DO you agree with The Cat?

[MesMorial]

I hope you would agree that Isnad makes ahadith more reliable as there are many different people reporting the same event. In contrast, Quran contains the words of only Muhammad no matter where they come from originally. It seems more scientific to rely on Isnad than to rely on a single person's account.

Yes but the Qur’an does not say to trust Muhammad. It says to judge the Qur’an by the Qur’an (e.g. 4:82).

The “reliable” ahadith you refer to do not engender certainty, and thus again are disqualified by the Qur’an. One must accept the Qur’an before ahadith, and the Qur’an does not allow one to believe anything which contradicts, nor does it require any other source.

The so-called “mutawatir” ahadith (if you browse them) are actually mostly irrelevant to application of Islam. I have not found one necessary to believe in to run Islam.

Can someone bring me a mutawatir ahadith that is not supernatural, and is necessary to explain the Qur’an (without contradicting it)?

The other ahadith likewise have uncertainty, and rely on human opinion. Thus to accept them as law is to accept humans as God.

Quran does ask to accept things based on someone's reputation - that of Allah who is most likely an imaginary character. Matching reports of real and living people should certainly be taken as more authentic compared to someone's edicts whose very existence is doubtful. Don't you think so?

,

Not in this case, because Allah’s reputation is the same as the Qur’an’s reputation. Again, Muhammad is not to be used to judge the Qur’an. These are entirely different concepts.

[skynightblaze]

Who said otherwise? It's your poll's question that is -twice- more logical fallacies...

Its even worse than what I thought

The fact that none opposed the question of my poll says it all. 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 . So we have a case where 33 people misunderstood your position.This should be sufficient to tell you that you do not write coherently .
In short you got zero votes Now let me help you here. YOu have got a chance to claim that I am appealing to popularity because I said 33 people did not understand what you wrote which proves that you are incoherent .

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.
On one hand you claim that the ahadith were fabricated and on the other hand you claim that we need to judge them on their historic value. That is a clear cut contradiction because the corrupted or fabricated history cannot have historical value. I advise you to be original. Try writing your own responses for a change instead of copy pasting. If you cant write on your own at least be wise enough NOT to display your stupidity. You will save a lot of embarrassment.

[skynightblaze]

@CAT
There is more drama now.
If your position was never that all the ahadith are fabrications then you have put your foot in your mouth. 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. This proves that you are not only a TROLL but you are deceptive. You certainly know what Goldziher, Schacht, Hertberg , Cook and Crone say and therefore if you claim that your position was never that ALL THE ahadith are fabrications then what was the point of bringing these sources here?

We do not have to fight here actually .Both you and me have the same role i.e. to prove you as an idiot. You do that by virtue of your posts and I lend a helping hand to you

[The Cat]

Who said otherwise? It's your poll's question that is -twice- more logical fallacies...

Its even worse than what I thought. The fact that none opposed the question of my poll says it all.

Just like you isn't it? Trying to detour a logical fallacy with yet another !

Likewise if I've started a poll stating: Do you agree with skynightblaze that all the hadiths are authentic?
You'd be the first to dramatize. I didn't but mentioned because it was a foolish thing anyway from the first.

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

Wrong: I've maintained that the hadiths of Muhammad interdicting them were valids... :wacko:
So that makes your poll both fallacious and... invalid!

But let it be your sugared ad populum fallacy.

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

Since I recognized those of Muhammad interdicting the hadiths as worthy, you stand groundless and pants down.

You really have a problem with logic, showing throughout our debate, but now it's even with yourself.

This problem of yours with logic is underlined by this very pool:
The fallacy of Argumentum Ad Populum
viewtopic.php?p=128981#p128981" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your fallacies are there for all to see in plain daylight, including your thread in RC not belonging there at all.
Let alone spamming over a debate I've never called...

___________
To MesMorial, about the mutawatir hadiths...
viewtopic.php?p=168960#p168960" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Cat]

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.

The drama is all yours. You keep building from wrong premises to false dilemma then to hasty generalization.
Just more logical fallacies...

[skynightblaze]

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.

The drama is all yours. You keep building from wrong premises to false dilemma then to hasty generalization.
Just more logical fallacies...

You have already made your point about being a TROLL. Why do you want to reiterate this every single time? I guess you do not want people to think you are a scholar even for a second. I guess you believe in being consistent and not letting down your fans who truly believe that you are a world class TROLL.One more thing , one who types more does not mean he is the one who makes sense .If you remember this then you will save much more embarrassment in the future.

