Talk:Criticism of hadith

@Drmies, sir I noticed some key parts were missing when FreeatlastChitchat "condensed" the material from Hallaq. This particular material that he subtracted, I think, is very relevant to the subject matter. I've re-added the parts, and will be willing to reduce the sentence count further. But the actual content/research of the author is very valid content that I think deserves to be here. I think that FreeatlastChitchat's selection of the material is going a bit far. I'll also ping Malik Shabazz for expert opinion as you originally suggest, I hear that he's active again. cӨde1+6^TP 07:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

p.s. To Clarify: The point about the "mutawatir" hadith and its extreme rarity is very important. This is the point that was completely subtracted. I think we can keep condensing the word count sourced from Hallaq further, but the actual points need to be kept. I'm positive that experts on the subject will agree with me that this will benefit this article. cӨde1+6^TP 17:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know very much about hadith, and even less about its criticism (despite my username, I'm Jewish, not Muslim). But if you're interested, I can offer you my opinion as an experienced Wikipedia editor. It would be helpful to have diffs of the edits that removed the material in question, or links to the article "before" and "after". Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Will do sir, below are the two relevant Diffs, including the original Hadith page edit. The content in contention is sourced from Wael Hallaq. It's clear that I have significantly condensed it (from around 600 words, to 300, including citation links etc.) So I think that the consensus is met (which was to condense material sourced from Hallaq.)

Current dispute

• 02:24, January 17, 2016

Original diff from November, which includes Hallaq's content restored by admin following FreeatlastChitchat's deletions

• 11:12, November 21, 2015

cӨde1+6^TP 21:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Code16. I hope FreeatlastChitchat will comment here as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz I removed the following text from the article

The problem; however, which Ibn al-Salah was trying to solve is the rarity of this class of hadith which qualify as "mutawatir." This class of hadith is "virtually non existent". Such hadiths are so rare that Ibn al-Salah could only find a single hadith which met the mutawatir criteria in his own search. Ironically, that hadith found by Ibn al-Salah, which is narrated by a hundred independent sources, quotes the Prophet warning others against the fabrication of hadith. Later Islamic legal theoreticians, like Ansari and Abd al-Shakur managed to find a few additional cases of mutawatir hadith. Still, the total number of mutawatir narrations was still "short of even eight or nine." This small set also does not include the hadith which alleges the infallibility of Muslim Community's consensus, which is classed as "tawatur ma nawi", a lower probabilistic reliability rating than mutawatir.

My rationale is as follows. Hallaq is basically criticising about a so called mutawatir hadith But according to Hallaq; Salah himself wrote that this theory is Fringe and acknowledged that this kind of definition of mutawatir is not present in the repertoire of traditionists. Ibn-e-Salah's view was fringe even in his own time and many muslims were against it and called it radi aka garbage. Hallaq is arguing against a Fringe theory that was considered Fringe at its time and trying to browbeat someone. Even though Hallaq is a scholar this kind of discussion has no place here. This is a very old discussion which discusses a fringe theory. Hadith terminology#Mutawatir shows that mutawatir has never been used in this sense since Salah. Therefore it is a WP:FRINGE theory which should be given space, but not that much space. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So apparently, FreeatlastChitchat thinks that Ibn al-Salah and his Introduction to the Science of Hadith is "fringe" (LOL.) This is funnier than his original accusation that I was "misrepresenting" Hallaq (turned out, he just misunderstood the terminology Hallaq was using.) There is a reason why Hallaq discusses him at length, and everyone can read the main articles to find out why. Also Mutawatir is STANDARD terminology, see Hadith terminology. So when FreeatlastChitchat says: "Hallaq is basically criticising about a so called mutawatir hadith" he is implying that this classification isn't real (when it obviously is.) And finally, why is this class of hadith significant? Well because of the following definition, stated on the main Hadith Terminology article: "A successive narration is one conveyed by narrators so numerous that it is not conceivable that they have agreed upon an untruth thus being accepted as unquestionable in its veracity." So it is the most authentic class of hadith and yet, it is "virtually non-existent." Therefore, obviously, this has relevance for the section entitled "Authenticity". cӨde1+6^TP 12:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Code16 I have never claimed that Salahs entire work is Fringe. Only that his definition of "Mutawatir" has never been picked up. According to source the definition of mutawatir is this

On the other hand, Ibn al-Salah argued that if a hadith is present in both the Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim collections, then it can be considered "certain knowledge," merely based on the fact that both of these collections are regarded by Muslims has authoritative........The problem; however, which Ibn al-Salah was trying to solve is the rarity of this class of hadith which qualify as "mutawatir."

