Robert or other knowledgeable JW contributor, just for the information of us non-experts, how many hadiths are there in these collections? Just how big a fraction is he calling spurious?
1%? 10%? More?

Posted by: ebonystone at January 4, 2009 1:20 PM

"The problem, of course, is if Muslim scholars cast doubt on a single hadith in Bukhari and Muslim, the collections in their entirety become suspect. And without these two otherwise canonical hadith collections, Sunni Islam -- which relies more on the hadith than even the Koran when it comes to regulating life -- becomes unintelligible; sharia law falls apart."

Oh, please PLEASE "fall apart!"

This Mohammedan has acquired some wisdom in his old age.

Posted by: darcy at January 4, 2009 1:22 PM

* Those that talk bad about women - like the one’s that call them equal to dogs and cows and to beat them up and so on.
* Those that forbid the freedom of religion and that threaten those who leave Islam.
* Those with extreme ideas for encouraging people into Islam and the ones threatening people wit physical violence. - from the article above.

-

Is that buyer's remorse? Could it be that Mr al-Banna, by perhaps approaching his twilight years, might be afraid of being face to face with a god that truly rewards good deeds and punishes people that lead evil lives (someone more like the Christian version of God; rather than the blood-thirsty, vicious, womanizing and imaginary allah)? And could he be trying to repent by stating something like that about the hadiths aforementioned?

I'll keep watching this story as it develops...

Posted by: Proud_Kafir7908 at January 4, 2009 1:22 PM

Ebonystone:

653 is a significant number: although both SB and SM are made up of many volumes of hadith, many of these are repeats, so 653 is actually a big number.

The point, however, is methodology: even if the ulema were to agree that only one hadith in these collections is wrong, that would indicate that these collections are not, as has been long held by Sunnis, infallible.

Posted by: Raymond JW at January 4, 2009 1:28 PM

Do you think he'll get a fatwa issued against him?

He's definitely rocking the Mohammedan boat here.

Posted by: darcy at January 4, 2009 1:33 PM

Better yet all the haddiths, and koran are fakes. all of it was fabricated, some have even said muhammad did not even exist. these books were written years after muhammud's so called existence. great story Robert!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at January 4, 2009 1:42 PM

Tariq Ramadan's great-uncle?

Posted by: Silvester at January 4, 2009 1:44 PM

'Do you think he'll get a fatwa issued against him?'

Darcy, I'm wondering how it is this guy's still alive, since he's "used to being attacked by al-Azhar"? Perhaps being the brother of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood carries some protection (though I'd think not, and that he'd actually be most at risk from his "family", in that labyrinthine world).

I wish him much success, in any case.

Posted by: Vee at January 4, 2009 1:45 PM

The knots of Islam will be undone one by one until when everyone of them is undone, and the first one to be undone is the ruling and the last one is the prayer."

I guess that would make mohammad a prophet of some kind.

Posted by: Mr.Fitnah at January 4, 2009 1:50 PM

Could this be a sign of intelligent life in the mohammedan block?

Posted by: joeblough at January 4, 2009 1:50 PM

Thank you, Raymond JW.
Like Aisha in regard to Allah's revelations approving various of Mohammed's nasty practices, I can only say "how promptly the powers-that-be respond to their supplicant's request"!

Posted by: ebonystone at January 4, 2009 1:54 PM

via Hadeeth Sciences & Islamic History

So, the total number of ahadith contained in all of the well-known collections are 11,830 in number, and - as mentioned earlier - about 4,400 of these are authentic. And Allah Knows best.

Posted by: miira at January 4, 2009 1:57 PM

I believe the New Testament was fully completed within 50 years of Jesus's passing. Much of the Quran, and the hadiths do not come together for nearly 200 years after Mohammed.

Over the centuries there where thousands upon thousands of hadiths written up as the actions, and traditions of Mohammed, but most where created and sold as authentic hadiths by travelers and various provacateurs who manipulated the hadiths to achieve power over the centuries. It is one of the reasons there are around 28 different Islamic tribes that practice various interpretations of Islam, Sunni, and Shia of course being the most dominate. The practices of Waahabism doesn't come into Islamic history until around the 1790s' in Saudia Arabia.

Posted by: Mackie at January 4, 2009 2:07 PM

The only way Islam can come into the modern world, assuming this is possible, is if it's gutted like a fish. This article indicates to some extent how this could be done. I remember reading an article by Daniel Pipes from a few years ago in which he argued that much of Sharia might be applicable only to seventh-century Arabia and thus not meant for all time, this being another example of leaving ony a shell of Islam to be observed, the implication of which is that it would then be innocuous.

