¿Qué son los hadices y hasta qué punto son auténticos?
Los hadices son distintas recopilaciones de dichos y hechos atribuidos a Mojamé realizadas por varios autores:
The Hadith are a collection of sayings and doings attributed to the Prophet and traced back to him through a series of putatively trustworthy witnesses (any particular chain of transmitters is called an isnad). These Hadith include the story of the compilation of the Koran, and the sayings of the companions of the Prophet. There are said to be six correct or authentic collections of traditions accepted by Sunni Muslims, namely, the compilations of Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai. Again it is worth noting that all these sources are very late indeed. Bukhari died 238 years after the death of the Prophet, while al-Nisai died over 280 years after!
Esta tomado de The Origins of the Koran, Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, Ed. Ibn Warraq. Prometheus Books. Antes nos han dicho:
The Prophet Muhammad died in 632 C.E. The earliest material on his life that we possess was written by Ibn Ishaq in 750 C.E., in other words, a hundred twenty years after Muhammad’s death.
Así fueron fabricados, en el sentido inglés del término:
Official influences on the invention, dissemination and suppression of traditions started early. An instruction given to his obedient governor al Mughira by Muawiya is in the spirit of the Umayyads (es decir, los famosos Omeyas): “Do not tire of abusing and insulting Ali and calling for God’s mercifulness for ‘Uthman, defaming the companions of Ali, removing them and omitting to listen to them (i.e., to what they tell and propagate as hadiths); praising in contrast, the clan of ‘Uthman, drawing them near to you and listening to them.” This is an official encouragement to foster the rise and spread of hadiths directed against Ali and to hold back and suppress hadiths favoring Ali. The Umayyads and their political followers had no scruples in promoting tendentious lies in a sacred religious form, and they were only concerned to find pious authorities who would be prepared to cover such falsifications with their undoubted authority. There was never any lack of these. Hadiths were liable to be fabricated even for the most trivial ritualistic details. Tendentiousness included the suppression of existing utterances friendly to the rival party or dynasty. Under the ‘Abbasids, the fabrications of hadiths greatly multiplied, with the express purpose of proving the legitimacy of their own clan against the ‘Alids. For example, the Prophet was made to say that Abu Talib, father of ‘Ali, was sitting deep in hell: “Perhaps my intercession will be of use to him on the day of resurrection so that he may be transferred into a pool of fire which reaches only up to the ankles but which is still hot enough to burn the brain.” Naturally enough this was countered by the theologians of the ‘Alias by devising numerous traditions concerning the glorification of Abu Talib, all sayings of the prophet. “In fact,” as Goldziher shows, amongst the opposing factions, “the mischievous use of tendentious traditions was even more common than the official party.”
Pero lo mejor es esto:
Eventually storytellers made a good living inventing entertaining Hadiths, which the credulous masses lapped up eagerly. To draw the crowds the storytellers shrank from nothing. “The handling down of hadiths sank to the level of a business very early. Journeys (in search of hadiths) favored the greed of those who succeeded in pretending to be a source of the hadith, and with increasing demand sprang up an even increasing desire to be paid in cash for the hadiths supplied.”
¿No os recuerda al asunto de la venta de Bulas por la Iglesia de Roma? En efecto. Pero el negocio fue muy criticado, hasta provocar una escisión en la Iglesia (la Reforma de Lutero). Incluso se modificó el significado de la palabra bulero, que pasó de significar vendedor de bulas a farsante.
Sin embargo, la venta de bulas no afectó a los dogmas (salvo quizás la existencia del purgatorio) y mucho menos llegaron esas bulas a constituir la principal fuente cristiana del derecho. Al contrario, la teología cristiana derivó el concepto de ley natural y admitió la necesidad de un “derecho de gentes” que podía estar al margen de ella. Por el contrario, las fuentes principales del derecho islámico (la sharia que nos quiere echar encima Ibn Laden) son el alcorán y estos hadices fementidos.