Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

are hadiths really true?

ark200
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:09:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
we criticize islam mainly based on hadith. this is the source of millitary expeditions and bio of muhammad. now hadith is collected from oral sayings. the entire muslim world is divided on hadith. shias accepted some hadith, sunnies accepted some. both party cajole over hadith.

we cannot verify hadith anyway. how fair is our criticism of muhammad and islam based on a source that lacks credibility and evidence in both muslim world and non muslim world ?

isn't it possible that hadiths are exaggerated claims about muhammad? to glorify him ?
uncung
Posts: 3,432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:45:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:09:29 AM, ark200 wrote:
we criticize islam mainly based on hadith. this is the source of millitary expeditions and bio of muhammad. now hadith is collected from oral sayings. the entire muslim world is divided on hadith. shias accepted some hadith, sunnies accepted some. both party cajole over hadith.

we cannot verify hadith anyway. how fair is our criticism of muhammad and islam based on a source that lacks credibility and evidence in both muslim world and non muslim world ?

isn't it possible that hadiths are exaggerated claims about muhammad? to glorify him ?

you may examine the hadith base on individual classification i.e. sahih ("authentic"), hasan ("good") and da'if ("weak").
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 10:16:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:09:29 AM, ark200 wrote:
we criticize islam mainly based on hadith. this is the source of millitary expeditions and bio of muhammad. now hadith is collected from oral sayings. the entire muslim world is divided on hadith. shias accepted some hadith, sunnies accepted some. both party cajole over hadith.

we cannot verify hadith anyway. how fair is our criticism of muhammad and islam based on a source that lacks credibility and evidence in both muslim world and non muslim world ?

isn't it possible that hadiths are exaggerated claims about muhammad? to glorify him ?

Response: Some hadiths are exaggerated claims of Muhammad (saw). others are very reliable. So to understand Islam, one should rely on the most reliable and authentic claims, such as Bukhari and Muslim. However, critics against Islam ignore them and go to weak sources such as Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari, etc. Other times, those who do quote the authentic sources take it out of its context. For example, one may quote the hadith statement "kill those who change their religion" and ignore the Qur'an that says "fight those who fight you", or "do not fight those who incline to peace ". Yet when you take them all, then the context shows that the statement to kill those who change their religion must refer to those who change it and attack the Muslims first, since the Qur'an says to fight those "who fight you" and not to fight those who incline to peace. Hence, Self-defense.

As I always say, if any person, no matter the source, can quote Muhammad saying "kill the innocent or peaceful", I will denounce Islam. No one can and ever does. Instead, they quote a statement that says kill and assume the person is innocent, and ignore the text that clearly forbids killing one who is peaceful.

So to know Muhammad (saw) one should read the Qur'an, the hadiths found in authentic collections such as Bukhari and Muslim, and understand them in context.

And Allah (saw) knows best.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:29:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 10:16:55 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:09:29 AM, ark200 wrote:
we criticize islam mainly based on hadith. this is the source of millitary expeditions and bio of muhammad. now hadith is collected from oral sayings. the entire muslim world is divided on hadith. shias accepted some hadith, sunnies accepted some. both party cajole over hadith.

we cannot verify hadith anyway. how fair is our criticism of muhammad and islam based on a source that lacks credibility and evidence in both muslim world and non muslim world ?

isn't it possible that hadiths are exaggerated claims about muhammad? to glorify him ?

Response: Some hadiths are exaggerated claims of Muhammad (saw). others are very reliable. So to understand Islam, one should rely on the most reliable and authentic claims, such as Bukhari and Muslim. However, critics against Islam ignore them and go to weak sources such as Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari, etc. Other times, those who do quote the authentic sources take it out of its context. For example, one may quote the hadith statement "kill those who change their religion" and ignore the Qur'an that says "fight those who fight you", or "do not fight those who incline to peace ". Yet when you take them all, then the context shows that the statement to kill those who change their religion must refer to those who change it and attack the Muslims first, since the Qur'an says to fight those "who fight you" and not to fight those who incline to peace. Hence, Self-defense.

