Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Muhammad wasn't a Pedophile Debate Vote

HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:51:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Interesting debate that could use some votes. A while back I was discussing this topic on the forum, and said I would get back too it. This is the boiled-down version of my research.

http://www.debate.org...
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:12:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can't vote because i refuse to give my cell phone number to debate.org but pro conded the debate so it doesn't matter what the votes say, you won.

Here's what my comment would have been if i did vote:
Con's argument is based on the idea that the ahadith are completely unreliable. I do not disagree completely with this idea. Indeed many ahadith are fabricated, but hadith scholars already acknowledge this. But Con also needs to understand that most of the quran's verses are accompanied by ahadith. He needs to research the science of ahadith and look up the term 'mutawatir' and not just rely on a hadith-rejecting website that he googled. Do not agree with Pro after the debate as he conceded.

If you reject all of the ahadith (even mutawatir) and claim that the quran is much more historically reliable, you are wrong. the insinuation that some caliphs would just make up a hadith regarding marriage to a 6 year old is also a very weak argument. although it is possible, one must wonder what incentive one would have to make up a lie about their prophet having sex with a 9 year old. t
here are multiple narrations of this same hadith.

Most scholars agree that believing in mutawatir ahadith must be part of a muslim's aqeedah. The same people who complied the quran as we know it were also responsible for the preservation of many of the ahadith that we know of.

We can debate this topic if you want: All ahadith are less reliable than the Quran.
The fact of the matter is both the quran and the ahadith have been altered.

Just because bukhari and muslim compiled their books much after muhammad's death, does not mean these ahadith were not memorized, taught, and found in many other books.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 11:40:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 8:12:51 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
I can't vote because i refuse to give my cell phone number to debate.org but pro conded the debate so it doesn't matter what the votes say, you won.

Wow, I didn't realize Debate.org made you register a phone number. That's awful.

But Con also needs to understand that most of the quran's verses are accompanied by ahadith.

What do you mean by this?

He needs to research the science of ahadith and look up the term 'mutawatir' and not just rely on a hadith-rejecting website that he googled.

We should note that the idea of rejecting Hadith as accurate historical depictions of Muhammad isn't a cult-thing I found on this website, its the consensus of the academic community. The website I used simply summarized the relevant arguments well, and sourced their information with relevant scholars in the field, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

We all know what Mutawatir means, it refers to Hadith referenced by numerous sources. I'm not sure how this contradicts any of the points raised about the unreliability of Hadith.

If you reject all of the ahadith (even mutawatir) and claim that the quran is much more historically reliable, you are wrong.

There is no question the Quran is more historically reliable. Its an agreed upon fact in the academic community. The Quran was written down and verified during Muhammad's life, and assembled into one book shortly after his death. Most Hadith weren't written down, and weren't assembled until 200 years after Muhammad's death, at a time when Hadith forgery was rampant.

the insinuation that some caliphs would just make up a hadith regarding marriage to a 6 year old is also a very weak argument. although it is possible, one must wonder what incentive one would have to make up a lie about their prophet having sex with a 9 year old. t

It not an "insinuation"; the academic community is in complete agreement that the Caliph's forged hundreds of thousands of Hadith, to make whatever practice they promoted seem legitimate. Considering both the Arab and European culture at that time, it not only possible, but likely, that Caliph's would want marriage to underage women legitimized, assuming it wasn't under Muhammad's rule.

Most scholars agree that believing in mutawatir ahadith must be part of a muslim's aqeedah. The same people who complied the quran as we know it were also responsible for the preservation of many of the ahadith that we know of.

The ruling of religious scholars on Islamic doctrine isn't the issue here. The issue is the historicity of Hadith and Quran. You clearly didn't read the debate I posted. Many of the people who assembled the Quran (allegedly) did NOT approve of Hadith, and either destroyed or prevented them from being legitimized.

We can debate this topic if you want: All ahadith are less reliable than the Quran.
The fact of the matter is both the quran and the ahadith have been altered.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you offering to debate the position that the Quran is just as historically accurate as Hadith? Love to, but I have a prior debate-engagement with someone this coming week. I'll alert you when I'm free.

I need to do some research, but there seems to be some debate in the academic community (historians) about whether the Quran of today is essentially the same as the one in Muhammad's time. That is an actual debate, not something like the validity of Hadith, which virtually all qualified people discredit.

Just because bukhari and muslim compiled their books much after muhammad's death, does not mean these ahadith were not memorized, taught, and found in many other books.

I'm sure many of these Hadith WERE memorized, taught, and found in other books. And, that a solid 80% of them are entirely fictitious, 15% are warped beyond recognition (the telephone game), and that maybe 5% are somewhat accurate.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:21:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 8:12:51 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
I can't vote because i refuse to give my cell phone number to debate.org but pro conded the debate so it doesn't matter what the votes say, you won.

You don't need to give your cell phone number to vote. Once a member completes 3 debates they can contact me to request that their account be confirmed.
Debate.org Moderator
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 8:30:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 11:40:49 PM, HPWKA wrote:
At 12/7/2013 8:12:51 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
I can't vote because i refuse to give my cell phone number to debate.org but pro conded the debate so it doesn't matter what the votes say, you won.

Wow, I didn't realize Debate.org made you register a phone number. That's awful.

But Con also needs to understand that most of the quran's verses are accompanied by ahadith.

What do you mean by this?

He needs to research the science of ahadith and look up the term 'mutawatir' and not just rely on a hadith-rejecting website that he googled.

We should note that the idea of rejecting Hadith as accurate historical depictions of Muhammad isn't a cult-thing I found on this website, its the consensus of the academic community. The website I used simply summarized the relevant arguments well, and sourced their information with relevant scholars in the field, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

We all know what Mutawatir means, it refers to Hadith referenced by numerous sources. I'm not sure how this contradicts any of the points raised about the unreliability of Hadith.

If you reject all of the ahadith (even mutawatir) and claim that the quran is much more historically reliable, you are wrong.

There is no question the Quran is more historically reliable. Its an agreed upon fact in the academic community. The Quran was written down and verified during Muhammad's life, and assembled into one book shortly after his death. Most Hadith weren't written down, and weren't assembled until 200 years after Muhammad's death, at a time when Hadith forgery was rampant.

This is where we completely disagree. I think they are very important for each other. And am not sure how the Koran is historical, as it is based on a God which is not real. There is no proof of the existence of Allah. Whereas the Hadith are accounts and would be far more relevant if they were true than a book of fairytales. Thats after all why I was willing to concede the debate, with my opponent willing to say Allah, Islam and Muhammad are fairytales.

the insinuation that some caliphs would just make up a hadith regarding marriage to a 6 year old is also a very weak argument. although it is possible, one must wonder what incentive one would have to make up a lie about their prophet having sex with a 9 year old. t

It not an "insinuation"; the academic community is in complete agreement that the Caliph's forged hundreds of thousands of Hadith, to make whatever practice they promoted seem legitimate. Considering both the Arab and European culture at that time, it not only possible, but likely, that Caliph's would want marriage to underage women legitimized, assuming it wasn't under Muhammad's rule.

Most scholars agree that believing in mutawatir ahadith must be part of a muslim's aqeedah. The same people who complied the quran as we know it were also responsible for the preservation of many of the ahadith that we know of.

The ruling of religious scholars on Islamic doctrine isn't the issue here. The issue is the historicity of Hadith and Quran. You clearly didn't read the debate I posted. Many of the people who assembled the Quran (allegedly) did NOT approve of Hadith, and either destroyed or prevented them from being legitimized.

We can debate this topic if you want: All ahadith are less reliable than the Quran.
The fact of the matter is both the quran and the ahadith have been altered.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you offering to debate the position that the Quran is just as historically accurate as Hadith? Love to, but I have a prior debate-engagement with someone this coming week. I'll alert you when I'm free.

