I've read. Thanks for the laugh...
skynightblaze wrote:My poll was "Do you agree with Cat that all the ahadith are fabricated" . 14 people voted yes which means even they interpreted your arguments the same way I did . 19 people have voted against you thinking that you are claiming that all the ahadith are unauthentic . What does that tell us? Neither those14 people nor the 19 people who voted against you ,support your position
Trying to refute an Ad Populum fallacy with yet... another: Fallacy of defective induction!
Basically the Non Sequitur & Texas Sharpshooter fallacies. You're nothing but fallacies!Wrong premise:
Neither those14 people nor the 19 people who voted against you, support your position.False Dilemma:
We have a case where 33 people misunderstood your position.Hasty Generalization:
In short you got zero votes.
First of all I've made my rebuttals from inception. People knew my position:viewtopic.php?p=128574#p128574viewtopic.php?p=128620#p128620viewtopic.php?p=128982#p128982
It's fallacious because you bring a 'trial of intention', hijacking them all to fill your twisted purpose.
This ain't the first time: viewtopic.php?p=160616#p160616
More likely the 19 voters have been misled by your fallacy, thus you've got -zero authentic vote
Now, logically, you're on to fulfill your promise:
skynightblaze wrote:viewtopic.php?p=128503#p128503I will soon create a poll. If majority agrees with you on your stance on hadiths I will publicly
apologize and I will accept that I was a fool and will take back what all I said.Its a promise!
We'll soon see how a promise from SNB is of any worth...
It's even fallacious from your own previous statement:
skynightblaze wrote:viewtopic.php?p=123938#p123938The other party would bring plenty of hadiths to show how unreliable hadiths are.Basically they contradict the quran
and hence we need to accept that hadiths cant be taken as source of guidance. We have to accept that hadiths
cant be take as a source of guidance so I decided to give up on the part that explains quran .
So, according to yourself, hadiths can't be taken as a source of guidance since, basically, they contradict the Koran!
You then should vote NO herein! That is of course if you're consequent with yourself. But since when are you?
skynightblaze wrote:You claim that the fabrication started with Abbasids and there were no ahadith during Umayyad times which would mean that you believe the entire ahadith are fabrication.
As I've said: ''How far will you go to show that you haven't the differentiation capacity even of a pitbull?
'' More fallacies...Wrong Premise:
The prophetic hadiths came from the Abbasids (in need to forge a blood-line). False Dilemma:
There was some others before mainly used as propaganda for different camps.Hasty Generalization:
Hadiths with historical contents should thus be judged at their own value.
''When we talk about -Islam- we deal with the prophetic hadiths, those related to Muhammad as a source of the Islamic Sharia.
We also have to deal with the biography of the prophet from the siras, of which we have no valid account before ibn Hisham.
Everything else with some historical content must be dealt with independently, according to their own intrinsic historical values.
For example: Umar, Uthman and Ali have much more chances to be historically credible than let's say Ibn Abbas or Huraira.
Get it this Xxzth time?
skynightblaze wrote: Why did you bring all these western scholars into the equation? They do not agree with your position because they CLEARLY SAY THAT ENTIRE ISLAMIC HISTORY is a fabrication.
Why don't you prove that it ain't just -another fabrication
- of yours?
Do you think that the Umayyads and Abbasids were so... fabricated?
In short: more nonsenses from our 'epitome of logic'.
This poll rectification was a must to get things straight.So, back to the question:
--Do you think that the siras/hadiths give an accurate reading of Muhammad's life?
--Isn't 16.116 debunking the very legality of the hadiths at the base of the Sharia?
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.