Outside of Islamic Sources
How accurate are the hadiths historically?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Outside of Islamic Sources. How accurate are the hadiths historically?
Outside of Islamic Sources
How accurate are the hadiths historically?
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
There's little way of knowing.
Within islamic sources, they are trusted and seen as accurate
historically most historians agree that they aren't accurate and could be faked
Muslims believe that Mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a literal Pegasus style winged horse. Their opinions and beliefs (on most matters, but especially on the historicity of their scripture) are invalid and irrelevant as a matter of course.
Completely baseless.
They're just a list of
>Muhammed said so-and-so
>Source: Trust me bro
All written long after his death. They're only form of determining "authenticity" is that the guy who wrote a particular Hadith claims he got them from Steve, and then claims that Steve told him he got them from Tom, who then claims that Steve told him he got them from Tom who told Steve he got them from Harry, and on and on till it came from Muhammed, all orally, with no written documentation or archaeological evidence. Basically the Hadith are just an Uzbek man named al-Bukhari writing down popular folktales.
This, and they need to have “trustworthy” characters. If they steal or lie, then their testimony is weaker.
This is a really ignorant post. Bukhari learned from Ishaq Al-Rahawayh, the friend and companion of Ahmad, who probably knew the most hadith out of anybody from travelling throughout the muslim world. Ahmad learned from Al-Shafi'i, the famous jurist who synthesized the schools of Iraq and Hijaz, who learned from Malik, the jurist of Medina, who learned from Al-Zuhri who was recognized as the state muhaddith during the reign of Umar II, who learned from Sa'id ibn Al-Musayyib, who married the daughter of Abu Hurayra to learn more hadith from him.
This is just one chain. The amount of biographical knowledge of hadith scholars was unprecedented, to dismiss the study merely as "collecting folkore" is moronic
He learned it from a guy who claimed he learned it from a guy who claimed he learned it from a guy who claimed he learned it from a guy who claimed he learned it from a guy who claimed he learned it from a guy who claimed he learned it from a guy who claimed he learned it from a guy who claimed he learned it from a guy who claimed he learned it from a guy who claimed he learned it from a guy who claimed he learned it from a guy.
>claimed he learned it
it is known through their other students who numbered in the dozens or hundreds. Hadith scholars regularly questioned hadith scholars, saying, "I didn't hear him say that" or "I've never seen you study under him"
>a guy
everyone is just "a guy", but referring to these people i mentioned as just "some guys" is disingenous or ignorant. manuscripts are writren by "a guy", you yourself are "a guy". What's your point?
>Basically the Hadith are just an Uzbek man named al-Bukhari writing down popular folktales
This is especially false considering that Sahih Bukhari contains many rare and unwell-known hadith, which Bukhari considered authentic despite them being not popular. Most critics of hadith don't know a single thing about hadith
the issue is why weren't they written down earlier? historically why wasnt this the case, especially after they left arabia they had tons of scribes with them from the former greek and persians lands that could've done it
They were written down very early on, but much of it hasn't survived, because written hadith weren't as widespread as the Qur'an which we have surviving manucripts of from the 1st century.
To illustrate, all of pre Islamic Arab poetry was only preserved through Islamic sources, pre Muslim Arabs probably did write them down, but they didn't survive because literacy wasn't as widespread compared to in Rome or Persia, especially among Pagan Arabs.
In hadith, there is even indication that some companions were even against the writing down of hadith, saying that it inhibited their memories
This is not special to hadith. From the 1st century AH, we know there were numerous Arabic works of exegesis, grammar, poetry etc. which hasn't survived, probably because they were mostly oral. Surviving hadith compilations exist right at the time when other works in Arabic begin to be extant, in the Abbasid period, indicating that Hadith literature existed prior to the famous works, as confirmed by later Muslim sources
I don't see what's the difference between hadith and regular history, how one can prefer history over hadith when the transmission of manuscripts are mostly anonymous. Caesar's De Bello Gallico, for example, exists only in medieval and early modern manuscripts without chains transmissions between scribes, yet people accept it without question as the word of Caesar.
While the transmission of hadith is known from student to student, so there is a way to verify and trace the genealogies of historical facts, instead of them just popping in and out on the timeline
Well for one we don't automatically accept the testimony of any manuscript on its own merits. We use things like archaeology and contemporary sources. For your example of the Gallic War for instance, we accept it's authenticity because while our oldest surviving physical manuscripts are medieval we have an unbroken chain of written documentation going all the way back to time of Caesar himself of the work being referenced and quoted. Contrast to the Hadith, where no such chain exists for these supposed oral histories. There are no written references, fragments, or archaeological evidence, to suggest that the Hadith existed in any real form prior to Bukhari & Friends creating them out of thin air.
>we have an unbroken chain of written documentation going all the way back to time of Caesar himself of the work being referenced and quoted
No you don't, the scribes are anonymous
>Contrast to the Hadith, where no such chain exists for these supposed oral histories
Yet the transmitters are known
>There are no written references, fragments, or archaeological evidence
Same with De Bello Gallico. There is evidence of the Gallic War and that Caesar wrote a memoir about the Gallic War, but how do you know for certain that De Bello Gallico is contemporaneous when the transmission is anonymous and you have no contemporary manuscripts? How old are these fragments and quotations? Are they contemporaneous, probably not.
