Hadith Timelines

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by The Cat »

Hi booktalker...
booktalker wrote:does anyone know if there is a link on this site to a post about how the ahadith were collected and when?
No sahih collections, nor al-Tabari, give ANY reference to former manuscripts, which were unexisting anyway. To hide this Muhammadans
came with 'the science of hadiths', which is mainly a thick smokescreen of whitewashing giving the forgeries a semblance of reliability.
None of their criterion would meet the requirement of a proof accepted in a courtroom. This was also the position of the Mutazilites.

For certain no hadiths, even from this 'Mhmd', was being counted as absolutely authoritative by the Mutaziles who ruled the Islamic legal
system, before the traditionists came in following Shafi'i. Any said hadith from 'Muhammad' going contrary to reason, jurisprudence and
common sense would have been dismissed on the spot, on the ground of being frivolous and spurious. So it was still in Umayyad Spain.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41077970/Summ ... -Criticism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Presented as .jpg images I had to hand-copy the following...)
--By 900CE Sunnis considered that all the Companions of the Prophet were automatically upright...
In effect, then, the first generation of hadith transmitters was beyond criticism (-although 9.47-50; 9.101-).

--The earliest critic, al-Zuhri, had only met the youngest of the Companions, and his hadith criticism mostly addressed the reports
he heard from other Successors.... That the collective impunity of the Companions was a later construct of the Sunni worldview is
evident when one finds occasional minor Companions listed in early books of weak hadith transmitters.

--When we thumb through books of transmitter criticism or Ilal, one of the most obvious characteristics of early hadith criticism is
that early scholars almost never discussed the contents of hadith, let alone explicitly rejected a hadith because its meaning was
unacceptable. Why is this?... For the (afore) Mutazilites, the idea that one could examine the isnad of the hadith to know if it was
reliable or not was preposterous (they relied on Quran, usual consensus -sunna- and evidence of reason).

--If hadith critics admitted that a hadith could have an authentic isnad but still be a forgery because its meaning was unacceptable,
then they would be admitting that their rationalist opponents were correct! If you could not have a strong isnad with a forged report,
then any problem in the meaning of a hadith must mean that there was a problem in the isnad.

On the former Mutazilites...
--Mutazilites had no compunction about making the content criticism the centerpiece of their method of hadith evaluation.. The Hanafi
judge Isa b. Aban (d.836) thus argued that the early Muslim community rejected ahad reports that contradicted the Quran or established
Sunna, or described an event that would have been more widely reported had it really occurred. He also makes the verdict of reason the
ultimate arbiter for judging the veracity of a report, not the isnad.

--Essentially all hadiths were ahad. As Ibn al-Salah (d.1245), the most famous scholar of hadith criticism in the later period, explained, at
most one hadith (-Whoever lies about me intentionally, let him prepare for himself a seat in Hellfire-) would meet the requirement for
mutawatir. No hadiths could actually be described as being narrated by a large number of narrators at every stage of their transmission.
In fact, when Mutazilites had insisted that hadiths be transmitted by a mere two people at every stage, the Sunni Ibn Hibban had accused
them of trying to destroy the Sunna of the Prophet in its entirety.

--The final means by which hadiths achieved exaggerated authority in the late Sunni Tradition was the exploitation of the concept of the
mutawatir reports.... Although scholars like al-Salah had declared that no such hadith existed in actuality, al-Suyuti composed a collection
() in which he included 111 hadiths he declared mutawatir because ten or more Companions had narrated it from the Prophet. -But a
mutawatir hadith had to have such number of isnads at every level of transmission, and not all the chains of transmission that al-Suyuti
used as evidence were reliable to begin with.
Even nowadays top Islamic scholar, Harald Motzki, couldn't find ANY genuine source between 630-690. Nothing...

Much more in the above link. Some other references...

The development of early Sunnite hadīth criticism, by Eerik Dickinson
http://books.google.ca/books?id=StNnnz5 ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadith-book1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.rim.org/muslim/hadith.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The authenticity of Prophetic Hadith: A Pseudo-problem, by Wael Hallaq
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/st ... adith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much, much more links and excerpts in my RC thread, The Hadiths' Perfidy
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8185" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Like a whole book from Joseph Schacht in pdf file
The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence
http://ahadithstudies.files.wordpress.c ... chacht.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or, for more, just google: hadith+authenticity or hadith+criticism
bye.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by The Cat »

There goes His Senility once again...
skynightblaze wrote: This is what John bar Penkaye wrote in the 7th century. He talks about 630 AD..
Wrong. Penkaye wrote in 687 and talks about the time of caliph Muawiya, otherwise without giving dates.
It's Theophanes who wrote about 629/630 as ''the year Mouamed died''! How could this be 'traditional'?
skynightblaze wrote:Then how come we have non muslim historians confirming islamic history?... As far contradictions are concerned what if I show you contradictions in Byzantine sources regarding islam? Would that make Byzantine sources completely unreliable??
What a contrived 'logic'! What was Muhammad doing in Iraq/Syria by 637, according to the tradition?

How come they talk about Saracens (not Muslims) being allied with the Jews?
The hadiths tell us he expelled them all from Medina and then from all Arabia!
Yet Umar gave them back Jerusalem and the right to worship into their temple.
skynightblaze wrote:When these muslims collected data on such a large scale contradictions are bound to happen. More ever if ahadith were inventions and had nothing to do with quran then how come they confirm quran on some accounts?
They had to, if to maintain a certain appearance of credibility. A forged bill must be so credible.
skynightblaze wrote:As a matter of fact some of the islamic history is indeed supported by non muslim accounts..... I mean its simply impossible for people across centuries to continuously lie and co ordinate yet end up matching each other on many counts. I simply don't understand what proofs other than non islamic sources do you need to accept that all the ahadith aren't fabrications?
Very little is confirmed by non-Muslim accounts and much more details don't fit or ignored. The forgeries were indeed coordinated,
all steaming from the area of Khorasan... in northeast of Iran, exactly where the Abbasids came from! It's not mere coincidence.
skynightblaze wrote:There existed ahadith in the first century. Here are names of those ahadith collection.Here is an extract from an article. Bukhari had access to all these books. Its not that he was pulling things out of his arse.
Already refuted
viewtopic.php?p=164086#p164086" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bukhari doesn't ever mention written sources and doesn't name any of those phantom Sahifah of which -no manuscript exist-.
His very ahaad chain of narration contradicts the Koran on the two witnesses required. Thus they are all weak by definition.