No one is fighting anyone simply because they want to change their religion, that is nonsense and simply an excuse for violence.

As I always say, if any person, no matter the source, can quote Muhammad saying "kill the innocent or peaceful", I will denounce Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

No one can and ever does. Instead, they quote a statement that says kill and assume the person is innocent, and ignore the text that clearly forbids killing one who is peaceful.

That's the problem with Islam, it's just like Christianity, it tells you to do one thing and then do the opposite. Kill others but don't kill other, oppress women but don't oppress women.

So to know Muhammad (saw) one should read the Qur'an, the hadiths found in authentic collections such as Bukhari and Muslim, and understand them in context.

Of course, that would be your personal preference of context, while other Muslims who disagree with you are just as adamant of their context. Hence, the conflict is never ending.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:52:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 1:29:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 10:16:55 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:09:29 AM, ark200 wrote:
we criticize islam mainly based on hadith. this is the source of millitary expeditions and bio of muhammad. now hadith is collected from oral sayings. the entire muslim world is divided on hadith. shias accepted some hadith, sunnies accepted some. both party cajole over hadith.

we cannot verify hadith anyway. how fair is our criticism of muhammad and islam based on a source that lacks credibility and evidence in both muslim world and non muslim world ?

isn't it possible that hadiths are exaggerated claims about muhammad? to glorify him ?

Response: Some hadiths are exaggerated claims of Muhammad (saw). others are very reliable. So to understand Islam, one should rely on the most reliable and authentic claims, such as Bukhari and Muslim. However, critics against Islam ignore them and go to weak sources such as Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari, etc. Other times, those who do quote the authentic sources take it out of its context. For example, one may quote the hadith statement "kill those who change their religion" and ignore the Qur'an that says "fight those who fight you", or "do not fight those who incline to peace ". Yet when you take them all, then the context shows that the statement to kill those who change their religion must refer to those who change it and attack the Muslims first, since the Qur'an says to fight those "who fight you" and not to fight those who incline to peace. Hence, Self-defense.

No one is fighting anyone simply because they want to change their religion, that is nonsense and simply an excuse for violence.

As I always say, if any person, no matter the source, can quote Muhammad saying "kill the innocent or peaceful", I will denounce Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

No one can and ever does. Instead, they quote a statement that says kill and assume the person is innocent, and ignore the text that clearly forbids killing one who is peaceful.

That's the problem with Islam, it's just like Christianity, it tells you to do one thing and then do the opposite. Kill others but don't kill other, oppress women but don't oppress women.

So to know Muhammad (saw) one should read the Qur'an, the hadiths found in authentic collections such as Bukhari and Muslim, and understand them in context.

Of course, that would be your personal preference of context, while other Muslims who disagree with you are just as adamant of their context. Hence, the conflict is never ending.

Response: In other words, you can't quote anything from the Qur'an or Sunnah that shows injustice or goes against peace, thus making my point that Islam is peace. Thanks.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 2:11:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 1:52:19 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/18/2015 1:29:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 10:16:55 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:09:29 AM, ark200 wrote:
we criticize islam mainly based on hadith. this is the source of millitary expeditions and bio of muhammad. now hadith is collected from oral sayings. the entire muslim world is divided on hadith. shias accepted some hadith, sunnies accepted some. both party cajole over hadith.

we cannot verify hadith anyway. how fair is our criticism of muhammad and islam based on a source that lacks credibility and evidence in both muslim world and non muslim world ?

isn't it possible that hadiths are exaggerated claims about muhammad? to glorify him ?

Response: Some hadiths are exaggerated claims of Muhammad (saw). others are very reliable. So to understand Islam, one should rely on the most reliable and authentic claims, such as Bukhari and Muslim. However, critics against Islam ignore them and go to weak sources such as Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari, etc. Other times, those who do quote the authentic sources take it out of its context. For example, one may quote the hadith statement "kill those who change their religion" and ignore the Qur'an that says "fight those who fight you", or "do not fight those who incline to peace ". Yet when you take them all, then the context shows that the statement to kill those who change their religion must refer to those who change it and attack the Muslims first, since the Qur'an says to fight those "who fight you" and not to fight those who incline to peace. Hence, Self-defense.

