Ahadith which is the plural for Hadith should have been used in the title of this thread, but I intentionally changed it to Hadith because non-muslims might not get it immediately.
Ahadith are many. Some say that one scholar called Imam Hanbal who was born around 150 years after the prophet Muhammed died had memorised a million ahadith. Well, a million is an uphill battle for a normal human being, thus it may very well be hero worshiping of a leader by his students. Nevertheless, the number of ahadith floating around are stupendously huge.
I found it quite strange when someone claims he has read all 6 ahadith collections of the Sunni tradition (not knowing the Shii's also follow the same ahadith, but have a different methodology) as if saying "sunni" makes it sound more authentic. These 6 hadith collections are very famous, its all over the internet, and all the islamic websites as well as anti islamic websites talk about it. Thats why its famous to say "I have read all 6". The reason this is strange is because the claim is made, but the claimant only seems to remember a particular type of stories. E.g. A man when peeing is advised to carry 3 pebbles to clean himself after the act is done. Or something like "Muhammed married a little girl". Maybe even something like "Muhammed ordered murder". Its strange that someone who has read 6 volumes, one of them having around 7,000 stories, and in all 6 of these so called collections containing around 32,000 stories, reading through all of these stories is quite an achievement. Being an atheist to have done this is quite amazing. Its not that this is specific to atheists, but this is an atheist who claimed this just yesterday. Another strange matter is that very few people who claim to have read so much seem to have read one of the most important or highly regarded hadith collections that is placed above all of these so called Sahih Sittha or the authentic 6. Some might know what that is.
Anyway, this is about general, historic muslim views and scholarship since anyone could trace after the advent of ahadith and not about my personal views. Lets say someone, atheist, Christian or other picks a particular hadith from somewhere, like a story about 72 "houris" you will get in heaven when a so called "martyr" dies, its actually a very juicy story to quote. Very juicy. Leaving aside simple factors that makes this claim very lame in the eyes of simple language, lets say someone says "it is not authentic", the proponent is very quick to negate this as false apologetics, or lying, or "white washing" etc, etc. Its as if the proponent is very highly believing in this hadith, although a muslim seems to reject it as unauthentic. Now that's a strange situation. This same topic has been discussed in this forum over and over again but it has to be brought up also "over and over again".
The reason for specifically mentioning atheists and Christians is because Hindus, though very very large in numbers around the world dont really proselytise. There are a few Hindus who use this kind of hadith, but they are very few. Same goes to Jews who also very rarely proselytise, no disrespect intended.
Throughout history, ahadith has been always considered what they call in arabic "thabanni wa rafaad" as in "accept and not accept" as a policy with hadith. Hadith means stories or narrations. There are some schools of thought that even deny that ahadith are considered Sunnah or "the way" as in they claim that ahadith may direct you towards the Sunnah, but it is not "The Sunnah". Rather the Sunnah is the living tradition passed through generations in Medinah by the earliest people around. So these Muslim scholars or learned people throughout history have been trying their levels best to develop various methods of authenticating and rejecting hadith. Some people go through years and years of effort in this scrutiny, but the non-muslim in this discussion are stauncher than the staunchest Muslim. They believe in the hadith with no question.Dont be mistaken, even Muslims insist upon some hadith because they love it. But the problem is, atheists and Christians are not Muslim to have so much faith in these stories they pick. This is a phenomena not only in this forum, but also in many books written by Christians and atheists around the world. They would say something like "Muhammed did this", but hey, why do you believe he did this? Why do you believe this story? Dont you have a particular methodology? You are making a historical claim!!!
One of the most popular apologetic is that "Muslims believe this". First of all, no muslim believes in all the stories. No one. Also, muslims believe this is not a criteria for a historical claim for a non-muslim. If "Muslims believe this" is the criteria, then you have to also believe in other things Muslims believe because its the same criteria, or you are practicing a double standard. One standard for your favourite apologetic, and another standard for not so juicy stories.
I believe that this is intellectual dishonesty, spread across openly. This has been discussed a few times, but the discussion point is, why do people still keep doing this? Do they do it unknowingly? Is it even possible that people are doing this unknowingly? Ignorance is fine, it exists and everyone is ignorant about something or a lot of things, but then why insist? Why make historical claims?
here’s my favourite Hadith,can’t remember the collection or number but it is amusing in a good way.
a man came to the prophet with a grievance,he owned a camel had his camel on his land and the camel grazed and he fed it,he also used the camel for transport
Ahadith which is the plural for Hadith should have been used in the title of this thread, but I intentionally changed it to Hadith because non-muslims might not get it immediately.