Now we don't even hear of Bukhari's hadiths in his own alleged time, nor of Muslim! They became known a generation later!
skynightblaze wrote:Theophanes was a non muslim who was born in 760 AD. If ahadith and siras were fabrication why would he copy some of the same things from ahadith and sira into his writings ? Wouldn't he know that no information about Muhammad existed before and suddenly muslims came with up with something new? Wouldnt he mention this incident in his writings?
Already answered: viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10680" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fact remains that what he came with was unknown to John of Damascus & Nikephoros and that the Doctrina Jacobi
depicts the prophet as --someone newly emerging by 634/640--, which is confirmed by John, and as allied with the Jews.
How could 'Muhammad' then be in tune with the tradition stating he expelled them all from Medina and then Arabia!
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by The Cat »

Idesigner wrote:Only those new age muslims want to rewrite everything to please their PC correct western masters
Wrong. Learn how the Kharijites were the first 'Koraners', the Salafis of their own time...
skynightblaze wrote: They know that western values are superior and therefore they feel the need to re paint the character of Muhammad. In case of Ibn Rushd, Phil or even BookTalker it's a bit different. They have been duped by con man CAT.
Not at all, they've been duped by Goldziher, Schacht, Juynboll, Wansbrough, Crone/Cook, Herbert Berg and other Western scholars. :prop:
skynightblaze wrote: If I make a claim as of today that all the generation of muslims in the last 2 centuries deliberately defamed their prophet by totally inventing false things and thereby portray him as a criminal. Does this claim sound sensible to anyone??

Same arguments that are used against people of 8th century can be used now. Even today opportunities for corruption are unlimited. People can fabricate the religion to suit their needs. If I make such claims in the open people will laugh at me . If my claim sounds stupid today, then why does the same claim sound intelligent to you when made about muslims in the 7th or 8th century
You should learn how the Mutaziltes relied upon reason before they were thrown out by traditionalists' deceits.
Then, the general picture given to Muhammad was that of Moses, certainly a criminal too... by our standard.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:Not at all, they've been duped by Goldziher, Schacht, Juynboll, Wansbrough, Crone/Cook, Herbert Berg and other Western scholars.
I know how trolls like you think. Napolean said nothing is impossible in this world and therefore no argument in this world is irrefutable and therefore as long as you type you win.!

can you write 6-10 coherent lines?? I would love to see that for a change.

If you are appealing to your scholars then so can I . Dr Amari places Mecca in the 5th century AD. This person has done 20 years of research on Mecca working 8 hours day . He didn't simply come up with his thesis by merely scratching the surface. Dr Amari doesn't draw idiotic conclusions like yourself like tafsirs and ahadith are fabrications. Dr Amari didn't exactly depend on islamic sources for his conclusions otherwise we would be seeing him saying Mecca existed since time of Abraham.

ALi Sina told me on day 1 that I shouldn't be wasting time on idiots like you. Sam shamoun whom you like to quote also doesn't agree with you. Infact Sam had once given me a list of questions to ask to quran alone supporters. So if its all about scholars then I have equal amount of recognized scholars that hold other views. Craig winn also doesn't support this pathetic position. Your cook/crone are also not viewed by professors of history as scholarly.

Here is what some professors have to say regarding Crone and Cook.
* Josef Van Ess argued that: "…a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it (the hypothesis of the book) in detail…Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous."[4]

R. B. Searjeant informs us that: "Hagarism…is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a ‘leg pull’, pure ’spoof’."[7]

David Waines, Professor of Islamic Studies Lancaster University states: "The Crone-Cook theory has been almost universally rejected. The evidence offered by the authors is far too tentative and conjectural (and possibly contradictory) to conclude that Arab-Jewish were as intimate as they would wish them to have been."[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Crone" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't depend upon views of others but you are. In short you are committing a fallacy of appealing to popularity (Please google it and read it how its applied) . If you think they are irrefutable then we have got equal no of views who discard their theory.

Secondly you don't even understand simple things. I have told you thousand of times that Byzantine sources partially confirm islamic history and they partially contradict . In cases where it contradicts the islamic history we cant be sure who is correct. Byzantine sources are not an epitome of perfection.Even within Byzantine sources we have contradictions for e.g birth date of Muhammad. Doctrina claims that Muhammad was alive by 634 AD while Theophanes claims that he died in 629 Ad.

In short even the Byzantine sources can be subjected to errors however when they confirm with islamic scriptures then its damn idiotic to claim that islamic scriptures are still fabrications but of course when a person is an absolute idiot such as yourself then no amount of logic is sufficient. You and your scholars will never be able to answer a simple question. How in the world do the Byzantine sources confirm islamic scripture on some counts if entire ahadith are fabrications?? You keep quoting parts that contradict islamic scripture but dishonestly you dont show your audience the quotes that agree with islamic scriptures.

Btw John talks about 630 Ad. If you read the link to the book I gave it clearly says that John was talking about an event in 630 Ad. How come John claims that Apostates were being killed??? What a coincidence we have! John says in 687 AD that followers of Muhammad used to kill apostates and take slaves, deporting people from their lands, their barbarism and co incindently all fabricators like BUkhari, Sahih Muslim, Tabari, Ishaq say the same thing ! This is the logic according to CAT :lol:

Lastly if anyone has to study logic then he better stay illiterate rather than learning it from you. Quran is older than islam and that;s because quran says so :roflmao: Are you from Harvard? :lol:

EDIT

If I start quoting to display what an idiot you are I will require a separate thread. More ever ahadith confirm quran on many occassions and therefore if ahadith are fabrications then so is the quran which you dearly hold sacred!

You simply dont have a case for quran alone muslim but I guess since logic is not a part of your domain we can absolutely be sure that you will not correct yourself.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:Already refuted
viewtopic.php?p=164086#p164086

Bukhari doesn't ever mention written sources and doesn't name any of those phantom Sahifah of which -no manuscript exist-.
His very ahaad chain of narration contradicts the Koran on the two witnesses required. Thus they are all weak by definition.

Now we don't even hear of Bukhari's hadiths in his own alleged time, nor of Muslim! They became known a generation later!
Another rubbish lie by this TROLL. Islamic scriptures themselves record the existence of early ahadith...

Bukhari in a foot note says that he has not included repeated traditions on account of brevity. If Bukhari had included every single narrator repeating the same thing then the collection would be atleast 10 times more than what it is now. This approach is correct. Now even if assume that Bukhari was lying here lets see how absolutely stupid your argument is..

First of all prove to us that 2 narrators is the correct criteria for something to be valid. This is a false criteria because 2 unreliable people cannot make up for a single reliable narrator . I am not saying a single narrator is the correct criteria for something to be valid. What I am saying is that its not necessary that just because there are no 2 narrators something can be termed as forged.