Now this is a Fringe definition, no one else regards this definition of mutawatir to be true, rather they define it as a hadith which has a lot of narrators, Halla has himself given this definition and pointed out that the number required is kinda arbitrary. The difference is simple. The Widely used definition of mutawatir is a hadith which is narrated by lots of people. Lets say 5 is the number required. Now when 5 people narrate anything it will be a mutawatir, even if only Bukhari has written about it. The definition used by Salah, which is fringe, says that any hadith which occurs in both Bukhari and muslim, which is usually called "sahi", will be called mutawatir. Salah himself acknowledges that his theory is Fringe and he was reprimanded for it. The classification is real, just the definition used by Salah is a new Fringe definition that did not catch on. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

OMG, now I know why you're so confused... You genuinely don't know what's going on (again! lolz.) You think al-Salah was trying to change the definition of mutawatir, but that's not what's happening here dude! The first part of the quote you posted is not some new definition of Mutawatir that al-Salah was pushing, as you have argued. That's what al-Salah, Bulqini and Nawawi were arguing be considered as "yaqini nazart" (page 85) not Mutawatir! The last part of the quote you posted is the reason why they were making this argument in the first place, because Mutawatir is almost non-existent. Once again: That is NOT (to quote you) "his definition of "Mutawatir" . The definition of Mutawattir is NOT in dispute, and al-Salah did not come up with any new definition for it. Mutawattir is defined on page 78 of the paper, very clearly (by the way, I should add the following quote in the article, to avoid further confusion on this point:)

"If this is the case, then what is the mutawatir? The common, and indeed indisputable, definition of this type of hadith is that it is any report that reaches us through textually identical channels of transmission which are sufficiently numerous as to preclude any possibility of collaboration on a forgery. The persons who witnessed the Prophet saying or doing a particular thing, or merely approving an act or event tacitly, had to have been sure of what they observed, and their knowledge of what they witnessed must have been based on sensory perception."

No one is disputing this definition above, least of all al-Salah (who searched harder than probably anyone to try and satisfy the above criteria.) When he realized that such hadith were almost "non existent" that's when he decided: "Hey guys, I've got an idea! let's just take Bukhari + Muslim as 'certain knowledge'! Phew, problem solved, am I rite?! w00t." And this is what other scholars criticized him for. But this actually SUPPORTS the inclusion of this content in the AUTHENTICITY section, because it shows the desperation of these scholars, on account of the sheer lack of authentic hadiths (and it wasn't just Al-Saleh, he spearheaded two separate "campaigns" by a number of scholars.) In fact, this line of thought is fairly relevant even today because there's an entire sect called Ahl al-Hadith, which kinda have the same view as al-Saleh, with even looser standards actually (however that's an entirely separate discussion....) Anyways, now with all of this said, I'll assume good-faith, as you apparently misunderstood (again) what the paper was about. So let's just call it at this point.... I think we can safely say we have a consensus. Agreed? cӨde1+6^TP 04:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been almost 2 days, looks like we have consensus. cӨde1+6^TP 01:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda:, @FreeatlastChitchat:,@Thincat: Hi guys, admin EdJohnston wants me to ping you all to get some more comments on this thread. If you could please review it (especially the last comment on 19 January) that would be great. Thanks. cӨde1+6^TP 12:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am replying to the ping. I got involved when there was a deletion review of Debate on the Hadith (now deleted at AFD) and I considered some editing to be far too aggressive. I commented at its talk page (also now deleted) and also above at Talk:Criticism_of_Hadith#Debate on the Hadith. At the time I had never even heard the word "Hadith" though since then I have read up about the subject. Sometimes it is useful to have a completely uninvolved person try and help a discussion but in this case I do not think I can help at all. The issues seem to be about WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and so on. I can't judge these things and I would have to do considerable study to develop any sort of useful critique at all. I have read the present article and I found it rather clearly written. Frankly, this surprised me and I appreciate the work that has gone into the article. I am also pleased to see the discussion going on here. However, I simply don't know whether the article has an appropriate encyclopedic content – however, it does read well. Congratulations and best wishes! Thincat (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