I need to do some research, but there seems to be some debate in the academic community (historians) about whether the Quran of today is essentially the same as the one in Muhammad's time. That is an actual debate, not something like the validity of Hadith, which virtually all qualified people discredit.

Just because bukhari and muslim compiled their books much after muhammad's death, does not mean these ahadith were not memorized, taught, and found in many other books.

I'm sure many of these Hadith WERE memorized, taught, and found in other books. And, that a solid 80% of them are entirely fictitious, 15% are warped beyond recognition (the telephone game), and that maybe 5% are somewhat accurate.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 8:52:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 11:40:49 PM, HPWKA wrote:
At 12/7/2013 8:12:51 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
I can't vote because i refuse to give my cell phone number to debate.org but pro conded the debate so it doesn't matter what the votes say, you won.

Wow, I didn't realize Debate.org made you register a phone number. That's awful.

But Con also needs to understand that most of the quran's verses are accompanied by ahadith.

What do you mean by this?

He needs to research the science of ahadith and look up the term 'mutawatir' and not just rely on a hadith-rejecting website that he googled.

We should note that the idea of rejecting Hadith as accurate historical depictions of Muhammad isn't a cult-thing I found on this website, its the consensus of the academic community. The website I used simply summarized the relevant arguments well, and sourced their information with relevant scholars in the field, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

We all know what Mutawatir means, it refers to Hadith referenced by numerous sources. I'm not sure how this contradicts any of the points raised about the unreliability of Hadith.

If you reject all of the ahadith (even mutawatir) and claim that the quran is much more historically reliable, you are wrong.

There is no question the Quran is more historically reliable. Its an agreed upon fact in the academic community. The Quran was written down and verified during Muhammad's life, and assembled into one book shortly after his death. Most Hadith weren't written down, and weren't assembled until 200 years after Muhammad's death, at a time when Hadith forgery was rampant.

the insinuation that some caliphs would just make up a hadith regarding marriage to a 6 year old is also a very weak argument. although it is possible, one must wonder what incentive one would have to make up a lie about their prophet having sex with a 9 year old. t

It not an "insinuation"; the academic community is in complete agreement that the Caliph's forged hundreds of thousands of Hadith, to make whatever practice they promoted seem legitimate. Considering both the Arab and European culture at that time, it not only possible, but likely, that Caliph's would want marriage to underage women legitimized, assuming it wasn't under Muhammad's rule.

Most scholars agree that believing in mutawatir ahadith must be part of a muslim's aqeedah. The same people who complied the quran as we know it were also responsible for the preservation of many of the ahadith that we know of.

The ruling of religious scholars on Islamic doctrine isn't the issue here. The issue is the historicity of Hadith and Quran. You clearly didn't read the debate I posted. Many of the people who assembled the Quran (allegedly) did NOT approve of Hadith, and either destroyed or prevented them from being legitimized.

We can debate this topic if you want: All ahadith are less reliable than the Quran.
The fact of the matter is both the quran and the ahadith have been altered.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you offering to debate the position that the Quran is just as historically accurate as Hadith? Love to, but I have a prior debate-engagement with someone this coming week. I'll alert you when I'm free.

I need to do some research, but there seems to be some debate in the academic community (historians) about whether the Quran of today is essentially the same as the one in Muhammad's time. That is an actual debate, not something like the validity of Hadith, which virtually all qualified people discredit.

Just because bukhari and muslim compiled their books much after muhammad's death, does not mean these ahadith were not memorized, taught, and found in many other books.

I'm sure many of these Hadith WERE memorized, taught, and found in other books. And, that a solid 80% of them are entirely fictitious, 15% are warped beyond recognition (the telephone game), and that maybe 5% are somewhat accurate.

1. most verses of the quran weren't written down either. The quran was not compiled and written down in its current form until after muhammad's death, by the calpihs. the same people you claim altered the ahadith.

2. Everyone agrees that most of the ahadith that have been recorded are weak. But this 5% figure (which you pulled out of thin air) actually supports my arguments more than yours. This is because 5% of 600,000 known ahadith narrations (some say there are millions btw) equals 30,000, which is about 5 times more than the number of verses in the entire quran. So basically you proved that there are mpore authentic ahadith than verses of the quran.

3. What I meant by "most quranic verses are accompanied by ahadith" is that there are many verses that were revealed during certain events of muhammad's life. There is a multitude of ahadith that mention verses of the quran and describe how and when they were revealed.

4. I think you are failing to understand my arguments and then claiming I didn't read your debate. What I am trying to explain to you is that the same people that preserved the quran, are reported as narrators of a multitude of ahadith (the first four caliphs were all close companions and relatives of muhammad in one way or another). So if you are going to claim that they were careful in the way they preserved the quran and at the same time just made up most of the ahadith that are attributed to them, that's called having double-standards.

5. There are many ahadith (and you acknowledged this with your fake statistics) that are quite reliable and their authenticity is just as reliable as that of the quran.

6. The quran too has been altered slightly and there is good evidence to suggest that some verses are missing/ were not meant to be a part of the quran when they were spken by muhammad. At the very least, there is a debate about how some of the words in certain verses vary.

7. It is difficult to doubt the authenticity of the the ahadith regarding aisha's age when she was married (those who claim that she was 16-20 when she was married actually base their claims on less reliable ahadith). This is because marrying young girls was a common practise in those times and in that era. If you can please present the work of an oriental scholar that doubts that this happened, please do so. This is not a rhetorical question. I am not afraid of being proven wrong, and in fact, I want to be proven wrong about this. All I can say is most academics that have written about this event, that i know of, do not doubt that it happened.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 8:52:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 12:21:01 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 8:12:51 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
I can't vote because i refuse to give my cell phone number to debate.org but pro conded the debate so it doesn't matter what the votes say, you won.

You don't need to give your cell phone number to vote. Once a member completes 3 debates they can contact me to request that their account be confirmed.

oh, ok. thanks.
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:44:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anybody with a modicum of intelligence knows that a 50yr old man who fvcks a 9yr old girl is a paedophile.

But don't sweat it.

Neither the jewish god, nor the christian god nor indeed the islamic god ever prohibits paedophilia.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 1:04:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 12:44:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
Anybody with a modicum of intelligence knows that a 50yr old man who fvcks a 9yr old girl is a paedophile.

But don't sweat it.

Neither the jewish god, nor the christian god nor indeed the islamic god ever prohibits paedophilia.

i think HPWKA's argument is that muhammad in fact did not sleep with a 9 year old because this event is mentioned in the ahadith (which he believes are not reliable) and not in the quran.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 2:58:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Muslimnomore,

I simply haven't done enough research on the topic of Quranic compilation to get into a quasi-debate with you, which is what this is turning into. We can have a formal debate in a week or so on the subject of Quranic compilation.

On the topic of Hadith, there is ZERO doubt my position is essentially correct. It isn't a matter of finding a scholar who agrees with me, or what I "personally" believe. The ONLY evidence that Muhammad was a pedophile, comes from Hadith. The consensus of the historical academic community (not the quasi-religious scholar community), is that Hadith are basically worthless as historical documents. Ergo, there is no Muhammad pedophile debate, because there is no concrete evidence with which to build a position on.

The "debate" you refer to, occurs mainly with Muslims, who take Hadith as accurate representations of Muhammad, and thus attempt to use other Hadith to show he isn't a pedophile.

My percentage breakdown of Hadith was a blatant hyperbole, and I'm concerned that you actually took it to heart, and are attempting to attack my positions with it.

Furthermore, the conflicting Hadith used to show Aisha was aged 14-19, and not 9, aren't significantly, if at all, less reliable then the one's who say Aisha was 9.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 3:51:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 2:58:44 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Muslimnomore,

I simply haven't done enough research on the topic of Quranic compilation to get into a quasi-debate with you, which is what this is turning into. We can have a formal debate in a week or so on the subject of Quranic compilation.

