4 ms·

Why do all hadith chains and Quran compilation stories start at 9th century if Islam arose in 7th century? Deliberate omission of recordings is the only sound e

Why do all hadith chains and Quran compilation stories start at 9th century if Islam arose in 7th century? Deliberate omission of recordings is the only sound explanation, because common Arab slave owners and traders were not illiterate (Muhammad, or who used that name, was definitely not, in fact, same hadith books -also verified by external accounts- say he avoided peace treaties and forced remove his name from one such treaty). I am well aware you cannot practice Islam so far without hadith, but as a former Muslim, it's their problem, not mine. In addition, hadith as a source has its limits, e.g. you cannot invent a crime out of hadith, unless it is already hinted at Quran; because that would be equivalent to inventing a new Quranic verse, which is forbidden by Quran.

faissaloo 7y ago
>Why do all hadith chains and Quran compilation stories start at 9th century if Islam arose in 7th century? Because the Arabs before then primarily transmitted information via oral tradition, while Arab slave owners and traders were literate the majority of people were not so it would have been useless to primarily transmit in writing back then. Secondly the idea that the Qur'an didn't exist in written form in the 9th century is patently false [0] and every authentic hadith transmission chain must go back to the time of the Prophet (PBUH) or it wouldn't be authentic. >I am well aware you cannot practice Islam so far without hadith, but as a former Muslim, it's their problem, not mine. It's no one's problem because almost no one subscribes to the belief system you're arguing in favor of. >you cannot invent a crime out of hadith, unless it is already hinted at Quran; because that would be equivalent to inventing a new Quranic verse Anything a hadith says is valid by virtue of us being told to follow the instructions of the Prophet (PBUH) in the Qur'an. [0] https://www.livescience.com/51638-quran-manuscript-oldest-known-copy.html https://www.livescience.com/51638-quran-manuscript-oldest-kn...
- anticensor 7y ago
  The source you cited at [0] is incomplete. They analysed it and found only the part with violent verses (so-called Medinan ones), not the part which resembles Biblical passages. > every authentic hadith transmission chain must go back to the time of the Prophet [Muhammad Abdullah] The thing is, we cannot prove his real identity (e.g. Mecca, where he had been allegedly born, has no historic traces apart from Kaaba), and some of the members, hence not a real chain up till 9th century. That was what I meant there were no hadith chain going before. You cannot cite a narration chain to an imaginary hero and call it authentic. > Anything a hadith says is valid by virtue of us being told to follow the instructions of [Muhammad] in the Qur'an. Hanafi and Jafari sects would not arise if that were the commonly held belief. The verse exists, but it does not automatically mean all hadith are as valid as they were in Quran. See where stoning penalty applies, reckon that thing is documented in hadith but thrown away from Quran. Hence we conclude stoning penalty does not exist. (according to Islamic precedence, Quran always prevails Sunnah)
  - faissaloo 7y ago
    >They analysed it and found only the part with violent verses (so-called Medinan ones), not the part which resembles Biblical passages. So what? It's still evidence it existed. >hence not a real chain up till 9th century This is obviously nonsense historical revisionism. >The verse exists, but it does not automatically mean all hadith are as valid as they were in Quran Firstly I didn't say that and secondly neither hanafism nor jafarism are sects.

faissaloo 7y ago

>Why do all hadith chains and Quran compilation stories start at 9th century if Islam arose in 7th century? Because the Arabs before then primarily transmitted information via oral tradition, while Arab slave owners and traders were literate the majority of people were not so it would have been useless to primarily transmit in writing back then. Secondly the idea that the Qur'an didn't exist in written form in the 9th century is patently false [0] and every authentic hadith transmission chain must go back to the time of the Prophet (PBUH) or it wouldn't be authentic. >I am well aware you cannot practice Islam so far without hadith, but as a former Muslim, it's their problem, not mine. It's no one's problem because almost no one subscribes to the belief system you're arguing in favor of. >you cannot invent a crime out of hadith, unless it is already hinted at Quran; because that would be equivalent to inventing a new Quranic verse Anything a hadith says is valid by virtue of us being told to follow the instructions of the Prophet (PBUH) in the Qur'an. [0] https://www.livescience.com/51638-quran-manuscript-oldest-known-copy.html https://www.livescience.com/51638-quran-manuscript-oldest-kn...

anticensor 7y ago
The source you cited at [0] is incomplete. They analysed it and found only the part with violent verses (so-called Medinan ones), not the part which resembles Biblical passages. > every authentic hadith transmission chain must go back to the time of the Prophet [Muhammad Abdullah] The thing is, we cannot prove his real identity (e.g. Mecca, where he had been allegedly born, has no historic traces apart from Kaaba), and some of the members, hence not a real chain up till 9th century. That was what I meant there were no hadith chain going before. You cannot cite a narration chain to an imaginary hero and call it authentic. > Anything a hadith says is valid by virtue of us being told to follow the instructions of [Muhammad] in the Qur'an. Hanafi and Jafari sects would not arise if that were the commonly held belief. The verse exists, but it does not automatically mean all hadith are as valid as they were in Quran. See where stoning penalty applies, reckon that thing is documented in hadith but thrown away from Quran. Hence we conclude stoning penalty does not exist. (according to Islamic precedence, Quran always prevails Sunnah)
- faissaloo 7y ago
  >They analysed it and found only the part with violent verses (so-called Medinan ones), not the part which resembles Biblical passages. So what? It's still evidence it existed. >hence not a real chain up till 9th century This is obviously nonsense historical revisionism. >The verse exists, but it does not automatically mean all hadith are as valid as they were in Quran Firstly I didn't say that and secondly neither hanafism nor jafarism are sects.