Of course, this is straining things to say the least and a reasonable person has to wonder why try to save Islam at all? What good is there in it that can't be found elsewhere? Also, it's a virtual guarantee that a portion of the Muslim world will not give up anything about Islam, be it some hadiths, large sections of Sharia or whatever and therefore violence and intolerance will remain a constant emanating from the Islamic element of mankind. Even if 95% of Muslims went some kind of modern route that would be acceptable to non-Muslims, that would still leave tens upon tens of milllions of Muslims who were purists and thus Muslim atrocities continuing into the indefinite future seem a given.

Personally, I don't think it very realistic to assume Islam can become tolerant as other faiths are. The test for me will be when churches, synagogues and other houses of worship can arise in Muslim countries, INCLUDING Saudi Arabia, with the same ease with which mosques have arisen in Western nations and when the preaching of other faiths to Muslims, as Muslims preach their faith to non-believers, can proceed unimpeded, devoid of threats and violence by Muslims.

And that day ain't ever gonna' come, now is it? When something is rotten to the core, best to give it up completely and move on. After all, what's the damn point in keepin' it?

Posted by: Wellington at January 4, 2009 2:10 PM

There's never been a religion that has had more phony baloney warnings written all over it.

My hat's off to Jamal al-Banna for his part in honest phony baloney labeling of the already obvious phony baloney.

Posted by: FM at January 4, 2009 2:15 PM

So is this genuine amendment and reform or just more Taqiyya?

Posted by: heatsketch at January 4, 2009 2:19 PM

So is this genuine amendment and reform or just more Taqiyya?
Posted by: heatsketch

This is camelshit. Just another "Good Cop" to keep as many of us Infidels guessing and off our guard as possible. And I see even a few of you guys fall for it. That shows it works to an extent, if even some Jihad Watch folks fall for it.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at January 4, 2009 2:23 PM

DenverRodeo, a drop in the ocean is just what it is: a drop in the ocean. And I think that Mr al-Bana is merely concerned about the fate of his own rear-end in the event that there might be an afterlife for himself.

I'd be really impressed if I saw not a drop in the ocean, but icebergs breaking off the ice shelves and causing tsunamis. But that's extremely unlikely. Islam's "ice shelves" are made of fossilized camel dung and located in the middle of deserts (where they could never even make small waves.)

Posted by: Proud_Kafir7908 at January 4, 2009 2:33 PM

Good work, Jamal al-Banna!! It's high time someone stirred things up in the Arab world concerning these issues. Don't mean to sound critical, but why did you wait so long? Oh well, better late than never, as they say.

Posted by: champ at January 4, 2009 2:37 PM

I knew, from some of his previous statements, that there was something unusual about him, but, given who he is, and where he is, and what Islam is, the only comment to be made is...wow!

Posted by: Hugh at January 4, 2009 2:37 PM

This is encouraging - an authoritative Islamic source repudiating some of the most repugnant pieces of the hadith.

May his views become accepted!

Posted by: Ernie Banks at January 4, 2009 2:39 PM

I wouldn't completely write off the value of this. If Islam is ever to come apart it will have to start somewhere and this isn't a bad start, if such it is. 1.2 billion adherents to Islam carry a lot of momentum in both numbers and their history, and its direction will not be changed overnight, neither by wishful thinking nor by exhortations. Personally, I think shutting down the Saudi money pipeline would be more effective than anything else. I won't be holding my breath, but this guy is willing to put his ass on the line, so let's watch and see what happens next. He's managed to live for two weeks already, but if I were a life insurance company I would sure be hesitant about issuing a policy (even not taking into account his age).

Slight OT, but does anyone know if Lloyds of London has any guidelines about issuing a life insurance policy for anyone on whom a fatwa has been pronounced?

Posted by: Eastview at January 4, 2009 2:49 PM

Ascendant Shia weakening the Sunni pillars.

Posted by: BL@KBIRD at January 4, 2009 2:57 PM

Robert debated a Professor a few weeks ago and posted it online.

They talked about "blowing on the embers"

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED.

If we can cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of Bukhari ahadith, the whole rotten structure of Islam will come crashing down.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at January 4, 2009 3:02 PM

Oops, when i said reasonable doubt, i meant that directed towards Muslims, not the critical thinkers here.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at January 4, 2009 3:11 PM

This is a sign of courage, but not of scholarship in the Western sense. What he is attacking, as is clear by the list of categories, is hadiths whose content seems wrong to him, on grounds of morality or taste; and while this reflects very well on his personal decency, it is not the way to demolish a text. The true believers will only reply that no doubt this seems absurd to you, but who are you to decide what is right or wrong to God? Especially, you remember, the Muslim notion of God, which is above such things as rationality. It shows a soul conflicted between the demands of real morality, the Golden Rule, and the need to remain loyal to the heroes of his religion and his people. And his solution is the classic one of trying to rewrite history to make those people better than they actually were. There is no future in it. But it might be a hopeful sign that the Golden Rule is creeping into Muslim minds.

