skynightblaze wrote:How do you know Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz lived from 682-720? I mean what is your source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_AbdulAziz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (c. 682 - February, 720) was an Umayyad caliph who ruled from 717 to 720....
Does Bukhari or sahih muslim mention it ? If not then let me point out a gross blunder here. Most probably this isn’t mentioned in Sahih collections.Sahih hadiths were considered reliable by muslims during those times and yet we find so many mistakes in it . Now imagine how erroneous non sahih sources would be when even those muslims (sahih followers) found them unreliable? You want me to take them as source ?
It's there for everyone to check, Bukhari 1.3.98:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc ... 3.sbt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Narrated by Abu Huraira
I said: "O Allah's Apostle! Who will be the luckiest person, who will gain your intercession on the Day of Resurrection?" Allah's Apostle said: O Abu Huraira! "I have thought that none will ask me about it before you as I know your longing for the (learning of) Hadiths. The luckiest person who will have my intercession on the Day of Resurrection will be the one who said sincerely from the bottom of his heart "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah."
And 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr bin Hazm, "Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish and the religious learned men will pass away (die). Do not accept anything save the Hadiths of the Prophet. Circulate knowledge and teach the ignorant, for knowledge does not vanish except when it is kept secretly (to oneself)."
Thing is that Huraira (603-681) was dead before Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz (682-720) was even born. He couldn't possibly have mentioned this. So it was invented later, probably by ibn Munabbih (d.750) or grandsons. That such a forgery past through Bukhari's scrutiny completely annihilate his credential and that of Munabbih (one of the earliest known hadith collector). Now, then and forever... GET IT NOW?
1. This hadith is a clear forgery enacted by later narrators who passed it falsely 'on the authority' of a 'shahaba' (Huraira).
2. It seriously cast a shadow over Bukhari's authenticity and hence any chain of narrators must be reconsidered.
3. It dodge away that the recording of hadiths began in earnest under Abdul-Aziz. We have to trace them back to Hanbal at the earliest.
--Are There Any Early Hadiths? A Muslim perspective (displaying Munabbih as the oldest one)...
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Its refutal...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... hadith.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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, Saeed bin Urwa, Abdullah bin Abi Labeed, Abdul Malik bin Ameen, Abdul waris bin Saeed, Ata bin As-Saib bin Yazeed, and Khamsan bin Minhal as unreliable.
However, the Hadith-collection of Bukhari in the its modern form actually includes many traditions narrated by these very individuals!
But according to skynightblaze, lost in his own groundless chain of arguments, his sahih hadiths are reliable.
So like I've said:
I'm not even commenting of the shirk of Muhammad's intercession, or the obvious felony towards Muhammad, the Koran, the four rashidun caliphs that this ''
Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish'' mean. Anyone not admitting that this is sacrilegious (the Koran to vanish!??) has about the mental capacity of skynightblaze or of the Muhammadans.
So we're down to the 'Muwatta' of Malik bin Anas (d.795) the founder of Maliki school of jurisprudence. Yet, ''
It is not a corpus of hadith in a true sense but a collection of practices of people of Madinah.'' So even this must be discarded as genuine hadiths about the prophet.
this one was chosen from among 50 `versions' of the Muwatta, and only 16 were considered "best transmitted" So Dr. Saifullah, which of these 16 "best transmitted" editions of the Muwatta of Malik represents your authentic "early Hadith"?
This deafening historical silence is only broken by ibn Hanbal's collection of hadiths, the Musnad of Ahmad. But he's not even a 'sahih' guy.
Checking those sahih hadiths we come down to Bukhari, whose wholesome reliability is shattered down in B.1.3.98.
skynightblaze wrote:Common sense tells us that grandsons of Umar wouldn’t narrate hadiths from Abu Huraira if their grandfather and all the people before them considered Abu Huraira as a liar and obviously Pussy Cat the grandsons of Umar knew better than you who is born in 21st century.They were muslims and no muslim would dare to refer to a known liar to understand their prophet. Show me a single case today. I will accept your argument.
Done.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... dith_2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kassim Ahmad:
If, on the average, a hadith consists of three simple sentences (in truth many hadiths run into paragraphs), then Bukhari would have had to collect, read, investigate, evaluate and record over 1.8 million sentences over a period of 40 years. This is the equivalent of researching (which include the long camel journeys to and fro across the desert) and attesting to the authenticity of over 300 books, each equivalent to the thickness and complexity of a Quran!
:wacko: I
personally think that 'Bukhari' is a code name for a group of scribes from Bukhara...
On the accuracy of the Year of the Elephant, ie.570.
skynightblaze wrote:
If hadiths are unreliable then so is quran because quran confirms hadiths on many counts so if we are take this quote of your seriously it would also mean that you cant be quran only muslim too . The logic is A is corrupted,B confirms A and hence B too is corrupted and hence in our case both quran and hadith become unreliable! GAME OVER PUSSY CAT!! So its proved beyond a doubt that you cant be a quran only muslim which is why you are arguing here.
The game is over for YOU: the hadiths are demonstratively unreliable. And B doesn't confirm A at all. Quite the opposite.
That's why koraners-only are at the front line against the hadiths...
The Koran is -alone- the sacred book of Islam, that's the bottom line.
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithhistory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithmyth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithcon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/aisha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/bukhari" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/testimony" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/seven" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.quranic.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (a plethora of articles too)
(etc, etc).
It does destroy the reliability of ANY chain of narrators, and thus your argument that the hadiths are reliable lies groundless.
When was Muhammad born? In the Year of the Elephant, right?
Now... when was that: 552 or 570?
It's now certified 552!
viewtopic.php?p=90797#p90797" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Muhammad ibn al-Sa'ib (died 726 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 15 years before the "Year of the Elephant". Ja'far ibn Abi 'l-Mughira (died early 8th century A.D.) dates Muhammad's birth 10 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Al-Kalbi tells us that Shu'ayb ibn Ishaq (died 805 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 23 years after this event. Al-Zuhri (died 742 A.D.) believed that Muhammad was born 30 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Musa ibn 'Uqba (died 758) believed that Muhammad was born 70 years later! If we assume that the "Year of the Elephant" was 570 A.D. (? rather 552), then Muhammad could have been born anytime between 555 A.D. and 640 A.D. and could have died anytime between 615 A.D. and 700 A.D.!
How can we trust any of the hadiths? The "transmitters" cited by the hadith may not have been alive during Muhammad's lifetime, to witness the events which they are believed to have "transmitted".....
That's about how 'reliable' the sahih hadiths are...
So all your arguments in favor of the hadiths' authenticity lay broken, groundless... right there.
