Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genuine?

[The Cat]

Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genuine?

This is my poll, in answer to skynightblaze's poll based on a wrong premise (as always)...

I don't think that the Prophetic hadiths are legally binding since they are frontally rebuked by the Koran:

16.116: And, for what your tongues describe, do not utter the lie, (saying) This is lawful and this is unlawful,
in order to forge a lie against Allah; surely those who forge the lie against Allah shall not prosper.

We shall note that ''what your tongues describe'' frontally rebuff the oral basic of the hadiths too!

And I don't think that they can be historically that accurate either... as even archeology attests so!
viewtopic.php?p=168239#p168239

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirat_Rasu ... usefulness

It is often noted that a coherent image of Muhammad cannot be formed from the literature of sīra,
whose authenticity and factual value have been questioned on a number of different grounds.

Wim Raven lists the following arguments against the authenticity of sīra:

1. The fact that no sīra work was compiled during the first century of Islam.
2. The many discrepancies exhibited in different narrations found in sīra works.
3. Later sources claiming to know more about Muhammad then earlier ones.
4. Discrepancies compared to non-Muslim sources (like the Doctrina Jacobi).
5. Some parts or genres of sīra, namely those dealing with miracles, are not fit as sources....

Furthermore, the authenticity of the poetry included by Ibn Ishaq has also been questioned by later Muslim historians,
like Ibn Sallam al-Jumahi and Ibn Nadim, who both censured Ibn Ishaq for including poetry that was either impossible to
belong to ancient periods in Arab culture or has been attributed to persons not known to have written any poetry.

Without any trustable biography, the earliest coming out -200 years after his death (Ibn Hisham)-, hadiths can only be conjecturals.
viewtopic.php?p=168960#p168960

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad
Harald Motzki: ''On the one hand, it is not possible to write a historical biography of the Prophet without being accused of using the
sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography.''

For more: The Hadiths' Perfidy
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8185

[skynightblaze]

About my poll question being fallacious please read my 2 posts here and see this con man for yourself. Logic is never his domain and will never be.

viewtopic.php?p=168961#p168961

[The Cat]

I've read. Thanks for the laugh...

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#p128574
viewtopic.php?p=128620#p128620
viewtopic.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:

viewtopic.php?p=128503#p128503
I 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:

viewtopic.php?p=123938#p123938
The 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?

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?

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?

[Asma100]

Convey (my teachings) to the people even if it were a single sentence. (Sahih Bukhari,
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 667)

[manfred]

Nice to meet you.

Maybe you would like write a bit about yourself in the new members section?

[Ghaith]

Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Say manfred you do a good job taking things out of context

[pr126]

And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion - the day when the two armies met. And Allah , over all things, is competent. Quran 8:41

Context? What context?

Out of context is the biggest bullcrap.

The Quran is not arranged in chronological order, but someone arbitrarily decided to put long suras first, shortest last.

The verses "came" to Muhammad over a period of 23 years, and stopped when he died. Looks like Allah lost interest.
Some verses could have had months elapsed before the next verse was "handed down".

The Quran was put into a book form decades later, from odds and ends written down and from memories of second or third generation Muslims. (chinese wispers).

Some verses were lost when Muslims were killed in the battle of Yamama.

Some verses are simply incomprehensible. Some plain wrong. Some plagiarized from the Torah, the Bible.

And Muslims are whining about context?