63.1-2: ''When the hypocrites come unto thee (O Muhammad), they say: We bear witness that thou art indeed Allah's messenger. And Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the hypocrites indeed are speaking falsely. ---They make their faith a pretext so that they may turn (men) from the way of Allah. Verily evil is that which they are wont to do.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hadith
According to Ibn Hajar, “During the Prophet’s lifetime and into the time of the Companions and older Followers, the narrations of the Prophet were not transcribed in a systematic manner. This was due to two reasons. The first, was that early on they had been prohibited from doing so, as has been established in Sahih Muslim, lest the hadith become confused with the Quran. The second was due to expansive capability of their ability to memorize and because the majority of them were unable to write.” Despite this, there are few examples of written hadith from that period. A critical part of understanding this issue is the hadith of Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree, who said, that the Prophet said, “Do not write what I say; whoever has written what I have said other the Quran, then he must erase it.''
http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/4/ ... _sunna.htm
The objections, raised by Al-Mu’tazila, and the Kharidjites, members of the earliest of the religious orders of Islam, to the copying of hadiths and their acceptance as a religious source, the announcement of some theologians (Kelamclar) that the hadiths are but suppositions, the controversies of Shafi in Basra because of his recourse to sources other than the Quran, and the quotations of the responses of Al- Murdjia, extreme opponent of Kharidjites, in books on hadiths are examples for the objections raised against the compilation of the hadiths.
Are There Any Early Hadiths?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... hadith.htm
How do we know that the "chain" of transmission is authentic? In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak! For example, Bukhari collected over 600,000 reports, but kept only 7,397 as true (without stating why, like rejecting most Hanafi former Hadiths)! To make matters even more confusing, there are contradictions among the "accepted" Hadiths (ikhtilaf al-hadith). There are many hadiths which record conflicting accounts of the same event! ....
Where is the manuscript evidence concerning the earliest Hadith? How can we be sure that stories were not erroneously inserted into the traditions, or that existing stories did not undergo editing? After all, if someone can "create" a tradition, what would prevent them from "creating" a chain of narration? It is interesting to note that Bukhari wrote a book about the narrators (Zuafa-us-sagher). What is even more interesting is that Bukhari's book condemns several narrators including: Ata bin abi Maimoona, Ayyub bin Aiz, Ismail bin Aban, Zubair bin Muhammad, At-Tayyimi, (etc) and Khamsan bin Minhal as unreliable. However, the Hadith-collection of Bukhari in its modern form actually includes many traditions narrated by these very individuals! Obviously, these traditions, which Bukhari rejected, were inserted in his book following his death.
The case of... 'On The Authority of Abu Huraira' (or of Bukhari's authority).
In the Sahih Hadiths we only find 142 ahadiths from Abu Bakr, 146 from Uthman, 537 from Umar, 536 from Ali, who were with Muhammad from the first BUT... 2210 ahadiths from Aischa's twelve years, AND... 5374 from Huraira (who lived less than two years with him, not even three as per B.4.789), whom Umar punished for stealing in Bahrain (645), saying: ''You are an enemy of Allah and an enemy of his book! Have you stolen Allah's property?'' After that, Umar forbade him to ever narrate a hadith of the Prophet ''Because you are fit only for attributing lies to him.''
Ali said: ''Beware of the greatest liar among people, Abu Huraira.'' And Aischa: ''Huraira is the greatest liar who fabricates ahadiths and attributes them to the Holy prophet.'' Yet, after Umar died he was made a governor of Medina by Muawiya and his treacherous collision with Busr ibn Atat led to the killing of 30,000 Muslims. ''The messenger of God never ordered us to write anything of his hadith'' (Ibn Hanbal). About one sixth (15.56%) from Bukhari's hadiths comes from this Abu Huraira (or 5 hadiths per day with Muhammad). In speeches and lectures, in Friday khutbahs and seminars, in the books of hadith and sirah, fiqh and ibadah, the name Abu Hurayrah is mentioned in this fashion: "On the authority of Abu Hurayrah....'' Bukhari not only rejected all former Hanafi hadiths, he only kept 45 hadiths from ibn Masud and 10 from Abu Sufyan.
Well who the hell is he to have ANY authority, beside Allah and the Koran? Huraira is the sole witness of his testimonies, an aahad. B.7.343: '' I used to accompany Allah's Apostle to fill my stomach...'' Yet he published his ahadiths allegedly in the time of Muawiya. In fact it's even later, from his pupil Ibn Munabbih who died in 750. Not only is Huraira the sole witness of his testimonies (aahad), to be recognized as a law-giver on par with Allah (as in he Shahadah), all we have from him rather comes from his 'pupil' ibn Munabbih (d.750)! Anything religiously binding based 'On the Authority of Huraira' (really ibn Munabbih, of whom we know next to nothing) or of any such transmitter, is blasphemous and so Muhammadans are but shirk collectors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammam_ibn_Munabbih
Abu Hurairah used to narrate the hadith he heard from the Prophet to his 9 students. Out of all 9 students, only Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih's book has survived in manuscript form.
B.7.268: The people said, "O Abu Huraira! Did you hear that from Allah's Apostle?" He said, "No, it is from my own self."
B.7.343: ''I used to accompany Allah's Apostle to fill my stomach...'' (i.e. I'm an opportunist).
Umar, after depossessing Hurairah from the governance of Bahrain (for stealing) in 645: ''You are an enemy of Allah, and an enemy of His book! Have you stolen Allah's property?'' After imposing a fine of 10,000 dinars he forbade Hurairah from narrating hadith of the Prophet stating: ''because you are only fit for attributing lies to him.'' Such a liar and stealer can't possibly have any credibility whatsoever, then to became governor of Medina under Muawiyah, why? In fact, much of sura Repentance seems to be addressing people like him (9.97-9.101)!
Yet, we have nothing from Abu Hurairah (603-681?) but from one of his alleged 'pupil', Hammam ibn Munabbih (d.750) so stating 'On the Authority of Abu Hurairah' became a sunni landmark (radiallahu anhu), nothing but shirk (46.16-17; 63.1-2): On the so-called authority of Munabbih, who heard it from the 'authority' of Hurairah, who heard it from the (uncorroborated) 'authority' of 'Muhammad', whom stated not to record any hadith! Thanks to him, we know that Adam was sixty cubits long by seven cubits wide and that human began to grow less gradually until nowadays (B.4.55.543).
Like him or not, AB came out with some magisterial threads on Bukhari:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45657
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38763
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=52727
viewtopic.php?p=14787#p14787
viewtopic.php?p=14788#p14788
31.6: "Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless HADITH, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution."
So are the Sahih Hadiths reliable? Are the hadiths' followers truly Muslims or rather sectarian Muhammadans?
Doesn't that qualify Koran as garbage?
..