The spoilers contain huge pile of information which refute this TROLL. Its lengthy but if anyone is interested he can read the information about compilation of early ahadith.
Spoiler! :
The Compilation of Hadîth in the Days of the Holy Prophet

We have discussed the different methods undertaken by the companions of the Holy Prophet to preserve the ahâdîth. An objective study of these methods would prove that although 'writing' was not the sole method of their preservation, yet it was never neglected in this process. Inspired by the Holy Prophet himself, a large number of his companions used to secure the ahâdîth in written form.

When we study individual efforts of the companions for compiling ahâdîth, we find that thousands of ahâdîth were written in the very days of the Holy Prophet and his four Caliphs. It is not possible to give an exhaustive survey of these efforts, for it will require a separate voluminous book on the subject which is not intended here. Nevertheless, we propose to give a brief account of some outstanding compilations of ahâdîth in that early period. It will, at least, refute the misconception that the ahâdîth were not compiled during the first three centuries.


The Dictations of the Holy Prophet

To begin with, we would refer to the fact that a considerable number of ahâdîth were dictated and directed to be secured in written form by the Holy Prophet himself. Here are some examples:

The Book of Sadaqah

The Holy Prophet () has dictated detailed documents containing rules of Sharî'ah about the levy of Zakâh, and specifying the quantum and the rate of Zakâh in respect of different Zakât-able assets. This document was named "Kitâb as-Sadaqah" (The Book of Sadaqah). 'Abdullâh ibn 'Umar says,

The Holy Prophet dictated the Book of Sadaqah and was yet to send it to his governors when he passed away. He had attached it to his sword. When he passed away, Abu Bakr acted according to it till he passed away, then 'Umar acted according to it till he passed away. It was mentioned in his book that one goat is leviable on five camels. [Jâmi' Tirmidhi]

The text of this document is available in several books of ahâdîth like the Sunan of Abu Dâwûd. Imâm Zuhri, the renowned scholar of hadîth, used to teach this document to his pupils. He used to say:

This is the text of the document dictated by the Holy Prophet about the rules of Sadaqah (Zakâh). Its original manuscript is with the children of Sayyiduna 'Umar. Salim, the grandson of 'Umar had taught it to me. I had learnt it by heart. 'Umar ibn 'Abdul-Azîz had procured a copy of this text from Salim and 'Abdullah, the grandsons of 'Umar. I have the same copy with me. [Sunan Abu Dâwûd]

The Script of 'Amr ibn Hazm

In 10 A.H., when Najran was conquered by the Muslims, the Holy Prophet appointed his companion, 'Amr ibn Hazm as governer of the province of Yemen. At this time the Holy Prophet dictated a detailed book to Ubayy ibn Ka'b and handed it over to 'Amr ibn Hazm.

This book, besides some general advices, contained the rules of Sharî'ah about purification, salâh, zakâh, 'ushr, hajj, 'umrah, jihâd (battle), spoils, taxes, diyah (blood money), administration, education, etc.

Sayyiduna 'Amr ibn Hazm performed his functions as governor of Yemen in the light of this book. After his demise this document remained with his grandson, Abu Bakr. Imâm Zuhri learnt and copied it from him. He used to teach it to his pupils. [Certain extracts of this book are found in the works of hadîth. For the full text see, al-Wathâ'iq as-Sayâsiyyah fil-Islâm by Dr. Hamîdullâh.]

Written Directives to Other Governors

Similarly, when the Holy Prophet appointed some of his companions as governors of different provinces he used to dictate to them similar documents as his directives which they could follow in performing their duties as rulers or as judges. When he appointed Abu Hurairah and Ala ibn al-Hazrami as his envoy to the Zoroastrians of Hajar, he dictated to them a directive containing certain rules of Sharî'ah about Zakâh and 'Ushr. [Tabaqât Ibn Sa'd]

Likewise, when he sent Mu'âdh ibn Jabal and Malik ibn Murarah to Yemen, he gave them a document dictated by him which contained certain rules of Sharî'ah. [ibid]

Written Directives for Certain Delegations

Certain Arab tribes who lived in remote areas far from Madînah, after embracing Islâm used to send their delegations to the Holy Prophet. These delegations used to stay at Madînah for a considerable period during which they would learn the teachings of Islâm, read the Holy Qur'ân and listen to the sayings of the Holy Prophet. When they returned to their homes, some of them requested the Holy Prophet to dictate some instructions for them and for their tribes. The Holy Prophet used to accept this request and would dictate some directives containing such rules of Sharî'ah as they most needed.

1. Sayyiduna Wa'il ibn Hujr came from Yemen and before leaving for home, requested the Holy Prophet :

Write me a book addressed to my tribe.

The Holy Prophet dictated three documents to Sayyiduna Mu'awiyah. One of these documents pertained to personal problems of Wa'il ibn Hujr, while the other two consisted of certain general precepts of Sharî'ah concerning Salâh, Zakâh, prohibition of liquor, usury, and certain other matters. [ibid]

2. Munqiz ibn Hayyan, a member of the tribe of Abdul-Qais, came to the Holy Prophet and embraced Islâm. While returning home he was given a written document by the Holy Prophet which he carried to his tribe but initially he did not disclose it to anyone. When, due to his efforts, his father-in-law embraced Islâm, he handed over the document to him who in turn read it before his tribe which subsequently embraced Islâm. It was after this that the famous delegation of Abdul-Qais came to the Holy Prophet. The detailed narration is found in the books of Bukhâri and Muslim. [Mirqât Sharh Mishkât; Sharh an-Nawawi]

3. The delegation of the tribe of Ghamid came to the Holy Prophet and embraced Islâm. The Holy Prophet sent them to Sayyiduna Ubayy ibn Ka'b who taught them the Holy Qur'ân and:

the Holy Prophet dictated for them a book containing injunctions of Islâm. [Tabaqât Ibn Sa'd]

4. The delegation of the tribe of Khath'am came to the Holy Prophet. While discussing their arrival Ibn Sa'd reports on the authority of different reliable narrators:

They said, "We believe in Allâh, His messenger and in whatever has come from Allâh. So, write for us a document that we may follow." The Holy Prophet wrote for them a document. Jarir ibn 'Abdullâh and those present stood as witnesses to that document. [ibid]

5. The delegation of the tribes of Sumalah and Huddan came after the conquest of Makkah. They embraced Islâm. The Holy Prophet dictated for them a document containing Islâmic injunctions about Zakâh. Sayyiduna Thâbit ibn Qais had written the document and Sa'd ibn Ubâdah and Muhammad ibn Maslamah stood as witnesses. [ibid]

6. The same Thâbit ibn Qais also wrote a document dictated by the Holy Prophet for the delegation of the tribe of Aslam. The witnesses were Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah and 'Umar ibn al-Khattâb.



These are only a few examples which are neither comprehensive nor exhaustive. Many other instances of the same nature are found in only one book, namely the Tabaqât of Ibn Sa'd. A thorough research in all the relevant books would certainly expose a large number of like events for which a more detailed book is required.

