ALLAH split the moon or Muhammad split the moon?

cont.

Most modern orientalists accept sahih hadith as they are, because even they recognize that the things said or at least the claims, are contemporaneous and likely historical, because hadith methodology actually works in verifying the authenticity of oral transmissions. How can a rigorous discipline be dismissed so unrigorously like

Muhammad didn't split the moon and the Qur'an never says he did; it was a lunar eclipse that was reinterpreted by later Muslims into a literal splitting to counter the nonstop charges that Muhammad had no miracles to verify his prophethood. In fact, Qur'an 6:37, 6:109, 10:20, and 13:7 affirm Muhammad did no miracles. Since Sahih al-Bukhari 4865, which states Muhammad did perform a miracle of splitting the moon, contradicts the Qur'an and comes from a source (al-Bukhari) from over 200 years after Muhammad's death, it has zero historical value and is to be dismissed out of hand.

Now leave and rest the leather straps of your anus.

saying "zero historical value"

>The careful ancient historians didn't just compile piles of hearsay spanning several generations and present it
That is, in fact, exactly what "careful ancient historians" did, and without quoting their sources.

As for the case of historians who lived contemporary to the events like Thucydides, the manuscripts are very often not contemporaneous, so historians are also dealing with something similar to hadith, but instead of a chain of known narrators, they are dealing with a chain of anonymous scribes.

>ignores the facts of political and theological bias that are embedded in miracle claims.
There is no way to account for bias that isn't in itself biased in some way. It would be biased of me to assume that everyone who claimed to see the Miracle of Fatima was delusional/lying etc. etc. We take things as they are, claims. You either take it or leave it.

>Anyone could pull a hadith chain out of their
The hadith scholars didn't just accept hadith from anyone. Bukhari was a known student of Ishaq and Ahmad who were students of Al-Shafi'i, who was the student of Malik who learned from Al-Zuhri who learned from Sa'id ibn Musayyib who learned from Abu Hurayra. If someone were to forge a chain, for example from Ahmad, the students of Ahmad would immediately say, "we don't know you, we never heard this hadith before etc."

There were many documented cases of people like this and were caught by hadith scholars, who claimed to hear from some scholar yet were solitary in their report. Some of them add unto famous hadith, additions that aren't corroborated by other narrations. This level of verification isn't found in textual criticism.

>my comment about your terrible standards in using liberal critical scholarship
There's nothing liberal about critical scholarship. Textual criticism is highly uncertain, but we can say with certainty that the gospels were in fact tampered with by scribes without regard for preserving the original. This is known through textual variants which are charged with significant theological motives. Examples: Johannine Comma, only begotten god vs son, Pericope Adulterae

The Qur'anic textual variants, however, are so miniscule and insignificant in comparison. The Sana'a lower text only differs in wording, example: "he said, Lord" vs "and he said, my Lord" or "Lord in my prayers" vs "in my prayers Lord". The general agreement of textual critics is that much of the Sana'a variants come from scribal error, and there is a lot of evidence for this.

Christians like to pretend that textual criticism is both a problem for Muslims and Christians alike, but really it is just a problem for Christians, who relied on papyrus manuscripts for transmission.

"Memorization" is how entire verses and chapters of the Qur'an got lost/eaten/etc.

like I said, just unrigorous claims, indicative of a lack of understanding of both the biblical and quranic field of research. open a book for god's sake

>Secular - 1.193 billion - 15.58%
Nice try