What makes Bukhari and Moslem's hadiths better than the ahl-al-bayt hadiths?

[mclinkin94]

This is not a debate post. If you want to debate me about my Quran-Only stance, go here: "http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,1570.0.html"

My Question is what are the differences in the science of hadith collection between the sunni hadiths and the shia hadiths. What makes the shia think their hadiths are better and what makes the sunni think their is better?

[shabeer_hassan]

[mclinkin94]

Thank you brother for that explanation! But, I was hoping for a comparison between the sunni hadiths science and the shia hadith science.

[QuranSearchCom]

Thank you brother for that explanation! But, I was hoping for a comparison between the sunni hadiths science and the shia hadith science.

As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Mclinkin94,

Even the Shias wouldn't deny that their "hadith" sources are centuries after the latest Sunni sources.  You see, our Sahih volumes (with all of my issues with many of their hadiths), are based on much earlier volumes and collections such as:

1-  Al-Tabari.
2-  Ibn Ishaq.
3-  And several other historians.

The Sahih collections basically came to go over all of the early Muslim writings and to come up with volumes that are most authentic.  Still has holes in it, but it is a commendable job, and the Hadiths of the Sunnis do contain a lot of Truth in them.

The Shias "hadiths" came centuries after our Sahih collections!  And their chain of narrations are a joke.  This is why they never like to enter into the ISNAD (authentication of chains) debates and work.  They just take their narrations and accept them for what they are.  They do have a fix for that however by claiming that all narrations from all sources must be compared with the Glorious Quran to know whether they are correct or not.  While I whole-heartedly agree with this approach, but this still would not validate their much much latter hadiths.


The worst part about the shias' religion:

The worst part about their mess is the following:

1-  Their "scholars" don't have to be really knowledgeable of the Holy Quran.

2-  Their very low standards on who can become a scholar in their religion allowed for Zionists to infiltrate them.

This is why most of their black-turbaned imams are fakes.  They are Zionist agents.  At least with the Sunnis, the Scholar has to be very very knowledgeable of the Glorious Quran and the Hadiths, and he must MASTER the reading of the Holy Quran with TAJWEED (reading the Quran in Its complex form, and reading it the way Allah Almighty taught the Prophet).

Shias are no match with the Sunnis in this.

I hope this helps, Insha'Allah.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[mclinkin94]

I do admire that the shia only accept hadiths based on whether it contradicts the Quran or doesn't. The only issue is, even if a hadith doesn't contradict the Quran, it could easily make a false statement or a false law.

My main issue with debating with shia is not their hadiths (that's my issue with sunni), but it is the nonsense of the infallible imams and their corrupted interpretations of the Quran. They always cite Quran 3:7 and they say "see, only those who are knowledgeable can interpret the Quran--that means the Imams"!   

The first thing I say is that if the prophet himself was fallible, what makes these imams infallible. Are they better than the prophet.

If the prophet was fallible, then would God say this:

Quran 34:50 Say, "If I should err, I would only err against myself. But if I am guided, it is by what my Lord reveals to me. Indeed, He is Hearing and near."

 In spite of the above confirmation of the fallibility of the Prophet, together with six
incidents in the Quran where the Prophet was reprimanded by God for errors he committed,
still the ones who idolise the Prophet claim that Muhammad was infallible!


The six incidents are found in 8:67-68, 9:43, 9:113-114, 33:37, 66:1 and 80:1-11.

If the prophet was fallible, then it follows that the imams must be too.