Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

[The Cat]

I hope then you accept that when you learn events that happened before your birth from reliable books then it must be a sign that you are unreliable! What kind of logic is that?

Yep, since Ibn Abbas had to consult many others is prove enough that he didn't trust his own memory. Why did he need any such corroboration if he witness personally anything? That is still, anyway, another hadith circular reasoning of which you're addicted like a Muhammadan...

See how Ibn Abbas himself dismissed the writing down of Hadiths (thanks AB):
viewtopic.php?p=128846#p128846

9- Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
Abi Tawoos said that his father said: Ibn Abbas was asked a question by a man from the people of Najran, then Ibn Abbas liked the good question of that man, so the man told Ibn Abbas: Write the answer for me. So Ibn Abbas replied: Indeed, we do not write the knowledge (hadith).

Tawoos said: A man used to write to Ibn Abbas asking him about some issues, he sent to Ibn Abbas another man with his questions written, so Ibn Abbas said to the man who delivered the written questions: Inform him that the answers are so and so, as we do not write in books other than personal messages and Quran.

Tawoos said: We were visiting Ibn Abbas who was saying hadith. A man named Saeed Ibn Jabir was writing what Ibn Abbas was saying. It was said to Ibn Abbas about those who were writing, so Ibn Abbas said: Did they indeed write (my hadith)? Then he stood up and left because he was of a good character. Was he not of a good character, he would behaved by something that would have been more than standing and leaving.

This I held to be true for it is consistent with the fact that Muhammad's interdiction over writing down hadiths has been followed: we do NOT possess ANY authoritative hadiths before the damned trinity of Shafi'i/Hanbal/Bukhari, that is more than TWO centuries after Muhammad.

Your 'logic' is yet just another bunch of logical fallacies (false dilemma, straw man) seemingly the only 'logic' you can ever display.

This post of yours show that you arent aware as to how bukhari collected the hadiths.

And this collecting was challenged by Sahih Muslim stating that Bukhari plagiarized! Bukhari hold reliable ANYONE who had only seen Muhammad for a minute, not questioning their motives as if they were all a priori unfailing saints (against 9.101), that's not a reliable criteria and does seriously cast a doubt over his (most evidently political) selection.

Otherwise, let's check his criterias some more...
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! 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!

Another question which needs to be asked is : 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! Obviously, these traditions, which Bukhari rejected, were inserted in his book following his death.

And where does his 600,000 hadiths (or that of Ibn Hanbal) come from since the available early hadiths are but a tiny fraction of that?

Again, history shows that there was NO authoritative hadiths, following the interdiction of them by Muhammad, until the damned trinity of Shafi'i/Hanbal/Bukhari came in, that is about TWO centuries LATER. The posts made by AhmedBahgat are a concluding proof of it all:

viewtopic.php?p=128846#p128846
viewtopic.php?p=128847#p128847
viewtopic.php?p=128848#p128848

[The Cat]

I am against quran only muslims who try to portray false image of islam to make it compatible with society and thats why I say its either quran + hadiths or there is no islam.Its not that the quran is compatible with the society but hadiths are worse than quran and we can easily use them against islam.

Wrong: it is the hadiths that are portraying a false, idolatrous, image of Islam. That you are against Koraners because they would make a religion ''compatible with society'' should be noted since the logical conclusion of your stand is stating that Islam SHOULD be incompatible, frightening, cruel. The result is what's happening right now, which you shamelessly endorse.

Muhammadans can use those false hadiths much more dangerously against YOU than the other way around. You're telling us (along with Muhammadans) that before the Hadiths came in force, two hundred years after Mo, there was no Islam: people like the righteous caliphs weren't true Muslims!

I think hadiths are more effective in pushing more towards the journey of apostasy than the quran. I also understand the consequences of my line of argument. I mean if hadiths are proven authentic then there is a chance that muslims instead of rejecting muhammad take them as valid sources. In that case I would have to repent so to be frank I am not sure whether my argument is right.

1.2 billions did just that for more time than fifty lifes of yours.


