An example for a Hadith contradicting the Quran and in addition insulting the human mind is this one:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
„Allah’s Apostle said, „The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. „O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.““  (al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177)

This Hadith generalizes Jews as enemies worthy of death, while the Quran does not antagonize an entire religious community, especially since Jews are considered „People of the book“ (ahl al ketaab). Plus, with regards to „the Hour“ the Quran says the following:
„They ask you, [O Muhammad], about the Hour: when is its arrival? Say, „Its knowledge is only with my Lord. None will reveal its time except Him. It lays heavily upon the heavens and the earth. It will not come upon you except unexpectedly.“ They ask you as if you are familiar with it. Say, „Its knowledge is only with Allah , but most of the people do not know.““ (7:187)

Staying at the topic „The Hour“ (also known as „Day of Judgement“; السَّاعَةِ), many Sahih Hadith describe at length the „Signs of the Hour“, among them the „Dajjal“ (or Anti-Christ; المسيح الدجّال) and his many characteristics and deeds.
Here is one example from:

Narrated Ibn Umar:
„Once Allah’s Apostle stood amongst the people, glorified and praised Allah as He deserved. Then, mentioning Dajjal, he said, „I warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal) and there was no prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me. You should know that he is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed.“ (al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Number 553)

Narrated Abu Huraira:
„Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) said: The Last Hour will not come until the Romans land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people on Earth at that time will come from Medina…they will be the conquerors of Constantinople. As they are busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, Satan will cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your families…“ (Sahih Muslim, 1348)

What is interesting about these Ahadith is the following:
1. While the Quran mentions many topic several times, it does not mention the „Dajjal“ even once.
2. The „Dajjal“ is an unseen being, and the Quran clearly says that NOBODY (including Prophet Muhammad) has knowledge of „the unseen“ (علم الغيب):
„Say [O Muhammad!]: “I do not say to you that I have the treasures of Allah nor that I know the unseen (ghayb). And I do not say to you that I am an angel. I only follow what is revealed to me.” ..“ (6:50)
or
„Say, `I have no power to do good or harm to myself save as ALLAH please. And if I had the knowledge of the unseen, I should have secured abundance of good; and evil would not have touched me. I am only a Warner and a bearer of good tidings.‘ “ (7:188)
3. Why should the prophet tell an audience of believers explicitly that „Allah is not one-eyed“? Why should they have any reason to think the opposite?
4. The second Hadith clearly reflects the military-political circumstances of the 7th-9th century:
– The (East-)Romans (Byzantines) are the major enemy
– The battlefield is somewhere in Syria (Dabiq), which in those times was contested territory between Muslims and Romans
– The Muslim army comes from Medina (which back then was the ideological capital of the „Ummah“)
– The enemy´s capital is Constantinople
All this obviously proves that this Hadith is far from being genuine, it is clearly a primitive invention by ordinary men.

Now, to finally prove the idiocy of these Hadith I show an often-seen pattern, namely the pattern of Hadith contradicting eachother. This one is from al-Bukhari:

Narrated Abu Bakra:
„The Prophet said, „The terror caused by Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal will not enter Medina and at that time Medina will have seven gates and there will be two angels at each gate guarding them.““ („Virtues of Medina“, Chapter 30, No. 103)

Notice: the Hadith from Abu Huraira said, that the islamic army will come from Medina. Later (in the same Hadith), the Dajjal is said to have taken the place of the army soldiers among their families.  One must assume that these families are in Medina. But how can Dajjal do any evil in Medina when the last Hadith says his terror will not enter Medina?

To be continued…

This article will be an ongoing sequel to my original article:
https://radioyaran.com/2014/12/18/muslims-should-critically-review-the-ahadith-part-i/

Below Hadith is part of the „Sahih“ of al Bukhari, so one could expect that it´s „Isnad“ and it´s „Matn“ are both 100% reliable:
„Narrated Sahl bin Sad: Allah’s Apostle said, „If at all there is bad omen, it is in the horse, the woman, and the house.““ (Sahih Bukhari,Book #62, Hadith #32).
Issues:
1. The „matn“ (content) is simply nonsense and insulting (to women particularly). Even if the Prophet really said this, he is a human being and not free from error as he has no divine knowledge. Claiming the contrary would constitute „shirk“ (giving God a partner). Such narrations do not specify whether the Prophet was sarcastic/making a joke or whether he was serious.
2. The Hadith contradicts another „Sahih“ Hadith, this time from the „Musnad“ of Ibn Hanbal (6/246):
„Abu-Hassan reports that two people came to Aishah and said to her that Abu Hurayrah narrates that the Prophet used to say that bad luck is to be found only in women, horses and houses. At this Aishah replied: By the God who revealed the Qur’an to the Prophet ! The Prophet never said this; what he did say was that the People of the Jahilliyyah hold this opinion.“
3. There is a 3rd Hadith referring to horses: „Allah’s Apostle said, „Good will remain (as a permanent quality) in the foreheads of horses till the Day of Resurrection.“ “ (Bukhari; 4.102-104))
Conclusion: Aishah, believed to be a 100% reliable source apparently contradicts two other supposedly 100% reliable sources: Ibn Umar and Abu Hurayrah. So, here we have two Sahih Hadith where either one of the sources is exposed as unreliable or the content is exposed as nonsense.

