DO you agree with The Cat?

[The Cat]

I am confident that you cannnot make any good arguments so I will leave upto the readers to decide whether they want to take you seriously or not.Now Since you have shown zero ability of a debate time and again you are being ignored .

Poisoning the well is a customary fallacy from you. And 'my' arguments aren't solely mine, or that of the Koraners, but of a vast amount of
Western scholars, such as: Goldziher, Schacht, Sam Shamoun, J. Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, Andrew Rippin, M. Cook, Herbert Berg (etc.).

Here's the testimony from another one of them... made by Alfred Guillaume!

Alfred Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, introduction.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Gu ... /index.htm

The Evolution of Hadiths
The word hadith is a noun formed from the verb hadatha 'to be new' (cf. the Hebrew hadash with the same meaning...). Properly hadith
means 'news' and then a tale or verbal communication of any kind. It may with propriety be used of an account of a tribal raid, of old sagas,
of incidents in the life of the prophet, and even of the Quran itself. The great impetus given to religious thought and speculation by
Muhammad and the Quran could not fail to influence the language of Muhammadan writers, and thus the word has acquired its narrowed
technical connotation of an oral tradition which can be traced back to a Companion or to the prophet Muhammad.

Hadith enshrines sunna or 'beaten track' the custom and practice of the old Mohammadan community inasmuch as hadith were often
invoked to prove that a certain act was performed by the prophet, and was therefore to be imitated by all pious believers, it follows
that hadith and sunna are sometimes names for one and the same thing. But there is no necessary connection between them, and we
often find that tradition is in conflict with custom.... The word sunna up to the time of Muhammad meant the practice of antiquity:
after his time it acquired significance, and came to denote the practice of the prophet and his immediate successors.....

The foundation of the enormous mass of traditions which afterwards accumulated was laid by the Companions who were scattered
throughout the Muhammadan world; but it would be rash to dogmatize as to how much of existing material can be safely ascribed to
them. Our estimate of traditions circulated in their name cannot but be adversely affected by the frequent accusations of forgery
levelled against many of the professional traditionists, by the many anachronisms they contain, and by the political and sectarian bias
they display. When all these factors are allowed for, and account is taken of the inevitable mistakes that must occur when traditions
are handed down through a long line of speakers, it is difficult to regard the hadith literature as a whole as an accurate and trustworthy
record of the sayings and doings of Muhammad....

The fact that no authentic remains of this alleged first-century compilation are extant, and that
the indefatigable students and compilers of tradition in the third century make no mention of an
effort to trace such early documents, suggest very strongly that the tradition is not based on fact.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to suggest a cogent reason why such an early collection, if it existed, should never have been mentioned
by later scholars whose life-work it was to recover the genuine hadith of the apostolic period. For this reason the hadith must be regarded
as an invention designed to connect the pious caliph, whose zeal for the sunna was gratefully recognized by theologians, with the tradition
literature of Islam. This seems the more likely, as another tradition connects Ibn Shihab Al Zuhri with 'Umar II in this work. Moreover,
Malik's statement is only to be found in Al Shaibani's recension of the Muwatta. It is absent from the other (of between 16 to 49) versions.

Snb-the-Sunnite has to face much more than mine or Koraners arguments. He must blindly turns his back to most Western scholarship!

I guess he's confident that they too ''cannnot make any good arguments''...

[The Cat]

More testimonies from Western scholars...
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.html

Gustav Weil (d.1889)
--Reliance upon oral traditions, at a time when they were transmitted by memory alone, and every day produced new divisions among
the professors of Islam, opened up a wide field for fabrication and distortion. There was nothing easier, when required to defend any
religious or political system, than to appeal to an oral tradition of the Prophet." He further notes, "....the terms in which the evidence
was given; whereas tradition purely oral is affected by the character and habits, the associations and the prejudices, of each witness
in the chain of repetition. No precaution could hinder the commingling in oral tradition of mistaken or fabricated matter with what
at the first may have been trustworthy evidence. The floodgates of error, exaggeration, and fiction were thrown open

Ignaz Goldziher (d.1921)
--In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt the most tentative opinion as to which parts of the Hadith
are the oldest original material, or even as to which of them date back to the generations immediately following the Prophet's death.
Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of Hadiths induces skeptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material
brought together in the carefully compiled collections.

Joseph Schacht (d.1969)
--Every legal tradition from the Prophet, until the contrary is proved, must be taken not as an authentic or essentially authentic, even
if slightly obscured, statement valid for his time or the time of the Companions, but as the fictitious expression of a legal doctrine
formulated at a later date....We shall not meet any legal tradition from the Prophet which can positively be considered authentic.