All these examples refer to those events only where the Holy Prophet dictated documents containing general Islâmic injunctions. He has also dictated numerous official documents in individual cases. The large number of such documents prevents us from providing even a short reference to all of them in this brief study. All these documents also form part of the Sunnah and a large number of Islâmic injunctions are inferred from them. In brevity, we instead would only refer to a work of Dr. Muhammad Hamîdullâh, namely, al-Wathâ'iq as-Siyâsiyyah, in which he has compiled a considerable number of such documents. Those who desire further study may peruse the same.
Spoiler! :
The Scripts of Abu Hurairah

It is well-known that Abu Hurairah has narrated more ahâdîth than any other companion of the Holy Prophet. The number of ahâdîth reported by him is said to be 5374. The reason was that he, after embracing Islâm, devoted his full life for the sole purpose of bearing and preserving the ahâdîth of the Holy Prophet. Unlike the other famous companions, he did not employ himself in any economic activity. He used to remain in the mosque of the Holy Prophet to hear what he said and to witness each event around him. He remained hungry, faced starvations and hardships. Yet, he did not leave the function he had undertaken.

There are concrete evidences that he had preserved the ahâdîth in written form. One of his pupils, namely, Hasan ibn 'Amr reports that once:

Abu Hurairah took him to his home and showed him "many books" containing the ahâdîth of the Holy Prophet. [Jâmi' Bayân-ul-'Ilm; Fath-ul-Bâri]

It shows that Abu Hurairah had many scripts of ahâdîth with him. It is also established that a number of his pupils had prepared several scripts of his narrations.


The Script of 'Abdullâhi ibn 'Amr

It has been stated earlier that 'Abdullâh ibn 'Amr was specifically instructed by the Holy Prophet to write ahâdîth. He therefore compiled a big script and named it "As-Sahîfah as-Sâdiqah" (The script of truth). 'Abdullâh ibn 'Amr was very precautious in preserving this script. Mujâhid, one of his favorite pupils says, "I went to 'Abdullâh ibn 'Amr and took in hand a script placed beneath his cushion. He stopped me. I said, 'You never save anything from me.' He replied:

This is the Sâdiqah (the Script of Truth). It is what I heard from the Holy Prophet. No other narrator intervenes between him and myself. If this script, the Book of Allâh, and wahaz (his agricultural land) are secured for me, I would never care about the rest of the world. [Jâmi' Bayân-ul-'Ilm]

This script remained with his children. His grandson, 'Amr ibn Shu'aib used to teach the ahâdîth contained in it. Yahyâ ibn Ma'in and 'Ali ibn al-Madini have said that every tradition reported by 'Amr ibn Shu'aib in any book of hadîth has been taken from this script [Tahdhîb at-Tahdhîb]. Ibn al-Asir says that this script contained one thousand ahâdîth. [Asad-ul-Ghâbah]

The Script of Anas

Sayyiduna Anas ibn Mâlik was one of those companions of the Holy Prophet who knew writing. His mother had brought him to the Holy Prophet when he was ten years old. He remained in the service of the Holy Prophet for ten years during which he heard a large number of ahâdîth and wrote them down. Sa'îd ibn Hilal, one of his pupils, says,

When we insisted upon Anas, may Allâh be pleased with him, he would bring to us some notebooks and say, "These are what I have heard and written from the Holy Prophet, after which I have presented them to the Holy Prophet for confirmation. [Mustadrik Hâkim]

It shows that Sayyiduna Anas had not only written a large number of ahâdîth in several notebooks, but had also showed them to the Holy Prophet who had confirmed them.


The Script of 'Ali

It is well known that Sayyiduna 'Ali had a script of ahâdîth with him. He says,

I have not written anything from the Holy Prophet except the Holy Qur'ân and what is contained in this script. [Sahîh Bukhâri- Book of Jihad]

Imâm Bukhâri has mentioned this script at six different places of his Sahîh. A combined study of all those places reveals that this script was substantially large and it consisted of ahâdîth about qisâs (retaliation), diyah (blood money), fidyah (ransom), rights of the non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state, some specific kinds of inheritance, zakâh rules pertaining to camels of different ages, and some rules about the sanctity of the city of Madînah.

The script was written by Sayyiduna 'Ali in the days of the Holy Prophet. Then, in the days of his khilâfah (rule), he felt that the ahâdîth of the Holy Prophet should be spread among the people to widen the range of Islamic knowledge and to refute certain misguided ideas prevalent in those days.

It is reported by the famous historian Ibn Sa'd that he stood in the mosque and delivered a lecture. Then he asked the people,

"Who will purchase 'knowledge' for one dirham only?"

He meant that whoever wanted to learn ahâdîth, should buy writing paper for one dirham and come to him, for dictation of the ahâdîth of the Holy Prophet.

It is reported that Hârith al-A'war bought some paper and came to him:

So, ('Ali) wrote for him a lot of knowledge. [Tabaqât Ibn Sa'd]

It should be kept in mind that the word "knowledge" in the early centuries of Islamic history was used for the knowledge of ahâdîth only. [ibid]


Scripts of Jâbir


Jâbir ibn 'Abdullâh is one of the famous companions of the Holy Prophet who has narrated a large number of ahâdîth. It is established that he had compiled the ahâdîth in two scripts. One of them contained a detailed account of the last Hajj performed by the Holy Prophet. The full text of this script is found in the Sahîh of Muslim wherein he has described even the minute details of the last Hajj. [Sahîh Muslim- Book of Hajj. Dhahabi says that this is a replica of Jâbir's script.]

His second script contained other ahâdîth relating to different subjects.

Qatâdah, the famous pupil of Jâbir, says,

I remember the script of Jâbir more than I remember Surah al-Baqarah (of the Holy Qur'ân). [Tahdhîb at-Tahdhîb]

Reference to this script is also found in the Musannaf of 'Abdurrazzâq where some ahâdîth of this script are reported.

