No sahih collections, nor al-Tabari, give ANY reference to former manuscripts, which were unexisting anyway. To hide this Muhammadansbooktalker wrote:does anyone know if there is a link on this site to a post about how the ahadith were collected and when?
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...)
Even nowadays top Islamic scholar, Harald Motzki, couldn't find ANY genuine source between 630-690. Nothing...--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.
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