Here is another case of Sahih Hadith (from Bukhari) contradicting eachother:
„You offer a prayer which I did not see being offered by Allah’s Apostle when we were in his company and he certainly had forbidden it (i.e. two Rakat after the Asr prayer). “ (Muawiya – 1.561 )
vs.
„Whenever the Prophet come to me after the ‚Asr prayer, he always prayed two Rakat. “ (Aishah – 1.567)
-> So, either one of the sources is not as reliable as al Bukhari wants us to believe or the matn is useless

This one is a Hadith that contradicts the Quran:
„„Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ash’ari sent for the reciters of Basra…he [Abu Musa] said:…We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it:“ If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.„…“
(Sahih Muslim, Book 5: The Book of Zakat (Kitab Al-Zakat), Book 005, Number 2286)
So, Abu Musa, one of the companions („Sahaba“) of the Prophet remembers a verse (Ayah) of the Quran which is highlighted above in Italic.
The Problem is: There is no such verse in the Quran and according to orthodox islamic understanding the Quran is „protected“ by Allah:
„We have, without doubt, sent down the Reminder [i.e., the Quran]; and We will assuredly guard it [from corruption].“ (Al-Hijr 15:9)
Or: „This is an honorable Quran. In a protected book. None can grasp it except the sincere. A revelation from the Lord of the universe.“ (Quran 56:77-80)

A „famous“ case of a so called Sahih Hadith contradicting the Quran refers to the „verse of stoning“ (ayat ul rajm):
„‚Umar said, „I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, „We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,“ and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.“ …“  (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816)“
This allegedly authentic narration contradicts three quranic/islamic concepts:
a) That the Quran is protected (from manipulation), see above
b) That the Quran has not forgotten to mention anything of (religious) relevance: „…WE have left out nothing in the Book…“ (6:38)
c) There is already a clear punishment for adultery in the Quran and it is NOT stoning: „The adulteress and the adulterer – flog each one of them with a hundred stripes.“ (24:2)
What is puzzling and a sad proof that many Muslims consider the Ahadith equal to the Quran is their attempt to defend and justify the Hadith above by claiming that the quoted quranic punishment for adultery was later changed (in the Quran). This itself is an insult to Allah and another contradiction:
„And the word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower. “ (6:115)

Interestingly there is another Sahih Hadith, this time from Ibn Majah, that apparently confirms the Hadith above from al Bukhari:
„Reported ‚Aisha (RA): the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.“ (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)“
This Hadith is a clear insult to human reason and even basic knowledge of islamic history: It is safe to assume that the Prophet would announce such an important ruling verse in front of a big audience and not in his private chambers. The Quran was written down by several scripts, and even if Aishas paper was eaten by a goat one can expect that at least one other written document should exist. The Quran as a book was finalized and completed during the caliphate of Uthman which was AFTER the time of Caliph Umar. So by the time Umar and Aisha were apparently regretting the loss of the verse of stoning hundreds if not thousands of Muslim reciters should have been alive and available in Mecca and Medina to remember the verse and make sure it is taken into the final version of the Quran.

And among men are those who purchase idle HADITH (tales) without knowledge to mislead (men) from the Path of God, and make a mockery of it (God’s Path) [Quran, Luqman (31): 6]
وَمِنْ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَشْتَرِي لَهْوَ الْحَدِيثِ لِيُضِلَّ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ وَيَتَّخِذَهَا هُزُوًا اُولَئكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ مُهِينٌ

And when it is said to them, Follow what Allah has revealed, they say: Nay! we follow what we found our fathers upon. What! and though their fathers had no sense at all, nor did they follow the right way. [Quran, Al-Baqarah (2): 170]
وَاِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ اتَّبِعُوا مَا انزَلَ اللَّهُ قَالُوا بَلْ نَتَّبِعُ مَا الْفَيْنَا عَلَيْهِ ءابَاءَنَا اوَلَوْ كَانَ ءابَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ شَيْءا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ

While the broad majority of Muslims would not say that the Ahadith (plural of Hadith, which refers to the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) are equal to the Quran with regards to their importance as a source of religious law (shari´a) and jurisprudence (fiqh) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh very often the two (Quran and Ahadith) are confused with eachother.
Maybe half of the religious citations made by Muslims starting with „In Islam…“ to explain or justify something relate to the Ahadith and not to the Quran. It is my experience that more and more Muslims are getting indifferent regarding the necessity to distinguish between the two sources and effectively place the Ahadith at the same level as the Quran.

In addition the Ahadith are considered the main source for the Sunnah (the actions of the Prophet which are considered mandatory for Muslims because the Prophet should be regarded a „role model“). The Sunnah would not be known if it were not transmitted through the Ahadith. This is the point of view of the Ulama (the religious experts). The Ulama maintain that especially the Ahadith that narrate the accepted Sunnah are 100% authentic (Sahih). Thus they are binding for a Muslim and there is no reason to reject them as islamic source, they claim.

The traditional and ongoing perception/point of view of the orthodox Ulama is that the authencity and genuineness of the „Sahih Ahadith“ is proven by checking and approving two aspects of them:
– Isnad (the chain of transmitters)
– Matn (the textual content)
It is claimed that the six so called „canonical Hadith collections“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutub_al-Sittah only contain Ahadith, where the Isnad is 100% reliable and the Matn is 100% in accordance with the Quran.

On closer examination it becomes clear that neither of these really withstand critical analysis:
For one thing all of the legendary Hadith collectors (such as al Bukhari and Muslim) lived some 200 years after the Prophet Muhammad and for another thing there is no way to check the credibility of the transmitters who are long dead. More on Isnad criticism in the links below*.
Scrutinizing the Matn, however, reveals even much bigger problems as many Ahadith in fact:
– contradict the Quran either totally or partially
– contradict eachother
– contradict human reason, science and in a broader sense knowledge in general

The focus of this article and it´s subsequent parts will be the Matn (content) of the Ahadith, and I will attempt to show many flaws in it.

*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hadith
http://www.free-minds.org/does-hadith-have-solid-historical-basis