[MesMorial]

@ The Cat;

I had a discussion about how people tend to side with the majority/authorities even when evidence shows they are wrong. “Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience to Authority” resulted in 65% of participants obeying authority even when it involved inflicting cruel punishment on an actor. Of course some required different self-justification to others, but the net conclusion is that obedience is a stronger impulse than moral codes of conduct.

The reason for this is that humans are group-animals, desiring approval from others rather than risking their own judgment. Professor Maule at Leeds University says that a major reason why people do not react on individual logic (e.g. when a smoke alarm goes off in a building) is peer-pressure. No-one desires to be the odd one out, thus our sense of “belonging” to a group overrides our sense of individuality. An experiment conducted in New York during the 1960s involved the subjects being led into a waiting room. They were waiting for an experiment to start, not realising that it had already begun. Smoke was passed under the door, and the time that it took for the subjects to react was recorded. In 75% of instances where there was only one person in the room, they left to report it. When accompanied by actors instructed to ignore the smoke, only 10% left the room in a sensible period of time.

Once again, the fear of being the “odd one out” or of being ostracised overrides our individual “recognition-mechanism”.

Although humans naturally desire approval, it is the individual’s responsibility to ascertain WHICH values are worth approving, thus SHARING.

There is no meaning in belonging to a group which one recognises as “worth belonging to”, if no-one in the group uses their own recognition!


***


This is why it is hard to get people to accept that ahadith are actually not part of what Islam is meant to be (regardless of anything). Hence they do not choose a more direct approach by learning the Qur'an and "controlling" it through understanding it. As concluded, it is not the morality of Sunnis which is the problem. It is actually the Institution (to which people feel they must belong). People who use "bad hadith teachings" as their weapon will make very limited progress.

This is also why many people will choose not to have an opinion on this topic, even if they are against the hadith-teachings.

It is why people do not go against what has remained the status quo (for a "long time").

[The Cat]

Hi MesMorial...

FFI members defending tooth and nail the integrity of the hadiths have been quite a surprise to me.
This self-defeating position by which they attack on one hand what they legitimatize on the other,
for the sake of portraying Muhammad as a criminal, would have worked centuries ago if effective.

viewtopic.php?p=128053#p128053" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I also understand the consequences of my line of argument. I mean if hadiths are proven authentic
then there is a chance that muslims instead of rejecting muhammad take them as valid sources.
In that case I would have to repent so to be frank I am not sure whether my argument is right.

How self-contradictory! He argues for their authenticity while being afraid that muslims take them as valid sources!
As if that wasn't already the Sunnite's entrenched belief, which his position arbitrarily trolls and parrots in support.

SNB's position is a loosing streak right from inception. Mine is to state that Muhammad never had
much authority by himself and, since that is most obviously confirmed within the Koran, then... the
whole edifice built by the Islamic Pharisees crumbles down as having no Islamic legal ground at all.

That takes care of 95% of the nowadays dreadful Sharia and it's a wonder how they'll deal with the remaining 5%!

[skynightblaze]

How self-contradictory! He argues for their authenticity while being afraid that muslims take them as valid sources!
As if that wasn't already the Sunnite's entrenched belief, which his position arbitrarily trolls and parrots in support.

SNB's position is a loosing streak right from inception. Mine is to state that Muhammad never had
much authority by himself and, since that is most obviously confirmed within the Koran, then... the
whole edifice built by the Islamic Pharisees crumbles down as having no Islamic legal ground at all.

That takes care of 95% of the nowadays dreadful Sharia and it's a wonder how they'll deal wit

I said above that I was not sure. That post was made by me almost an year ago. A good deal of time has passed for me to change my opinions. Now I am of the opinion that proving Muhammad as a criminal is the best form of attack on islam.

Thanks for proving that you are no longer a friend of FFI . You are here to promote quran . By now everyone must have observed this.

Btw if I am to dig out a few of your posts I will need a separate thread to show how absolutely stupid you are.

[The Cat]

You have already made your point about being a TROLL. Why do you want to reiterate this every single time? I guess you do not want people to think you are a scholar even for a second. I guess you believe in being consistent and not letting down your fans who truly believe that you are a world class TROLL.One more thing , one who types more does not mean he is the one who makes sense .If you remember this then you will save much more embarrassment in the future.

Wrong Premise: A troll will likely be the one who keeps on accusing the other of trolling, so
introducing Ad Hominem fallacies in order to attack the person when arguments have failed.