On the topic of Hadith, there is ZERO doubt my position is essentially correct. It isn't a matter of finding a scholar who agrees with me, or what I "personally" believe. The ONLY evidence that Muhammad was a pedophile, comes from Hadith. The consensus of the historical academic community (not the quasi-religious scholar community), is that Hadith are basically worthless as historical documents. Ergo, there is no Muhammad pedophile debate, because there is no concrete evidence with which to build a position on.

The "debate" you refer to, occurs mainly with Muslims, who take Hadith as accurate representations of Muhammad, and thus attempt to use other Hadith to show he isn't a pedophile.

My percentage breakdown of Hadith was a blatant hyperbole, and I'm concerned that you actually took it to heart, and are attempting to attack my positions with it.

Furthermore, the conflicting Hadith used to show Aisha was aged 14-19, and not 9, aren't significantly, if at all, less reliable then the one's who say Aisha was 9.

I was merely trying to highlight your tendency to make statements about ahadith which:
1. demonstrate your lack of understanding of how they were compiled
2. demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the sheer number and variety of ahadith out there. do you think oriental scholars have written biographies of muhammad based off of quranic verses? of course not. If it were not for the hadith we would know very little about the life of muhammad. unfrtunately for you, many oriental scholars are confident that many of the events of muhammad's life, as mentioned in the ahadith (as reported in the books of the sirah and the sahih collections), did actually occur.

Once again, I readily acknowledge that most ahadith are unreliable and many are fabricated (and this is acknolwedged not just by oriental but even muslim scholars).
This in no way means that the ahadith about Muhammad's marriage to aisha are less reliable than the quran as a secondary (and some might argue primary) source of history. Your statement about the 'conflicting' ahadith is not based on any proof (or knowledge of these other ahadith, which i am sure you will google now that i mentioned them), whereas i can quote several oriental scholars who are confident that muhammad's marriage to aisha occured while she was a very young girl under the age of 10.

Please provide evidence and reasoning for why you claim that the ahadith about aisha's marriage are less reliable than the others (which do not even directly mention aisha's age at the time of her marriage).

Also I did not ask for a debate on Quranic compilation but on the issue whether or not quranic verses are invariably more reliable than ahadith as historical sources.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:26:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 3:51:54 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 12/8/2013 2:58:44 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Muslimnomore,

I simply haven't done enough research on the topic of Quranic compilation to get into a quasi-debate with you, which is what this is turning into. We can have a formal debate in a week or so on the subject of Quranic compilation.

On the topic of Hadith, there is ZERO doubt my position is essentially correct. It isn't a matter of finding a scholar who agrees with me, or what I "personally" believe. The ONLY evidence that Muhammad was a pedophile, comes from Hadith. The consensus of the historical academic community (not the quasi-religious scholar community), is that Hadith are basically worthless as historical documents. Ergo, there is no Muhammad pedophile debate, because there is no concrete evidence with which to build a position on.

The "debate" you refer to, occurs mainly with Muslims, who take Hadith as accurate representations of Muhammad, and thus attempt to use other Hadith to show he isn't a pedophile.

My percentage breakdown of Hadith was a blatant hyperbole, and I'm concerned that you actually took it to heart, and are attempting to attack my positions with it.

Furthermore, the conflicting Hadith used to show Aisha was aged 14-19, and not 9, aren't significantly, if at all, less reliable then the one's who say Aisha was 9.

I was merely trying to highlight your tendency to make statements about ahadith which:
1. demonstrate your lack of understanding of how they were compiled
2. demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the sheer number and variety of ahadith out there. do you think oriental scholars have written biographies of muhammad based off of quranic verses? of course not. If it were not for the hadith we would know very little about the life of muhammad. unfrtunately for you, many oriental scholars are confident that many of the events of muhammad's life, as mentioned in the ahadith (as reported in the books of the sirah and the sahih collections), did actually occur.

Once again, I readily acknowledge that most ahadith are unreliable and many are fabricated (and this is acknolwedged not just by oriental but even muslim scholars).
This in no way means that the ahadith about Muhammad's marriage to aisha are less reliable than the quran as a secondary (and some might argue primary) source of history. Your statement about the 'conflicting' ahadith is not based on any proof (or knowledge of these other ahadith, which i am sure you will google now that i mentioned them), whereas i can quote several oriental scholars who are confident that muhammad's marriage to aisha occured while she was a very young girl under the age of 10.

Please provide evidence and reasoning for why you claim that the ahadith about aisha's marriage are less reliable than the others (which do not even directly mention aisha's age at the time of her marriage).

Also I did not ask for a debate on Quranic compilation but on the issue whether or not quranic verses are invariably more reliable than ahadith as historical sources.

In the Qur'an's compilation, it was basically agreed-upon verses shared by at least two reciters. This is not very reliable, I agree, and some argue some parts where left out (satanic verses and Ayat al rajm).

In the ahadeeth's compilation, Muslim Al Hallaj who was one of the main collectors claims to have chosen approximately 4000 out of an approximate 300,000 narrations, and then scholars gave different rulings on their authenticity based on subjective opinions on the chain of narrators and what the narrations say.

It could be argued that HPKA is right in denouncing Hadiths and considering the Qur'an a better source, as the Qur'an's compilation contains what seems to be Mohammad's internal struggles whether in Madina or Meccah, and his personal conflict with Abu Lahab. This contingency between Mohammad's life as narrated in biographies and the revelations suggest that: (1) Someone wrote the Qur'an based on Mohammad's biography(although that requires amazing creativity and knowledge of specific events), or (2) that Mohammad created the Qur'an and most of it was memorized by the reciters after him. I find option 2 more convincing, IMHO.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 3:54:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 2:58:44 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Muslimnomore,

I simply haven't done enough research on the topic of Quranic compilation to get into a quasi-debate with you, which is what this is turning into. We can have a formal debate in a week or so on the subject of Quranic compilation.

On the topic of Hadith, there is ZERO doubt my position is essentially correct. It isn't a matter of finding a scholar who agrees with me, or what I "personally" believe. The ONLY evidence that Muhammad was a pedophile, comes from Hadith. The consensus of the historical academic community (not the quasi-religious scholar community), is that Hadith are basically worthless as historical documents. Ergo, there is no Muhammad pedophile debate, because there is no concrete evidence with which to build a position on.

The "debate" you refer to, occurs mainly with Muslims, who take Hadith as accurate representations of Muhammad, and thus attempt to use other Hadith to show he isn't a pedophile.

My percentage breakdown of Hadith was a blatant hyperbole, and I'm concerned that you actually took it to heart, and are attempting to attack my positions with it.

Furthermore, the conflicting Hadith used to show Aisha was aged 14-19, and not 9, aren't significantly, if at all, less reliable then the one's who say Aisha was 9.

Not sure how you dare differenciate between Quran and Hadeeth, as they were transmitted by the same people ?! if you disbelieve in authentic hadeeths, you should consider questioning Quran for the same reasons!

Not because you don't like a hadeeth dos it make it any invalid, authentic hadeeths means the text was reported from the narrator with certainty, and the Quran is an authentic hadeeth!

The hadeeths you are arguing about are authentic and they have other hadeeths that witness about their truth ( like hadeeth el ifk and others), there is simply no doubt and no way to doubt about their authenticity.

And Mohamed inb Abdullah -salla Allahu aleyhi wa sallam- marrying 9 year old Aisha bint Abu bakr , doesn't make him a paedophile, he proposed to her she and her father consented , and the Muslims testified their marriage, and she was proud of her young age marriage!!!

Just as a recently deceased Algerian woman who died aver 100 years old was proud of having married at 10.