From the discussion so far, it appears that there was some misunderstanding about hadiths that are "certain knowledge" vs those that are "mutawatir", am I right? By the way, what does yaqini nazart mean? I'd really like to say something useful, but it is going to be difficult without access to Hallaq's paper. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, thanks for responding. HyperGaruda the paper is also available for free at http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/fiqh/hallaq_hadith.html. And yaqini nazart is just "certain knowledge", as translated by Hallaq in the paper, on page 85. So basically, the other editor thought that Ibn-Salah was redefining "mutawatir" and thus the argument was fringe. However, those scholars were actually trying to argue that the criteria for "certain knowledge/yaqini nazart" can simply be lowered, so as not to include Mutawatir at all, due to the extreme lack of mutawatir/truly-authentic hadith. So instead of being fringe, it's a supporting argument for this content's inclusion in the Criticism of Hadith/Authenticity section. cӨde1+6^TP 16:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Not important for the dispute, but possibly worth noting: yaqini means "certain", and nazari means "speculative", "theoretical", or (per Hallaq) "mediate". This is opposed to daruri, which means "necessary" or "immediate". Hallaq first swaps the glosses of "acquired" (muktasab) and nazari, and then renders nazari as "acquired". I don't know if this is a mistake or his way of saying that the two terms have the same technical meaning in this context. Back to regularly scheduled programming... Eperoton (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.montypython.com/uploads/Films_FOLDER_Movies-102sqX.jpg cӨde1+6^TP 23:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've read the paper; it is quite interesting. Now about your dispute, here is a proposal that 1) condenses the current two Hallaq paragraphs significantly, 2) ditches the undue weight on Ibn al-Salah's "Bukhari+Muslim=certainty" theory, and 3) keeps the main point that Code16 wants to see: mutawatir hadiths are the most reliable ones, but are also extremely rare. I have also toned down the weasels/POV wordings a bit: Wael Hallaq has argued that the most central problem associated with Prophetic hadith has been their authenticity. From the legal theoretician's point of view, hadiths can be divided into mutawatir and ahad: hadiths transmitted via numerous chains of narrators and the other hadiths respectively. The medieval scholar Al-Nawawi argued that any non-mutawatir hadith is only probable and can not reach the level of certainty. Scholars of Islam like Ibn al-Salah (d. 1245 CE), al-Ansari (d. 1707 CE), and Ibn ‘Abd al-Shakur (d. 1810 CE) could however only find a few hadiths that fell into the mutawatir category, totalling to "no more than eight or nine."^[1]