Gauthier H. Juynboll (d.2010)
--In my view, before the institution of the isnad came into existence roughly three quarters of a century after the prophet's death, the
ahadith and the qisas (mostly legendary stories) were transmitted in a haphazard fashion if at all, and mostly anonymously. Since the
isnad came into being, names of older authorities were supplied where the new isnad precepts required such. Often the names of
well-known historical personalities were chosen but more often the names of fictitious people were offered to fill the gaps in isnads
which were as yet far from perfect...The overall majority of allegedly the most ancient traditions is likely to have originated at the
earliest in the course of the last few decades of the first century [ed. note - Islamic century] (700s-720s), when for the first time
the need for traditions became generally felt. The isnad as institution had just come into being and slowly but gradually the concept
of sunnat an-nabi began to eclipse the Sunna of a region or of a (group of) person(s).

Patricia Crone
--Of Ibn Hanbal's traditions, 1,710 (including repetitions) are transmitted by the Companion Ibn Abbas. Yet, less than fifty
years earlier one scholar estimated that Ibn Abbas had only heard nine traditions from the Prophet, while another thought that
the correct figure might be ten. If Ibn Abbas has heard ten traditions from the Prophet in the years around 800, but over a
thousand by 850, how many had he heard in 700, or 632? Even if we accept that ten of Ibn Abbas' traditions are authentic,
how do we identify them in the pool of 1,710? We do not even know whether they are to be found in this pool, as opposed to
that of the 530,000 traditions dismissed on the ground that their chain of authorities were faulty. Under such circumstances
it is scarcely justified to presume Hadith to be authentic until the contrary has been proven.

Herbert Berg
--Ibn Abbas prominence in Qur'anic exegesis emerged, peaked, and began to decline congruently with the political and
religious power of the Abbasid caliphs.... Although, several works are proclaimed to be the actual tafsirs of Ibn Abbas,
all of these have been shown not to originate from him. It is the mythic status of Ibn Abbas that places his name at the
end of the isnad. Western scepticism about the hadiths and tafsirs attributed to Ibn Abbas began with Sprenger, who
called Ibn Abbas a 'liar'. Noldeke and Schwally argued that the contradictions are just too numerous to reconstitute his
teachings for a particular verse on the basis of what has been attributed to him. Therefore, no alternative remains, except
that the prominence of the authority of Ibn Abbas is for the most part a fiction (a sociological fact according to Birkeland)...

This last one from: http://books.google.ca/books?id=VHZXeOs ... &q&f=false

So it's utterly false that the works and debates against the hadiths' authenticity are solely that of the Koraners, or their influences on me!

[MesMorial]

I agree with The Cat since I have debated Sunnis and hadith-supporters, and I know their "best" arguments.

[Ozes]

You can't dismiss the hadith, then show inconsistency by accepting the quran. It doesn't make sense and the quranist movement is the most dishonest movement of reform in history. They simply seek ways to debate Muslim critics, as they know the quran only will never be accepted as the only source of Islamic knowledge in Islam. Its not the jihadis which bother them, its the critics.

[MesMorial]

You can't dismiss the hadith, then show inconsistency by accepting the quran. It doesn't make sense and the quranist movement is the most dishonest movement of reform in history. They simply seek ways to debate Muslim critics, as they know the quran only will never be accepted as the only source of Islamic knowledge in Islam. Its not the jihadis which bother them, its the critics.

It is indeed horrible for people when they realise the ahadith do not have philosophical, religious or Qur'anic legitimacy.

You will of course reject the truthfulness of supernatural mutawatir ahadith whilst accepting others on preference.

[yeezevee]

You can't dismiss the hadith, then show inconsistency by accepting the quran. It doesn't make sense and the quranist movement is the most dishonest movement of reform in history. They simply seek ways to debate Muslim critics, as they know the quran only will never be accepted as the only source of Islamic knowledge in Islam. Its not the jihadis which bother them, its the critics.

It is indeed horrible for people when they realise the ahadith do not have philosophical, religious or Qur'anic legitimacy.

You will of course reject the truthfulness of supernatural mutawatir ahadith whilst accepting others on preference.

well in the present so-called Islamic world Ozes has the point but it is our responsibility to prove him wrong. In other words going in to main stream Islam such as Mosques and telling the people get rid of the hadith bull sh!t . May be down the road in 2-3 years majority Muslims may accept that Hadith is rubbish.

[Ozes]

The hadith simly detail the quran's application in society

Why?
Because the hadith simply write down the chronicles of Muhammed, the mad man who wrote the quran. Hadith=Quran. None are better then the other. One claims God wants you to hate and murder infidels, the other is narrating how its prophet hated and murdered infidels. No difference and your a gullible fool if you swallow it. Quranists are not here to reform the Islamic world, they are here to reform our criticism. Yeezevee, you dissapoint me.

