[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
everyone can have their own filter. I'd rather have multiple narrators at the source.. at least four people must have heard it directly and then the same going down the entire chain of narrators.. ooops.. that prolly just ruled out the entire corpse of hadith literature!
....
[/QUOTE]
so you like the number "4" better than anyother? would you accept ANY HADITH with narrators numbered at '4'?
I did not want to derail the discussion so I kept quiet but logically speaking that proves squat.
Worst case it may help prove that BOTH Qur’an AND Hadith have questionable compilation, but it cannot prove both as authentic.
Suffice to say it’s an effort by the hadith spinners to introduce doubt about the Qur’an and try and equate man written stories to revealed text.
Allah in the Qur’an, stresses heavily on writing things down and gathering witnesses and ascertaining news when they come to us.. If four sounds excessive i’d settle with two. How many do you think should be needed?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
I did not want to derail the discussion so I kept quiet...
[/quote]
LOL... how considerate of you!
[quote]
... but logically speaking that proves squat.
[/quote]
What it does prove is that you are quite happy to put forward arbitrary conditions and tests as a challenge to other people's views yet you yourself aren't prepared to consent to the very same tests. Do the words "double standards" mean anything to you?
Iqbal
What about the double standards when declaring the Bible inaccurate and hadiths authentic, when (as posted by PA) "the Bible bears a remarkable resemblance to the method of transmission of the narratives attributed to the Prophet of Islam." There is less historical data to back up these narratives than there is for the Bible.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
What about the double standards when declaring the Bible inaccurate and hadiths authentic, when (as posted by PA) "the Bible bears a remarkable resemblance to the method of transmission of the narratives attributed to the Prophet of Islam." There is less historical data to back up these narratives than there is for the Bible.
[/QUOTE]
I think there are some marked differences.
Not all hadith are authentic. Are Biblical inerrantists prepared to concede the same for the Bible?
Hadith come with a chain of transmission for each statement attributed to the Prophet (s) along with biographical details for each narrator. Where there is no chain of transmission or no biography, the hadith is discarded. Can Biblical scholars provide the same?
"Textual Criticism" as a science for analysing hadith - both from the standpoint of the text as well as the chain of transmission - developed comparatively early on in Islam's history. As a tool, New Testament textual criticism developed over a much longer period and any significant evidence of its use is not seen until over a thousand years after the NT books were authored at which time we begin to see signs of "critical apparatus" employed in arriving at what was felt to be the most accurate text. I think the present Old Testament falls short of this by a long way.
The Hadith corpus has another authority against which it can be measured, namely the Qur'an. (This is not to say that we reject a hadith because it "seems" to us to conflict with the Qur'an unless we first consider a reconciliation between the apparent difference). The Qur'an itself also confirms the inaccuracy of the Bible and points to the relevance of the Prophet's (s) hadith. But the point is, what external written authority is the Bible measured against?
Hadith were transmitted and preserved in the language in which they were first spoken, namely Arabic. Jesus (as) spoke Aramaic whereas the New Testament manuscript tradition is largely in Greek. At best, therefore, even the earliest writings provide only a "translation" of what Jesus (as) might have said or done. Similarly, when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it more often than not cites the Septuagint (another Greek translation), not the Hebrew itself.
Iqbal
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Iqbal1089: *
The Qur'an itself also confirms the inaccuracy of the Bible and points to the relevance of the Prophet's (s) hadith. But the point is, what external written authority is the Bible measured against?
Iqbal
[/QUOTE]
Purely circular reasoning!
A man and his wife were involved in an accident at a busy intersection, in which this particular man was at fault. To make matters worse for the person driving the other car, there were no other witnesses. So to avoid insurance hikes, the couple decided to fabricate a story blaming the other party. Will the woman's testimony hold weight here, considering she was the only witness, however is related to one of the parties involved?
If the Quran complements the Hadith, and visa-versa, how does that qualify as an external source, since both are within the realm of Islam??
b
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
....
Allah in the Qur'an, stresses heavily on writing things down and gathering witnesses and ascertaining news when they come to us.. If four sounds excessive i'd settle with two. How many do you think should be needed?
[/QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that the ENTIRE hadith database comprises of ahadith with narrators no more than 1?????? no hadith was narrated by 2 or more narrators?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by blitz: *
......
If the Quran complements the Hadith, and visa-versa, how does that qualify as an external source, since both are within the realm of Islam??
.....
[/QUOTE]
Its for those who believe in Truthfulness of Quran, its being a book of God.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by blitz: *
**Purely circular reasoning!
If the Quran complements the Hadith, and visa-versa, how does that qualify as an external source, since both are within the realm of Islam??
**
[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's circular within the context of the question that was posed to me. Hadith has an authority external to itself against which it can, to some degree, be measured, and in this case that authority does not have to be external to the faith in question. A Christian might (in fact many Christians do) refer to the writings of the early Church Fathers to show that a particular verse or passage was already known and in circulation by a particular time. That is a source external to the Bible, but again it is still within the same faith.
I think this line of reasoning is applicable (although it has its limitations) where both participants are arguing from within the confines of their respective traditions. But in other contexts, as your reply seems to suggest, a complementary source that actually lies within one's faith wouldn't convince too many outsiders.
Taking it a step further, a Biblicist might refer to historical documents outside of Christianity as well as to non-Christians quoting from the Bible to show that certain passages or books already existed during a given period in history. In the same way, a Qur'an scholar might refer to inscriptions, quotes from the Qur'an by non-Muslims (i believe some research has been done on these last two points although i'm not overly familiar with it) and even references to the Qur'an by Muslims themselves during early theological debates when each side presented passages relevant to its own argument. It would have been the easiest thing in the world - had the text of the Qur'an not already been secured - to put forward a corrupted text in support of one's own ideas (not that this didn't happen, in some instances it did, and there are examples of individuals quoting unsupported variant readings for this very purpose in the same way that hadith were fabricated for this purpose). But the fact that such warring factions restricted themselves to the same Qur'an is an indication that a standard version was accepted and in use during those early days. This particular problem may be more pronounced in Christianity where a number of manuscripts show signs of scribal tampering along theological lines.
And Allah knows best.
Iqbal
thx 4 sharing guys