I'm saying both. There were several different circumstances.
Let me ask you something...What do you think is required to become a reporter of hadith? And that's anyone who says "such and such said that such and such said that such and such said that the Prophet Muhammad said..."
Probably alot of devotion and knowledge of the islam.
Please explain why the claim is absurd. I'd really like to know your reason for thinking so.
That people could recite something so large and complicated perfectly, after decades of it being repeated in their minds/amongst themselves. It's absurd because that simply doesn't happen, that's why the effect we see in chinese whispers occurs.
The reason why I posted that link was to show you that academics believed the Prophet existed - not only that, but they thought highly of him too.
And you obviously misunderstood me. The evidence that the man called muhammed existed is more than enough to satisfy me, my problem is (as previously stated):
It's not doubting the existance of a human being whom such stories may have been based on (however in jesus's case, you're even on shakey ground there) - It's doubting the evidence that such a human being did what it is being claimed they did, said what it is being claimed they said, knew what it is being claimed they knew etc.
Why? Obviously because of what he did and said.
1) Their statements don't claim that all of what has been attributed to muhammed has been recited exactly as it was.
2) I can also have respect for the 'myth' of muhammed, even if much of it is not factually based.
3) My only challenge so far has been that it is extremely doubtful that what is recorded in the hadith is without error.
NTB; the science of hadith is complicated, just like u said, and i havent even studied it, so you'll just confuse yourself if you make assumptions about it and draw parallels with chinese whispers- i suppose you'll use your arrogance to say that they are the same but i'll give u a run down:
They're not the same, but the effect will still be there and I'd really like to see an experiment set up where people do what it is claimed was done (with recording of hadith) over even a slightly shorter span of time. Tell someone a story by mouth, a long, complicated story... now don't let them write that down, just remember it in their head, then tell someone else that story, have him remember it for a week and tell what he thought was said to a scribe.
I think we'd find there'd be errors in what is finally recorded down on paper...
But you're saying over the course of 130-150 years people didn't make a mistake?
Even if we accept that such a thing did occur, by the time such oral traditions were being collected to make up the hadiths there were already separate schools of thought emerging about what muhammed had said... How did they decide what to include and what to not? Well basically they decided using vague, subjective standards.
The fact is that many secular scholars have doubts about the accuracy of the hadiths.
1) suppose we have a chain Prophet-->Companion--> student---> child of student-----> hadith collector
most hadith were collected within this period by men like bukhari and muslim
Ok.
2) there are grads of hadith the top one is where everyone in the muslim world knew about it, it was a simple phrase, and they knew it word for word and the scholars said that it was impossible for collaboration or forgery
Yes there would be some things that most people agree on, but as we can see with the way myths quickly evolve today... attributing a quote to someone isn't as easy as taking a vote.
3) to study hadith, you must study under a teacher, so it isnt unilateral like chinese whispers and also, you study the biography of each transmitter
Even if we take the first 'teacher' who would have been the prophet himself ( I suppose?) or perhaps those who first observed him, the chance that they're going to be able to recall a perfect version of his life/events in his life is extremely low.
4) bukhari collected hadiths in persia/india/middle east, others collected more to the south and africa,=\ there is a level of hadith -where if it is word for word correct despite having completely different chains of tranmitters in two diff regions- this is not the highest level though despite being "agreed upon" and hence reliable
Ok
5) there are many false or forged or unreliable hadiths and in the top highermost level there are a few, "agreed upon" hadiths run into the hundreds of thousands
Often such assessments are made scientifically I'll agree, but often they're less than scientific, simply claiming the person has 'lied at some point in time' (like the others never lied lol). Of course there's also the matter of entire muslim sects that disagree on which hadiths are acceptable, but you guys are right, afterall.
6) some of the hadiths regarding women's issues are in the unreliable or forged categories= but that doesnt stop athiests from quoting them whenever they can
Meh its not like they need to bother, they can just quote straight out of the koran.
4:34 said:
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
NTB, you should study islam properly rather than rely on us to explain to you the SCIENCE OF HADITH
No I think I've already heard enough on the subject.
Try tim winter's explanations on the science of hadith- he's a professor of islamic studies at cambridge- ill see if i can find a link to his works
Ok I'll have a look at it if you give us the link, tell you what I think. Interesting that only someone who is a professor of 'islamic studies' would have such a defence. IMHO if this were a real way to go about confirming the historiocity of the hadith we'd see more agreement with them from secular historians - We don't.