Pinging Code16 and FreeatlastChitchat to see if they agree. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm kool with that =) Although, I think that the following sentence is a little vague/confusing and can be more definite: "...hadiths transmitted via numerous chains of narrators and the other hadiths respectively. " cӨde1+6^TP 11:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. Although we can do a minor copy edit. "According to Wael Hallaq the central issue with hadith is it's authenticity. From the legal theoretician's point of view, hadiths can be divided into mutawatir and ahad: hadiths transmitted via numerous chains of narrators and the other hadiths respectively. The medieval scholar Al-Nawawi argued that any non-mutawatir hadith is only probable and can not reach the level of certainty. However scholars like Ibn al-Salah (d. 1245 CE), al-Ansari (d. 1707 CE), and Ibn ‘Abd al-Shakur (d. 1810 CE) found "no more than eight or nine" hadiths that fell into the mutawatir category. " FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done with a bit of rearranging to hopefully clear up the vague passage. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks HyperGaruda that's pretty much a perfect summary! cӨde1+6^TP 13:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The "Orthodox response" appears to be suddenly controversial. The article shouldn't be a he-said-she-said collection of contradictary opinions; but that doesn't justify simply removing the section and all it's content William M. Connolley (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: Hello. Please, compare the following pages with this one: Criticism of the Catholic Church, Criticism of the Bible, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of religion. In all of these cases, committed Catholics, Bible believers, atheists, Christians and religious people in general have offered rebuttals to the points of criticism, but they do not have big subsections detailing those rebuttals. Why should this page be different? --RIPMamba (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Response should stay,totally connected to article topic, also important to note to ortodox muslims do not deny the existence of false hadith etc. Also always neutral point of view and balance should be on the first place. Promotion for and against should be on personal blogs etc. Also this is not general religion article, it one part of religion, it is about hadith. If there is response it should stay. 178.221.114.71 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I am asking, why should we treat criticism of Islamic scripture differently than criticism of anything else? This article does NOT say that the criticism is correct. It simply details the points of criticism. Having point by point rebuttals is doing apologetics, and as I pointed out, it is special pleading. Read the above articles, they do not have point by point rebuttals from "Conservative Christians", or "conservative atheists". --RIPMamba (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think if someone add good sourced content to that articles it would stay also there. I checked also some articles about criticisms and always can be found different opinions etc of critics and supporters, somewhere as own section somewhere included in the body of article. For example about Talmud where responses are into body of that article and for me it is totally normal, criticism of Judaism also the same, controversies about Scientology, even has own section of church response to controversies in that artice etc etc. 178.221.114.71 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It may be fine for you, but that is not how we write articles. We cannot have 1/6 of this article devoted to what responses Muslims give to Hadith criticism. I will wait for others to weigh on in this, but my opinion stands --RIPMamba (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, what you said is not true. The "responses" of the Church of Scientology are under the article of Scientology controversies. The article is meant to detail controversial incidents, and responses to controversies is a common theme. This is not a section about a controversy, but about a list of criticisms. It is TOTALLY out of line to give a list of rebuttals from Orthodox Muslims, because it is outside of the scope of the article, and is unlike what we do anywhere else. --RIPMamba (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

And what you said about Talmud is also a lie. There is no separate page that details a list of criticisms. I object to treating Muslim scripture in a special way. Every other article is NOT written like this. We do not devote 1/6 of the article about the Criticism of the Catholic Church to responses from traditionalist Catholic scholars. We do not devote 1/6 of the page on the article about the Criticism of the Bible to rebuttals from conservative scholars, why should we treat this as a special case? RIPMamba (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Own private opinions are good for own blogs, websites etc. At wiki as I checked content is made by consensus and sourced relevant content not by personal like or dislike of content or personal advocacy or promotion. I put back sourced content and other user too who opened talk page. Anyway anyone can open own space to make own content as and how want, but Wikipedia is something else.178.221.114.71 (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I never inserted my own opinion. I simply want this article to treat Islamic scripture the way it treats any other. Why do you think that criticism of Hadiths should be written differently that how we write the article about the Criticism of the Bible? RIPMamba (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think if there is quality sourced content for that article too about response it would stay there. Hadith and Bible articles and topics can't compare also. And response about hadith criticism is short and well written and as someone who don't have any personal interest for and against don't see any problem about to there is response about what are false hadith /topic of that subsection/ and what are true etc. 178.221.114.71 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This debate may be over but I'd like to throw in a comment. Yes, having a orthodox section may be not following the pattern of other articles, but orthodox are so numerous compared to hadith deniers and so active, I think in this case it just makes sense to include them. As a practical matter they will include themselves and add criticism to the article anyway. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

[copied from my (Louis P.'s) user talk page ]
There is a difference between "wajib" (obligatory) and "sunnah" (recommended). Washing one time is obligatory (wajib) , more than one time is recommended (sunna). That distinction is known from many other similar topics like the prayer. In some narratinos a prayer is done and in some its not. Its not a contradiction because it just means some prayers are Sunnah and some Wajib.So there is also no contraction in terms of being an example because that was common method to show, that something is obligatory or not. The same rule applies for ablution.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/226422/the-obligatory-parts-and-sunnahs-of-wudoo

Whitemonth (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit 23.06.2020:

