What is the accuracy/legitimacy of the Hadith?

Oral tradition can only be reliable IF there is corroborating evidence. By itself, it isn't probative at all.

The facts of how Sunnah was compiled.
learndeen.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/quran-tells-us-to-follow-the-sunnah-hadith-obey-the-messenger/
lol k, quranist kaffirs out
There is, the Qur'an

>Using a book to corroborate hearsay made to corroborate the book

Doesn't work like that, man.

I'd imagine that a good portion of the Haddith are accurate, but just to be safe I don't trust them unless I can prove that the message of the Haddith is backed up with information from the Quran.

Depends on who you ask. My wife is Pakistani and doesn't consider any of them worth more than reflection and debate. Islam is very clear that the Quran is the only source of authority to Muslims, I don't know how the fuck so many of them fall for this bizarre game if telephone.

If you're arguing from a non Muslim position sure, Quranism makes sense to you, telling of Quranism honestly.
They're inaccurate if you don't believe the majority of the Sahaba (RA) and narrators throughout the Arabian peninsula, who were judged by their memory and character, throughout the entire chain going back to Rasulullah (SAW)

>Islam is very clear that the Quran is the only source of authority to Muslims
I've already provided a link to an explanation of why this is wrong, but rejecting hadith is rejecting prophethood and is apostasy.
Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if ye do turn back, know ye that it is Our Messenger’s duty to proclaim (the Message) in the clearest manner. (5: 92).
O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best, and most suitable for final determination. (4: 59).
Say: “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance.(24: 54).
And whoever obeys Allâh and His Messenger, Allâh shall admit him in the Gardens underneath which rivers flow. (4:13)
And whoever obeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has won a great success. (33:71)
And we sent no messenger, but that he should be obeyed by the leave of Allâh. (4:64)
Also if you're a non Muslim and you married a Muslim woman then kys.

This is the whole issue, it requires a lot of assumptions and faith. On it's own merit, this stuff isn't reliable. That goes for any religious text and a lot of historical text as well. However, as religious text, the burden of proof is so much higher because the claims are a lot greater. Such as somebody speaking to a god or being a prophet vs somebody existed.

'The Messenger' refers to Muhammad, not anyone else.

This assumes the hadith's are the words of Muhammad which there isn't enough evidence for. Nothing in this text says you must adhere to the hadith's and Sunnah explicitly.

>'The Messenger' refers to Muhammad, not anyone else.
That's what hadith are, we follow Muhammad (SAW) and we know what he said through what his companions said, if you want to say we're following the Sahaba then provide reason not to trust them and to believe they made anything up.
There's already enough proof for Islam, can I post .pdfs on this board?

I'm not a Muslim, and since the prophet is fucking DEAD there is no one to obey. Were I Muslim, I wouldn't trust a single fucking Hadith or the Quran itself as the Quresh HATED Mohammed and did everything they could while he was alive to kill him and save their authority and control over the Meccan pilgrimage sites. Those fucks were leaders in the early Muslim community--I'm supposed to trust them to compile the Quran and Hadith and not lie to benefit themselves? Mohammed specifically addressed how the message of other prophets were corrupted by hypocrites after their deaths, you don't think that shit happened to Islam? FOH.

>Proofs of a religion

At best you can post screenshots of the most meaningful text or supply a link to the pdf.

>This assumes the hadith's are the words of Muhammad which there isn't enough evidence for. Nothing in this text says you must adhere to the hadith's and Sunnah explicitly.
kek, yes there is, his companions recited them and the majority of Muslims including the ones that compiled the Qur'an accepted them

They need to prove authenticity that those were his words. They have the burden of proof.

Why does obeying him after his death matter?
Dude the people who compiled the Qur'an and the hadith where the companions of the prophet, them being from Quraysh is irrelevant as Muhammad (SAW) was from quraysh himself, if you were a Muslim you'd end up an apostate soon after.
Uh I'll try to link it.

I don't care what a bunch of people choise to accept as legitimate without evidence. Look at the amount of people that accept Jesus was the son of god, or that the great flood occur, etc.

>Recited them

Or just fucking made shit up. It's not like it can be disproven.

>I don't understand the science of hadith
Listen there are isnads and the reliability of the narrator also is taken into account, if many of the same narrations come from different people the the ahadith are considered more reliable.

>Assuming the companions of the prophet were liars
Lol, no reason to believe that, many overlapping narrations exist as I said.

