For power. Common human error. But I don't think they thought they were doing the wrong thing. They thought they were closest to Allah or their idea of Allah was correct and the other guy's wasn't. Typical. But if they were even the least bit Muslim, then they would have the hellfire to fear, right? So did Bukhari get the recollections from apostates?
First of all Bukhari didn't report any of these civil wars, it's reported in many history books with different versions of the story... but shocking events like destroying the Ka'aba is common in all of them. So, yes when they destroyed the Ka'aba they didn't have the slightest fear of hell.
And Bukhari's in on this? He documents who reported what. Did he lie and therefore risk the hellfire? This seems more like you inventing "possibilities".
Again, Bukhari didn't report the Banu al-Mustaliq story. A history book by Ibn Ishaq did. And I don't think Ibn Ishaq (or Bukhari) intentionally lied. They reported stories according to what they heard, that's all they did. And yes, I am merely "speculating" as to why these stories were invented (altered).
That doesn't seem to be who Bukhari interviewed. Definitely not in the case of the stories of Ayesha's age.
Again, Bukhari came more than 150-200 years later and started collecting stories. He interviewed storytellers.
But it's not, so instead, it's the Munafiqeen. But this means that pious Muslims believed such stories about Muhammad and passed it along the chain?
A Munafiq reporting the story could be at the beginning of the chain, its end or somewhere in between. Besides, that's just one possibility. And yes, just like Muslims of today
have no problem believing stories of cold blooded assassinations of Mohammed's enemies, for example, so were Muslims of old
. All they needed was to hear someone they trusted saying: Mohammed
did it, so it automatically becomes OK.
But, even aside from Munafiqeen, the question still remains as to how we decide what comes from a Munafiqeen and what doesn't. So how do you decide whether the hadiths about Ayesha's age come from a Munafiqeen or not? You can't decide based on the quran as mentioned above, so do you decide based on what you know about Muhammad?
Based on the Quran's description of him and other prophets.
What do you mean? It barely even mentions Muhammad. Maybe 4 times or something?
The Quran mentioned Mohammed only about 4 times or so?! Obviously you haven't read the Quran.
Well, see, we've run into the classic logic problem and I thank you for pointing this out or arriving at this spot. The Quran is right because Muhammad said so and Muhammad is right because the Quran said so. It's like saying, "why am I a prophet? Because this here book I'm reciting says so". Maybe I can now see why the books in the Bible always seemed to be written by a narrator, because you can't write a book yourself that makes you a prophet and your book divine. That will always come off as fishy or suspicious. More suspicious than if someone else writes an account of you and calls you a prophet. Interesting. I never thought of that before.
First off, many times before, I said no one can prove the divinity of the Quran. NO ONE! PERIOD. So, why do I choose the Quran over say, Veda? Ans: Due to my personal taste. Now, I don't see what's the difference between writing the book yourself or having someone else narrate that you were a prophet. And since you mention the Bible "yet again", know this: the 5 books of the Torah were written by Moses, including the last book of Deuteronomy where Moses describes his own death and burial, now it can't get any fishier than that, can it?
But here's something even more fundamental to consider, and it ends up being far worse than anything any human has done.
According to Islam and other religions
1) God is all knowing
2) Therefore, God knows the future outcomes with absolute certainty
3) There will be many people in hell
4) God knows whether a person will end up in hell or not, even before he creates them
5) God can choose not to create them if he knows they will end up in hell
6) God chooses to create them anyway, knowing he will torture them in hell
7) God created them to be tortured in hell. If that was the known outcome, then that was the purpose.
Ok, so according to Islam and other religions
, that's what God said about Himself, next.
So that's pretty much as bad as it gets, right? So why does God go ahead and create the person anyway rather than sparing them? Does he want to punish them for sins that they have yet to do by creating them so that they will end doing the sins they have yet to do and end up in hell? Remember, God could have easily prevented them from going to hell by not even creating them at all. So when you talk about knowing what God would and wouldn't do, I think you need to solve this very fundamental riddle first before you can even begin to think you know how God would or wouldn't behave.
Although I did try to justify this, I still don't know why God even created any of us in the first place. But remember, I never tried to think for God. I simply took what He said about Himself/prophets
etc and used it to judge things.
I reject the Quran mainly because of it's claim to be the letter for letter dictation of Allah while showing perceptions and understandings of the cosmos that mirror that of a 7th century man perfectly.. To me, THAT'S my proof. That doesn't require a value judgment, it's an obvious thing or blunder. Recognizing an obvious blunder is not a value judgment.
And I am one of the very few Muslims who believe that the Quran does NOT have any science in it AT ALL. The Quran simply demanded the Arabs to appreciate God's creation as they understand it.
"See the moon and the sun, how they move in the sky in perfect order?" This is basically what one the verses said. There's absolutely no science in it at all, it simply reminds
them of the magic of creation all around them. And don't believe the stupid lie by Muslims that everything in the Quran is for all time and all ages. The religion as a whole is. But not every verse is.