Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genuine?

Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genuine?

Yes, they are legally and historically genuine.
10
56%
No, they aren't legally and historically genuine.
8
44%
 
Total votes: 18

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genuine?

Post by 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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirat_Rasu ... usefulness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by The Cat on Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genuine?

Post by 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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genuine?

Post by The Cat »

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#p128574" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=128620#p128620" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=128982#p128982" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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#p128503" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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:
skynightblaze wrote: viewtopic.php?p=123938#p123938" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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? :heh:
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? :sleeping:
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? :roflmao:

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.

Asma100

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genuine?

Post by Asma100 »

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

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genuine?

Post by manfred »

:welcome:
Nice to meet you.

Maybe you would like write a bit about yourself in the new members section?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Ghaith
Posts: 1385
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:59 am

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genuine?

Post by 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 :lol:
Last edited by Ghaith on Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
pr126
Posts: 5358
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:24 am
Location: Blighty

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genuine?

Post by 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?
Islam: an idea to kill and die for.

piscohot
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by piscohot »

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.
how does the verse proved that hadiths were rebuked by the quran?

the explanation of the verse in the tafsir of ibn kathir is:
Then Allah forbids us to follow the ways of the idolators who declare things to be permitted or forbidden based upon their own whims and whatever names they agree on, such as the Bahirah (a she-camel whose milk was spared for the idols and nobody was allowed to milk it), the Sa'ibah (a she-camel let loose for free pasture for their false gods, idols, etc., and nothing was allowed to be carried on it), the Wasilah (a she-camel set free for idols because it has given birth to a she-camel at its first delivery and then again gives birth to a she-camel at its second delivery) and the Ham (a stallion camel freed from work for the sake of their idols, after it had finished a number of acts of copulation assigned for it), and so on. All of these were laws and customs that were invented during jahiliyyah.

Then Allah says: (And do not describe what your tongues have lied about, saying: "This is lawful and this is forbidden,'' to invent lies against Allah.) This includes everyone who comes up with an innovation (Bid`ah) for which he has no evidence from the Shari`ah, or whoever declares something lawful that Allah has forbidden, or whoever declares something unlawful that Allah has permitted, only because it suits his opinions or whim to do so.
how does the verse (16:116) rebuke the hadith which reported the teachings, deeds and sayings of Muhammad?

afterall, quran 4:59 said: O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

so if today any muslims having an disagreement, how do they refer to Muhammad for a solution?

to say that 'obey Allah and obey the Messenger' was referring only to the quran sounds like saying to the christians ' obey the bible and obey Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc' :lol:
Quran miracle (16:69) : Bees eat ALL fruits
Quran miracle (27:18) : an ant SAID, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by skynightblaze »

^^^
The verse he quoted actually supports our point but he hardly realizes that. Here is that verse again
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.
The verse says those who forge lies against Allah will never succeed BUT 80% to 90% muslims are sunni muslims as of today. If those who forge lies can never succeed then sunni authors cant be liars or else it would mean sunni authors succeeded in lying against Allah and make people believe in them thereby proving quran as wrong. :D
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

just testing

Post by Fernando »

The two above posts from October 12 and 13 don't show up when you go directly to Breaking News on Islam. Even though the last one is shown as the most recent on the Index page and they can be reached via Sky's profile. Database glitch?
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by manfred »

Hi, I had a look and re-synchronised the database file for this forum. I cannot see the problem any more where I am. Is it still there?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by manfred »

As to the question, it is too general to get a simple yes or no answer. They are just like any other historical sources and should be evaluated as such, using the same criteria historians use. Some are likely to describe events reliably, others are not.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by Fernando »

manfred wrote:Hi, I had a look and re-synchronised the database file for this forum. I cannot see the problem any more where I am. Is it still there?
Sorry, still not working for me. I can see you are the latest poster on the Index page but can only get into the recent posts on the thread via people's profiles. Otherwise there's nothing beyond Oct 7th.
could it just be me? I've had to re=boot my pc anyway since I posted the problem but it made no difference.
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by Fernando »

Ooops? I've realised this morning that this is taking place in Polling Booth and I can get here by clicking on the subforum link beneath the main Breaking News link that I've been following. So maybe there have been no posts since Oct 7th in the main Breaking News forum, in which case I've raised a red herring - sorry!!!
My only excuse is that Firefox displays the forum oddly and the forum title is barely visible, being in dark blue against a back background. :oops:
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by The Cat »

piscohot wrote:how does the verse (16:116) rebuke the hadith which reported the teachings, deeds and sayings of Muhammad?

afterall, quran 4:59 said: O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

so if today any muslims having an disagreement, how do they refer to Muhammad for a solution?
16.116 interdicts explicitly any hadith to become part of the Sharia, the Islamic law.

Obey the messenger.
First 'obey' implies an order, a command and that from a living person. No dead person can be
'obeyed', carry out a command. Second, a messenger is first of all a duty, a task of delivering a
message. 4.58 & 4.59 is contextual, so the task. Not for all time. So Abu Bakr understood:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Abu Bakr said, "To proceed, if anyone amongst you used to worship Muhammad, then Muhammad
has passed away, but if you used to worship Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die. Allah
said, "And Muhammad is but a messenger; the messengers have come before him; if then he dies
or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by
no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful."
(3.144)

Now, we do read 'obey the messenger' but where is it written to obey the mazhab of Hanbal, Shafi'i,
Malik, Hanifa & do their fiqh ? Or to follow Hurairah (50% of the Sharia by himself), Muslim, Kathir
or Bukhari? Where is it written that Mo is an imam like Abraham or a world regent like Adam ?