Ahadith are many. Some say that one scholar called Imam Hanbal who was born around 150 years after the prophet Muhammed died had memorised a million ahadith. Well, a million is an uphill battle for a normal human being, thus it may very well be hero worshiping of a leader by his students. Nevertheless, the number of ahadith floating around are stupendously huge.
I found it quite strange when someone claims he has read all 6 ahadith collections of the Sunni tradition (not knowing the Shii's also follow the same ahadith, but have a different methodology) as if saying "sunni" makes it sound more authentic. These 6 hadith collections are very famous, its all over the internet, and all the islamic websites as well as anti islamic websites talk about it. Thats why its famous to say "I have read all 6". The reason this is strange is because the claim is made, but the claimant only seems to remember a particular type of stories. E.g. A man when peeing is advised to carry 3 pebbles to clean himself after the act is done. Or something like "Muhammed married a little girl". Maybe even something like "Muhammed ordered murder". Its strange that someone who has read 6 volumes, one of them having around 7,000 stories, and in all 6 of these so called collections containing around 32,000 stories, reading through all of these stories is quite an achievement. Being an atheist to have done this is quite amazing. Its not that this is specific to atheists, but this is an atheist who claimed this just yesterday. Another strange matter is that very few people who claim to have read so much seem to have read one of the most important or highly regarded hadith collections that is placed above all of these so called Sahih Sittha or the authentic 6. Some might know what that is.
Anyway, this is about general, historic muslim views and scholarship since anyone could trace after the advent of ahadith and not about my personal views. Lets say someone, atheist, Christian or other picks a particular hadith from somewhere, like a story about 72 "houris" you will get in heaven when a so called "martyr" dies, its actually a very juicy story to quote. Very juicy. Leaving aside simple factors that makes this claim very lame in the eyes of simple language, lets say someone says "it is not authentic", the proponent is very quick to negate this as false apologetics, or lying, or "white washing" etc, etc. Its as if the proponent is very highly believing in this hadith, although a muslim seems to reject it as unauthentic. Now that's a strange situation. This same topic has been discussed in this forum over and over again but it has to be brought up also "over and over again".
The reason for specifically mentioning atheists and Christians is because Hindus, though very very large in numbers around the world dont really proselytise. There are a few Hindus who use this kind of hadith, but they are very few. Same goes to Jews who also very rarely proselytise, no disrespect intended.
Throughout history, ahadith has been always considered what they call in arabic "thabanni wa rafaad" as in "accept and not accept" as a policy with hadith. Hadith means stories or narrations. There are some schools of thought that even deny that ahadith are considered Sunnah or "the way" as in they claim that ahadith may direct you towards the Sunnah, but it is not "The Sunnah". Rather the Sunnah is the living tradition passed through generations in Medinah by the earliest people around. So these Muslim scholars or learned people throughout history have been trying their levels best to develop various methods of authenticating and rejecting hadith. Some people go through years and years of effort in this scrutiny, but the non-muslim in this discussion are stauncher than the staunchest Muslim. They believe in the hadith with no question.
One of the most popular apologetic is that "Muslims believe this". First of all, no muslim believes in all the stories. No one. Also, muslims believe this is not a criteria for a historical claim for a non-muslim. If "Muslims believe this" is the criteria, then you have to also believe in other things Muslims believe because its the same criteria, or you are practicing a double standard. One standard for your favourite apologetic, and another standard for not so juicy stories.
I believe that this is intellectual dishonesty, spread across openly. This has been discussed a few times, but the discussion point is, why do people still keep doing this? Do they do it unknowingly? Is it even possible that people are doing this unknowingly? Ignorance is fine, it exists and everyone is ignorant about something or a lot of things, but then why insist? Why make historical claims?
I really liked reading them,there a many which mention slaves violence and war booty but my favourite is about a camel which had been grazing and being fed on another mans land,the man also used it for transport but the owner went to Muhammad with a grievance about it,Muhammad said that the man who fed it has the right to ride it.
Of course that’s not word for word but it stood out as such a simple story about Muhammad.