No one is fighting anyone simply because they want to change their religion, that is nonsense and simply an excuse for violence.

As I always say, if any person, no matter the source, can quote Muhammad saying "kill the innocent or peaceful", I will denounce Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

No one can and ever does. Instead, they quote a statement that says kill and assume the person is innocent, and ignore the text that clearly forbids killing one who is peaceful.

That's the problem with Islam, it's just like Christianity, it tells you to do one thing and then do the opposite. Kill others but don't kill other, oppress women but don't oppress women.

So to know Muhammad (saw) one should read the Qur'an, the hadiths found in authentic collections such as Bukhari and Muslim, and understand them in context.

Of course, that would be your personal preference of context, while other Muslims who disagree with you are just as adamant of their context. Hence, the conflict is never ending.

Response: In other words, you can't quote anything from the Qur'an or Sunnah that shows injustice or goes against peace

Yes, many have, but you simply deny them out of hand as all Islamic propagandists do.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 2:29:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 2:11:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Response: In other words, you can't quote anything from the Qur'an or Sunnah that shows injustice or goes against peace

Yes, many have, but you simply deny them out of hand as all Islamic propagandists do.

Response: Yet your weak rebuttal continues to show otherwise.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 10:08:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:09:29 AM, ark200 wrote:
we criticize islam mainly based on hadith. this is the source of millitary expeditions and bio of muhammad. now hadith is collected from oral sayings. the entire muslim world is divided on hadith. shias accepted some hadith, sunnies accepted some. both party cajole over hadith.

we cannot verify hadith anyway. how fair is our criticism of muhammad and islam based on a source that lacks credibility and evidence in both muslim world and non muslim world ?

isn't it possible that hadiths are exaggerated claims about muhammad? to glorify him ?

- Hadiths (or Athar) are narrations & reports of accounts or events, by narrators. There are 4 kinds of Narrators (Rawi):

* Muhadith: Scholar of Hadith, whose methodology consists of reporting sound narrations based on the Sciences of Hadith Terminology & Biographical Evaluation. <<< In this category is al-Bukhari & Ahmad Ibn Hanbal...
* Muarrikh: Historian, whose methodology is to report narrations without having to critically study them. (in which case the study of these narrations is done separately, either by the same person or another Scholar of Hadith). In this category is at-Tabari.
* Q'asassi: Story Reporter, whose methodology consists of reporting accounts without them being complete narrations (without complete chains of transmission). In this category is Ibn Ishaq' & Ibn Hisham (those that write the Biography of Muhammad).
* Akhbari: Reporter, whose methodology consists of reporting accounts directly without necessary chains of narrations & without having to verify them. <<< In this category is al-Waq'di.

=> A particular Narrator may be all of these (such as Ibn Kathir (d. 1373)) or just some (such as at-Tabari) or just one (such as Ibn Ishaq').
=> Point being: a Book of Narrations is measured only by the Methodology it follows, not by the Narrators that compiles it.

- It's a fact that not all Hadiths (or Athar) are authentic, but we can state with a degree of certainty.

- Sunnah: the corpus of accounts of the Sayings & Doings of tMuhammad. Such accounts, called Hadith (Narrations), are composed of 5 elements:
> Matn: the actual Text of the Hadith.
> Sanad: the chain of authority (of transmission).
> Mudraj: the comments of the narrators as notes or further explanations.
> Nas: the testimonies, either for or against the narrators, so that the authenticity of a narration of a particular narrator can be verified.
> Takhrij: the final Ruling on the Hadith: either Mutawatir (Authentic) / Or / with a Sanad that is: Sahih (Sound, Authenticated), Hasan (Good), Da'if (Weak) / Or / Mawdu' (Forged).