You should re-study hadeeth.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 6:16:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It could be argued that HPKA is right in denouncing Hadiths and considering the Qur'an a better source,

Are quranic verses invariably better sources than the ahadith? Additionally, should we simply dismiss all ahadith (even the most famous ones that tell us about the names of muhammad's wives, followers and other relatives) just because many of them are less reliable than the verses of the quran?
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 7:13:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 6:16:43 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
It could be argued that HPKA is right in denouncing Hadiths and considering the Qur'an a better source,

Are quranic verses invariably better sources than the ahadith? Additionally, should we simply dismiss all ahadith (even the most famous ones that tell us about the names of muhammad's wives, followers and other relatives) just because many of them are less reliable than the verses of the quran?

I would say that the qur'aniac sources are relatively better sources. And no, we can't dismiss the ahadiths as anecdotal evidence, though Mohammad's biographies are not always based solely on ahadiths.
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 7:32:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What forms of sexual abuse did muhammad inflict on this child before he raped her?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 8:17:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 7:32:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
What forms of sexual abuse did muhammad inflict on this child before he raped her?

Is this your idea of a joke. I am not even sure where to begin with this
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 10:55:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
muslimnomore,

The fact that many details of Muhammad's life would be a mystery without reliance on Hadith as historical documents, is irrelevant. The only relevant topic here is the issue of their reliability, which they are not.

I'm also not sure what you mean about conflicting Hadith. Many Hadith, including those in Sahih Bukhari, including those about Aisha's age, conflict. I provided evidence of this in my debate, and a simple google search will give you additional evidence.

If you can provide quotes from modern scholars who address and refute the issue of Hadith reliability and contradiction, I'll be glad to here it.

To everyone else,

There is a significant difference between the compilation of the Quran vs. the Hadith, which relates to their reliability.

The Quran was written down during the time of Muhammad, thought not ever compiled into a book. Shortly after his death (within 1-50 years), the verses were compiled, and checked orally by those who had memorized it. Keep in mind, the oral memorization of the Quran is likely to be MUCH more reliable then those of Hadith, as MANY companions of Muhammad memorized these verses, recited them to Muhammad, used them publically in prayer, and were ALIVE for the Quranic compilation.

Contrast that with Hadith, who weren't compiled until greater then 200 years after Muhammad's death, from sources that weren't written down, at a time of rampant Hadith forgery, with all the sources who could have verified them long since dead.
There is a clear difference, and I hope everyone can see that.

I also see this amusing protest being thrown around, that the people who recorded/compiled the Quran are the same people being referenced in Hadith narrations, therefore the two must be equally reliable. Pause, breathe, read what has been written here, and realize how ridiculous this line of reasoning is.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 5:54:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 10:55:42 AM, HPWKA wrote:
muslimnomore,

The fact that many details of Muhammad's life would be a mystery without reliance on Hadith as historical documents, is irrelevant. The only relevant topic here is the issue of their reliability, which they are not.


Your contention is that scholars and academics do not consider the ahadith reliable. If this is the case, why is it that they have written a multitude biographies of Muhammad based on ahadith and events reported in ahadith?

I'm also not sure what you mean about conflicting Hadith. Many Hadith, including those in Sahih Bukhari, including those about Aisha's age, conflict. I provided evidence of this in my debate, and a simple google search will give you additional evidence.


I already know of these ahadith and again, none of them mention aisha's age at the time of her marriage directly.

If you can provide quotes from modern scholars who address and refute the issue of Hadith reliability and contradiction, I'll be glad to here it.


I'm sure you'd be glad to hear/read it, but I do not have to go far, since all scholars who are certain about pretty much any event in Muhammad's life, rely primarily or at least majorly on the ahadith.

To everyone else,

There is a significant difference between the compilation of the Quran vs. the Hadith, which relates to their reliability.


Once again, for the umpteenth time, I do not disagree with this statement. My contention is that you cannot say that the ahadith are invariably less reliable than the quran. Some ahadith describe events thathave certainly happened. Whereas there are many ayahs of the quran which may not have originally been meant for the quran.

The Quran was written down during the time of Muhammad, thought not ever compiled into a book. Shortly after his death (within 1-50 years), the verses were compiled, and checked orally by those who had memorized it. Keep in mind, the oral memorization of the Quran is likely to be MUCH more reliable then those of Hadith, as MANY companions of Muhammad memorized these verses, recited them to Muhammad, used them publically in prayer, and were ALIVE for the Quranic compilation.

Many companions of Muhammad memrozied ahadith as well, and narrated them to other nations and tribes during the lifetime of muhammad as well. Along with memorizing these verses the companions also committed to memory the events that occurred around the "revelations" of these verses.


Contrast that with Hadith, who weren't compiled until greater then 200 years after Muhammad's death, from sources that weren't written down, at a time of rampant Hadith forgery, with all the sources who could have verified them long since dead.
There is a clear difference, and I hope everyone can see that.

Just because bukhari, tirmidhi and muslim lived long after the death of Muhammad, in no way means that the ahadith they recorded and compiled in a particular order) did not exist before they were living. Most of these traditions were very popularly known, memorized and taught for decades before these guys came along. You're complaining about sources that weren't written down when the fact of the matter is the Quran wasn't originally written down either.


I also see this amusing protest being thrown around, that the people who recorded/compiled the Quran are the same people being referenced in Hadith narrations, therefore the two must be equally reliable. Pause, breathe, read what has been written here, and realize how ridiculous this line of reasoning is.

What is amusing is your lack of understanding of the point that I have been trying to make. You claim that the caliphs changed the ahadith. AND that they compiled the Quran accurately. So are we to believe that they honestly and accurately compiled the Quran but forged the ahadith that have them listed as narrators? If the calihps were forgers (as you claim) what stopped them for altering the quran?

The fact of the matter is no academic is certain that the current version of the quran is exactly what muhammad intended it to be. So the question is: are the verses of the quran invariably more reliable than every hadith narrated? You my dilly dally around the issue again, but the fact of the matter is that even you admitted that there are some ahadith that are quite reliable.

Unfortunately your claim that the ahadith about muhammad's marriage to aisha at the age of 6 are unreliable is largely unsubstantiated. This is because (and I am getting tired of you ignoring this point):
1. Marriage to very young girls was a common practise at the time.
2. This hadith has been recorded in many books of hadith and in many biographies of Muhammad, including those written by oriental scholars.

Most of these 'conflicting ahadith' are presented by Muslims who refuse to accept that their prophet could have sex with a 9 yeardold whilst being 50 years of age himself.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 6:08:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 7:13:28 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:16:43 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
It could be argued that HPKA is right in denouncing Hadiths and considering the Qur'an a better source,

Are quranic verses invariably better sources than the ahadith? Additionally, should we simply dismiss all ahadith (even the most famous ones that tell us about the names of muhammad's wives, followers and other relatives) just because many of them are less reliable than the verses of the quran?

I would say that the qur'aniac sources are relatively better sources. And no, we can't dismiss the ahadiths as anecdotal evidence, though Mohammad's biographies are not always based solely on ahadiths.

the term I used is "invariably". are the ayahs of the quran invariably better historical sources than all the ahadith? are we certain that every word we see in the quran was actually narrated and at one time spoken by muhammad? in contrast, aren't there ahadith out there, which we can rely on to a greater extent?

This is the only point i am trying to make. HPWKA is insinuating that the ahadith are so unreliable that we cannot use them at all to comment on Muhammad's character. And this is a ridiculous and indefensible position. This is my only contention.

I fully agree that most Quranic verses are preserved much more carefully than most ahadith.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 11:17:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Your contention is that scholars and academics do not consider the ahadith reliable. If this is the case, why is it that they have written a multitude biographies of Muhammad based on ahadith and events reported in ahadith?

Its not my position that ALL Hadith are unreliable, or that ALL academics hold this position, just the majority in both cases. Furthermore, the majority of "biographies" of Muhammad are written by Muslims, who are clearly biased in this matter. Many written by non-Muslims (Karen Armstrong), don't attempt to paint an objective view of Muhammad, but state that their purpose is to look at Muhammad through the eyes of early and modern Muslims.