If you believe that any hadith is insulting Muhammad, you are to be killed


This is the logical conclusion of your stands by the same criteria you otherwise defend.

[The Cat]

Now we have some hadiths that confirm quran so if you claim that ALL THE hadiths are unreliable how in the world can anyone believe in this nonsense that quran is authentic but yet the hadiths confirming quran are unauthentic? Common sense tells us that If quran is authentic then hadiths confirming quran also must also be authentic so how can ALL the hadiths be unauthentic?

They are felony to the Koran itself, which portrays them ALL as unauthentic! So how could they 'confirm' the Koran? Silly you...

77.50: In what hadith, after this, will they believe ?

There can be NO hadith confirming the Koran, the mother of all blasphemy, since it throws them ALL away at first! The only way hadiths could confirm both the Koran and Muhammad's will is by being suppressed or interdicted for the shirk they truly are, as they were for more than TWO centuries.

"The prophet said: 'Do not write anything from me except the Quran. Whoever wrote, must destroy it" (Muslim, Zuhd 72; Hanbal 3/12,21,39).

"Omar said: Quran is enough for us, do not write anything from the prophet" (Bukhari, Jihad 176, Gizya 6, Ilim 49, Marza 17, Megazi 83, Itisam 26; Muslim, Vasiyya 20,21,22).

Sahih Muslim Book 41 (Zuhud), Number 7147:
Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Qur'an, he should efface that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me - and Hammam said: I think he also said: "deliberately" - he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire.

[yeezevee]

And where does his 600,000 hadiths (or that of Ibn Hanbal) come from since the available early hadiths are but a tiny fraction of that?

what are the earliest hadith that you believe in and how many are there dear The Cat??

1.2 billions did just that for more time than fifty lifes of yours.

1.2 billions did just that for more time than fifty lifes of yours.


If you believe that any hadith is insulting Muhammad, you are to be killed


This is the logical conclusion of your stands by the same criteria you otherwise defend.

Although you are not saying but you understand well the reason behind why SKB supports hadith dear TheCat., That is NOT the logical conclusions of SKB where he stand, and why he picks up on hadith. He is writing in support of hadith to prove Muhammad depicted by early Muslims(~ 1or 2 centuries after Muhammad's death) themselves was a criminal character and He is showing the readers "HOW STUPID ARE THE MUSLIMS to believe in Muhammad as messenger of Allah/God..

with best
yeezevee

[The Cat]

He is writing in support of hadith to prove Muhammad depicted by early Muslims(~ 1or 2 centuries after Muhammad's death) themselves was a criminal character and He is showing the readers "HOW STUPID ARE THE MUSLIMS to believe in Muhammad as messenger of Allah/God..

His position is but wishful thinking...untenable since Muhammadans think otherwise.


By endorsing the hadiths' authenticity he's only fueling Muhammadans' right to kill if you insult the prophet. That's what he's doing!

He's substituting his own wishful desire to the plain truth. That is sinister as can be...

what are the earliest hadith that you believe in and how many are there dear The Cat??

Nothing can explain their sparsity up to the 700,000 hadiths compiled by Hanbal (?), except their interdictions by the prophet & the Koran.

[yeezevee]

yeezevee wrote:what are the earliest hadith that you believe in and how many are there dear The Cat??

Nothing can explain their sparsity up to the 700,000 hadiths compiled by Hanbal (?), except their interdictions by the prophet & the Koran.

I guess I don't understand your answer., Should I take that answer as "you don't like to answer that question dear The Cat?? ..

anyways ., let me add few links on that point of "Earliest Hadith"

Are There Any Early Hadiths?
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html

An Introduction to the Sciences of Hadith
http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/sunnah/0008.htm

Women Scholars of hadith
http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/ ... hadith.htm

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

EVery single debator can just say that his opponent is resorting to a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.So if we are to follow your line of thinking then tell me how is anyone supposed to know the outcome of a debate? There has to be a judge.

More logical fallacies won't get you out of the trap you've made for yourself. This is perflectly exposing your way of debating.