[skynightblaze]

well in the present so-called Islamic world Ozes has the point but it is our responsibility to prove him wrong. In other words going in to main stream Islam such as Mosques and telling the people get rid of the hadith bull sh!t . May be down the road in 2-3 years majority Muslims may accept that Hadith is rubbish

So tell us what is good in the quran apart from a few thing that you can count on hand? 2/3rd of the quran directed towards hatred of non muslims. You want to promote this book ? GO and tell the people in mosques that if at all they want reform throw 90% of islamic scriptures into the bin which includes quran ,ahadith and sira.

[yeezevee]

well in the present so-called Islamic world Ozes has the point but it is our responsibility to prove him wrong. In other words going in to main stream Islam such as Mosques and telling the people get rid of the hadith bull sh!t . May be down the road in 2-3 years majority Muslims may accept that Hadith is rubbish

So tell us what is good in the quran apart from a few thing that you can count on hand?

well that is start.. According to you there is something good in Quran that that you can count on hand SKB.. Now it is for you to tell me and Quote from Quran that "you can count on hand good things" you see in Quran

2/3rd of the quran directed towards hatred of non muslims. You want to promote this book ?

Well if it is there... let us get rid of it and tell the Muslims to get rid of it., That is precisely what we are doing for a long time..

There are two approaches for Human Psychology .. one is blunt ..other is arguing with people so that they will find the problems with in themselves ..

with best
yeezevee

[skynightblaze]

The hadith simly detail the quran's application in society

Why?
Because the hadith simply write down the chronicles of Muhammed, the mad man who wrote the quran. Hadith=Quran. None are better then the other. One claims God wants you to hate and murder infidels, the other is narrating how its prophet hated and murdered infidels. No difference and your a gullible fool if you swallow it. Quranists are not here to reform the Islamic world, they are here to reform our criticism. Yeezevee, you dissapoint me.

I agree with you fully. Yeezevee disappoints me too . I never thought that he could swallow this crap.

[yeezevee]

The hadith simly detail the quran's application in society

Why?
Because the hadith simply write down the chronicles of Muhammed, the mad man who wrote the quran. Hadith=Quran. None are better then the other. One claims God wants you to hate and murder infidels, the other is narrating how its prophet hated and murdered infidels. No difference and your a gullible fool if you swallow it. Quranists are not here to reform the Islamic world, they are here to reform our criticism. Yeezevee, you dissapoint me.

I agree with you fully. Yeezevee disappoints me too . I never thought that he could swallow this crap.

I know.. I know guys., I disappoint lots of people.

But tell me SKB., what problems do you have or foresee if Muslims get rid of hadith completely and Use Quran ALONE as the book of guidance to their society and to interact with non-Muslim society?

Again that doesn't mean YO you and me will not have freedom to criticize Quran freely in Public..

off course we don't have that now., Talk to me SKB...

[IoshkaFutz]

One claims God wants you to hate and murder infidels, the other is narrating how its prophet hated and murdered infidels.

Exactly, but not only...

If the Koran provided any moral guidance, why would the Ahadith have been "religionized" by the vast majority of Muslims in the first place?

I've been here 1001 years and have never received a proper answer.

If there had been moral guidance in the Koran, if there had been fundamental differences in the morality of the Koran and the Ahadith, why would Muslims through the ages right up to present time, have so easily accepted so many stories that cast their prophet in such a bad light?

The consistency between the two is what led to their acceptance.

[skynightblaze]

But tell me SKB., what problems do you have or foresee if Muslims get rid of hadith completely and Use Quran ALONE as the book of guidance to their society and to non-Muslim society?

The problem is that quran too is toxic. If you are really going to be honest then why not ask people to condemn both? Quran alone with just be another sect of islam. It wont be better than other sects of islam.
Its merely a transition from one cult to another. Quran cannot be book of guidance for any decent society. ITs a hate manual and hence it needs to be thrown off right away. Kasab felt that it would be better if he died so that he will reach Jannah. This teaching is also found in the quran wherein Allah says that if you fight in his cause you attain jannah so condemn both i.e ahadith and quran if you are sincere.

Again that doesn't mean YOU AND ME will not have freedom to criticize Quran freely in Public..

off course we don't have that now., Talk to me SKB...

I know that we can criticize quran but I dont understand why in the world should you promote quran when its equally nauseating. 2/3rd of the quran is full of verses with hatred towards non muslims.

[skynightblaze]

Btw Yeezevee if you believe that CAT's arguments have any merit you are deluded. I refrain from answering a large portion of his posts these days because they are not worth to be honest.