So its a bit more complicated then "plenty of scholars have biographies about Muhammad", because plenty of non-biased scholars don't, and of the few who do, many of them aren't attempting to paint a clear and objective picture of Muhammad.

Again, if you have specific references, I'll take a look, but we need specifics.

I already know of these ahadith and again, none of them mention aisha's age at the time of her marriage directly.

There are Hadith that reference Aisha's age indirectly, contradicting claims that she was 9 at the time of marriage, with references that indicate 14-19. I cited them in my debate, and their are more cited in my link, so please, for the umpteenth time, read, and then come back with a specific question.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, I do not disagree with this statement. My contention is that you cannot say that the ahadith are invariably less reliable than the quran. Some ahadith describe events thathave certainly happened. Whereas there are many ayahs of the quran which may not have originally been meant for the quran.

Your reading comprehension skills are starting to worry me. I state that Quran are more reliable then Hadith, which pretty much everyone, scholar or no, agrees with, and provide reasons. You respond with "I don't disagree", then state, "you cannot say that the ahadith are invariably less reliable than the quran.". Make up your mind, or better yet, read, let it swirl around, and then respond.

I'm sure "some" Hadith describe events that actually happened, though with what accuracy of detail, its hard to say. For instance, its safe to say Muhammad married Aisha at a young age, but based on Hadith flimsiness and contradiction, its NOT safe to say Muhammad married Aisha at the age of 9 period.

I have no idea what you are talking about with the Quran verses not meant for Quran stuff. Elaborate if you can.

Many companions of Muhammad memrozied ahadith as well, and narrated them to other nations and tribes during the lifetime of muhammad as well. Along with memorizing these verses the companions also committed to memory the events that occurred around the "revelations" of these verses.

Whenever I feel like your comment is addressed in a previous response, I'll just put a * instead of saying it over and over again.

* The issue isn't that companions didn't memorize hadith. Its that the number that did is MUCH less then for the Quran, and that these narrations were verified/spread a LOT less then the Quran. Not to mention the Quran narrators were there for the verification/assembly of the Quran, while the Hadith narrators, and everyone close to them, were gone for the Hadith assembly.

Just because bukhari, tirmidhi and muslim lived long after the death of Muhammad, in no way means that the ahadith they recorded and compiled in a particular order) did not exist before they were living. Most of these traditions were very popularly known, memorized and taught for decades before these guys came along. You're complaining about sources that weren't written down when the fact of the matter is the Quran wasn't originally written down either.

Sigh. I agree my argument isn't "just" about the fact that Hadith collectors did their work long after Muhammad's death, its about that, AND a multitude of other things I listed. Reread these reasons, and respond to them in entirety.

Though this can be debated, it seems to be acknowledged that much, if not all, of the Quran was recorded manually during the time of Muhammad, though not together in one book. Worst case scenario, is the entire thing is oral, and was compiled 0-20 years after Muhammad's death, by his companions who memorized and verified the Quran with Muhammad daily. Still quite a bit more reliable then Hadith.

What is amusing is your lack of understanding of the point that I have been trying to make. You claim that the caliphs changed the ahadith. AND that they compiled the Quran accurately. So are we to believe that they honestly and accurately compiled the Quran but forged the ahadith that have them listed as narrators? If the calihps were forgers (as you claim) what stopped them for altering the quran?

**, You get two stars for this. The Caliph's that assembled the Quran were the first 1-4, people who knew Muhammad personally, and verified their Quranic memorizations and collections with him daily. These same Caliph's had no interest in Hadith, and even had many Hadith collections destroyed.

The Caliph's that were manufacturing Hadith were the ones hundreds of years after the Prophet (when many Hadith collections were propping up).

The fact of the matter is no academic is certain that the current version of the quran is exactly what muhammad intended it to be. So the question is: are the verses of the quran invariably more reliable than every hadith narrated? You my dilly dally around the issue again, but the fact of the matter is that even you admitted that there are some ahadith that are quite reliable.

Its quite likely that the Quran we have today isn't exactly the same as the one in Muhammad's time. However, we are talking about its reliability compared to Hadith, and in order to outdo Hadith, it need only possess a few preserved verses to win the race.

You are mistaking "dilly dallying" for tired impatience.

Unfortunately your claim that the ahadith about muhammad's marriage to aisha at the age of 6 are unreliable is largely unsubstantiated. This is because (and I am getting tired of you ignoring this point):
1. Marriage to very young girls was a common practise at the time.
2. This hadith has been recorded in many books of hadith and in many biographies of Muhammad, including those written by oriental scholars.

* I never claimed that the Hadith's regarding Aisha's marriage are uniquely unsubstantiated. My claim is that the VAST majority of Hadith are unreliable, and the fact that other Hadith contradict the Aisha-age-9-Hadith, is reason to dismiss it as reliable evidence.

Many Hadith are recorded in many books, and the vast majority of them are likely false. * (I almost forgot the star).

Most of these 'conflicting ahadith' are presented by Muslims who refuse to accept that their prophet could have sex with a 9 yeardold whilst being 50 years of age himself.

I don't really care who "presents them". They are Hadith taken from normal Hadith collections and histories, where many Sahih Hadith are pulled from. And for the record, all Hadith are presented by Muslims, each with considerable bias.

You have tired me out, so please, for the love of Hadith, I want you to read this entire thread, AND my debate, word for word, 3 times, and then wait 24 hours, before responding. Its starting to get ridiculous.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 11:50:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 11:17:40 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Your contention is that scholars and academics do not consider the ahadith reliable. If this is the case, why is it that they have written a multitude biographies of Muhammad based on ahadith and events reported in ahadith?

Its not my position that ALL Hadith are unreliable, or that ALL academics hold this position, just the majority in both cases.

Hang on ! I conceded the debate based on this. So I think you should reasses this position.



So its a bit more complicated then "plenty of scholars have biographies about Muhammad", because plenty of non-biased scholars don't, and of the few who do, many of them aren't attempting to paint a clear and objective picture of Muhammad.

Again, if you have specific references, I'll take a look, but we need specifics.

I already know of these ahadith and again, none of them mention aisha's age at the time of her marriage directly.

There are Hadith that reference Aisha's age indirectly, contradicting claims that she was 9 at the time of marriage, with references that indicate 14-19. I cited them in my debate, and their are more cited in my link, so please, for the umpteenth time, read, and then come back with a specific question.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, I do not disagree with this statement. My contention is that you cannot say that the ahadith are invariably less reliable than the quran. Some ahadith describe events thathave certainly happened. Whereas there are many ayahs of the quran which may not have originally been meant for the quran.

Your reading comprehension skills are starting to worry me. I state that Quran are more reliable then Hadith, which pretty much everyone, scholar or no, agrees with, and provide reasons. You respond with "I don't disagree", then state, "you cannot say that the ahadith are invariably less reliable than the quran.". Make up your mind, or better yet, read, let it swirl around, and then respond.

I'm sure "some" Hadith describe events that actually happened, though with what accuracy of detail, its hard to say. For instance, its safe to say Muhammad married Aisha at a young age, but based on Hadith flimsiness and contradiction, its NOT safe to say Muhammad married Aisha at the age of 9 period.

I have no idea what you are talking about with the Quran verses not meant for Quran stuff. Elaborate if you can.

Many companions of Muhammad memrozied ahadith as well, and narrated them to other nations and tribes during the lifetime of muhammad as well. Along with memorizing these verses the companions also committed to memory the events that occurred around the "revelations" of these verses.

Whenever I feel like your comment is addressed in a previous response, I'll just put a * instead of saying it over and over again.

* The issue isn't that companions didn't memorize hadith. Its that the number that did is MUCH less then for the Quran, and that these narrations were verified/spread a LOT less then the Quran. Not to mention the Quran narrators were there for the verification/assembly of the Quran, while the Hadith narrators, and everyone close to them, were gone for the Hadith assembly.