Scripts of Ibn 'Abbâs

'Abdullah ibn 'Abbâs was the cousin of the Holy Prophet. When the Holy Prophet passed away, he was yet very young. In order to preserve ahâdîth, he began to compile what he himself heard from the Holy Prophet as well as those narrated by other companions. Whenever he came to know of any companion having some ahâdîth, he would travel to him to hear them. All such ahâdîth were compiled by him in several scripts. These scripts numbered so many that they could be loaded on a camel. These scripts remained with his pupil Kuraib. Musa ibn 'Uqbah, the famous historian, says:

Kuraib left with us a camel load of Ibn 'Abbâs's books. When 'Ali ibn 'Abdullâh ibn 'Abbâs would need any book from them, he wrote to Kuraib, 'Send to me such and such books.' He would then transcribe the book and send to him one of the two copies. [Tabaqât Ibn Sa'd]

The pupils of Ibn 'Abbâs would copy these scripts and read them over to him to confirm the correctness of the copies. [Jâmi' at-Tirmidhi]

Sometimes Ibn 'Abbâs would narrate the ahâdîth to his pupils while they would record them. [Sunan Dârimi]

These are only a few examples of efforts made by the companions of the Holy Prophet for the compilation of ahâdîth. We do not intend here to present an exhaustive survey of such efforts. Detailed books can be consulted for this purpose. Our purpose here was to give only some examples. These concrete examples are more than sufficient to refute the fallacious assumption that the ahâdîth were never written in the days of the Holy Prophet and his companions.
Spoiler! :
The Compilation of Ahâdîth in the Era After the Companions
The history of the compilation of ahâdîth after the companions is even more vast and detailed. Each companion who narrated the ahâdîth had a large number of pupils who compiled what they heard from him. The pupils of the companions are called "Tâbi'în."

The compilations of the Tâbi'în were generally not arranged subject wise, though some of them have arranged the ahâdîth under subjective headings. The first known book of hadîth which is so arranged is Al-Abwâb of Imâm Sha'bi (19-103 A.H.). This book was divided into various chapters. Each chapter contained the ahâdîth relating to the same subject like salâh, zakâh, etc.

This proves that the first book of ahâdîth arranged in a regular manner appeared in the very first century. Another book was written by Hasan al-Basri (d.110) in which he compiled ahâdîth containing any explanations or commentaries of the Holy Qur'ân [Tadrîb ar-Râwi]. This was also a regular book written on a particular subject which appeared in the first century.

In the era of the Tâbi'în the compilation of ahâdîth was undertaken officially by the famous khalîfah, 'Umar ibn 'Abdul-Azîz (99-101 A.H.). He issued an official order to all governors under his domain that they should gather the knowledgeable persons from among the companions of the Holy Prophet and their pupils and write down the ahâdîth found with them [Fath al-Bâri].

The result of this official decree was that several books of ahâdîth were prepared and spread all over the country. Ibn Shihâb az-Zuhri was one of the pioneers of the compilation of hadîth in this period. He has written a number of books.

All these books and scripts written in this period were afterwards included in the larger books of hadîth written later on, as is usual in the evolution of every science. The separate entity of these books and scripts, being uncalled for, was not much attended to. Thus, the larger books written in the second and third centuries gradually took their place, and being more comprehensive, detailed, and sufficient, they were so widely spread and studied that the books of the Tâbi'în no longer remained on the scene.

However, some manuscripts of these books were preserved. Later books were compared and confirmed by such preserved manuscripts.

One of the books written in the days of the Tâbi'în was the script of Hammam ibn Munabbih, a pupil of Abu Hurairah, who prepared a book containing ahâdîth he heard from Abu Hurairah. This book is also known as "As-Sahîfah as-Sahîhah." All the ahâdîth of this book were included in later compilations. The full text of it is also found in the Musnad of Imâm Ahmad. The original script of this book was thus not attended to and was lost for a considerable time.

In 1373 A.H. (1954 C.E.), two manuscripts of this book were discovered in the libraries of Berlin and Damascus, and were published by Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah with a detailed introduction.

Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah edited these manuscripts which were written centuries ago. He has also compared their text with the one narrated in the Musnad of Imâm Ahmad. He could not find any material difference between the two texts. There are a few very minor differences of negligible words which always exist between two manuscripts of the same book.

It proves that the books of the Tâbi'în were included and were thus made part of the later books of hadîth, with all necessary precautions by which they can safely be relied upon.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refut ... unreliable_" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If anyone of you has bothered to read the entire link then it can be seen that before Bukhari there existed atleast 60 odd books of ahadith from which Bukhari compiled his collection. Now out of these 60 books we have some books even today however they are in a printed form today .
Last edited by skynightblaze on Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

@Booktalker

Please read the information in the above spoilers. I have refuted your so called scholar THE CAT (who is a gigantic TROLL in reality). The above posts are going to go in my resource center thread which I have to update to correct one or two mistakes I have committed there.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

Idesigner wrote:Dear SNB,

If we apply same logic ( muslims insitance on typewriters, scribes on the site :D ) in connection with christianity, christians would discard christianity.

Gospels were narrated by four or more apostles. Their account differs in detail about life and time of christ. Gospel in present form ( in original Greek) was composed some 150 or more years later. Add the work of Paul and his epistels or letters. Add the straight jacket dictat by emperor constantin some 300 years after the christ, when Christ was declared as God as well as Massih. Even dead sea schroll also tells different story about christian belief system. Christians have lived with all these contradictions and kept their faith alive. Christians have no problem with their oral traditions. Only muslims have lots of doubt, uncertainties about their faith just because there was a gap of 70 years in writing the whole story. Not only that they are prepared to go to war with other muslims because they find Mohemmed stories unpalatable.
I absolutely agree with you. Going by this stupid logic everything can be termed as a fabrication. If someone today tries to write about Hitler (66 years after his death i.e in 2011) what is the possibility that he portrays Hitler as a saint and all the people promote his book to understand who Hitler was??. This possibility is nil . Same is the case with islamic history. People would not get away if they falsely portrayed Muhammad as a criminal especially when was a saint in reality.

Now there is one point I think where people often misunderstand. Surely the first official version about Muhammad to appear was Ibn Ishaq however its not true that there was nothing before that. Please read my posts above. Read the spoilers and you will find that there were plenty of ahadith in circulation in the first century and second century hijra itself. This formed basis for Bukhari and others.

The absolute stupidity with this argument is that it accuses the entire generation of muslims in 7th and 8th century of conspiracy. This is a mass generalization . Surely there are a lot of stupid conspiracy theories but this one beats them all. I still dont understand how anyone (except The Cat) can call oneself logical with this argument. I know CAT can still call himself logical because he is an absolute TROLL .He believes that logic is what he types and not what it is actually. :lol:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4270
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by SAM »

skynightblaze wrote:
Idesigner wrote:Dear SNB,

If we apply same logic ( muslims insitance on typewriters, scribes on the site :D ) in connection with christianity, christians would discard christianity.

