Flaw 1) The Quran says NOTHING or even mentions the hadiths or following them. If the Quran is the only source of law and says nothing of hadiths and tells us to not follow any other book, then following hadiths are not a commandment from Allah. And if you are a follower of hadiths you are NOT a Muslim (submitter). You disregarded Allah's strict commandment.
Lie 1) . Quran DOES order us to follow the teachings and commands of the prophet peace upon him and the signs in that are numerous :
{???
??
??
?
?
?}
{??
?
?
?
?
??
}
{???
??
??
??
?
? ??
?
?
}
So flat out , every single Muslim out there MUST know that it is obligatory to obey the prophet peace upon him in what Allah reveals to him . And if you're going to be stubborn and argue that we shouldn't obey him , then don't dare call yourself a Muslim . It isn't me who says so , it the noble Quran which you are most ignorant of :
{???
? ??
?
?? ?? ??
?? ??
?
?
?
?}
{???
??
??
?
?? ??
?
??
??
?
??
??}
Flaw 2) The 'science' of hadiths is bad philosophy and hardly a science. First of all hadiths are chinese whispers, it is like the telophone game in elementary school where you whisper things to student and the student whispers to the next in the whole class. How often is the last whisper the same as the original? Secondly, the hadith collectors decided to collect hadiths and call them 'sahih' based on the character of the hadith whisper chain. Now the issue is, couldn't the fabricator also fabricate the chain of narrations. I could go on and on, but I will later.
Lie 2) . Your ignorance of Sunnah doesn't hold a value . And since you're so arrogant and full of yourself to ask those who know , I'll give you some fragments about this methodology to slap you with the fact that it is superior to your so called "science" .
First of all , that's a cheap , low , and pathetic attempt to compare the narrations to a school game . If that proves a thing , it proves that you're cheap . The worst is that you expect me to let it "slide" . And whenever I addressed this lie in the past , you ignored it the same way you ignore whatever breaks your back .
Now tell me : If narrating things one man after another isn't a good way - in fact , the best - to judge what's valid and what's not , what is ? You just use your ignorance of the basics of this method to justify your doctrine . Moreover , you use a load of ridiculous conspiracy theories which don't hold a candle to reality which is in turn based on ignorance . That's why I keep saying ignorance and arrogance are a dangerous combination . Just try to bring a methodology to view history and you'll see that it's a huge failure in comarison .
It is outright impossible for all these people living far from each other - one at Persia and the other at the current Tunisia ! - to agree on the same lie and tell it the same way . Whoever has this delusion has to prove it or shut it . You want to delude yourself and others that scholars would just take whatever anyone tells them without any varefication . And if you actually bothered to ask , you'd know that there are 5 conditions to accept a narration which are :
1) The connection of the chain . This means that if someone tells something about a person he can't prove he met - or died before he was ever born - then the narration is dropped at once . It means that a person must say clearly "That person told me" or "I heard that person say" or some other formats which you are too full of yourself to learn about . If he says "That person said" then it's called "Mu'allaq" and that is a type of weak narrations . This goes to show that every detail is important and not a game you play with your friends as in your lala world .
2) Justice of the narrators . This means that not anyone is accepted in narrating . They must be known by name (
??
??) and honesty (
??
??) . Even the slightest readiness of that person to lie deems him a liar , dropped (
??) or any other term . Not just lying , but also any form of sinful acts . And when all or a the majority of scholars who come from different and far places agree that a person is a liar , there is no meaning in anyone saying he isn't . Also , when all or the majority of scholars testiy for someone , accusing him out of thin air is meaningless . Not to mention that these scholars are testifyed for by others from all different categories of people .
3) Adjustment of narrators . It means that the narrators need to have good memory in what they talk about . When someone narrates the same thing the same way to different people at different times , that's a sign of a solid memory . Not just memory , but understanding as well . The narrator needs to understand what the narration says and comprehend it . Too many stumbles or mistakes deem him unworthy . Again , when all of the majority of scholars say that someone is adjusting well then there's is no value in saying otherwise .