Posted by: Paolo at January 4, 2009 3:14 PM

Eastview: funny point on Lloyd's of Londonistan...undoubtedly, they would never offer insurance for someone like Sal Rushdie because his deeds or acts contravened the unquestioned legitimacy and supremacy of Islam and its prophet. Essentially, he deserves to die. On the other hand, a thoroughly dhimmified leftard like George Galloway, who openly cheered Hezbullah in 2006, might get different treatment since he is (un)wittingly ushering in a dark Islamic era for a once proud State.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at January 4, 2009 3:18 PM

Wow. Good stuff.

Posted by: Josephine at January 4, 2009 3:26 PM

Sir Oinks, good points. I know that LoL rates are based on assessing actuarial risks, and they are famous for issuing policies in unusual circumstances (e.g., Betty Grabel's legs during WW II, as well as Madonna's legs, if you can believe that). This requires company analysts actually doing studies to asses risk in cases for which statistical data is sparse or non-existent. I wonder if anyone has ever done a risk/mortality study associated with death fatwas.

Posted by: Eastview at January 4, 2009 3:30 PM

Oh, i am sure they have. I am sure they are knee deep in Sharia financing too.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at January 4, 2009 3:32 PM

Al-Banna could be what is referred to as a mutation. That is encouraging in the very long term but alas..not helpful in the short term,ie; the next 200 years. Israel has stumbled onto a better short term solution.

Posted by: pismopal at January 4, 2009 3:36 PM

First, I find it amazing Hassan al-Banna still has a living sibling, since Hassan did his most significant act way back in 1928, by founding the Muslim Brotherhood.
But the most amazing part is that his brother is apparantly a thinking, rational human being, rather than a clone like Raul Castro is of his brother Fidel, for instance.
I'm sure there is still plenty to disagree with in Jamal al-Banna's thought, but when more Muslims like him decide that dropping the theological "loaded gun" pointed at non-Muslims makes sense, that's a great start, although honestly, so many crimes against humanity have been committed by Muslims as a direct result of these verses, I don't see a lot of justice in salvaging Islam, even in a transformed state, except for bringing 1.5 billion people's ego down gently to reality.

Posted by: Max Publius at January 4, 2009 3:38 PM

LOL...good point, pismopal. However, they are not prosecuting the war as effectively, ruthlessly, and mercilessly to ensure their citizens safety, security, and sovereignty. The triumvirate of Livni, Olmert, Barak were the architects of the botched pillow fight with Hizbullah in 2006. I fear and foresee a repeat.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at January 4, 2009 3:39 PM

Not this time, Sir Oinks. Notice the complete disregard of the Israeli governmen for all manifestations of "world" opinion. My guess is that this time, Ehud Olmert is mad as Hell and he's not going to take it any more. He is not, perhaps, the most honest or far-sighted Prime Minister in Israeli history, not the most competent or successful; but one thing that no honest person can deny is that nobody has done more for what the world calls peace, nobody has bent further backward to appease Palestinian hatred and prejudiced journalism. His thanks has been a two-year rain of rockets on his country.

Now two things can happen to a disappointed pacifist: either, like Jimmy Carter, he loses his mind altogether, starts ignoring reality, and becomes an extreme supporter of the enemy; or else, well, he loses his temper with a bang and forgets the good opinion of all his "friends" and of "world" public opinion, and he goes in with both fists swinging, to make the enemy pay for every betrayal, every lie, every piece of backstabbing for which he has had to suffer. REmember, too, that his political career is over: he has nothing to lose, not even his reputation - in fact, he may well manage a one-stop transition from Prime Minister's office to jail - so there are no reasons on Earth why he should appease anyone. Hamas have pushed the enemy too far and now they are going to find out what real war, not the nonsense preached by their ignorant clerics at Friday prayers, looks like. War is Hell, and they are looking at Hell in the face.

Posted by: Paolo at January 4, 2009 4:21 PM

I hope you're right, Paolo. So far it looks like you are. I just hope the U.S. doesn't go wobbly on Israel. They have two weeks to wrap things up before Obama takes office.

Posted by: Eastview at January 4, 2009 4:39 PM

Breastfeeding the Adult obviously falls into Category Six; improbable--Jamal al-Banna's reassessment of the Hadiths is is an advance of rationality and objective morality, and thus welcome. If only these ideas would gain substantial ground among the Umma; but how?