Gospels were narrated by four or more apostles. Their account differs in detail about life and time of christ. Gospel in present form ( in original Greek) was composed some 150 or more years later. Add the work of Paul and his epistels or letters. Add the straight jacket dictat by emperor constantin some 300 years after the christ, when Christ was declared as God as well as Massih. Even dead sea schroll also tells different story about christian belief system. Christians have lived with all these contradictions and kept their faith alive. Christians have no problem with their oral traditions. Only muslims have lots of doubt, uncertainties about their faith just because there was a gap of 70 years in writing the whole story. Not only that they are prepared to go to war with other muslims because they find Mohemmed stories unpalatable.
I absolutely agree with you. Going by this stupid logic everything can be termed as a fabrication. If someone today tries to write about Hitler (66 years after his death i.e in 2011) what is the possibility that he portrays Hitler as a saint and all the people promote his book to understand who Hitler was??. This possibility is nil . Same is the case with islamic history. People would not get away if they falsely portrayed Muhammad as a criminal especially when was a saint in reality.

Now there is one point I think where people often misunderstand. Surely the first official version about Muhammad to appear was Ibn Ishaq however its not true that there was nothing before that. Please read my posts above. Read the spoilers and you will find that there were plenty of ahadith in circulation in the first century and second century hijra itself. This formed basis for Bukhari and others.

The absolute stupidity with this argument is that it accuses the entire generation of muslims in 7th and 8th century of conspiracy. This is a mass generalization . Surely there are a lot of stupid conspiracy theories but this one beats them all. I still dont understand how anyone (except The Cat) can call oneself logical with this argument. I know CAT can still call himself logical because he is an absolute TROLL .He believes that logic is what he types and not what it is actually. :lol:
Have you completed a research work that fully meets your needs. I am waiting for it.. :cool:
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by MesMorial »

@ skynightblaze;

(Just basic point):

I am sure the Cat does not actually believe in the Qur'an, and from the non-Muslim perspective it follows that if the Qur'an is a fabrication (as you say it is), then so are the ahadith. Thus the authenticity and authority of ahadith goes down the drain before you start.

You say a "Qur'an-alone" Muslim cannot accept the Qur'an and deny the ahadith, but it follows that a non-Muslim cannot accept the ahadith and deny the Qur'an. The Cat already has the logical advantage through recognising ahadith as fabrications independent of the Qur’an,

To answer any question about ahadith we have to go to the Qur'an. When analysing the Qur'an we first decide whether it is likely to be from God (to see if the question of hadith is relevant), and then see what the Qur'an says about ahadith.

If someone accepts the Qur'an based on their own inference, it does not mean they must accept ahadith. For instance (assuming the Qur'an is true), many ahadith would be out of context (e.g. "pray as you have seen me praying"). The splitting of the moon is considered a certain and mutawatir hadith, yet you deny it whilst supporting the authenticity of hadith. Your argument descends to the assumption that if the Qur'an is true then so must be the accounts of those who supposedly compiled it. However, if the Qur'an does not hold the reliability of these people as a basis for Qur’anic faith, where is your argument?

Someone who believes in the Qur’an (based on “valid” reasons) will not accept anything else as being from God, because that “something else” will not satisfy the criterion. Reasons for accepting ahadith are nowhere to be found in the single source claiming to be God’s words. You must realise that a religion relying on words of humans is not a religion, but a cult?

Likewise, if somebody does not believe in the Qur’an, that person will also reject ahadith as fabrications.

You said that the Cat held the Qur’an as sacred.

I ask you this: Do you uphold ahadith as sacred?

If “Qur’an-alone” Muslims believe the Qur’an, does that mean they must believe in ahadith, or does it just mean that since ahadith are forged, then so must be the Qur’an?

You seem to argue that Sunnis are real Muslims, therefore that ahadith are true lies. But if they are lies, why are “Qur’an-alone” Muslims illegitimate?

You might say that accounts of Muhammad’s behaviour are not forged, but you say Muhammad was a liar thus my argument stays.

Sunni/Shia sects have been thoroughly debunked using the Qur’an, so if you could use your scholarly energy for more progressive and relevant causes, that would be good.

Cheers.


P.S. I will express again in no unclear terms that I am no longer "a Muslim".
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer

Idesigner
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by Idesigner »

The Cat wrote:
Idesigner wrote:Malik Ibn Anas got his hadith source through golden command from Mohemmed (PUBH) to Omar to Nafi to himself. Like all other religions Islam had oral traditions. These reliable traditions should not be junked because we dont like certain hadiths.
Then I'm sure you'll easily pinpoint which one of the 50 versions of his Muwatta is definitively authentic.
There is only one version of Sahi hadith by Bukhari which almost all Sunnis follow.

If there were 50 versions of Muwatta its not fault of Malik Ibn Anas.

I dont care how many versions are there for hadiths as long as muslims dont kill each other to implement correct version.

There were many versions of Koran but third Khalifa Othman made one version the final word of Allah. Rest were destroyed. He got many muslims killed to implement one and only version.

For that matter your translation and interpretation of Koran greatly differs from Yusuf Ali, Madudi, Shakir and Pickthall .
One guy will call it fight, another call it resists and third guy will call it desist, fourth guy call it campaign, fifth guy may call it peaceful convincing of non believer. :D Refer work by Moghul and others who have translated Koran.

Idesigner
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by Idesigner »

deleted
Last edited by Idesigner on Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Idesigner
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by Idesigner »

Cat:Wrong. Learn how the Kharijites were the first 'Koraners', the Salafis of their own time...


Oh yes we have Wahabist, true Koranite in existence since 18th century.

They all still refer to hadiths where they confirm koran.All koranites discuss and believe in hadiths when they are among themselves.

Without any traditions, sayings, chain of command, hadiths, Malik Anas, Ibn Ishaq, Bukhari there wont be muslims with chopped penuses, five time farting facing Mecca, going on Haj, forcefully collecting Zizya from Kaffirs, or women wearing hijabs, chopping of hands, stoning of adulterers etc .

Internet had made muslims pretty uncomfortable and hence we have guys like Cat and Moghul telling us how unreliables are all hadiths and how pure is Koran.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

@mesmorial

Your post indicates that you misunderstand my position and even CAT's position. I will reply to you in a day or two. All your questions will be answered.

Anyway welcome to humanity! I would like to know what made you leave islam. If you could just put up a testimony in the testimony section mentioning reasons then it would be great. Its good that you finally saw light.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by The Cat »

Idesigner wrote:If there were 50 versions of Muwatta its not fault of Malik Ibn Anas.
My comment was:
''I'm sure you'll easily pinpoint which one of the 50 versions of his Muwatta is definitively authentic.''
49 versions must be false by definition, So, which one is it? Which one is genuine?

Then, I've asked: ''Learn how the Kharijites were the first 'Koraners''. And you obviously didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharijites" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:@mesmorial

Your post indicates that you misunderstand my position and even CAT's position....
Let's precise, once again, your position versus mine...