Just because bukhari, tirmidhi and muslim lived long after the death of Muhammad, in no way means that the ahadith they recorded and compiled in a particular order) did not exist before they were living. Most of these traditions were very popularly known, memorized and taught for decades before these guys came along. You're complaining about sources that weren't written down when the fact of the matter is the Quran wasn't originally written down either.

Sigh. I agree my argument isn't "just" about the fact that Hadith collectors did their work long after Muhammad's death, its about that, AND a multitude of other things I listed. Reread these reasons, and respond to them in entirety.

Though this can be debated, it seems to be acknowledged that much, if not all, of the Quran was recorded manually during the time of Muhammad, though not together in one book. Worst case scenario, is the entire thing is oral, and was compiled 0-20 years after Muhammad's death, by his companions who memorized and verified the Quran with Muhammad daily. Still quite a bit more reliable then Hadith.

What is amusing is your lack of understanding of the point that I have been trying to make. You claim that the caliphs changed the ahadith. AND that they compiled the Quran accurately. So are we to believe that they honestly and accurately compiled the Quran but forged the ahadith that have them listed as narrators? If the calihps were forgers (as you claim) what stopped them for altering the quran?

**, You get two stars for this. The Caliph's that assembled the Quran were the first 1-4, people who knew Muhammad personally, and verified their Quranic memorizations and collections with him daily. These same Caliph's had no interest in Hadith, and even had many Hadith collections destroyed.

The Caliph's that were manufacturing Hadith were the ones hundreds of years after the Prophet (when many Hadith collections were propping up).

The fact of the matter is no academic is certain that the current version of the quran is exactly what muhammad intended it to be. So the question is: are the verses of the quran invariably more reliable than every hadith narrated? You my dilly dally around the issue again, but the fact of the matter is that even you admitted that there are some ahadith that are quite reliable.

Its quite likely that the Quran we have today isn't exactly the same as the one in Muhammad's time. However, we are talking about its reliability compared to Hadith, and in order to outdo Hadith, it need only possess a few preserved verses to win the race.

You are mistaking "dilly dallying" for tired impatience.

Unfortunately your claim that the ahadith about muhammad's marriage to aisha at the age of 6 are unreliable is largely unsubstantiated. This is because (and I am getting tired of you ignoring this point):
1. Marriage to very young girls was a common practise at the time.
2. This hadith has been recorded in many books of hadith and in many biographies of Muhammad, including those written by oriental scholars.

* I never claimed that the Hadith's regarding Aisha's marriage are uniquely unsubstantiated. My claim is that the VAST majority of Hadith are unreliable, and the fact that other Hadith contradict the Aisha-age-9-Hadith, is reason to dismiss it as reliable evidence.

Many Hadith are recorded in many books, and the vast majority of them are likely false. * (I almost forgot the star).

Most of these 'conflicting ahadith' are presented by Muslims who refuse to accept that their prophet could have sex with a 9 yeardold whilst being 50 years of age himself.

I don't really care who "presents them". They are Hadith taken from normal Hadith collections and histories, where many Sahih Hadith are pulled from. And for the record, all Hadith are presented by Muslims, each with considerable bias.

You have tired me out, so please, for the love of Hadith, I want you to read this entire thread, AND my debate, word for word, 3 times, and then wait 24 hours, before responding. Its starting to get ridiculous.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 12:53:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Its not my position that ALL Hadith are unreliable, or that ALL academics hold this position, just the majority in both cases.

Hang on ! I conceded the debate based on this. So I think you should reasses this position.


I stated numerous times in our debate that my position, was that Hadith are "largely unreliable". I don't think I ever argued that every single one was a forgery/manipulated.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 6:38:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 12:53:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Its not my position that ALL Hadith are unreliable, or that ALL academics hold this position, just the majority in both cases.


Let's take a good look at your "position".
At one point you stated, and I quote:

"1.) Islam is the Quran. There is no requirement in the Quran for Muslims to follow Hadith as we know them."

First of all, saying Islam is the Quran, is like saying all human beings are herbivores. It might be that eating meat is bad for human beings, but you cannot make a statement like this because human beings clearly and regularly eat meat. Similarly, Muslims follow the ahadith and believe that they inform us of the Sunnah (the example of the Prophet). It doesn't matter what you think, Islam, as it is practised by actual Muslims, relies heavily on the ahadith.

You claim the Quran never states that the ahadith should be followed, whereas, Mohammed wrote this many times in the Quran. He made it quite clear that it is not only Allah's words (found in the Quran according to him) that the believers have to follow. That they also have to obey him. The Quran consists of Allah's words only, according to Islam. So clearly the Quran is alluding to the idea that it is not just Allah, but also the words of the Messenger also that the believers have to follow.

There are 12 to 14 instances of such verses but 3:32, 3:131, and 33:21 are just a few examples. Muslims don't just have to obey Allah (who only sends orders through the Quran) but also Muhammad. this is acording to the Quran and this fact goes against your position.

These verses also go against your statement: "The Quran isn't really dependent on Hadith, as one of its key claims is its ability to be a stand-alone rulebook. " A statement you did not provide any evidence to support, but one which I refuted with evidence from the Quran itself.

You seem to be saying that anyone who believes that we can know things about Muhammad based on ahadith knowns nothing about Islam. Which basically implies that Muslims know nothing about Islam.

You keep stating that the Quran was memorized by many people but the sayings of Muhammad were not memorized by as many people. You provide no evidence of this claim.

Now you just acknowledged (once again) that there are same academics and some ahadith that ARE reliable. So which is it? If there are ahadith that are reliable, shouldn't they be up for discussion? Why do you say things like "I would hope somebody called "muslimnomore" would be familiar with even the basic aspects of Islam." when someone brings up a hadith? If there are academics who agree that ahadith are reliable, why do you insist on completely leaving them out of discussions about Islam?

Also, just so you know, hadith = singular, ahadith = plural. I'm not a native-arabic speaker either. I am just more knowledgeable on this subject than you are, demonstrably.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 11:59:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 6:38:38 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 12/11/2013 12:53:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Its not my position that ALL Hadith are unreliable, or that ALL academics hold this position, just the majority in both cases.


Let's take a good look at your "position".
At one point you stated, and I quote:

"1.) Islam is the Quran. There is no requirement in the Quran for Muslims to follow Hadith as we know them."

First of all, saying Islam is the Quran, is like saying all human beings are herbivores. It might be that eating meat is bad for human beings, but you cannot make a statement like this because human beings clearly and regularly eat meat. Similarly, Muslims follow the ahadith and believe that they inform us of the Sunnah (the example of the Prophet). It doesn't matter what you think, Islam, as it is practised by actual Muslims, relies heavily on the ahadith.

You claim the Quran never states that the ahadith should be followed, whereas, Mohammed wrote this many times in the Quran. He made it quite clear that it is not only Allah's words (found in the Quran according to him) that the believers have to follow. That they also have to obey him. The Quran consists of Allah's words only, according to Islam. So clearly the Quran is alluding to the idea that it is not just Allah, but also the words of the Messenger also that the believers have to follow.

There are 12 to 14 instances of such verses but 3:32, 3:131, and 33:21 are just a few examples. Muslims don't just have to obey Allah (who only sends orders through the Quran) but also Muhammad. this is acording to the Quran and this fact goes against your position.

These verses also go against your statement: "The Quran isn't really dependent on Hadith, as one of its key claims is its ability to be a stand-alone rulebook. " A statement you did not provide any evidence to support, but one which I refuted with evidence from the Quran itself.


You seem to be saying that anyone who believes that we can know things about Muhammad based on ahadith knowns nothing about Islam. Which basically implies that Muslims know nothing about Islam.

You keep stating that the Quran was memorized by many people but the sayings of Muhammad were not memorized by as many people. You provide no evidence of this claim.