From Wikepedia "a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility or incongruity between two or more propositions". Thats not the case because its logically possible to wash my hands once and another time thrice. But there is another wrong preassumption, that everything in the hadith is always obligatory (Any source for that ?). There is difference between "saying" and "actions". If the prophet would SAY different things, it could be ambigous for the follower but ACTIONS are not the same. For example there are narrations where he is riding a camel , in another narrations he is riding a horse and in some he is walking. These are not cotradicting each other. It cant be said, its not clear what Muslims should do becaue all of them are allowed. In some narrations the prophet prays in certain times and in some not. These are not contradicting because both are allowed if the prayer is not obligatory. Contradicton would appear if he ORDERS different rulings. I hope its more clear

And what the reliability of the website "Uncorrupted Islam", the author is unknwon and there is no explanationn from credible person to the narrations. Looks like what christian missionaries do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemonth (talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit: wikiislam is not a reliable source and anyway is just citing the hadith (like the second source) without any scholarly opion how they understood this narrations or if they saw contradictions. How I said before , there is a difference between ORDERS and just ACTIONS. Only because there are narrations that the prophet sometimes walked and sometimes was riding a camel, there is no contradiction between them. Most of the narrations are like that and there was no contradcition seen. Maybe you have reliable sources where scholars saw contradictions between them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemonth (talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe there are not hadith where some observed ACTIONS of the Prophet are not held up as examples to obediently follow, but you are right wikiislam does not cite a scholar. At least for now I'm acquiescing to your deletes --Louis P. Boog (talk)

RIPMamba Debresser Drmies (admin), HyperGaruda @RIPMamba: @Debresser: @Drmies: (admin), @HyperGaruda:
Greetings all you regular participants. (Sorry if I missed anyone)
I would like to propose a change in the structure of the article. Here's why:
I'll quote from the lede:

... Criticism of hadith takes several forms.

Within traditional Islamic hadith studies the focus is on evaluating the authenticity of particular hadith reports and whether they are attributable to Muhammad. Key elements that are examined are whether there are "other identical reports from other transmitters"; the reliability of the transmitters of the report; and "the continuity of the chain of transmission".^[1]

But that's the last you hear of this traditional Islamic hadith studies in the article except for how it missed disqualifying hadith that should not be sahih. It seems to me that traditional Islamic hadith studies is hadith criticism -- the original hadith criticism -- and the article should say something about it.

Another intro feature I think is lacking is why hadith and criticism of it is important.

To that end I have written a couple of sections for the article, that would follow the lede and precede the Arguments for existence of false hadith section. Since that section starts out

Among the scholars who believe that even sahih hadith suffer from corruption...

and since sahih hadith are hadith approved by traditional Islamic hadith studies, I think the flow of the article would be enhanced not damaged.

I removed a huge chunk of that was just references to wordpress blogs and random youtubers. And left whatever was cited to academic sources. However many of thee stuff is all over the place, not in the correct sections. Western Oriental Textual Criticism is mixed in with Islamic Textual Criticism, then many of those things are redundantly repeated word for word or paraphrased in other sections. I believe someone who actually academically specializes in this topic should rewrite it. Zegoy (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record I'm responsible for some of this "references to wordpress blogs and random youtubers". Yes, the sources are not academic but I must defend the substance. Can there be any doubt that the hadith described below assume supernatural explanations?

Two Christian missionaries, Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz, list a number of sahih hadith with supernatural elements they argue are in contradiction to "reason and common experience", and not meeting the "criteria of authenticity":^[1] trees that weep,^[2][3] human beings (Jews) turned into rats,^[4] into monkeys and pigs;^[5] stones that steal possessions (clothes) and run away with them,^[6] stones that talk—give salutations to Muhammad,^[7] or urge people to kill others (Jews);^[8][9] and monkeys that stone another monkey for adultery (A hadith not from Muhammad but from a Companion ‘Amru bin Maimun):^[1]

*"During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them." ^[10]

Skeptic Abdullah Gondal asks, "How did this narration end up in the most authentic hadith book? Do monkeys have marriages too? Do you need four witnesses for monkey stoning? What was this companion [‘Amru bin Maimun] thinking? Is this supposed [to be] a twisted endorsement of Sharia stonings by the animal kingdom?"^[11]

