni and Shia pools of transmission. Several factors come into play when evaluating the differences in both disciplines:https://twitter.com/Lets_B_Cereal/status/1061304691907313671 …

Al-Bujairi continues with this pattern in hundred of hadiths. In other words, those that don't trust Al-Bukhari don't need to. His work has been preserved by the efforts of others that have demonstrated his reliability in collecting and documenting hadiths. 5/5

Often, when we weaken reports that are of particular interest to certain crowds, they suddenly decide to hop onto the bandwagon and uphold the standards of textual criticism In other contexts, they usually dismiss, undermine or abandon the discipline & whatever it may entail

We may both come to the same conclusion that a certain report is not authentic to the Prophet, but rest assured that we may be, in reality, light-years apart There's a fundamental difference between conclusions that stem from: - Objective evidence & data & - Desire & hawa

Wondering where all your free time is going? Start tomorrow by listing out your activities and how long you spend doing them. It could be as simple as "watching TV" or "spending time on twitter". You'll be surprised how much time is wasted on meaningless activities.