[yeezevee]

Btw Yeezevee if you believe that CAT's arguments have any merit you are deluded. I refrain from answering a large portion of his posts these days because they are not worth to be honest.

Nope I DO NOT believe that CAT's arguments have any merit ..

The Cat is foolish to write all that Crime investigation Islamic history report in FFI ., Off course he should have freedom to write that in FFI . But ideally he should do that in "ISLAMIC WEBSITES" not in ffi.

[yeezevee]

But tell me SKB., what problems do you have or foresee if Muslims get rid of hadith completely and Use Quran ALONE as the book of guidance to their society and to non-Muslim society?

The problem is that quran too is toxic. If you are really going to be honest then why not ask people to condemn both? Quran alone with just be another sect of islam. It wont be better than other sects of islam.

I understand that I read Quran number of times., But You have not answered my Question. Let me rephrase the question..

Would it be better for Muslims and non-Muslims in a short term if we completely eliminate Hadith and support Quran only Muslims in the so-called present Islamic world which has a billion or so Muslims and headless morons as preachers in Mosques.?

Its merely a transition from one cult to another. Quran cannot be book of guidance for any decent society. ITs a hate manual and hence it needs to be thrown off right away.

in a way That is true., but this world embroiled with all these high school drop out brainless baboons preaching in Mosques, Question is., would it not be better if we burn hadith to start with and also show them Quran has toxic material that need to be modified ot get rid of it..?

Kasab felt that it would be better if he died so that he will reach Jannah. This teaching is also found in the quran wherein Allah says that if you fight in his cause you attain jannah so condemn both i.e ahadith and quran if you are sincere.

Well may be if there was no hadith preaching and no hadith Muslim society in Pakistan., then uneducated brutes like Kasab would have not created in Pakistan. Would that be possible in the short run??

Again that doesn't mean YOU AND ME will not have freedom to criticize Quran freely in Public..

off course we don't have that now., Talk to me SKB...

I know that we can criticize quran but I dont understand why in the world should you promote quran when its equally nauseating. 2/3rd of the quran is full of verses with hatred towards non muslims.

No..No Telling Muslims to burn Hadith doesn't mean I am promoting Quran... SKB.,

these are two different issues..

[Umm Salamah]

MesMorial

They ask the same thing over and over again thereby making their own religion look stupid. Saying that the quran did not tell them how to pray, do hajj and even wash (do you need a religious book to tell you that.) It gets quite old.

[MesMorial]

MesMorial

They ask the same thing over and over again thereby making their own religion look stupid. Saying that the quran did not tell them how to pray, do hajj and even wash (do you need a religious book to tell you that.) It gets quite old.

Welcome to FFI.

Yes it is high-time people really stopped taking "Islam" seriously, and since I just destroyed my reputation among "Qur'an-alone Muslims" I do not have much use for Qur'an except as hadith-spray.


Also:
The Cat supports Qur'an-alone, Skynightblaze does not support The Cat, and Yeezevee is sensible with nearly always interesting posts.


I personally think talking about hadith is a waste of time other than to show that they are waste. Supporting it's too much. If some are true, all the more reason to take out the bags.

[The Cat]

if you believe that CAT's arguments have any merit you are deluded. I refrain from answering a large portion of his posts these days because they are not worth to be honest.

You've been whining that you'd be ignoring my posts for a long time now, in fact anytime when you were cornered, which is often.
Just running out like a Sunnite. If true all you had/have to do is to put me on your 'foe' list. So where's the honesty in your saying?

Again, it's snb's elusive way to turn his back to all... the scholarly testimonies I just brought forth:
Goldziher, Schacht, Juynboll (etc) ''are not worth to be honest'', according to our 'epitome of logic'!
That's another dishonest statement... For the arguments I bring aren't 'mine'. That's dishonesty

By very the same honesty he must also dismiss his very good friend, Sam Shamoun.
His arguments can't have ''any merit'' since they're quite the same as the Koraners:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... _quran.htm

So, who's 'deluded' here? Shamoun, Goldziher, Schacht, Juynboll and me or... snb?

[The Cat]

I do not have much use for Qur'an except as hadith-spray. The Cat supports Qur'an-alone, Skynightblaze does not support The Cat.... I personally think talking about hadith is a waste of time other than to show that they are waste. Supporting it's too much. If some are true, all the more reason to take out the bags.

That's about my position.

But it's rather the Koran itself which supports this position as the best 'hadith-spray', otherwise that of many prominent Western scholars.

And I've shown how the Quixotic ways of snb are self-defeating... by giving Hadith-Islam legitimacy.
viewtopic.php?p=166819#p166819
viewtopic.php?p=166915#p166915