TO ALL:
Snb position is that of an entrenched hatred towards Koraners, themselves considered apostates by mainstream, Sunnite Islam, which he's
propounding, calling them 'scums', all this because he believes that the hadiths portray Muhammad as a criminal. But by doing so, although
he despises them on one hand, on the other one, he acknowledges ipse facto their authority upon Muslims. Consequently endorsing their
legitimacy, thus their right to perform child-bride marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, etc.
viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=151586#p151586" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?p=160990#p160990" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You've said: ''To be honest, to prove that Muhammad was criminal one doesn't need ahadith at all. Quran itself is a proof''.
So, according to snb himself, his whole fight against Koraners is an exercise in puerility for the sake of arguing!

His Senility basic dishonesty about Koraners as enshrined...
viewtopic.php?p=151241#p151241" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Cat -''On one hand you defend the very authenticity of the hadiths, on the other one you'd readily give that up if including Koran.
That's honesty, SNB style!
''

snb -''I do this because I see the dishonesty in the first place from the quran alone muslims.''
viewtopic.php?p=151280#p151280" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Cat: ''Thanks for admitting your basic dishonesty. Theirs is just a sophist's excuse.''

On the contrary, my position (that of mainstream Western scholars) is destroying the reliability of the hadiths, their very foundation. It's
only after that I've discovered how the Koraners held a similar view which much more internal proofs, such as the mutawatur/tawatur vs
ahad transmissions (corroborated or not). It is my contention that Koraners are thus much more helpful to our cause against nowadays Islam,
than snb Sunnite's untenable position, bound to recede in the face of historicity and scholarship versus blind faith and circular assumptions.


Now, all your trumpeting silliness and crooked 'logic' above have been debunked in RC... :reading: :lotpot:
viewtopic.php?p=166816#p166816" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

Just to high light he is not only a troll but an outright liar and accuses others of lying! The quote below is what he wrote a few days back.. Secondly the link to what John talks about in 630 AD has already been provided in this thread in my response to Ibn Rushd. That book says that John describes an event of 630 AD . He describes them as criminal and therefore it follows that ahadith are authentic atleast when they talk about Muhammad being a criminal . The debate is over but we can expect this troll to continue posting on and on as it seems he is a fan of Napolean who said nothing is impossible in the world and therefore it follows that any argument is refutable :lol:
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:16.123: And afterward We inspired thee (Muhammad, saying):
Follow the religion of Abraham, as one by nature upright. He was not of the idolaters.

So why follow Muhammad, himself ordered to follow Abraham?
That's the shitty logic of the Sunnites you keep parroting.
Muhammad was asked to follow Abraham and hence muslims cant follow Muhammad. A team leader is asked to follow the Project Manager and hence a junior level programmer cant follow the team leader. :roflmao:
Read again the underline part.

The word translated 'religion' is Millata, meaning path, trace, way of example. The word 'nature upright' is the Arabic Hanifa (Hanif).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

--It confirms that Islam is much older than the Koran.
--2.124 gives the title of IMAM solely to Abraham; Isaac, Jacob (21.72-73) and Moses (46.12)!
viewtopic.php?p=159476#p159476" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

MesMorial wrote:@ skynightblaze;
(Just basic point):
I am sure the Cat does not actually believe in the Qur'an, and from the non-Muslim perspective it follows that if the Qur'an is a fabrication (as you say it is), then so are the ahadith. Thus the authenticity and authority of ahadith goes down the drain before you start.
1) Cat does believe in the quran. Read the post above and let me know what you can concur from his post. Secondly he even said that Satan made the ahadith writers write ahadith . A non muslim doesn't believe in Satan and hence would never make such argument. Lastly he was asked atleast 10 times as to whether he considers quran to be a word of GOd. He avoided answering this question every single time . I guess a sincere person would immediately respond.

2) I start my argument with the word "IF". CAT claims quran is not fabricated but if he says that ahadith are fabricated then it would automatically mean that quran too was fabricated because of the common elements between ahadith and quran. IT would mean that the corrupt elements of ahadith also found their way in the quran.

3)Thirdly, if quran is fabricated then only those parts of ahadith which confirm quran can be termed as fabrications . Why should anyone consider other parts as fabricated unless you prove something about them?
There is a huge difference between ahadith and quran which you fail to understand. Even if you prove 100 ahadith to be false it still cannot mean that ALL The ahadith are false however you prove 1 verse from quran the entire quran becomes a lie because of the claim that it is from GOd. Ahadith dont claim to be words of God. I know they are words of human + muhammad.

Mesmorial wrote: You say a "Qur'an-alone" Muslim cannot accept the Qur'an and deny the ahadith, but it follows that a non-Muslim cannot accept the ahadith and deny the Qur'an. The Cat already has the logical advantage through recognising ahadith as fabrications independent of the Qur’an,
I neither consider quran or ahadith as divine. I consider ahadith as historical documents which describe Muhammad's life. Your argument is like saying if you want to believe that Hitler was criminal then you need to believe in Mein Kampf. Mein Kampf is a bogus book and Hitler was a criminal. I can study history books and draw this conclusion that Hitler was a criminal and yet not believe in Mein Kampf. However one who believes in Mein Kampf or Nazism has to believe in works that describe about Hitler because the history brings out the real meaning of what Mein Kamp stands for.

Btw even I can prove quran is false without using ahadith .
Mesmorial wrote: If someone accepts the Qur'an based on their own inference, it does not mean they must accept ahadith. For instance (assuming the Qur'an is true), many ahadith would be out of context (e.g. "pray as you have seen me praying").
Plenty of quran is rendered meaningless without the ahadith. Finally I am not forcing anyone.
Mesmorial wrote: The splitting of the moon is considered a certain and mutawatir hadith, yet you deny it whilst supporting the authenticity of hadith. Your argument descends to the assumption that if the Qur'an is true then so must be the accounts of those who supposedly compiled it. However, if the Qur'an does not hold the reliability of these people as a basis for Qur’anic faith, where is your argument?
I don't believe all the ahadith are true. Logic overrules everything and I can prove that Muhammad didn't perform miracles.

If you are a muslim then you can't claim that Muhammad performed miracles because it would mean quran is false because quran says he did not. If you are a non muslim and believe that Muhammad was a liar then why should anyone believe that he could do miracles? If he is a false prophet then the game is over.

So you see using logic we can sift out between the ahadith. Either way you choose from above we come to the same conclusion that Muhammad didn't perform miracles.
Mesmorial wrote: Someone who believes in the Qur’an (based on “valid” reasons) will not accept anything else as being from God, because that “something else” will not satisfy the criterion. Reasons for accepting ahadith are nowhere to be found in the single source claiming to be God’s words. You must realise that a religion relying on words of humans is not a religion, but a cult?
Ofcourse you are correct and I have always claimed that islam is a cult. Islam wants you to follow Muhammad and that's the sad story about it because he was a thug. Sunnis use quranic verses to justify their stance and they are correct because quran definitely says that Muhammad was sent to instruct and guide mankind in matters other than scripture. 2:151 is one of the examples.
Mesmorial wrote: Likewise, if somebody does not believe in the Qur’an, that person will also reject ahadith as fabrications.
Again this is a false conclusion. Sanaa manuscripts confirm ahadith regarding compilation of quran and therefore some ahadith are definitely true because they confirm with what Sanaa manuscripts say but quran becomes false as Sanaa manuscripts research tells us that present day quran was different from some of the other quran found.
Mesmorial wrote: You said that the Cat held the Qur’an as sacred.