Instead we read (like 16.116):
3:78-79 And lo! there is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may
think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture.

And they say: It is from Allah, when it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie concerning Allah
knowingly. It is not for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and
the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah
....

I shall end with the fact that no chain of ahad narrators meets the two witnesses corroboration, at
each level of the narration, required to attain legality within the very oral Sharia. NONE. Period.
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 21&t=15839" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


================
skynightblaze wrote: The verse says those who forge lies against Allah will never succeed BUT 80% to 90% muslims are sunni muslims as of today.
Another post, another blunder. What else is new? Read 16.117 & 16.107-109 so to learn about the
religious notion of 'success', like in ''what's the good of winning the world if you lose your soul''.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by manfred »

16.116 interdicts explicitly any hadith to become part of the Sharia, the Islamic law
Not sure about that. Certainly most Muslims would not see that. Why do we have stoning of an adulterer, for example?
No dead person can be 'obeyed'
Again not quite sure... When we carry out a will and testament do we not obey the wishes of a dead person? And when someone writes "commands" in such a way that they are "guidance for all mankind", does he not expect obedience after death?

Sure a dead guy does not complain if you ignore anything he asked for that should happen after his death, but we often do as he says anyway.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

fas
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:00 pm

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by fas »

hadith have been studied for centuries by scholars and we have confirmed ones and doubtful ones. Why do you doubt all that work?

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by Fernando »

fas wrote:hadith have been studied for centuries by scholars and we have confirmed ones and doubtful ones. Why do you doubt all that work?
By example: around half a million hadiths have been rejected by Islamic scholars as forged. Since they are fallible human beings, how can we be sure that they have accurately selected genuine and correctly remembered sayings? The false hadiths were produced to suit political ambitions and such: how can you be sure the human selectors didn't just pick the ones currently politically correct? Applying Occam's razor would suggest that if half a million are false, the remaining few probably are.
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by The Cat »

manfred wrote:1. Certainly most Muslims would not see that. Why do we have stoning of an adulterer, for example?

2. When we carry out a will and testament do we not obey the wishes of a dead person?
1.
Repeating: no hadith has the reliability required to be part of the Sharia, which this poll is all about.
And both 16.116 and 3.78-80 says that what isn't from the Scriptures can't be Islamic. Period.

Ps. I feel that the stoning question would be off-topic at this time. Maybe elsewhere or later...

2.
A will isn't a command, but a (legal) wish likely to be respected, yet very contestable unlike an order.
Mo is NOT the independent power (by himself) portrayed in the hadiths (72.20-25; 7.188; 18.110).
That's why we never read 'obey Muhammad' but more likely 'Obey Allah and His messenger' (altogether).

Obey the messenger, a good overlook from Detailed Quran
http://www.detailedquran.com/quran_data ... senger.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

================================ ============================

fas wrote:Why do you doubt all that work?
As a source of information, each hadith has to be judge on its own value. Repeating, no one of them
has the legitimacy to be part of the Sharia (defined and thus limited to by 42.13 & 5.48).


Read slowly my above post again and look at the given links. Bukhari & al never wrote Scripture (3.78-80).
Then, no chain of ahad narrators meets the two witnesses corroboration, at each level of the narration,
required to be legally valid within a very oral Sharia court. So? No virgins for all Muhammadans. Just Hell !
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 21&t=15839" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No prophetic hadith can be part of the Sharia because:
1) The Koran states so (in Arabic: 4.87; 6.57; 7.185; 12.111; 31.6; 45.6; 77.50)
2) The only religious Sunna is that of Allah (in Arabic: 17.77; 33.62; 35.43; 48.23)
3) Muhammad interdicted to write them down and they were so burned by all former caliphs.
4) History shows that this has been respected for around TWO centuries. Backward inventions.
5) The multi-corroborated hadiths (mutawatir/tawatur) are but a pocketful, if any.
6) The Power of Intercession is for Allah alone (2.48; 2.123; 6.51; 6.94; 32.4, etc)
7) The Shariah is solely that of Allah (in Arabic 5.48; 42.13).

Romanized Arabic Koran (left all Bukhari, center Pickthall version, right romanized Arabic).
http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/Qura ... ration.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tell me how all the above doesn't disqualify nowadays Sharia, relying for 95% on the hadiths?


============================ ===============================
Fernando wrote:Applying Occam's razor would suggest that if half a million are false, the remaining few probably are.
In the previous poll from SNB I had to correct, what else is new, I gave many interesting links, here resumed...
Suit yourself...

Brief history of early hadiths
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 54#p128754" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Shaky Ibn Abbas, Herbert Berg's book extract
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 06#p163406" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Joseph Schacht
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 55#p163855" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Alfred Guillaume on the hadiths
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 64#p164264" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

G. Weil, Goldziher, Juynboll, Crone, etc.
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 54#p166954" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ibn Warraq
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 69#p167769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yehuda Nevo, archaeologist
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 39#p168239" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The famous debate between David Wood and Robert Spencer, on Mo's historicity. 1h23.40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXf7uP9lhE8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (will open in another window).
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
farside
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:35 am
Location: The Other Side

Re: Are the prophetic hadiths legally and historically genui

Post by farside »

The Hadiths are wonderful! They bring tears of joy to my eyes. :D
Kind Regards,
Farside :farside:

Post Reply