False Dilemma: Constant accusation of trolling is itself... trolling, by its very definition:
viewtopic.php?p=167663#p167663" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hasty Generalization: I do not have 'fans' but people interested in scholarship and history,
both fields in which you're a total ignoramus, trying hard to hide it in smokescreen waffles.

Thanks for proving that you are no longer a friend of FFI . You are here to promote quran . By now everyone must have observed this. Btw if I am to dig out a few of your posts I will need a separate thread to show how absolutely stupid you are.

Only usual fallacies, argumentum ad populum and poisoning the well, what else?

In the meantime your position is self-defeating as you endorse the hadiths' authenticity.

Your approach didn't work then nor will it work now... Manuel II Palaiologos (in 1392):
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only
evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".


Now prove that I'm only here to promote quran or stand as an abject, compulsive, liar...
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then you meant massive stupidity like these from you (in Muhammad, Myth vs Reality)?

--When a statement is made it has equal chances of being false or true.
--Why would someone quote a long chain of narrators to fabricate something?
--How do you know about Mu'awiya in the 660 Ad? Whats the source?
--I dont need proofs because I have the logic.
--There must be proof . Its only that I aint finding it.
--Now in all the debates I made a few mistakes and I have learned from them so I can
now gather all the things and put them in one thread in the resource center.

Yet what he has gathered therein was aggravated repetitions... of the same mistakes!

Thoroughly debunked in my answers to such a spamming thread in RC:
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10680" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All legal hadiths, as per the Sharia, are nullified by one Koranic verse:
16.116: And speak not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or unclean),
the falsehood: "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so that ye invent a lie against Allah.

[skynightblaze]

in order to attack the person when arguments have failed.

I derive the inspiration to write a book on the psychology of trolls . You are such an inspiration and an example.

[The Cat]

Now I am of the opinion that proving Muhammad as a criminal is the best form of attack on islam.

Hadiths portray Muhammad as a religious emancipator, a mosaical liberator.
They also portray the prophet as a miraculous wise sayer, much like Jesus.

By acknowledging the hadiths' legitimacy you do endorse the Muhammadans' right
to pedophilia, to genitally mutilate kids, child-bride marriage and stoning to death.
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For, through the hadiths, Muhammad becomes a law-carrier which laws you endorse.
What you really say to them is: I despise your laws but they are legitimated anyhow!

That's the REAL outcome of your 'logic'!!! Prove me wrong on this or stand as an abject person.

Now, do you think that by proving Moses a criminal you'd overthrow Judaism in a glimpse?

Jesus was crucified as a criminal too. Did it stop his teachings to reach far and abroad?
The Christians were so persecuted as 'criminals'. Did it stop Christianity from spreading?

I've explained my position, compared to your self-defeating one, many times:
viewtopic.php?p=166819#p166819" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=168528#p168528" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then prove, as I've asked, that I'm only here to promote quran or stand as a deluded, compulsive, liar...
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=130998#p130998" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=168709#p168709" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=168992#p168992" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[skynightblaze]

This is for sensible people so CAT is naturally excluded from it . Actually I don't need to prove that this idiot is here to promote quran. Anyone who has been following our conversations can easily see that and it is as clear as daylight. Secondly if this person was here to reform islam then the same person would not go on to defend the scientific errors in the quran like FLAT EARTH . The quran claims that earth is flat however this person kept arguing for pages and pages defending the quran and claimed that quran never said EARTH IS flat. A person who is not interested in promoting quran would never bother to argue whether quran is scientifically correct or not. The third example is this person also defended the compilation of quran for 15 pages. No sane person who thinks quran is a false book would do that. Quran was obviously not collected properly . Why would a person who is not interested in promoting quran do that? I guess I dont have to say anything more.A person who claims that quran is on our side cannot claim that he never promoted the quran. That is a laughable statement. In case this TROLL claims that he never said that quran is with us, I will present proof here.

My point is that the Koran dismisses nowadays man-made Islam. So why fight it blindly, according ourselves to the Straw-Islam built by the imams? The Koran is on OUR SIDE about this !

viewtopic.php?p=131600#p131600" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now there is no disagreement in the kafir world that nowadays islam is evil but according to this TROLL Koran is against it . SO what conclusion are people drawing from this? So Is quran really against the nowadays islam or is quran also a part of nowadays islam? IF this person says that Quran is on our side and is against nowadays islam it means quran is a clean book ! One might argue that he did not intend to mean what I just said above but still it leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

Why in the world would person who knows that quran is an evil book claim that Quran is against nowadays islam? All I can say is that this person is a bastard and a lying fraud and he is trying throw dust into everyone's eyes to cover up this tracks.