No, his comments are correct and you indeed do things like this. You can't just brush something off, you have to explain precisely why something is to be brushed off or else it's merely a meaningless comment or merely someone's opinion. And you know what they say, opinions are like arss holes, everybody's got one.

[AhmedBahgat]

@CAT and Bahgat

A simple question debunks you both.. Both of you argue for a quran only muslim case. Lets for a minute assume that ALL THE HADITHS ARE COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE . Now we have some hadiths that confirm quran so if you claim that ALL THE hadiths are unreliable how in the world can anyone believe in this nonsense that quran is authentic but yet the hadiths confirming quran are unauthentic? .

Common sense tells us that If quran is authentic then hadiths confirming quran also must also be authentic so how can ALL the hadiths be unauthentic?

Lol, see how ignorant you are, well you must be a clear cut deceiver too, a deceiver who is defending man made crap which you did not even read, how shameless, you confused ex-Hindu

Your man made crap of rubbish hadith do not authenticate Quran, quite the contrary, your rubbish books of hadith doubt the Quran authenticity.

For example, your man made rubbish books of hadith alleged that Abdullah Ibn Masoud refused to take Sura #113 & Sura #114 as being Quran. And I will surely find that crap for you, then come and slam dunk a shameless confused kafir like you.

But for now, let me slam you with this from Nawawi man made book which explains to us the other man made book, Sahih Muslim:

These are the first 3 verses in sura 92 as they appear in all Qurans found in the world:

وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا يَغْشَىٰ (1)
By the night when it covers.
[Al Quran ; 92:1]

وَالنَّهَارِ إِذَا تَجَلَّىٰ (2)
And (by) the day when it appears.
[Al Quran ; 92:2]

وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنْثَىٰ (3)
And (by) He Who created the male and female.
[Al Quran ; 92:3]

-> Can you see the underlined two words: مَا خَلَقَ , Ma Khalaq, i.e. (by) He Who created in verse 92:3. Your man made rubbish books of hadith tell us that these two words are not from Quran, see:

Source


قال فكيف سمعت عبد الله يقرأ هذه الآية والليل إذا يغشى قال سمعته يقرأ والليل إذا يغشى والذكر والأنثى قال وأنا والله هكذا سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقرؤها ولكن هؤلاء يريدون أن أقرأ وما خلق فلا أتابعهم

What they are saying above goes as follow:

A guy said to another: How did you hear Abdullah Ibn Masoud reading verse 92:1?

The other guy replied:

I heard him reading like this:

وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا يَغْشَىٰ (1)
By the night when it covers.
[Al Quran ; 92:1]

وَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنْثَىٰ (3)
And the male and female.
[Al Quran ; 92:3]

Ahmed says:
Firstly, the allegation dropped verse 92:2, however, I am not going to pick on that, possibly he said it but they were just lazy to write it; but I am not going to let the corruption they alleged to verse 92:3 goes unnoticed, they alleged that Abdullah Ibn Masoud dropped these two words in his Quran because he believed that they are not part of Quran. This is how it is said above:

The first guy replied back to the second who recited to him how Ibn Masoud memorised and read the above verses:

Me too, by Allah, I heard the messenger of Allah reciting them like that, but these people want me to add these words: مَا خَلَقَ , He Who created, to them, and I will not follow them.

Now, tell me confused and stubborn kafir skyarseblaze:

Do your man made rubbish books of crap hadith prove the authenticity of Quran, or these man made books clearly doubt its authenticity?

Now, you can shove your man made books of hadith up your arse and up WB’s arse, you have been mother slammed:

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

And another turd hits everybody's screen. I'm glad that I bought "Turd Away" for my screen. I knew that investment would pay off some day.

[iffo]

@AhmedBaghat

Thanks for your time and effort
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7991&start=380#p128846

[piscohot]

100)
His authority is only over those who take him as a guardian and those who are through him polytheists.
[Al Quran ; 16:100]

Did I not enjoin you, O sons of Adam, that you should not worship the devil, (for) indeed, he is for you an obvious enemy.
[Al Quran ; 36:60]

any devil worshippers here?
show of hands please.

stupid muslims

[piscohot]

THEY CAN ONLY USE QURAN AGAINST ME.