Posted by: John C at January 4, 2009 4:46 PM

English readers who want to read an objective deconstruction of the Hadith should read "Hadith - A Reevaluation" by Dr. Kassim Ahmad of Malaysia which is available free on line at http://www.barry-baker.com/Articles/documents/HADITH.pdf

This book was so "hot" that it was banned in Malaysia in 1986 to "safeguard the interests of the people and the country."

Posted by: Chris at January 4, 2009 5:24 PM

* Those that talk about Muhammad’s miracles.

LMAO!!! Yeah, what miracles?

Posted by: champ at January 4, 2009 5:47 PM

I'm sure there is still plenty to disagree with in Jamal al-Banna's thought, but when more Muslims like him decide that dropping the theological "loaded gun" verses pointed at the head of non-Muslims makes sense, that's a great start, although honestly, so many crimes against humanity have been committed by Muslims as a direct result of these verses, I don't see a lot of justice in salvaging Islam, even in a transformed state, except for bringing 1.5 billion people's supremacist ego down gently, so not to create another problem.

Posted by: Max Publius at January 4, 2009 6:01 PM

You can write all the books you want and be precise in your correctness, and it will not persuade Allah to ban any one of his books or any part of them.

Allah is a mind set that has ground into the Mohammadan group mentality for centuries, it is called Islam. Part of that mindset was influenced by Ahadith.

You cannot get rid of that by erasing pages.

Even if these particular hadith were removed, most Mohammadans would remember them and pass them on as stories about the Prophet, and how great he was.

Besides even if all ahadith were banned in Islam by agreement, they still have the Quran...If you think that's confusing now, try it with no Ahadith...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 4, 2009 7:02 PM

Hi Paolo:

Time will tell. After all, it has only been 8 days. We shall hope, and pray, that Israel will have the fortitude to persevere against mounting pressure that will intensify. God only knows what Obama's position will be. His silence scares me to no end. I never thought i'd take refuge in Hilary Clinton's support for Israel, but she might be the only one to dissuade Obama from trying to diminish Israel's will to continue the fight. Dark days ahead...?

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at January 4, 2009 7:37 PM

Sounds like this guy is the black sheep of the Al Banna family. "Baa-naa black sheep have you any..."

Posted by: Archimedes2 at January 4, 2009 10:10 PM

I think more and more Muslims will be casting doubt on the hadith as their content becomes better known in the West. At:

http://staringattheview.blogspot.com/2008/12/who-was-muhammad-part-4-influence-of.html

where I've recently been translating some of the TV broadcasts of Zakariya Boutros, I commented the following:

Although the hadiths quoted below indicate Muhammad's involvement in idolatry, Muslims can easily dismiss them by claiming they are "weak" or inauthoritative. It's interesting that even the hadiths of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which have been as authoritative as the Quran for 1400 years, are now said to be weak when they prove embarrassing. That was Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi's response to Wafa Sultan when she quoted the Bukhari hadith "Heaven is under the shadow of the sword." It is also the response of Western writers such as Reza Aslan (No god but God) and Sumbul Ali-Karamali (The Muslim Next Door) to the Bukhari hadith that Muhammad consumnated his marriage with Aysha when she was nine years old.

Posted by: staringattheview.blogspot.com at January 4, 2009 10:46 PM

The relevance of this effort remains to be seen. We'd be fools to read too much into it. On the other hand, we should welcome any and every breach of established theological protocol inside the ummah.

Posted by: Cornelius at January 4, 2009 11:13 PM

Okay, so he's debunking a good number of hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim. Before everybody starts singing hosannas in his praise, let him then get to the equivalent parts in the Qur'an, which in all their interpretations (note I didn't say 'translations) also sanction a lot of the above behavior, be it beating women (4:34), forbidding freedom of religion (2:190-193), and of all things, Mohammed's miracles. So is he either going to say that those verses in the Qur'an are false, or that they don't mean what the hadiths say they mean? (Aside from all those verses that tell Mohammedans to follow Allah by following Mohammed)

Part 2, assuming that the above materializes - getting Mohammedans, even in Egypt, to his side and starting that transformation of Islam.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 5, 2009 5:32 AM

Are we to believe that a logical or theological deficiency in Islamic history and practice will dampen the murderous fervor of Muslims by any amount?

They wouldn't be Muslims if they had high standards for scripture and history. If the local horoscope peddler of the day had adapted his wares to flatter the Arabs' chauvinism and authorized followers to murder, rape, and steal to become pious and holy the modern jihad would be bolstered by horoscopes and not a myth of Muhammad and Koran.

Once again, those that see the light point out the darkness among those that worship darkness. Muslims believe in Islam despite the Koran and Muhammad. Scholarship is a tool they use to attract non-Muslims.

Posted by: tscottme at January 5, 2009 7:40 AM