You are entirely too trusting of Islamic sources to be taken seriously. Arabs are too caught up with appearances to ever be believed about pretty much anything. Niggas will lie to save face 100% of the time. Playing telephone with Arabs is a recipe for idiocy. I'll think of you when I'm fucking your Muslimah sister tonight

Multiple narrations of the same hadith exist, and with different isnaads, and with the same content, that's how we know they are legit.

Nothing you're saying makes sense from an Islamic perspective lol, you need to resort to insults and attacks against Muslims to prove your point, sad!

And how are you to prove somebody didn't base their hadith of another already written version? That doesn't make it more legitimate. Just like you can have 1,000 people write Jesus said something 200 years after the fact, doesn't mean he said it.

So what your saying is the Hadith are so notoriously of indeterminate origin that scholars have met to figure out which are and aren't legit. None if them were collected during the prophets life. For the sake of argument, we'll put aside questions about the veracity if the Quran. You're putting a collection of sayings religious scholars acknowledge is at least partially full of shit along side your Holy book and living by it? You're fucking dumb.

And how do you prove these weren't based off the other?

They were known by all of his companions...
We know what the exact chains of narrations are, if someone is a known liar they're ignored on their points or at the very least taken less seriously.

You lack any skepticism or critical thought. ITT you're only good for making the rest of us laugh.

Even the Quran wasn't written down until the 9th century. You can't even trust that.

How do you know this chain is authentic? And you are relying on the honesty of the people orally transmitting this stuff. Once again, huge assumptions required.

It's not assumptions considering Islamic belief is taken into account.
Wrong there were copies of it written down in the life of Muhammad (SAW), individual surahs, only main compilations were written later.

If they weren't collected during the prophets life, they weren't collected during the lives of his companions either. Look at the year the prophet died and look at the year of the first verified recording of a hadith.

And yet the oldest surviving copies pf surrahs are from well after the prophets death.

>If they weren't collected during the prophets life, they weren't collected during the lives of his companions either. Look at the year the prophet died and look at the year of the first verified recording of a hadith.
I was referring to Qur'an
Birmingham document

The Birmingham document is noteworthy because it was written close to his death but not before it. Like within two decades at the closest.

>It's not an assumption if you have faith!!

Not even touching that

>Written in his lifetime
There is no evidence of it being written down in his life. The earliest copies found we found are fragments about 40 years after his death and even those aren't fully consistent with each other.

First thing to know is that in islam the hadiths are classified in 4 categories
>Sahih (legit)
>Hasan (prolly legit)
>Dha'if (weak)
>Mawdu (fake)

If you ask a muslim scholar he will tell you that only the sahih can be used as primary source as they are authentic.
If you ask me there is a few fake "sahih" as well, so we should only use hadiths when they relate to the Koran, not when they add something, except if the thing added is unimportant.
lot of people learned it by hearth, and it was written down before even if it was not compilated yet.

>There is no evidence of it being written down in his life. The earliest copies found we found are fragments about 40 years after his death and even those aren't fully consistent with each other.
No, I'm not talking about compiled Qur'ans but scrolls such as the one the sister of Umar ibn al-Khattab's (RA) sister had that he read when he entered her house in anger after he heard she had converted to Islam.

It varies, the parchment was dated which is obviously a bit earlier, it's not put outside of the scope of the Prophet's (SAW) life

We can't know if any of the Qurans are accurate because the man who collected the first authoritative edition burned all previous copies. There's no way for us to tell if the Quran that is currently being read matches the older oral recitations or older written accounts.

Doesn't matter if they learned it by heart. That doesn't mean it's accurate. Fuck, one guy supposedly compiled what documents he felt fit into the Quran and then you have the modern Quran. Who knows what documents weren't included.

And how is the legitimacy of this event corroborated

As I said a lot of people had learn it by hearth, Koran is to be recited during salat, and salat is 5 time a day, people would have realize if the compilation had changed anything.

Yes, and there were different variations and even different fucking books within the Quran until it was cannonized later.

But overall, we are talking about shit that assumes some guy spoke to an angel. So really, does it matter if this underlying event itself can't be proven?

There isn't even direct evidence of Muhammad existing. Anything documented is after the fact and associated with Islam. So really, how can we debate the Quran and Hadith when even this is questionable? This goes for Jesus as well, mind you.

>there were different variations and even different fucking books
[citation needed]

>Quran is the only source of authority to Muslims

Is that why they pray 3 times a day as the Koran states and not 5 as the Hadith do?

