What are your sources of history to determine that there were no authoritative ahadith before Shafi? You are again referring to islamic history to know this so again a case of selective picking.
Shafi’s “Kitab Jima’al-Ilm” describes a conversation between Shafi and a “Qur’an-alone” Muslim 150-200 years A.H. You will find it on page 113:http://depositfiles.com/files/pppyl5yod
Shafi’i provides the foundational arguments upon which he wished to “stabilise” Islam, giving equal status to Qur’an and “Sunna” (supposedly found in ahadith). This would have been an attempt to resolve disagreements concerning ahadith.
The term “Prophet’s sunna” was not being used at the advent of Islam, confirmed by the Qur’an. A few ahadith were fabricated at a much later date to place the names of the Caliphs (who did not make use of Sunna) alongside the “Sunna”.
Since Hadith as concept is quite easily shown to be separate from Islam, it follows that it had other causes. Besides entertainment and a medium by which to find permission or prohibition for everything that anyone could (some afternoon) think of, they were political tools to be used by opposing factions:Anas reported that the Prophet ascended Uhud with Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman. It trembled with them and so he struck it with his foot and said: "Be firm, O Uhud, and verily on you there are a prophet, a truthful man and two martyrs."
(Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 35)
Or if you would prefer:Zerre-b-Hubaish reported that Ali said: "By One who splits seeds and creates breath, the illiterate prophet gave me a covenant: `Nobody except a believer will love me, and nobody except a hypocrite will hate me.'"
Concerning the last hadith:
http://hinduunity.yuku.com/topic/1814/S ... lam?page=2
The hadith scholars, and authors of the Sunans have confirmed the saying of the Prophet (S.A.W.) to 'Ali: "None shall love you except a believer, and none shall hate you except a hypocrite". This has been reported by al-Tirmidhi in his Sahih, al-Nas'ai in his Sunan, the Musnad of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan, al-Tabari in "al-Dhakha'ir al-Aqba", Ibn Hajar in "Lisan al-Mizan". Al-Bukhari however, in spite of having confirmed the authenticity of this hadith, which Muslim also reported, and [despite the fact that] all the transmitters in the chain were verified as reliable, did not relate the hadith because he reflected and realised that the Muslims would perceive the hypocrisy of many companions who were close to the Prophet
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=s6s ... 0a&f=false
Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a
hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever
field. What we learn about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law,
dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra'y (opinion) or hawa (personal desire), every sunna and bid`a (innovation) has sought and found expression in the hadith.
To keep it brief for now, I will be saying that the proof there were no authoritative ahadith is that Hadith itself is not authoritative.
Typing till the end and claiming my argument is superior is not called rocking. Making sense is very important. HE did not make any sense when he debated with Darth or myself. He keeps claiming that when quran said that Muhammad came to TEACH , he claimed that it is saying Muhammad is supposed to recite the quran and do nothing. This argument is no way acceptable and it doesn't deserve a response if a person is basically changing meaning of the words.
Your response to me is not a response. It is a failure. You have not brought a verse to support that Hadith is a part of Islam.
You see my refutations of Darth’s 33:37 theory:viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10881&start=120#p167896
You see my refutation to your claim about 2:151:viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10881&start=40#p167165
I remind that the verse gives the different functions of one duty. The reason it does so is to highlight the IMPORTANCE of the delivery (i.e. the different reasons why it was needed).
I said if majority agrees with you then I will apologize. That has not happened even once. I never spoke about relative comparison. I never claimed that I will apologize even if a single person apologizes. I do not think you are worth apologizing. I will however apologize to 14 members who have agreed with you if I have said anything nasty about them. I do not blame people for going wrong but repeating the same thing even when you are shown as wrong is irritating.
Is all of this relevant or are you here to preserve your status?
It is not we who say this. It is your quran that says that and you have already been shown that by Darth and myself. More ever credibility of quran depends on the ahadith. What if the ahadith are true? Why should anyone follow what a mentally deranged criminal has said? The entire credibility of quran depends on the character of Muhammad . If he was a fraud then nothing can defend the quran. I have proved that he was a criminal from non muslim sources. All the sources that we have muslims and non muslims tell us that he was a criminal . How is that everyone who writes about Muhammad writes negative about him unless he was really disgusting person?
The Qur’an nowhere mandates ahadith, nor have you proven that it does. It is logically untenable that an earlier source (Qur’an) can be dependent on and confirmed by something weaker (later ahadith).
If the ahadith are true, it is still not relevant on a religious basis so much as historical (since the Qur’an should admonish un-Qur’anic doings). The Qur’an demands that it be judged on its own terms, not by some human’s reputation. Muhammad’s bad behaviour would only be a historical contradiction, showing that one of the sources is false or out of its context.
If (supposedly) the Qur’an has not been disproved, we must not assume that ahadith can be used to disprove it.
If the Qur’an has been disproved, or you can disprove it, there is no need for this discussion.
Your reason for this argument must depend upon the Qur’an not being disproved, or else your need to link Hadith with Qur’an is a waste of our time.
In order to peddle, your arguments must always assume that the Qur’an is not disproven, thus you can never use the argument that the truth of ahadith disproves the Qur’an. If there is no certainty that the Qur’an is false, there is no certainty that the ahadith can disprove it. If there is certainty that the Qur’an is false, then you need not talk about ahadith (unless you can prove ahadith 100% true with consistent standards).
Of course one may say the Qur’an is certainly false, but this is not valid for a Muslim unless you prove so from the Qur’an, not ahadith.
If you are arguing with a Sunni (who has more faith in ahadith than Qur’an), then you can try to say the Qur'an is false because the ahadith are immoral, even though you are proving they are true (that is what you argue). However, the Sunni already accepts these ahadith as a part of the Qur’an (which is what you actually support)!
Your inevitable position is that the Qur’an is false because the ahadith are immoral, yet at the same time you argue the Qur’an asks for this immorality (which Sunnis have already accepted).
This is why I reject your approach to the issue as useless.
This leads to your entrapment in the debate of whether the Qur’an allows ahadith or not. You must first prove that it allows ahadith before we continue with the discussion. I contend that Islam (Qur’an) is separate from the ahadith, thus I am asking you to separate them and get the issue in perspective.
In order to deal with Sunnis you must take a different position, and this position is the correct one.
After that, the disproof of Islam itself comes from the Qur’an itself. It cannot logically come from Hadith.
My above post has focussed on taking Skynightblaze back to basic points he must answer before he can continue. I have also shown that his approach is basically useless to solving the problems of “Islam” today.