OK, quran-only Bagöshit, which part of the quran ordered you to chop off part of your penis?



grandfather of all slamdunks

[skynightblaze]

Spoiler! :

If there were early hadiths written then it goes on to confirm the fact that indeed muhammad abrogated his order of prohibition of writing of hadith.

Still parroting sunni sources without a glimpse of historical and critical overlook. Let me do it for you. We've got (if true):

The Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih: According to the book Arabic Literature at the end of Ummayad period (750). 138 hadiths of Abu Hurairah.

+ --Musannaf of Ibn Jurayj (d.782): (?) + --Musannaf of Ma`mar bin Rashid (d.785): (?)

+ The Muwatta' of Malik bin Anas: Malik bin Anas (d.795) was compiled in mid-second century AH. It is not a corpus of hadith in a true sense but a collection of practices of people of Madinah. 500 hadiths.

Only one of those so-called 'early' hadiths (which were non-authoritatives) appeared at the end of the Umayyad dynasty, all the others at the beginning of the Abbasid usurpers who were in need to justify their coup. Their very sparsity, and the fact they they weren't authoritatives, is like the exception that confirms the rule. Again, if allowed by Muhammad we should have had a deluge of sahih hadiths. That's NOT the case at all!

According to Muhammad the best of generation of muslims were 2 -3 generations after him. Its confirmed by the following hadith..

Spoiler! :

Sahih Bukhari chapter 57.
Narrated Imran bin Husain: "Allah's Apostle said, 'The best of my followers are those living in my generation (i.e. my contemporaries). and then those who will follow the latter" 'Imran added, "I do not remember whether he mentioned two or three generations after his generation, then the Prophet added, 'There will come after you, people who will bear witness without being asked to do so, and will be treacherous and untrustworthy, and they will vow and never fulfill their vows, and fatness will appear among them."

Lets assume that each generation is 50 years old.Now two-three generations after Muhammad would mean 100 to 15- years years.So according to Muhammad the best generation of muslims after him would be till the year 750 atleast. Now by 750 AD some of the hadiths were written.Umayyad dynasty ranged from 661 to 750 and till 750 we had some of the hadiths..

Now if according to Muhammad these were the best of muslims then would the best of muslims (umayyad dynasty)disobey Muhammad and write the hadiths inspite of Muhammad warning them not to do so? How can they be non authoritative when according to muhamamd they were the best of muslims?

The second fact that exposes you massively is the Tafsir of Ibn Abbas(Thanks to AB again who introduced Ibn Abbas here) .If anything other than quran was not supposed to be written then how could the 4 caliphs and other sahabas of Muhammad allow Ibn Abbas to write a tafsir i.e book other than the book of Allah? How come the best of muslims not prohibit Ibn abbas from not writing a tafsir? A tafsir is not a hadith but if hadiths are not allowed then neither should tafsir be allowed.

Tafsir of Ibn abbas is the greatest proof and creates a massive hole in your ship sinking you straightaway.

The above 2 examples show that the command to not write hadiths was abrogated .This is a proof that early companions of Muhammad didn’t mind writing the hadiths . Now unless you come with a theory that they were all unreliable you are finished!

Those hadiths which show that Muhammad ordered not to write hadiths were abrogated later.! The proof has been presented to you.

We do not have hadiths nearly contemporary to the prophet, like from the time of the four righteous caliphs or soon after. If Muhammad had actually permitted them they should have flocked the market by the thousands to become authoritative almost on the spot. This is not the picture we have from history. Right until after the Mutazilites, they were interdicted 'apocryphals'. They really started to flow in from ibn Hanbal.

Umayyad dynasty ruled from 661 to 750 and we had the hadiths from them.

One thing is sure that companions of Muhammad didn’t mind writing of stuff other than the quran . (See above..)

Now still the question is why didn’t they write in flocks? The answer is..