>Bukhari & Friends creating them out of thin air.
This is a very suspicious and overly skeptical way of thinking, with no true basis in reason.
The earliest book of hadith we have manuscripts of was written by Hammam ibn Munabbihb, who personally knew Abu Hurayra, who personally knew the Prophet. It contains 138 of the most well-known hadith.
We don't have contemporaneous manuscripts of Hammam's Sahifat, but if you were maintain that standard of history, then you would have to doubt so many things in history that you take for granted
The problem with Hadith is that given the environment and political climate after Muhammad's death, there's very good motivation to fabricate stories or sayings of him, even the traditional Islamic account recognizes how rampant Hadith fabrications were
With typical sources, you use stuff like the historical critical method, archeology, and the language of the text to determine its authenticity
For the longest time the Islamic sources were just accepted at face value, it wasn't until relatively very recently that Islamic sources started to be questioned and looked at critically, and from what we can see from archaeology at least, the Hadith do not give an accurate account of Arabia at the time
>For the longest time the Islamic sources were just accepted at face value,
By orientalists
>it wasn't until relatively very recently that Islamic sources started to be questioned and looked at critically
It was 1400 years by Muslims. The hadith scholars knew that hadith were being fabricated and created the hadith methodology to discern between authentic and fabricated historical facts through the rigorous verification of sources
>from what we can see from archaeology at least, the Hadith do not give an accurate account of Arabia at the time
I feel that archeology is a very weak type of history. With the lack of evidence of polytheism in the Hijaz during the pre-Islamic period, some historians say "Aha! Islamic history is false because there wasn't polytheism in the Hijaz" and others would say "Islamic history is true because the Muslims destroyed all the idols of pre Islamic Hijaz"
I believe that the past is most accurately known by those who were in the past
So orientalist have a bias but Muslims don't?
>I feel that archeology is a very weak type of history.
Ok, it's obvious you are heavily biased yourself, nevermind
Bias exists everywhere, but I think it's good to be biased towards the culture who revolved their whole religion around historicity and verification. I'm not saying orientalists are biased, especially contemporary ones, but that they are clearly operating on the western understanding of history rather than the muslim one.
There is a case to be made that manuscripts are a worse form of preservation of historical facts compared to hadith, and I contend that any negative reaction to this is a result of culture and emotion rather than close examination.
Any person who's looked at Biblical textual variants would know what I'm talking about. Early Christians exchanged and copied papyri of the Gospels and would change words and passages according to their own preferences. As I've said, the scribes are anonymous and they likely didn't even consider changing the text to be immoral
I think most historical revisionist "theories" are worthless. The assumptions of historians should always be "people in past knew more about the past than me".
So when "historians" create a theory that Islam came out of Christianity and that Muhammad was actually a name for Jesus, the main objection would be "Is there anyone in the past that has indicated or said anything close to this? Or are you just basing your entire theory on your probably biased interpretation of archeology, completely disregarding all muslim sources?"
>The assumptions of historians should always be "people in past knew more about the past than me".
Should it? I Even before we raise issues of trustworthiness, this is a rather silly thing to believe. People are wrong all the time, so it's silly to take them at their word alone.
I'd be willing to believe there will be people in the future who will know much about our time than either you, me, or anyone else on this earth ever did. This is not to say they will know everything, nor will they say they do, but they will have knowledge of our time that we do not.
The absolute state of Muslim apologetics. At least the Christians try to defend their position with reasoning instead of outright lying and whataboutism
It's like saying outside of islamists how accurate is the Quran. Both are the work of Abrahamic djinn demons.
>Non-Muslims are losers
Why does a "omnipotent god" come up with the pussiest insults ever made
Imagine recalling a conversation with someone that you had years ago
pre-literate people had better memories
and we know that the companions of Muhammad would have study groups and circles where they would repeat and relate what they heard from the Prophet, first among other companions, and then among those who never met him, which is origin of hadith. We know hadith scholars would disregard the testimony of those who would be inconsistent in their narrations, those who would switch words and details around. This is all recorded
Inaccurate
Ai'sha bit was actually inaccurate, Ai'sha at that time was believed to be 16/17 and he actually married her at the age of 19.
The age of the event was accurate to the age of Ai'sha (17)
this has no basis, sorry to say
Then what's the basis of the "6" y/o? You choose to believe that because it seems to match your criticism of the religion.
The basis is Sahih Bukhari, the most authentic book after the Qur'an, which relates the direct words of Aisha herself and I am a muslim
this is the shia position adopted by sunnis embarrased by the muhammad is a pedo insults. And the shia position is that she was an evil prostitute. Can't have it both ways buddy
Early shias also believed Aisha was 6 at the time of marriage
I'm not well versed in islamic history so I won't comment on that but from what's read on these types of threads the Aisha was actually 17 comes from the shia position adopted by modern muslims to escape embarrassment. Either way you have to choose one or the other instead of mixing the two for your convenience
chain of transmission is historically proven