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...skynightblaze wrote: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?
See how Ibn Abbas himself dismissed the writing down of Hadiths (thanks AB):
viewtopic.php?p=128846#p128846" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.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.
Your 'logic' is yet just another bunch of logical fallacies (false dilemma, straw man) seemingly the only 'logic' you can ever display.
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.skynightblaze wrote:This post of yours show that you arent aware as to how bukhari collected the hadiths.
Otherwise, let's check his criterias some more...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... hadith.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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?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.
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=128847#p128847" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=128848#p128848" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
