IF they were permitted by Muhammad himself then they would have been religiously preserved, without any intermediate.skynightblaze wrote:To put a final nail in your coffin I found out that there were hadiths even during muhammads time .Read. Btw if we don’t have manuscripts it doesn’t mean that those hadiths never existed. They were lost with time and there was no need to preserve them because they had already made their way into encyclopedia of Bukhari.The Cat wrote:Delusion: there was no authoritative hadith by 750. You're barking at the moon. In fact the only collection of hadiths we have from about that time is that of Munnabih, 138 hadiths, of which we have no manuscript evidence. They never were considered authoritative not even by Abu Hanifa.
1. They were lost with time and there was no need to preserve them
2. because they had already made their way into encyclopedia of Bukhari.
That's a miracle! Lost hadiths reappeared because they were already into Bukhari.
Gratuitous assumption: your so-called refutation has been debunkedskynightblaze wrote:2. Already refuted ! Avoid bringing the same crap again and again!I brought here hadiths that show otherwise.The Cat wrote:1. Muhammad interdicted all written hadiths. That's the final authority, that is... apart from the Koran. Period.
1. `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As (d. 695), al-Sahifa al- Sadiqa, originally containing about 1,000 hadiths of which 500 reached us, copied down by `Abd Allah directly from the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace - BUT transmitted to us by his great-grandson `Amr ibn Shu`ayb (d.840).
2. Hammam ibn Munabbih's (d.733 or 763) al-Sahifa al- Sahiha which has reached us complete in two manuscripts containing 138 hadiths narrated by Hammam thus not directly from Abu Hurayra (d.681, says wiki, at age 78).
Most of the other mentioned were known through Ibn Ishaq, which really means for sure Ibn Hisham (d.833)
So we have NO first hand hadiths from Hurairah. The 138 hadiths we have from his alleged pupil Hamman ibn Munabbih only appeared around 750, posthumously. This pinpoint that Hurairah himself respected Muhammad's order not to write down hadiths but transmitted them orally. The al-Sahifa al- Sadiqa of `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As was transmitted by his great-grandson `Amr ibn Shu`ayb (d.840). Again, this pinpoint to the fact that they weren't written down until late after Muhammad's death, all after the Abbasid usurped power.
We have NO hadiths from the time of Muhammad. No hadiths from the time of the former caliphs. Not a single valid hadith collection until at least 750: 138 meager hadiths from Munabbih, far from the 5000 found in Bukhari. More than 4,500 hadiths of him came down from heaven... Another miracle!
This absence is proving out loud that the interdiction of writing down the hadiths has been respected. The very fact that the hadiths of the prophet only became authoritative from Imam Shafi'i and later is proving that they weren't so before. And Bukhari 1.3.98 is a demonstration how those hadiths were later edited backward for Hurairah was dead (681) before Umar II was even born (c.682) so he couldn't possibly have said this hadith during his lifetime. This is called backward pious fraud, a very common phenomenon.
Contrary to the hadiths the Koran is the mutawatir compilation by excellence, that is corroborated from many different sources. The long chain of one-to-one narrators (likely 6) multiplies the possibility of errancy by EACH one of them. Narrator 2 embellished story #1, narrator #3 changes narration #2 and so on. This fault has been demonstrated, more so when different motives (political, religious, personal interests) are in line.skynightblaze wrote:WE don’t have quran either.Its just that Muhammad said and so and that’s why the companions put something into quran.The Cat wrote:we would have recognized authoritative hadiths directly from Muhammad. We don't.
The Chinese Whispers demonstration on how memory fails:
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/chi ... 55%29.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By Hael Wallaq, a world-renown scholars of Islamic laws
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/st ... adith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Face it, your sunnite's delusion is a dead-end.The certainty which the sahih yields is not established by means of the modalities of transmission or the quality of rectitude attributed to the transmitters. For instance, it never was the case that the authenticity of an individual hadith of the sahih category was declared ab initio and a priori certain just because it belonged to that group of traditions agreed upon by Bukhari and Muslim. A positive affirmation of authenticity always required an investigation of individual hadiths insofar as their particular mode of transmission was concerned. When these formal methods of enquiry were applied, Ibn al-salah himself found that the mutawatir is virtually non-existent........
We need not squander our energies in arguing about the matter of authenticity. We have been told that except for a score of hadiths, the rest engenders probability, and probability, as we know - and as we have also been unambiguously told by our sources - allows for mendacity and error.
I don't believe in miracles. This is what your argument comes down to.skynightblaze wrote:Even as per the latest information that I learned there were hadiths during muhammads time too.... there were hadiths earlier than that but we don’t have manuscripts for them. They managed to make their way into a larger encyclopedia of Bukhari and hence their preservation wasn’t necessary .
If they didn't preserve their corroborating sources, no 'sahih' is sound !
Once again, as underlined before, you can't read properly what's written and reconstruct from this:skynightblaze wrote:So now Abu huraira becomes reliable ? Are you sure you don’t want to change your statement?The Cat wrote:We only have the Sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabbih, which contains 138 hadiths of Abu Hurairah (not over 5,000 as per Bukhari). If one thing it proves that the interdiction of writing down hadiths was respected even by Abu Hurairah for we have NO first hand hadiths directly from him.
So, the fact that we have NO first hand hadith from Hurairah becomes -in your answer- that he becomes reliable to me.
---Bukhari, 3:113, Narrated Abu Huraira: There is none among the companions of the Prophet who has narrated more Hadiths than I except 'Abdallah bin Amr (bin Al-'As) who used to write them and I never did the same.skynightblaze wrote:That was a command not to associate anything with quran when quran was revealed. That command to not write hadiths was abrogated later after the completion of quran . We have hadiths confirming it and we have also tafsir of Ibn Abbas as a proof attesting this.The Cat wrote:"Ulum Al-Hadith" by Ibn Al-Salah, reports a hadith by Abu Hurayra in which Abu Hurayra said the messenger of God came out to us while we were writing his hadiths and said; "What are you writing?" We said, "Hadiths that we hear from you, messenger of God." He said, "A book other than the book of God?" We said, "Should we talk about you?" He said, Talk about me, that would be fine, but those who will lie will go to Hell. Abu Hurayra said, we collected what we wrote of Hadiths and burned them in fire.
But according to Hurairah:
Abu Hurayra said, we collected what we wrote of Hadiths and burned them in fire.
---Abu Dawood, 25.3639: Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As (...):
I stopped writing, and mentioned it to the Apostle of Allah (pbuh). He signaled with his finger to him mouth and said: Write, by Him in Whose hand my soul lies, only right comes out from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Dawood" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There goes another one of your sunnite hero... Apart from unreliability of the ahad transmission that is.Some of his hadith are not sahih, but he claimed that all hadith listed were sahih unless specifically indicated otherwise; this has been controversial among Islamic scholars, since some, such as Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani believe some of the unmarked ones to be da'if as well.
A good sum up (including the three versions of the Farewell Sermon, Hurairah, Bukhari)
http://www.submission.org/had-corruption.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Now isn't strange that most hadiths compilers were Persians -and regularly from Khorasan- where the Abbasid came from. No Arabs!