polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:52am:

What are you talking about? this is one of bukhari's method, the quran is considered superior to hadith, and the hadith is used to clarify the quran.

It is common knowledge that Bukhari did 'filter' what he saw and read into his collection by whether it contradicts the quran.

The isnad is not the only way they did it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:52am:

You didn't even present any evidence nor outlined how he 'verifies' these claims.

Your just making vague statement that his method was 'scientific', 'emprical' and as 'rigorous' as todays standards.

Its plain to see by everyone you don't know what your talking about.

I'll ask you again, please actually describe the process by which they verified anything.

Actually explain it in detail.

Or can't you?


the method of isnad
I'm gonna explain it, just to show your claim is spurious and wrong, and you can easily google to verify this is the method because every Islamic site explains it too.

First classification is content
In descending order of importance.
1.Allah said (Qudsi)
2.Muhammad said (Marfu)
3.Companion of Muhammad said (Mauquf)
4.Someone other then a companion (Maqtu)

So your claim that bukhari didn't use the quran as any way to filter hadith is false, the method of hadith authentication specifically does use the quran to filter it.

isnad link
Here is whether the text says its transmitters (narrators) and how it goes back to muhammad ie.

Person B heard Person A heard Ibn Abbas (then talks about Muhammad saying something).

In descending order
1.Uninterrupted line to a 'special' Muhammads companions (Sahih)
2.Uninterrupted line to a 'non-special' Muhammads companions
3. Interupted line to Muhammad
4. No isnad

'special' denotes someone Islam considers religiously sound and good memoriser.

Now here this flatly is unscientific and wrong.
Firstly, you can't ever historically say someone is a 'good memoriser' or 'sound religiously' to evaluate the authenticity of a text historically, that is exactly what is called subjectivity to an extreme, it is also goes against any modern historical method of analysis because it is purposefully biassed towards Islam, modern historians today put extra weight on say, non-christian accounts on early Christian events, precisely to work against this problem.

Secondly, all they do is literally look at the isnad and whether it exists and the people stated in it, they dont confirm the whether it was said (so you lied), they only confirm whether the people in the isnad is considered 'trustworthy', this is spurious, a hadith without an isnad could very well be accurate and confirmed by external sources (non-muslims, physical artifacts etc), but none of this matters, it is simply the Isnad itself that matters.

That is why a text cannot prove itself, this is why historians look at external sources, date things etc.

-islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/hadsciences.html

You literally lied Gandalf, and the fact you insulted me while lying out of your mouth is very poor form, especially since your a moderator.

Btw, mutawatir is not a method used by any of the hadith collectors, it was used long after the collection to categorize it.

It started by ilm al-kalam and put into Islamic jurisprudence at a later date.

I havent even gotten into the monumental problem of the 200-300 year gap between Bukhari hadith collection and Muhammads existence, and the near lack of anything referring to Muhammad in the first century of his existence, a common fact that all Islamic scholars know.

So Bukhari not only did not verify whether 'it was said', he couldn't.

So again, your lie is apparent Gandalf.

vanatos wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:35am:




But vanatos,

How can this be ?

Why do we [moslems] require the 'suspect' [humanly fabricated] Hadith,

'to clarify the [meaning of the] Koran'

?

Because, there is no mystery as to what the words in the Koran mean.

Allah himself, declares that fact.



EXPLANATION;
Allah declares, IN THE KORAN ITSELF, that the words in his inerrant and perfect Koran, are clear [perspicuous!!] and made plain.

And therefore it must be clear [to every moslem] that the words in the Koran, clear-ly mean, what a rational person understands the Koran texts to mean.


as per....

012.001
YUSUFALI: A.L.R. These are the symbols (or Verses) of the perspicuous Book.
PICKTHAL: Alif. Lam. Ra. These are verse of the Scripture that maketh plain.
SHAKIR: Alif Lam Ra. These are the verses of the Book that makes (things) manifest.




Dictionary;
perspicuous = =
1 (of an account or representation) clearly expressed and easily understood; lucid.
2 (of a person) expressing things clearly.


026.002
YUSUFALI: These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear.
PICKTHAL: These are revelations of the Scripture that maketh plain.
SHAKIR: These are the verses of the Book that makes (things) clear.


See!!!!!          

We know that the Koran comes directly from Allah [through the agency of Allah's messenger, pbuh].
[....because moslems tell us this.]

And we know that Allah's Koran is divinely protected, inerrant and perfect.
[....because moslems tell us this.]

And Allah himself actually declares, within the divinely protected, inerrant and perfect Koran, that Allah has made the Koran so perfect, that anyone who opens that book and reads its words, can easily understand what those words mean.

And, i understand what its words mean!

The Koran = =

"the Book that makes (things) manifest"

vanatos wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 5:47pm:


The muslims here believe the Quran has never been changed and is perfect, of course Gandalf insisted a mistranslation was evidence of Aisha reaching puberty so he has suspect Arabic.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 10:50pm:

Thanks for confirming your wrong, i notice you've changed from 'scientific' to 'empirical' and now 'systematic' when we've called you out on how incorrect you've been, which shows you've been proven wrong on every statement you've made.

Btw, your 'explanation without evidence' just shows how faulty the approach was, i could write on a piece of text 'sarah palin narrated obama said this and that'.

And that would qualify as an authentic piece of text since they were both alive and had contact.

But thanks for ignoring my post, just goes to show you have no substance in your argument, i'' recap.

vanatos wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 10:50pm:

Continue posting Gandalf, it just becomes apparent to everyone your arguing without substance.

vanatos wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 8:25am:


It is systematic and empirical - and most people would consider that "scientific" - certainly in the same way that we consider respected western empricist historians to be "scientific". I only stopped using the term because it seemed to be distracting you and leading you off into irrelevant tangents.

vanatos wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 8:25am:


If you provided the required evidence to prove this, then yes it would be authentic. It would also be an empirical approach - of sorts. Of course you could simply verify this from google or youtube quite easily. Whereas Bukhari, investigating sources long since dead,  actually had to dig up historical evidence, assess that evidence and interpret it; actually do some historical analysis - in order meet his criteria of authenticity. And he developed a systematic approach to performing this analysis. You know, like what proper historians do. Not, as you originally claimed, simply sorting out what does and doesn't contradict what the Quran says.

vanatos wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 8:25am:


And thanks for ignoring mine.

How did you go finding some evidence that Bukhari used the "does it contradict the Quran?" criteria that you originally claimed was responsible for him discarding 99% of the ahadeeth?

Also, did you work out how you can get a "universal" ahadeeth classification system and apply it to Bukhari - even though we know that Bukhari developed a entirely different system of his own?

Pete Waldo wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 9:49am:


Pete I started ignoring your posts as soon as you started "debating" me by telling me I was worhipping satan and that I was the antichrist etc. Most sane people will know that is the time to walk away. Kinda like how I ignore the vast majority of Yadda's posts too.

vanatos wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 1:04pm:


Suggest you recheck reply#1 in this thread.

Now are you going to provide evidence that Bukhari simply dismissed ahadeeth because they contradicted the Quran?

Your own example of the moon splitting hadeeth refutes that since the Quran specifically states no more miracles will be performed.

Quote:


Most people distinguish history and science. The fields of study are different, because the methods are completely different. If a high school student gets told they have a science class, they don't turn up to the history classroom by mistake.