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

          The Statistics about the Hadith Rejection by Bukhari & Muslim

Name of Narrator No of Hadiths In Saheh Bukhari In Saheh Muslim Bukhari rejected how may Hadith Muslim rejected how many hadith Abu Huraira RA 5374 1004 1121 4370 4253 Ayesha Siddequa RA 2200+ 741 503 1459 1697 Abu Saeed Al Khadri RA 1170 180 204 990 966 Anas bin Malik RA 2286 792 558 1494 1728 Abdullah bin Abbas RA 1660 321 594 1339 1066 Abdullah bin Umer RA 1630 714 586 916 1044 Jabir bin Abdullah RA 1540 281 445 1259 1095

I collected this data from authentic Books about Hadith Compilers, Introduction to Hadith and Asool e Hadith of very famous, renowned Sheikh ul Hadiths from Salfi, Ahl e Hadith ,Deoband ,Ahl e Sunnah wal Jamat factions.

The following was deleted 9 June 2021 by 2601:40d:4281:8670:e54e:5f02:cc84:9582 (talk):
Being a munkir-i-hadith or denier of hadith, is considered an act of unbelief by many Muslims.^[1]

Here is the edit summary for the deletion:
(Removed incorrect line. The source quoted for this line only says that rejecting Hadith while believing it to be the true words of Mohammed would be disbelief, but of course the topic of Hadith criticism and the wording of the deleted line is referring to a situation in which someone does not believe a Hadith should be considered the words of Mohammed, a situation that the source itself mentions would not be considered disbelief.)

Here is a quote from the citation in support on the deleted line: Allah, may He be exalted, has enjoined upon the believers complete submission to the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his hadith and rulings, to the extent that He, may He be glorified, swore by His divine self that whoever hears the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), then rejects them and does not accept them, has nothing to do with faith at all. [https://islamqa.info/en/answers/115125/ruling-on-one-who-rejects-a-saheeh-hadith

I guess you can say whoever hears the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), then rejects them and does not accept them, ..., is a little ambiguous. Does the rejecter "reject Hadith while believing it to be the true words of Mohammed" (quote from the delete-er above) i.e. believe those words to be "the words of the Prophet"?; or do they hear what mainstream Muslims call a sahih hadith and reject it as something to obey?

In any case I put it to you that this article -- "Criticism of Hadith" -- includes both weeding out fraudulent hadith and criticism of what mainstream Muslims call a sahih hadith. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog I would like to voice my agreement with the 2021 comment by @Zegoy that this page needs a rewrite. Pogenplain (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pogenplain. Any particular parts?--Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog Over a third of citations go to one book from 1999, too much direct quotation of the sources used across the entire page, this page should *not* cite Ibn Warraq. And i am not criticizing you for this as i know this is a niche field but the bibliography is very very very thin and lacks almost any scholarship of the last decades. Like (1) https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-modern-hadith-studies.html (2) https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Wiley+Blackwell+Concise+Companion+to+The+Hadith-p-9781118638514 (3) https://brill.com/display/title/16646?language=en as some immediate ones but see the bibliography in https://islamicorigins.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/LITTLE-The-Hadith-of-Aishahs-Marital-Age.pdf for a much greater list. The section of Western scholarship does not even mention isnad-cum-matn analysis (disclosure that I created that page). I am of the view that the section on Western scholarship should be its own page, and that that page should be titled "Hadith studies", and that the current page called "Hadith studies" should be moved to "Hadith sciences" as "studies" denotes the contemporary academic sort (akin to Quranic studies). Pogenplain (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I am currently moving a lot of citations to Sfn (which has already abbreviated page length by ~10k characters due to repeat citations of the same publications) and am trying to abbreviate many of the subsections while retaining the vast majority of the actual content. This will help bring things into order. I feel half the page can be cut out without losing anything as-is. Pogenplain (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I will pause now to avoid doing too much right away in case of disagreement. Pogenplain (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog I am interested in creating a page on academic hadith studies (just as there is Quranic studies) but Hadith studies is already occupied by a page for the traditional hadith sciences. Only on this page does academic studies get representation but it is incorrect to relegate to the "Criticism" of hadith. How do you think of moving Hadith studies to a pagename 'Hadith sciences', and reserving 'Hadith studies' namespace for the academic study of hadith? Pogenplain (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pogenplain have no objection. Seems logical. Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pogenplain In fact I will do it for you. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)