Why would they write in flocks when there were a few thousands of hadiths to be narrated? We had a few thousands of hadiths narrated.They increased exponentially only to become lakhs of hadiths because the same hadith was repeated by more than 10 companions.(AS explained below)

Finally Cat,

Lets consider the same scenario as of today.My question to you is Do you believe in the book that is written today by say an historian of the famous incidents that happened in the 18th century? The historians of today basically do the same thing that bukhari did so should we discard every single book that tells us about events happened in the 18th century?Going back 200 hundred years doesn’t yield exactly accurate results but neither does it yield complete inaccurate results.

These few books contain no more than 2000 hadiths, yet not authoritative. That's about all we got. How come then that Ibn Hanbal and Bukhari collected respectively 700,000 & 600,000 hadiths? Where and from whom did they find them? Only gullible people such as Muhammadans and our shameless snb can't see a tidal discrepancy here.
Who would buy that? Well, Muhammadans & snb DO...

Bukhari didn’t collect 6 lakh distinct hadiths. Most of them were repetitive.If a particular hadith had 10 narrators then it didn’t mean that it was just 1 hadith rather it was considered as 10 hadiths and that’s why the no went upto 6 lakhs. You are copying arguments from answering islam and that has been refuted in the following link..Read what Bukhari had to say about his own work…Read the complete article and dismiss your argument.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html

The very fact that a loooonng chain of narrators was needed to qualify them as 'Sahih' indicates that they did not possess ANY first hand hadiths. This chain is -always- a one to one (ahad) chain and NEVER of the mutawatir type (corroborated by multiple sources).

This is the equivalent of reporting a saying of Jesus like this: we got it from X, who was told by T, who heard it from B, that W did witness the testimony of Matthew stating that Jesus have said ''this and that'', AND a changing line of narrators for almost everyone of his sayings!

As usual you show your ignorance.Bukhari verified every single narrators background before including any of the hadith.He made a thorough check as to whether the narrators were reliable or not.Now obviously you will question how do we know whether those narrators were authentic. You arguments have been thoroughly refuted at the following link regarding the authenticity of the isnad.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/exisnad.html

Btw a simple logic debunks you. Multiple people cant tell the same story especially if they are planning to lie.IF they were lying then we could be finding different stories from different narrators.If we do find different stories we can safely reject them.

[skynightblaze]

I hope then you accept that when you learn events that happened before your birth from reliable books then it must be a sign that you are unreliable! What kind of logic is that?

Yep, since Ibn Abbas had to consult many others is prove enough that he didn't trust his own memory. Why did he need any such corroboration if he witness personally anything? That is still, anyway, another hadith circular reasoning of which you're addicted like a Muhammadan..

Ibn abbas was only 12 . He didn’t learn everything from the prophet at that age. So its understandable for him to consult the sahabas and learn from them. A point should be noted that his sources of information were the sahabas i.e first hand knowledge.People learn from books about the incidents when they werent born .Does that mean that if they relate what they learned is unauthentic? I am fed up with your logic. I cant explain you more. This is the last time I am doing it.If you cant get it its not my fault. Yeezevee understood it immediately and he might explain you since he has the patience.

Spoiler! :

See how Ibn Abbas himself dismissed the writing down of Hadiths (thanks AB):
viewtopic.php?p=128846#p128846

9- Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
Abi Tawoos said that his father said: Ibn Abbas was asked a question by a man from the people of Najran, then Ibn Abbas liked the good question of that man, so the man told Ibn Abbas: Write the answer for me. So Ibn Abbas replied: Indeed, we do not write the knowledge (hadith).

Tawoos said: A man used to write to Ibn Abbas asking him about some issues, he sent to Ibn Abbas another man with his questions written, so Ibn Abbas said to the man who delivered the written questions: Inform him that the answers are so and so, as we do not write in books other than personal messages and Quran.

Tawoos said: We were visiting Ibn Abbas who was saying hadith. A man named Saeed Ibn Jabir was writing what Ibn Abbas was saying. It was said to Ibn Abbas about those who were writing, so Ibn Abbas said: Did they indeed write (my hadith)? Then he stood up and left because he was of a good character. Was he not of a good character, he would behaved by something that would have been more than standing and leaving.

