Reddit reviews Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy
We found 8 Reddit comments about Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
> Overall rating
>
The presence of 'heavenly beauties' in Paradise is established by the Qur'an, as are the accolades and place in Heaven awarded to martyrs. Moreover, the collection of all the above transmissions, whether or not they can be accurately traced back to the Prophet or just to a Companion or other members of the early Muslim community, strongly indicate that reports were circulating among the first Muslim generations enumerating several heavenly compensations given to martyrs and including the companionship of huris. This lies behind al-Albani's decision to rate these narrations collectively as sahih (al-Albani, Silsilat al-ahadith al-sahiha, 7, part 1:647-50, no. 3213).
>
As for the specific number of seventy or seventy-two huris for each martyr, however, this hinges on the reliability of 1) the narrations via Bahir, and 2) the solitary narration from Abu Hurayra in al-Tabarani's works. Bahir's narrations fell victim to Ismail bin Ayyash's confusion and are only otherwise known by the unreliable and inaccurate Baqiyya, who was known to take liberties with precisely such extravagant contents. The narration from Abu Hurayra collected by al-Tabarani is unreliable due to the questions surrounding Bakr bin Sahl, its solitary narrator. This collection of evidence does not seem to merit any rating higher than 'weak' (**daif) for both of the Hadith clusters above.
>
[**Jonathan A.C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy](http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Muhammad-Challenge-Interpreting-Prophets/dp/178074420X) -- Appendix IV
By the way that book is really excellent, Jonathan does a great job at illustrating and tracing how and why such controversies developed through Islamic civilization.
Here.
Are.
Some.
Books.
Some.
More.
Books.
Would you like a link to my amazon wishlist to see all the books? There are a lot of non-Islamic stuff there to that you might like.
And this book is new and may be helpful too.
I don't have one off the top of my head, but this issue is mentioned in several classic books of fiqh under evidence. Easiest is to refer you to my friend Jack Brown's new book Misquoting Muhammad wherein he has a lengthy discussion about verse 4:34 and the way that Sharia courts handled this issue from medieval times until today.
Also recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Muhammad-Challenge-Interpreting-Prophets/dp/178074420X
Excerpt:
> Until the collision with the modern West, no Muslim scholar of any consequence ever advocated that the Qur’an be read alone. They might dispute on all else, but the varied sects of Islam all agreed that Muslims should under no circumstances read the Qur’an in a vacuum. Islam’s sects shared two foundational principles: that the Sunna of the Prophet rules over and interprets the Qur’an, and that the Prophet’s interpretive authority had been passed on to those authorities who were to lead the community after his death. Where sects diverged was over how and by whom this Sunna was known and who had the authority to speak in the Prophet’s name. For Sunnis it was transmitted and known by the Muslim community as a whole, borne via the twin routes of the Hadiths, which recorded the Prophet’s words, and the inherited teachings of the early Muslim generations, spoken for by the community’s often cacophonous body of ulama. Taken together, this was the Sunni tradition, in which the authority of God and His Prophet could coalesce from the riot of stentorian voices and express itself fully in instances of consensus (ijma‘). Shiites believed that the Prophet’s teachings were inherited by particular lines of his descendants. The esoteric knowledge of the religion and the ability to interpret infallibly the Qur’an’s layers of hidden meaning passed from father to designated son like bloodlines. Those descendants designated in succession as Imams spoke with the authority of the Prophet. Further sectarian splintering into Imami (Twelver) and Ismaili (Sevener) schools followed disagreements over which line transmitted this hidden ‘ilm.
>
> [...]
>
> Although he had once relished the Ottoman scourge that God sent against the Antichrist Papacy, Luther despised Islam as much as any bishop he condemned. If the Saxon monk had ever managed a visit to Istanbul or Damascus he would have met with a mixed reaction among his Muslim counterparts. His rejection of highly derivative papal canon law, the scholastic theology of Aquinas (with its adoption of pagan Greek logic) and his conviction that Church tradition had departed from the original scripture of the Bible would have endeared him to proto-Salafi contemporaries like the Ottoman iconoclast Shaykh Mehmet Birgili or the followers of Ibn Taymiyya. But the corollary that tradition should be jettisoned and that each believer should return to the original scriptures of the Old and New Testaments would have provoked roars of laughter.
Like Logical1ty said:
I appreciate your intellectual honesty and I didn't find any of your question insulting.
As for books/lectures, here's a few links to start things off, some of them might be what you're looking for.
Yasir Qadhi has a YTube channel and gave tons of interesting lectures (check this one in which we talks about the theological legitimacy of groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS)
Tariq Ramadan's work which is focused on Islam and modernity.
And although I haven't read it yet, I only heard good things about Jonathan Brown's "Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy".
> 'A nation which placed its affairs in the hands of a woman shall never prosper..." (Bukhari 9, 88, 219).
>
Actually, if you read http://www.amazon.ca/Misquoting-Muhammad-Challenge-Interpreting-Prophets/dp/178074420X
the author explains that hadith to have something to with the situation at the time when it was said so it's not a universal rule.