Now you just acknowledged (once again) that there are same academics and some ahadith that ARE reliable. So which is it? If there are ahadith that are reliable, shouldn't they be up for discussion? Why do you say things like "I would hope somebody called "muslimnomore" would be familiar with even the basic aspects of Islam." when someone brings up a hadith? If there are academics who agree that ahadith are reliable, why do you insist on completely leaving them out of discussions about Islam?

Also, just so you know, hadith = singular, ahadith = plural. I'm not a native-arabic speaker either. I am just more knowledgeable on this subject than you are, demonstrably.

This is what I said.
"However, before we throw out the Hadith, my opponent needs to clarify to everyone reading this debate. That Islam is a fairytale, Allah is an illusion and Muhammad was not a prophet. I ask that my opponent addresses this very important issue in his rebuttal."

Then you replied
""If Islam is just a fairytale, then all the tales about Muhammad, Allah and the Koran have further
no historical/scientific backing and I will gladly lose the debate."


Okay, Islam is just a fairy-tale, you lose. "
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 12:00:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 12:53:13 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Its not my position that ALL Hadith are unreliable, or that ALL academics hold this position, just the majority in both cases.

Hang on ! I conceded the debate based on this. So I think you should reasses this position.


I stated numerous times in our debate that my position, was that Hadith are "largely unreliable". I don't think I ever argued that every single one was a forgery/manipulated.

Sorry muslimnomore I responded to the wrong post.

This is what I said.
"However, before we throw out the Hadith, my opponent needs to clarify to everyone reading this debate. That Islam is a fairytale, Allah is an illusion and Muhammad was not a prophet. I ask that my opponent addresses this very important issue in his rebuttal."

Then you replied
""If Islam is just a fairytale, then all the tales about Muhammad, Allah and the Koran have further
no historical/scientific backing and I will gladly lose the debate."

Okay, Islam is just a fairy-tale, you lose. "
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 11:31:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First of all, saying Islam is the Quran, is like saying all human beings are herbivores. It might be that eating meat is bad for human beings, but you cannot make a statement like this because human beings clearly and regularly eat meat. Similarly, Muslims follow the ahadith and believe that they inform us of the Sunnah (the example of the Prophet). It doesn't matter what you think, Islam, as it is practised by actual Muslims, relies heavily on the ahadith.

As someone who takes pride in producing excellent analogies, I must utter my distaste for such a fallacious one. Hopefully, after reading below, you can think of a better one.

My original comment, made on a different forum topic, doesn't disagree that, "Islam, as it is practised by actual Muslims, relies heavily on the ahadith." The issue, is whether or not this Islam being practiced is "real" Islam. How do we define real Islam? By what the Quran says, as EVERY Muslim agrees that is the FIRST and FOREMOST source that determines what Islam is, and considering that there was no Islam before the Quranic recitations by Muhammad, which bore the religion.

You claim the Quran never states that the ahadith should be followed, whereas, Mohammed wrote this many times in the Quran. He made it quite clear that it is not only Allah's words (found in the Quran according to him) that the believers have to follow. That they also have to obey him. The Quran consists of Allah's words only, according to Islam. So clearly the Quran is alluding to the idea that it is not just Allah, but also the words of the Messenger also that the believers have to follow.

There are 12 to 14 instances of such verses but 3:32, 3:131, and 33:21 are just a few examples. Muslims don't just have to obey Allah (who only sends orders through the Quran) but also Muhammad. this is acording to the Quran and this fact goes against your position.

I'm surprised you didn't catch the error in your "argument", while typing. The Quran mentions numerous times that Muslims need to follow the actions/words of Muhammad, true. However, it never stipulates that Muslims need to follow "Sahih" Hadith collections, that are largely not the actions/words of Muhammad.

Furthermore, while the Quran claims that the Quran is protected and unchanged, and therefore a book for "all times", it makes no such assurances of Hadith. One could easily say (and I will), that the Quranic verses ordering Muslims to follow Muhammad, only applied to the Muslims during Muhammad's time.

These verses also go against your statement: "The Quran isn't really dependent on Hadith, as one of its key claims is its ability to be a stand-alone rulebook. " A statement you did not provide any evidence to support, but one which I refuted with evidence from the Quran itself.

You refuted nothing, but here are a few quotes indicating the Quran wants to be taken as a stand-alone text.

Quran 18:27] You shall recite what is revealed to you of your Lord's scripture. Nothing shall abrogate His words, and you shall not find any other source beside it.

[Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.

[Quran 45:6] These are God's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?

You seem to be saying that anyone who believes that we can know things about Muhammad based on ahadith knowns nothing about Islam. Which basically implies that Muslims know nothing about Islam.

*I never "seemed to be saying" anything of the sort.

I think its safe to say most Muslims don't know much about Islam. Most religious people don't know much about their respective religions period, this isn't a new phenomenon I am pushing.

You keep stating that the Quran was memorized by many people but the sayings of Muhammad were not memorized by as many people. You provide no evidence of this claim.

I don't usually provide evidence for things that are taken as common sense.

Every Muslim memorized parts of the Quran during the time of Muhammad, had it verified by him daily, and prayed with these verses. As Islam spread throughout the Arabian peninsula, these verses were memorized by a LARGE majority of these people, and used to pray.

Hadith simply don't have that level of memorization. Thousands of people a day didn't sit and wait to write down a Hadith, have this Hadith verified, or use this Hadith daily. Most Hadith only come from a handful of Muhammad's companions, and if we are to believe these accounts, these companions themselves said that they disagreed on Hadith accounts, even after simultaneously witnessing the act.

Hadith simply weren't a large part of Islamic life until 200 years after Muhammad's death, and were treated more as folk stories, then a regimented spiritual verse that needed to be memorized and perfected (Quran).

Now you just acknowledged (once again) that there are same academics and some ahadith that ARE reliable. So which is it? If there are ahadith that are reliable, shouldn't they be up for discussion? Why do you say things like "I would hope somebody called "muslimnomore" would be familiar with even the basic aspects of Islam." when someone brings up a hadith? If there are academics who agree that ahadith are reliable, why do you insist on completely leaving them out of discussions about Islam?

*. I never said Hadith shouldn't be "up for discussion", just that they not be used as detailed historical documents, when they are not (and few academics claim they are). I agree that "some" Hadith are reliable, but the trick is, how do we identify them? One would need to devote years to studying Hadith, Quran, and ancient Arabia, to seriously filter out historically useable Hadith. Again, its not about "completely leaving them out", but using them appropriately.

And yes, much to your inevitable chagrin, I stand by my original statement. In fact, I might have been to kind. Ignorance isn't a sin, but the "moxy" (for lack of a coarser term) you display when charging head first into a logical marsh, is none to endearing.

Also, just so you know, hadith = singular, ahadith = plural. I'm not a native-arabic speaker either. I am just more knowledgeable on this subject than you are, demonstrably.

LOL indeed.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 6:17:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 11:31:14 PM, HPWKA wrote:
My original comment, made on a different forum topic, doesn't disagree that, "Islam, as it is practised by actual Muslims, relies heavily on the ahadith." The issue, is whether or not this Islam being practiced is "real" Islam. How do we define real Islam? By what the Quran says, as EVERY Muslim agrees that is the FIRST and FOREMOST source that determines what Islam is, and considering that there was no Islam before the Quranic recitations by Muhammad, which bore the religion.

You make yourself look like a bigger fool every time you respond. First you say that it doesn't matter what Muslims do, what matters is what Islam says. Then you say that every muslim agrees that the Quran is primarily what determines Islam (which is not something you can prove by the way). However, by this logic I could also say that MOST muslims also agree that the ahadith determine Islamic practises and beliefs as well. But I thought it didn't matter to you what muslims thought. Make up your mind.