[skynightblaze]

More ever he also claims that Sira and ahadith cannot give us a coherent image of Muhammad So what does this mean ? IT means that this idiot wants to tell us that Muhammad was not a criminal. All one has to do is infer from his statements. Quran is against nowadays islam and Muhammad was a not a criminal . What does that tell us ? Does it really tells us that he is against the quran?

[The Cat]

if this person was here to reform islam then the same person would not go on to defend the scientific errors in the quran like FLAT EARTH . The quran claims that earth is flat however this person kept arguing for pages and pages defending the quran and claimed that quran never said EARTH IS flat.

When attacking the Koran from wrong premises you simply put yourself out of the way.

The Koran doesn't say that the earth is flat and His Senility has been debunked over this.
viewtopic.php?p=162553#p162553" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=163017#p163017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is quran really against the nowadays islam or is quran also a part of nowadays islam? IF this person says that Quran is on our side and is against nowadays islam it means quran is a clean book !

No hadith can be religiously authoritative because:
1) The Koran states so (4.87; 6.57; 7.185; 12.111; 31.6; 45.6; 77.50)
2) The only Sunna is that of Allah (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 proves that this has been respected for around TWO centuries.
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 (5.48; 42.13).

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

he also claims that Sira and ahadith cannot give us a coherent image of Muhammad So what does this mean ?
IT means that this idiot wants to tell us that Muhammad was not a criminal.

First, this ain't solely my claim, but that of most scholars such as Win Raven and Harald Motzki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirat_Rasu ... usefulness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Koran itself states that he erred, sinned, a depraved fellow ('Dallaan' 93.7).
It never ever gives him the title of Imam as with others (2.124; 21.73; 46.12).

It also condemns stealing. And this guy should be an all-time example according to WHAT????
Again, you give legitimacy to something you otherwise attack. That's a self-defeating 'logic'.

That's delusive for the Sunnites and, most unfortunately, for some members here.

viewtopic.php?p=157751#p157751" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't mind at all criticizing the Koran. I'm all ears. But it must be sound, otherwise we look silly and discarded.

So, according to this self-defeating, flat 'logic' of yours, Muhammadans can laugh at FFI all the way to their mosques.

From all the above demonstrations you have shown yourself to be a deluded, compulsive liar (at best).
I'm here to give FFI some credibility. You do the opposite...

[yeezevee]

Now I am of the opinion that proving Muhammad as a criminal is the best form of attack on islam.

Hadiths portray Muhammad as a religious emancipator, a mosaical liberator.
They also portray the prophet as a miraculous wise sayer, much like Jesus.

By acknowledging the hadiths' legitimacy you do endorse the Muhammadans' right
to pedophilia, to genitally mutilate kids, child-bride marriage and stoning to death.
..

Yap That guy Muhammad was chameleon, A sleaze ball and a cunning character could be a nut case The Cat..

[TonyT]

Why an earth would you throw the Hadiths out of the window entirely? That is just crazy. The historian should use all the materials at his disposal and evaluate each one based on the evidence within, how much it correlates with the other sources, and identifying what the potential biases that might exist with the creators. But no source should ever be thrown out the window entirely unless the accounts totally contradict the rest of the body of evidence which can be proven to be more reliable.

All early Islamic sources are propoganda to a certain extent as all of them exaggerate the heroics and nobility of the early Muslims and emphasize the savagery and barbarity of their opponents when they can.

But the biggest piece of propoganda is the Koran itself. The Koran is how Muhammad himself wanted to be remembered, not as other people actually remembered him. The Hadiths are how Muhammad's closest friends remembered him. The Koran is therefore the most suspect of all the sources.

I am not saying that the Koran is not a good source, there is obviously a lot of useful information in it about how Muhammad thought, how he justified his actions, and the kind of society he wanted to create. But it says very little about the way he went about creating that society.

To rely on the Koran alone as a source of information on the early development of Islam is like rellying on the BP Oil companies official press releases alone when studying the BP Oil Spill.

[Takeiteasynow]

Unfortunately this debate took place before recent publications which shred new insights on this topic. But I think most hadith were authentic before being obscured.