This I held to be true for it is consistent with the fact that Muhammad's interdiction over writing down hadiths has been followed: we do NOT possess ANY authoritative hadiths before the damned trinity of Shafi'i/Hanbal/Bukhari, that is more than TWO centuries after Muhammad.

Your 'logic' is yet just another bunch of logical fallacies (false dilemma, straw man) seemingly the only 'logic' you can ever display.

Should I debunk your argument and spoil the little joy you are having?

Firstly you consider Ibn Abbas as unreliable and yet bring evidence from him to show that writing down of hadiths is unreliable.

Secondly if Ibn Abbas really prohibited writing down of hadiths then why in the world would he go onto write a tafsir himself ? Tafsir attempts to explain quran just like the hadith.If Muhammad forbid writing down of any material then how in the world can the 4 caliphs and other pious muslims allow Ibn Abbas to write a tafsir? This is a greatest proof that Muhammad abrogated his command to forbid writing down of the hadiths.This clearly refutes you. Btw I thank AB for reminding me about Ibn Abbas' tafsir.

This post of yours show that you arent aware as to how bukhari collected the hadiths.

And this collecting was challenged by Sahih Muslim stating that Bukhari plagiarized! Bukhari hold reliable ANYONE who had only seen Muhammad for a minute, not questioning their motives as if they were all a priori unfailing saints (against 9.101), that's not a reliable criteria and does seriously cast a doubt over his (most evidently political) selection.

My goodness ignorance is really a bliss! This is something that you need to think of..I shall show how massively you are ignorant of history.. Do you know about Sahih Bukhari’s criterias.Please have a read of the criteria used by Bukhari..IT demolishes most of your arguments…

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Sahih

Also read about the isnad link of islamic awareness.

Otherwise, let's check his criterias some more...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... hadith.htm

First of all you brought answering islam;s argument in the wrong context. They dont believe that all the hadiths are unauthentic but since you brought up answering islam I will deal with them.

I will refute answering islam too this time and make you happy…

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! 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!

Fine. The reports that contradict each other can be discarded. Its bound to happen when you are collecting the hadiths from different sources and different narrations but that doesn’t mean all the hadiths are unreliable..

What about those reports that match each other exactly ? How can they be lies? If through different chain of narrations we are getting the same report then there can be a bigger proof that those hadiths are indeed authentic.

Finally if Answering islam considers that the hadiths are so unauthentic then why in the world do they use hadiths in their attack against islam? Most of the articles on answering islam contain hadiths..

Another question which needs to be asked is : 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)

That is very much a possibility but however we see that on many counts different hadith collectors reprt the different stories and yet they match.Now if one of the sources of traditions were corrupt it would immediately conflict somewhere. WE cant have same stories narrated by different hadith collectors unless people are reporting a true incident.
Finally I would like to ask question to Cat and Bahgat rather than answering islam. I ask you how are you sure that the quran doesn’t contain stories erroneously inserted? After all quran wasn’t into form for atleast 20 years .If you are so unsure about hadiths then you have to be unsure about quran which would mean you reject both the hadiths and the quran also. So how can a case for quran only muslim stand?

Manuscripts for earliest hadiths can be found here..

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/PERF731.html


.

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! Obviously, these traditions, which Bukhari rejected, were inserted in his book following his death.

This argument is correct but I don’t see the need to reject all the hadiths of bukhari on this fact. Those authors which bukhari mentioned can be neglected.

And where does his 600,000 hadiths (or that of Ibn Hanbal) come from since the available early hadiths are but a tiny fraction of that?

Again, history shows that there was NO authoritative hadiths, following the interdiction of them by Muhammad, until the damned trinity of Shafi'i/Hanbal/Bukhari came in, that is about TWO centuries LATER. The posts made by AhmedBahgat are a concluding proof of it all:

viewtopic.php?p=128846#p128846
viewtopic.php?p=128847#p128847
viewtopic.php?p=128848#p128848

[/quote]

Tafsir of Ibn Abbas is the greatest proof that early muslims after muhammads death had no problem with the hadiths.IF they had any problems we wouldn’t be seeing tafsir of Ibn Abbas .We also have hadiths from Umayyad dynasty.What more can anyone want?