I ask you this: Do you uphold ahadith as sacred?
No. They are just historical records that describe Muhammad. That's it. There is no dispute between us as to whether its content is useful or not. I think both of us know that they are crap and criminal.
Mesmorial wrote: If “Qur’an-alone” Muslims believe the Qur’an, does that mean they must believe in ahadith, or does it just mean that since ahadith are forged, then so must be the Qur’an?
Both of them come as a package. Ideally one should discard both however if one believes quran then logically he is obliged to believe ahadith. I have used the word "Logical" and not "practical".
Mesmorial wrote: You seem to argue that Sunnis are real Muslims, therefore that ahadith are true lies. But if they are lies, why are “Qur’an-alone” Muslims illegitimate?
What I say is those ahadith which talk about Muhammad being a criminal are true and therefore islam is not from any God but from a mentally disturbed criminal. Quran alone muslims try to hide the true face of islam and they use confused mass of quran to twist the verses to pass islam as a genuine religion and thereby fool people into believing it. Even quran alone is sufficient to make one criminal and therefore I discourage such approach.
Mesmorial wrote: Sunni/Shia sects have been thoroughly debunked using the Qur’an, so if you could use your scholarly energy for more progressive and relevant causes, that would be good.
Cheers.
P.S. I will express again in no unclear terms that I am no longer "a Muslim".
If I can show sunnis that Muhammad was a thug then ain't I using my energy to a better cause? Are you trying tell me that no muslim condemns criminal acts? IF yes then my approach is useless otherwise it perfect because it exposes muslims to the reality and its an eye opener for them.

From what I have read many ex muslims were repelled by criminal acts of Muhammad and therefor this approach is correct.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:Just to high light he is not only a troll but an outright liar and accuses others of lying! The quote below is what he wrote a few days back.. Secondly the link to what John talks about in 630 AD has already been provided in this thread in my response to Ibn Rushd. That book says that John describes an event of 630 AD .
Here's the quote...
Having let their dispute run its course, after much fighting had taken place between them, the Westerners, whom they call the sons of
’Ammāyē, gained the victory, and one of their number, a man called M‘awyā [i.e., Mu‘awiya], became king controlling the two kingdoms,
of the Persians and of the Byzantines. Justice flourished in his time, and there was great peace in the regions under his control; he
allowed everyone to live as they wanted. For they held, as I have said above, an ordinance, stemming from the man who was their guide
(mhaddyānā), concerning the people of the Christians and concerning the monastic station. Also as a result of this man's guidance
(mhaddyānūtā) they held to the worship of One God, in accordance with the customs of ancient law. At the beginnings they kept to the
traditions (mašlmānūtā) of Mụhammad, who was their instructor (tā’rā),to such an extent that they inflicted the death penalty on anyone
who was seen to act brazenly against his laws.
Nowhere do we read anything related to 630, deceiver. That year isn't even mentioned!

And why did Muslims followed Muawiya instead of the prophet? They could have switched allegiance to his sworn enemy, Ali. They didn't!
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:--It confirms that Islam is much older than the Koran.

Quran is older than islam and that;s because quran says so. Are you from Harvard?
Even the dummiest of Muslim would see that you've been interchanging what I've said!
It doesn't only prove you a liar but someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
snb is definitively not from Harvard! :roflmao:

To my refutal in RC (a must if only for the fun of it): viewtopic.php?p=166816#p166816" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It addressed much of the above trumpeting silliness

I've added this, mainly about the first manuscript we thought (from 750), yet a 1953 forgery: :shock:
viewtopic.php?p=166823#p166823" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:@Booktalker
Please read the information in the above spoilers. I have refuted your so called scholar THE CAT (who is a gigantic TROLL in reality). The above posts are going to go in my resource center thread which I have to update to correct one or two mistakes I have committed there.
Since mistakes are the disgracing hardcore of your thread, you're gonna have a whole lot more to correct... beginning with yourself!
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by skynightblaze »

John Bar Penkaye wrote:God summoned against us a barbarian kingdom - a people that is not open to persuasion (Isaiah 65:2) whose comfort lies in meaningless bloodshed ,whose pleasure is to dominate all nations ,whose wish to is to take captives and to make deportations.[/b]

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-S9N ... 80%98awiya" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]
Looks like you cant even search properly.The author of the book says that John is talking about arabs conquests of 630 Ad.In the context its clear that it is talking about muslims.

Secondly what I intended to show the world is that you believe islam is older than quran but mistakenly wrote the reverse. You somehow think that showing my mistake acquits your stupidity and rather exposes me!. Thank you for putting up my show and displaying how absolutely stupid you are! Your logic is islam is older than quran because it says so :roflmao:

I guess we should breathe a sigh of relief because you could atleast spell out Harvard. :lol:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Hadith Timelines

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:
John Bar Penkaye wrote:God summoned against us a barbarian kingdom - a people that is not open to persuasion (Isaiah 65:2) whose comfort lies in meaningless bloodshed ,whose pleasure is to dominate all nations ,whose wish to is to take captives and to make deportations.[/b]

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-S9N ... 80%98awiya" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]
Looks like you cant even search properly.The author of the book says that John is talking about arabs conquests of 630 Ad.In the context its clear that it is talking about muslims.
In your wild imagination only. I guess everyone can see that there's no mention of 630. Taking captives refers to Muhammad in 630?
What about 360? You're really into some Sunnite's disabled frame of mind. A machine repeating whatever is at hand. A pitiful debater.

Even the link you've provided leads nowhere...

And Isaiah 65.2 doesn't even state that (not in all Isaiah 65)... More proofs that you fire before you even think (since you can't):
''I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts''
skynightblaze wrote:Secondly what I intended to show the world is that you believe islam is older than quran but mistakenly wrote the reverse. You somehow think that showing my mistake acquits your stupidity and rather exposes me!.
It does. I didn't make the blunder. You did and it shows again how you fire faster than you think, face it.

And indeed the root SLM (for Islam) is much older than Quran. Face it too... What a double-speech person you are, Mr. Deceiver.

Most of all, these trumpeting silliness of yours is all you can offer to my wide rebuttals. Impressive... :D
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Post Reply