Most Muslims stupidly follow tradition or culture instead if their actual holy book. Like how a lot of Christians fail to love their neighbor.

>There isn't even direct evidence of Muhammad existing
There are more evidence for Muhammad's existence, then are evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. Literally everything we know about Alexander the Great was written 200 years after his death.

>More Ad Hominem.
*Yawn*.

>Most Muslims stupidly follow tradition or culture instead if their actual holy book.

The 5 times is uniform though, unlike a lot of cultural deviations which are localised.

Do you think the early Ummah used only the Koran? Because that thinking is very modern idea.

>Doesn't matter if they learned it by heart. That doesn't mean it's accurate.
Says who?

I don't know why you, a Muslim. Bother listening to the opinions of Non-Muslims. The Prophet (SAW) makes it very clear, that the opinions of Non-Muslims shouldn't be taken, in any way, shape, or form as a form of Authority when it comes to the Quran and the Hadiths. He makes very clear, that it should be a debate between Muslims, and Muslims only.

That approach is only important when it comes to debates on the application doctrine.

This is more about correcting an uniformed and self contradicting opinion.

False we have Babylonian records of when he entered the city and even death (that's how we know when he died. Quality over quantity.

It assumes the source they learned it from is accurate and with all the fucking oral tradition involved, there's no way to tell.

Sorry, current standards of evidence have passed sharia's primitive standard of hearsay qualifying.

Fucking use the internet

>Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Quran was compiled by his companions who wrote down and memorized parts of it. These codices had differences that motivated the CaliphUthmanto establish a standard version

>pray 3 times a day as the Koran states
The Koran order to pray 5 times a day, trust me I checked, the 3 times meme is an invention from this ""koranist"" of whom i forgot the name who just want to ake a light version of islam.

>Written tradition doesnt matter it assumes the source they copied it from is accurate and with all the issues of grammar and physical decay written tradition involved, there's no way to tell.

>Sorry, current standards of evidence have passed sharia's primitive standard of hearsay qualifying.

So it wouldn't be admissible in under the legal system of about 10 of the 200 or so countries on earth?

Follow only mutawater hadiths, the most essential and authentic.

There are many hadiths that are classified as Sahih but are flat out wrong or retarded. la yassihou sanadan wa la matnan

To clarify, this refers to Alexander.

And really you are going to pick Julius Caeser? We have his date of birth, death, years in office. Do you really think the Romans didn't document shit?

Regardless, there is less burden of proof for a person who actually conquered shit that can objectively be witnessed and documented compared to a guy who declared he spoke to an angel and is a prophet.

Meant to reply to this

Meant oral tradition. Typos of doom.

Which part? In recall it being said to exalt him in the morning, afternoon and evening.

>There are many hadiths that are classified as Sahih but are flat out wrong
Yes, really I don't want to seem like a libtard but if there is one way a reform in the way we practice islam is needed it is on the matter of the hadith sahihs, we shouldn't give them the same value of authenticity than the one we give to the Koran.

>We have his date of birth, death, years in office.
And we know Muhammad's date of birth, years he ruled Arabia.
>there is less burden of proof for a person who actually conquered shit that can objectively be witnessed and documented compared to a guy who declared he spoke to an angel and is a prophet.
And Muhammad conquered the entire Arabian peninsula. What's your point.

>There isn't even direct evidence of Muhammad existing.
Complete and utter Bullshit. There isn't a single academic historian who doubts the existence of Muhammad. There are plentiful evidence of his existence from many Non-Muslim sources.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad
Try to do this ''Muhammad didn't exist'' nonsense in the academy, and you will get laughed at.

So this is an area where there's an honest to god revisionist movement within (secular) Islamic studies. Basically, the revisionists say you can't trust the hadith and you have to look at archaeological evidence and what the Qur'an says about itself and the community of people it's speaking to. Fred Donner wrote a layman's book about it. Patricia Crone (RIP) also was big in the area, initially pretty radical, but calmed down a little towards the end of her career.

On that page is includes a muslim scholar who contests his existence.

All non-mulsim sources are after this death, not reliable. Like tacitus saying Jesus existed because christians told him. So fucking reliable.

The birth date is an estimated year so solid.

>The sum total of all casualties on all sides in all the battles of Muhammad might be more or less 1,000

Wow what conquest. He was a real conqueror. No way anybody could fabricate that.

You aren't even allowed to depict him, what a fucking joke.

It's hard enough to prove his existence and accomplishments, let alone any divine shit, let alone the authenticity of the Quaran.