Btw if the companions of Muhammad could wait for writing of the quran for 20 years I don’t think it looks too bad if they write the hadiths after 70 odd years after quran’s compilation.

Again why no of hadiths grew to 6 lakh is already explained in my previous post.

[skynightblaze]

EVery single debator can just say that his opponent is resorting to a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.So if we are to follow your line of thinking then tell me how is anyone supposed to know the outcome of a debate? There has to be a judge.

More logical fallacies won't get you out of the trap you've made for yourself. This is perflectly exposing your way of debating.

Let's have a poll for every single thread and debates there are and backward too! There has to be a judge!

Assuming that I have commited a fallacy you are supposed to answer a simple question. How in the world is anyone supposed to know the outcome of a debate if at all if we ask the public is going to be a fallacy of argumentum ad populum?

[skynightblaze]

I am against quran only muslims who try to portray false image of islam to make it compatible with society and thats why I say its either quran + hadiths or there is no islam.Its not that the quran is compatible with the society but hadiths are worse than quran and we can easily use them against islam.

Wrong: it is the hadiths that are portraying a false, idolatrous, image of Islam. That you are against Koraners because they would make a religion ''compatible with society'' should be noted since the logical conclusion of your stand is stating that Islam SHOULD be incompatible, frightening, cruel. The result is what's happening right now, which you shamelessly endorse.

I have to accept that I made a wrong statement to start with. Islam doesnt become compatible by removing hadiths . This is a mistake which I made and I would like to revise my stance.

If islam is seen as completely incompatible its only then there is a chance of getting rid of it.By getting muslims believe in the quran its not at all going to make islam completely compatible with the society.This is my stance. Yeezevee got it immediately but you are yet to understand it and I am not going to bother explaining it to you again.

Muhammadans can use those false hadiths much more dangerously against YOU than the other way around.

I am not sure whether my approach would work. Its very much possible that it could turn out against what I am thinking but however its a seperate issue. I am arguing here whether the hadiths are valid or not.

You're telling us (along with Muhammadans) that before the Hadiths came in force, two hundred years after Mo, there was no Islam: people like the righteous caliphs weren't true Muslims!

Do I really need to refute this? The caliphs and other muslims themselves experienced islam and learned from muhammad and hence they werent required to have copies of hadiths.They were good muslims because they experienced islam first hand from muhammad.

I think hadiths are more effective in pushing more towards the journey of apostasy than the quran. I also understand the consequences of my line of argument. I mean if hadiths are proven authentic then there is a chance that muslims instead of rejecting muhammad take them as valid sources. In that case I would have to repent so to be frank I am not sure whether my argument is right.

1.2 billions did just that for more time than fifty lifes of yours.

This is the logical conclusion of your stands by the same criteria you otherwise defend.

I am not sure whether my approach would work or not but the point is whether hadiths are reliable or not and not whether muslims should follow those hadiths .WE can discuss that sometime later.

[skynightblaze]

Spoiler! :

Now we have some hadiths that confirm quran so if you claim that ALL THE hadiths are unreliable how in the world can anyone believe in this nonsense that quran is authentic but yet the hadiths confirming quran are unauthentic? Common sense tells us that If quran is authentic then hadiths confirming quran also must also be authentic so how can ALL the hadiths be unauthentic?

They are felony to the Koran itself, which portrays them ALL as unauthentic! So how could they 'confirm' the Koran? Silly you...

77.50: In what hadith, after this, will they believe ?

There can be NO hadith confirming the Koran, the mother of all blasphemy, since it throws them ALL away at first! The only way hadiths could confirm both the Koran and Muhammad's will is by being suppressed or interdicted for the shirk they truly are, as they were for more than TWO centuries.

"The prophet said: 'Do not write anything from me except the Quran. Whoever wrote, must destroy it" (Muslim, Zuhd 72; Hanbal 3/12,21,39).

"Omar said: Quran is enough for us, do not write anything from the prophet" (Bukhari, Jihad 176, Gizya 6, Ilim 49, Marza 17, Megazi 83, Itisam 26; Muslim, Vasiyya 20,21,22).