You claim the Quran never states that the ahadith should be followed, whereas, Mohammed wrote this many times in the Quran. He made it quite clear that it is not only Allah's words (found in the Quran according to him) that the believers have to follow. That they also have to obey him. The Quran consists of Allah's words only, according to Islam. So clearly the Quran is alluding to the idea that it is not just Allah, but also the words of the Messenger also that the believers have to follow.

There are 12 to 14 instances of such verses but 3:32, 3:131, and 33:21 are just a few examples. Muslims don't just have to obey Allah (who only sends orders through the Quran) but also Muhammad. this is acording to the Quran and this fact goes against your position.

I'm surprised you didn't catch the error in your "argument", while typing. The Quran mentions numerous times that Muslims need to follow the actions/words of Muhammad, true. However, it never stipulates that Muslims need to follow "Sahih" Hadith collections, that are largely not the actions/words of Muhammad.


So yu agree that Muslims must follow Muhammad's words as well. And you don't see how this refutes your claim about the Quran being a "stand-alone rule book"?
Are your really this stupid or is this just wilful ignorance?
It is because of this command (to follow Muhammad's words as well) that Muhammad's companions recorded and memorized many of hsi sayings as well. Forget about the sahih collections, his words have been recorded in other sources that far pre-date them.

One could easily say (and I will), that the Quranic verses ordering Muslims to follow Muhammad, only applied to the Muslims during Muhammad's time.

In the Quran it also says that Muhammad is a "mercy to the worlds". Also, here's another verse that completely goes against your claim that Muhammad is only to be followed by his companioons during the time he was living.
"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much." (Quran: 33/21)

These verses also go against your statement: "The Quran isn't really dependent on Hadith, as one of its key claims is its ability to be a stand-alone rulebook. " A statement you did not provide any evidence to support, but one which I refuted with evidence from the Quran itself.

You refuted nothing, but here are a few quotes indicating the Quran wants to be taken as a stand-alone text.

Quran 18:27] You shall recite what is revealed to you of your Lord's scripture. Nothing shall abrogate His words, and you shall not find any other source beside it.


first of all, depending on the meaning of source, this is no way goes against any of those other verses. but regardless, this is a complete mistranslation. you know people can look this up right?

[Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.


So, this is somehow supposed to mean that Muhammad should only be obeyed by his companions? Forget the fact that this verse does not support your point, it is not even talking about rejecting Muhammad's sayings as sources of guidance.

[Quran 45:6] These are God's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?

Wow. I can't believe you used this as a way to refute the ahadith. The word hadith in arabic simply means story. This ayah is not referring to the sunnah which consists of ahadith about Muhammad. The quran uses the word "hadith" many times to refer to fake stories e.g. "hal ataka hadithul junood, firauna wa thamood", "hal ataka hadithul ghashiya" These verses are not referring to sayings and commands of muhammad, just stories in general.


I think its safe to say most Muslims don't know much about Islam.


Neither do you, make no mistake about it. But I am fairly certain that the multitude of scholars who regularly use ahadith know more about islam and islamic history than you do.

You keep stating that the Quran was memorized by many people but the sayings of Muhammad were not memorized by as many people. You provide no evidence of this claim.


I don't usually provide evidence for things that are taken as common sense.


Common knowledge perhaps... but common sense? Another example of your stupidity. This is a factual claim, and must be substantiated. It is common knwledge that Muhammad's sayings were memrozied as well as the Quran, by his companions.

Every Muslim memorized parts of the Quran during the time of Muhammad, had it verified by him daily, and prayed with these verses. As Islam spread throughout the Arabian peninsula, these verses were memorized by a LARGE majority of these people, and used to pray.


Sorry, but the ahadith were also preached and memorized alongside these verses. Muhammad's letters written to politicians (dictated by him to his literate companions) are still preserved to this day.

Hadith simply don't have that level of memorization. Thousands of people a day didn't sit and wait to write down a Hadith, have this Hadith verified, or use this Hadith daily.

Would love to see evidence for the claim that thousands of people sat around waited to write for quranic verses. please stop pulling out "facts" and "Statistics" out of thin air. it makes you look like a mighty imbecile. You end up resorting to calling your words "hyperbole" too cover your carelessness.

Hadith simply weren't a large part of Islamic life until 200 years after Muhammad's death, and were treated more as folk stories, then a regimented spiritual verse that needed to be memorized and perfected (Quran).


Oh yeah, nevermind that Muslims prayed, fasted and performed hajj, based on instructions that are only found in the hadith and are absent in the quran.

No proof given of your staments regarding memorization here. Completely false statement made. Most of Muhammad's khutbahs were composed of his own words, interspersed with verses that were 'revealed' to him. Unfortunately for you, there are actual copies of Muhammad and his companions' letters available to disprove your claim that the ahadith were not a part of Muslims lives until 200 years after muhammad's death.



And yes, much to your inevitable chagrin, I stand by my original statement. In fact, I might have been to kind. Ignorance isn't a sin,

Your weak-yet-dogged defence of your stance, leaves me wondering (you don't have to answer this with a yes or a no, but it will mean something if you don't): in your opinion, are the words of th
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:18:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My post got cut-off there it seems. Since, it is overly long, I am just going to summarize some of the most important points that I made:

1. You claimed that the Quran claims that it is a stand-alone rule book. You also claimed that the Quran "IS" Islam. However, the Quran states (33:21): "VERILY, in the Apostle of God you have a good example for everyone who looks forward [with hope and awe] to God and the Last Day, and remembers God unceasingly." The Quran also states at least 12 times to obey Allah AND the Messenger. Your laughable defence of this is that the Quran might only be referring to the companions of Muhammad in those verses. This idea goes against 33:21 because it is clearly referring to everyone who wishes to meet God. this claim is also unsubstantiated.

I didn't mention this before (mostly because I got cut off), but to me, this horrendous response, does make me quite curious. As someone who seems to claim that he does not believe that Islam is based upon the truth, you sure seem to have a very strong opinion on what Islam is meant to be. Followers of faiths have differences of opinion on different aspects of their faiths, and they disagree with each other what their faith really teaches all the time. To me, this means that there is no real 'true' version of Islam, except for those who dogmatically claim that they have it exactly right. This leaves me to question your intent here (out of curiosity). Would you say that the Quran consists of the words of the Creator of the Universe?

2. I do not think that we actually disagree on the validity of the ahadith. We agree that many ahadith are made-up (so do Muslim scholars). We agree that at least some of them are likely to be accurate portrayals of events in Muhammad's life. What bothers me however, is your insistence that the Quran is much more reliable. As though we can be certain that almost every word in the Quran came from the mouth of Muhammad (or his God, whom, for some reason, I tend to think you actually believe in). The fact of the matter is even the Quran was first compiled after Muhammad's death. You state that the Quran is reliable however, since it was revised many times by Muhammad with his companions. How do you know this (let me guess, does it say so in a hadith?)

3. You provided three verses which do nothing to counter the verses I provided that make it clear that Muslims are to follow not just the Quran, but also Muhammad's example and orders. And if they did, this would just boil down to a contradiction in the Quran itself, which is a conclusion I would be glad to accept, if you would be inclined to do so as well.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 9:24:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
muslimnomore,

You don't strike me as unintelligent, just extremely rash and/or emotional when getting into any type of disagreement. Take a breath, and read our discussion thus far. You continually mischaracterize my positions, and ascribe inferences to me which I have never made. This is why many of your arguments completely miss their mark. I have agreed with probably more then half of what you have wrote, but you have no idea, as it seems you only read the first few words of my statements, before furiously cobbling together a reply, which aside from not addressing my points, has led you to contradict yourself time and again.

I'm pretty much done with this thread, as aside from becoming pointless, its become incredibly played out. You seem like a valuable member of DDO, and I would hate to have our "clash" on this topic spill into other posts where we may meet.

And no, I'm not a Muslim. I minored in Islamic and Middle-Eastern Studies in college, so you could say I feel a vested interest in dispelling, what I see, as fallacious notions about Islam and the Middle East.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.