Throwing the Hadiths out of the window entirely is simply crazy as for instance Dan Gibson shows that a change of context makes many of them applicable. There is no archeological or epigraphical evidence or support from eye witness accounts for the traditional interpretation - yet this changes when you move the context from Mecca to Petra. Recently a series of inscriptions has been discovered in the basalt desert of Jordan and Syria (probably fist century AD) that describe Allah as the one true God - seven centuries before the arrival of Islam (circa 810 AD). So, as example, we can now reevaluate the hypothesis of Patricia Crone that the Quraysh are the nomadic pastoral tribes from this area.

That being said it is a waste to evaluate the hadiths one by one - you only have to ask the question why the center of the pre-Islamic cult was transpositioned from Petra to Mecca and how this was propagated to the masses. In any ideology or religion 'truth' is nothing more then a social construct implemented top down using peer pressure.

So how do you understand this process of manipulation? We use the Adam Schiff Accelerator Model: what does Adam do to achieve certain social constructs, how does he reconcile conflicting views and opinions and how are these social constructs being pushed to the masses? Of course you could pick another form of pure evil - they are all the same.

Anyway, most of the hadiths were authentic but obscured to facilitate the transposition from Petra to Mecca. Then others were added to explain the final breach of trust between Arab Messianic Jews and Rabbinical Jews around 810 AD.

[manfred]

most of the hadiths were authentic but obscured to facilitate the transposition from Petra to Mecca.

Do you mean they were re-written? That would be difficult to hide.

I think the question f the authenticity of the hadith is complex, and you certainly cannot simply say they were ALL authentic or ALL fabricated. It is a well known fact that around charismatic figures sometimes there develops a sort of myth-building over time. We can see that with Alexander the Great, for example, certain kings or Kalifs, and religious figures are particularly prone to that. You find all kind of stuff in the Talmud "filling in the gaps" on Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah and many others... All were of course written much later. Similar stories are found about the Buddha, too.


The hadith are something similar to that. They contain later traditions about Mohammed, but that does not mean they are all untrue. At least some may have some kernel of history in them, particularly those that are damaging to Islam. If these were false, they would have been erased long ago. The only reason they were left standing is because at least a substantial body of Muslims accepted them, on the basis of the "transition chain".

Also, at the end of the day, what matters is not if these sayings are historical, but only if today's Muslims see them as such and therefore allow them to form their views on topics.

The theory of the "transposition" from Petra to Mecca is not supported to my knowledge by texts from the Hadith, but if there are such texts, I would be curious to see them. The main evidence proposed is geographical and archaeological. What is clear though, is that the Mohammed of the hadith was from Mecca, not Petra. That does not in itself prove that there has been any editing of the hadith to make this connection. All it does suggest is that the texts date from a time when the idea of a Mohammed from Mecca, not from Petra, was already established. We could even speculate that one of the motivations for the collection of these hadith was to establish the Meccan Mohammed.

[Takeiteasynow]

Also, at the end of the day, what matters is not if these sayings are historical, but only if today's Muslims see them as such and therefore allow them to form their views on topics.

Agreed. But we're trying to build a timeline from a historical perspective.

I think the question if the authenticity of the hadith is complex, and you certainly cannot simply say they were ALL authentic or ALL fabricated. I

Indeed. Until 2011 most evidence for alternative theories was circumstantial but the publication of Gibson's Quranic Geography changed that - for the first time clear patterns emerged related to Petra. Over the last 5 years thousands of rock graffiti and inscriptions have been translated enabling researchers to link epigraphical and linguistical evidence in patterns or logical chains.

Yet it is obvious that SOME were fabricated. The Messianic and Rabbinical Jews were buddies during the first 'Islamic' century until at least 725 AD.

The theory of the "transposition" from Petra to Mecca is not supported to my knowledge by texts from the Hadith, but if there are such texts, I would be curious to see them.

Agreed once more. That's why you have to reconstruct the 'pre-Islamic' history before it happened. That's difficult enough as the caliphate model, with Islam as an established state religion, only appears after 810 AD.

That does not in itself prove that there has been any editing of the hadith to make this connection.

Disagree. If the theory of Dan Gibson is right then at least the names of some localities were changed. And it's also possible that mecca was a locality at Petra.

Yet there's a new promising hypothesis. If Nabataean supreme deity 'lh is the pre-Islamic Allah with many epithets - as in 'god has many names' - it will be much easier to create a logical and sequential timeline which ten can be used to evaluate the composition of the hadith.