Sahih Muslim Book 41 (Zuhud), Number 7147:
Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Qur'an, he should efface that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me - and Hammam said: I think he also said: "deliberately" - he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire.

They do confirm quran.For e.g we have a seperate chapter on booty in the quran and dozens of hadiths confirm it.We also have paedophilia in the quran and the hadiths confirm it. We have prisoners of war taken as sex slaves and we have hadiths confirming it. WE have hadiths of forced conversion and we also have quran confirming it. What else do you want? How in the world can the ALL hadiths be unauthentic?

[yeezevee]

So its understandable for him to consult the sahabas and learn from them

Sahih Bukhari chapter 57.
Narrated Imran bin Husain: "Allah's Apostle said, 'The best of my followers are those living in my generation (i.e. my contemporaries). and then those who will follow the latter" 'Imran added, "I do not remember whether he mentioned two or three generations after his generation, then the Prophet added, 'There will come after you, people who will bear witness without being asked to do so, and will be treacherous and untrustworthy, and they will vow and never fulfill their vows, and fatness will appear among them."

Just for the sake of readers., let us explain the words like " sahaba or Narrated Imran bin Husain...., "sahaba" itself is Plural word.....

Ṣaḥābah means the companions of the Islamic prophet Muḥammad(PBUH). And this means he/she was companion of Muhammad(PBUH) believed in him and his preachings and died as Muslim.., Dying as Muslim as well as preaching/propagating Islam after Muhammad's death is very important. But Those who saw/believed in Prophet and believed in his Islam but may have drifted away after his passing are not considered Sahaba. They are called Tabi`in

So now question comes how many Porphet companions were/are considered as Sahaba? who are they and what did they do before Islam and during Islam and after death of Prophet of Islam?? That is indeed important historical subject to explore.. And on top of it Shia Sahaba is different from Sunni Sahaba though some names overlap between the sects..

We also should note here Quran mentions about these group of people... please read the article at submission.org on that subject http://www.submission.org/muhammed/sahaba.html off course some may not agree with their Quran translation...

Ah Ha! This http://www.islamicport.com/sahaba/a.html seem to give all the names of Ṣaḥābah from A to Z., Not sure how many were real sahaba..Good sahaba.. No so good sahaba.. Good bad sahaba..bad sahaba.. babd..bad sahaba..

Full of rubbish differentiating people who may have been in contact with Prophet of Islam...

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Cat, as far as I'm concerned, and many others here are concerned, to turn Islam into a more of a "Quran only" religion actually amounts to a defense of the Quran itself because you give it legitimacy. So what do you think?? Is the Quran the word of God?? If not, then why would you defend it?? To turn Islam into Mohammadeans and Muslims is also a defense of the legitimacy of Islam itself. Do you think Islam is the true religion?

Not one Muslim can show where the Quran tells them to pray 5 times per day, and any Muslim will tell you that this prayer recommendation comes from the hadith of the night journey. Where do the Muslim laws for marriage come from as WittyBoy correctly asked about and nobody answered as far as I can tell??

This separation between Mohammadeans and Muslims and exclusion of the hadiths is nonsense. At least 50% of the Quran cannot have any clear meaning without the hadiths. It says "remember how we helped you in Badr??". Well, what's that supposed to mean on it's own?? There are tons of instances where the Quran has no clear or even discernible meaning without additional scriptures. This is merely an attempt to remold Islam to be suitable (swallowable) for modern times.

And the question becomes, why would you want to do that??

[yeezevee]

Not one Muslim can show where the Quran tells them to pray 5 times per day, and any Muslim will tell you that this prayer recommendation comes from the hadith of the night journey

No..No the Prayers and timings are mentioned indirectly in Quran dear Muhammad bin Lyin..

for e.g. verses., 2:43., 2:149 ., 5:6., 11:114 ., 17:78 ., 24:58., 62:9 ., 4:43 ., 17:107, 108., 25:64, 65., 17: 110, 111 ..etc..etc..