The OP described a non-Muslim who accepted the Hadiths as true. What in your quote suggests that
@Tokita actually believes the Hadiths?
Oh, that is a good point, I had just assumed that when he continuously insists that people who don't believe in the Hadith should believe in the Hadith because without the Hadith "there is no Qur'an", that they are really desperate about people believing in the Hadith so that they can hate on them for it. I doubt they believe in the Hadiths for real, and the imaginary people that fire-dragon was talking about probably don't actually believe in the Hadith either (since they don't believe in the miracle aspects as he mentioned), but those "types" of which tokita seems to be one, typically insist that people ought to believe the negative seeming things in the Hadith, and when people reject those things, they insist that they must believe in such or else "there is no Qur'an, you don't know who Zaid is" or whatever tokita was saying.
I may need some more resources, a bag, possibly some tools to extract the specific posts from tokita you are looking for though, since they don't talk to me directly usually or respond to anything I say ever.
I thought they were an O.K. or close enough example of someone who isn't a Muslim who keeps using examples from the Hadith as if they believe in the Hadiths or are implying or insisting they are true or should be true for others at least and are a requirement, in order to insult Islam. Not good enough maybe though, so I'll keep an eye out for any other people who pop up and use examples from the Hadith to try to demonstrate how Muhammed was an evil pedobear or whatever.
Actually, you can see its quite frequently used as a tactic all over the world wide web, where polemicists collect things from the Hadith in order to show Muhammed, Muslims through history, and Islam in a negative light, but do so not to say "hey look at how silly this is" which is how some people might do it, but instead as "look at how this historical record of this person shows what a creeper little girl lover he was, ew" and their argument doesn't really work as well as "look at this fake and unverifiable account of a guy doing something that was written long after he was dead, I don't believe it, and neither should you". So it seems like they are implying at least that other people should believe it, because if believed, then it makes the person look bad, but if disbelieved, then it means nothing bad about that person, so kind of only mainly makes sense that they are saying "hey check out this disgusting factoid about this pervert from Arabia, yuck central".