So in summary, going back to the topic of the thread, there isn't even a shred in the Hadiths, just like Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.

>Like tacitus.
Tactius is 60 years after Jesus you dumb cunt. All of the Non-Muslim writers were alive during Muhammad's time and extensively talk about him.
>Another account of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos. From this chronicle, there are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof. Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present us for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing. Concerning Muhammad, he says:

>At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.

>Sebeos was writing the chronicle at a time when memories of sudden eruption of the Arabs was fresh. He knows Muhammad's name and that he was a merchant by profession. He hints that his life was suddenly changed by a divinely inspired revelation.

>The sum total of all casualties on all sides in all the battles of Muhammad might be more or less 1,000
>Wow what conquest. He was a real conqueror. No way anybody could fabricate that.
Fucking Hernan Cortes conquered the Aztec Empire with literally less 1,000 men you Insufferable waste of sperm. The amount of men Muhammad used for his conquests, doesn't refute his existence in, any way, shape, or form.

He had thousands of natives and there were 100,000's of casualties involved. You know, numbers or a real conflict.

>waste of sperm
how so? not like I'm a muslim

>Sebeos
His history was published for the first time in 1851 in Istanbul. Real fucking reliable there, huh?

>Real fucking reliable there
Yes, absolutely. All Modern historians agree that he is a reliable source. Unless your going full delusional and say that Sebeos also didn't exist.

>He had thousands of natives and there were 100,000's of casualties involved. You know, numbers or a real conflict.
Doesn't matter. Arabia in the 7th century was a desert inhabited by tiny nomadic tribes. It couldn't support more than 100,000 people. I will say it until you get it through your fuckwit thickskull,and use the two brain cells there. The number of soldiers used in Muhammad's conquests, do not, in any way, shape, or form, refute his existence.
>how so? not like I'm a muslim
As would be expected of a toddler of your intelligence.

The copy released by the Ottoman Empire (first red flag) was based on a copy from 1568. You don't think Muslims wouldn't doctor it like Christian's did to Josephus' histories? I guess I shouldn't expect skepticism from people who believe in a pedophilic Arab who though he could talk to a god.

Good thing all the battles whose net loss throughout this whole period on both sides of 1k are conveniently only sourced in the Quran.

But only one inspired by the Lord to raid merchant caravans, am I right? Such a miracle man

>The copy released by the Ottoman Empire
The copy wasn't released by the Ottoman Empire. It was released by an Christian Armenian.
>I guess I shouldn't expect skepticism from people who believe in a pedophilic Arab who though he could talk to a god.
*Yawn* Ad Hominem attacks. Nothing of substance.

>only sourced in the Quran.
They are not just sourced in the Quran you ignorant shithead. They are also sourced in the Hadiths.

Odd, I didn't know Armenia was in control of Instanbul. Learn something new everyday

>The majority of traditional sources state that Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according toIbn Hisham

Truly truly a holy man!

>The hearsay/fanfiction that's even less reliable

Oh lordy, what another reliable source! The fucking jokes that are the hadith!

>Odd, I didn't know Armenia was in control of Instanbul. Learn something new everyday
Don't put words in my mouth you cunt. I said the copy was released by an Christian Armenian. Not that Armenia controlled Istanbul.
>The majority of traditional sources state that Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according toIbn Hisham
>Truly truly a holy man!
Oh. So traditional sources are now trustworthy,
since now that they back your argument? Fucking Hypocrite.

Nothing wrong with the Hadiths. There are thousands of historical facts, that were recorded by Oral tradition.

>There isn't even direct evidence of Muhammad existing.

The Muslims had conquered pretty much the entire Middle East within 20 years of Muhammad's death. Do you really think all those people were larping at that point?

>I doubt the majority of Muslims for the majority of Islamic history just followed it without reason

From what the veterans of the battle of Ramadi that I served with told me, they most DEFINITELY will follow something with no reason

I've been arguing that the hadith and Quran are shitty from the start amigo

That require tangible evidence to corroborate

Currently it's
>The Quran corroborates the hadiths
>The hadiths corroberate the Quran

Considering the death toll of both sides was approximately 1000 even if it occured, totally larpable.

Hadiths are seen as legitimate by Muslim scholars.

Now which sayings are actually Hadiths, that depends on which school of Islam or which cleric you ask. There was a lot of jurisprudence and theology involved on trying to find which alleged hadiths were actual and which weren't.

None at all you dune coon