And two more conditions , but this is quite enough for the topic righ now . The point is that you use your ignorance of something as an argument . There is nothing wrong with this science . Especially since it is Allah who put the bases to it :
{???
??
??
?
?
??
?
?
?
??
??
?
?}
And although there is nothing superior to what Allah says , just have the words of Bernard Lewis
From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. " Traditional science", as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth
As for the absurdity of "Narrators could have fabricated chains" , even though the last points I made show that it's impossible for such a thing to go unnoticed , I'll play your game and ask : How do I know that Quran is from Allah and not an innovation of humans ? Because it says that it is from Allah ? Nah , that's circular reasoning . How do I know it wasn't altered or corrupted ? Because it says that it didn't ? Nah , circular reasoning again ? Because you believe there is a Da Vinci code in it that no one except you believes is there ? Hang on a second , how did the prophet of Islam - peace upon him - prove so to people from his time ? Speaking of which , how can I even know that there is a man called Muhammad - peace upon him - who lived 15 centuries ago and said he is a prophet ? Because all the people narrated so to us ? Because it is impossible for all these people to lie and agree on the same details ? Well that makes sense .
And of course I don't use this flawed logic but you are the one who tries to make it rational when you use it .
Flaw 3) The number of hadiths collected and attributed to the prophet Muhammed is in the hundreds of thousands, as much as 700,000. The majority of these hadith are pure lies and fabrications and were rejected by the early Muslim scholars who thought they can figure out which hadith is authentic and which is not.
Lie 3) . Spamming "The majority of these narrations are pure lies" might work when you argue with 3 years old or mentally challenged individuals , but not with someone who has the slightest bits of common sense . Not to mention that making allegations which have nothing to back them up only makes you look bad . I swear to lord if this conversation was at the monotheism forum they wouldn't let your allegations slide like this . They'd disect them one by one .
Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, collected about 40,000 hadiths, in his famous "Musnad".He chose these 40,000 hadiths from among 700,000 hadiths. In other words he thought 660,000 hadith were un-proven, lies and/or fabrications and the others may be authentic. That is 94% lies and fabrications
Is this supposed to be a joke or what ? So Ahmad bin Hanbal -
?
? - was careul with narrations and wouldn't just accept anything told to him . And I can see what you're trying to do there - see what I did there ? - and again , it won't slide . He didn't just "think" they were lies and thus he refused them . He KNEW they were lies based on the methodology mentioned in the last point . And he didn't choose the authentic ones because thay "may" be so . He did so because he knew they are based on the methodology we keep telling you to learn about or shut up . Sure , he made a number of mistakes here and there which scholars combined noticed and didn't let pass simply but that's another point . The point here is that your line holds a value of zero . The same goes with Bukhari and Muslim -
? - . You have SERIOUS flawsin understanding what the science of Hadith is . They collect narrations , judge their chains and bodies (
?) , deem the authnetic authnetic , and warn people of the weak and fabricated and even make whole books for that . Yes , Bukhari has a book named the weak ones (
?) but you probably don't know . And whatever one of them may not notice is noticed by the rest . That's nearly the same as peer reviewed researches - wich pale in comparison - so why object ?
This gives us an idea of how much corruption entered or tried to enter Islam from the back door. Now we should understand why God promised to preserve, protect and safeguard His book which is described as the only authentic hadith, the only acceptable hadith and the best hadith.
You'll make a joke of yourself when you say such a line while you just refused the best method there is to preserve history . And although it's true that the people of falsehood tried to corrupt it , it doesn't mean they succeeded . That's the same as the delusions of whoever believes aliens made us . Oh wait a minute , you believe in something similar but that's beside the point .
As for the "Open minded" thing , I'll take it as a joke and ignore it . So take some time and have even the smallest fraction of humblness to learn what you hate and despise in Islam so much .