(+) Eg:
(*) A >> B >> C >> D >> The Prophet said: "Seeking of Knowledge is a duty upon every muslim"; '& muslimah'; M + N + P + O; *X*.
Such that:
> A, B, C, D are the groups of narrators in each Level of Transmission.
> "Seeking of Knowledge is a duty upon every muslim" is the Matn (the Text of the Hadith)
> '& muslimah' is the Mudraj (the commentary added by the Sahabi - Ibn 'Abbas in this case - to explain further, & it"s not part of the original Text)
> M + N + P + O. are the measured Testimonies on the reliability of the Narrators.
> *X* is the Ruling on the Hadith: Mutawatir / Sound . . .

- There are in total a little over 103 000 accounts on Muhammad, ~54,000 of which are in the in the Nine Canonical Collections of Hadith. ~11,800 are unrepeated (unique accounts), ~4,400 of which are Sound (99"99.9% authenticity), ~2,000 of which are Approved (99.9"100% authenticity), ~650 of which are Mutawatir (ma'nawi, 100% authenticity / with a slight change in the wording) , 113 of which are Mutawatir (lafdi, 100% authenticity in the exact words of Muhammad/ close to the level of authenticity of the Qur'an itself).

==>> So, there is a number of accounts that are authentic, accounts, & on these accounts, we can base our judgement.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
ark200
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 8:46:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 10:16:55 AM, Fatihah wrote:
So to understand Islam, one should rely on the most reliable and authentic claims, such as Bukhari and Muslim.::

how do we know what is authentic ? how do we know bukhari and muslim are authentic?
However, critics against Islam ignore them and go to weak sources such as Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari, etc.:

why these hadiths are weak? how do i know that a hadith is weak?

Other times, those who do quote the authentic sources take it out of its context. For example, one may quote the hadith statement "kill those who change their religion" and ignore the Qur'an that says "fight those who fight you", or "do not fight those who incline to peace ". Yet when you take them all, then the context shows that the statement to kill those who change their religion must refer to those who change it and attack the Muslims first, since the Qur'an says to fight those "who fight you" and not to fight those who incline to peace. Hence, Self-defense. :

so will we look for the context of hadith in quran? is that the rule?

As I always say, if any person, no matter the source, can quote Muhammad saying "kill the innocent or peaceful", I will denounce Islam. No one can and ever does. Instead, they quote a statement that says kill and assume the person is innocent, and ignore the text that clearly forbids killing one who is peaceful. :

who is peaceful? the one who obeys muhammad or the one that makes cartoon of him?

And Allah (saw) knows best.:

is that the rule ?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 12:55:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 8:46:49 AM, ark200 wrote:
At 1/18/2015 10:16:55 AM, Fatihah wrote:
So to understand Islam, one should rely on the most reliable and authentic claims, such as Bukhari and Muslim.::

how do we know what is authentic ? how do we know bukhari and muslim are authentic?
However, critics against Islam ignore them and go to weak sources such as Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari, etc.:

why these hadiths are weak? how do i know that a hadith is weak?

Other times, those who do quote the authentic sources take it out of its context. For example, one may quote the hadith statement "kill those who change their religion" and ignore the Qur'an that says "fight those who fight you", or "do not fight those who incline to peace ". Yet when you take them all, then the context shows that the statement to kill those who change their religion must refer to those who change it and attack the Muslims first, since the Qur'an says to fight those "who fight you" and not to fight those who incline to peace. Hence, Self-defense. :

so will we look for the context of hadith in quran? is that the rule?

As I always say, if any person, no matter the source, can quote Muhammad saying "kill the innocent or peaceful", I will denounce Islam. No one can and ever does. Instead, they quote a statement that says kill and assume the person is innocent, and ignore the text that clearly forbids killing one who is peaceful. :

who is peaceful? the one who obeys muhammad or the one that makes cartoon of him?


And Allah (saw) knows best.:

is that the rule ?

Response: Authenticity is based on a large, wide spread, multitude of chains of narrations by reliable narrators that go directly to Muhammad. Based on this, Bukhari is the most authentic, followed by Muslim. While Tabari and Ibn Ishaq are weak and unreliable.

As for context to the hadiths and who is peaceful, you look to other authentic hadiths and the Qur'an to know the context of a hadith, and a peaceful person is self-explanatory. It is a person who promotes tranquility.