polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 11:23am:

Gandalf, Schacht states the entire aparatus of authenticating hadith by Isnad is faulty, quite clearly.


that the great mass of legal traditions which invoke the authority of the Prophet, originated in the time of Shafi'i and later; we can observe this directly by following the successive stages of legal discussion and the ever-increasing number of relevant traditions incorporating gradual refinements. It can further be shown that legal traditions from the Prophet began to appear, approximately, in the second quarter of the second century A.H.. This explains why the doctrine of Medina as established by Malik in his Muwatta', disagrees often with traditions from the Prophet with Medinese isnads, related by Malik himself. These traditions sometimes express Iraqian doctrines and for this reason alone cannot represent the old Arab customary law of Medina as has been pretended.6 They had gained currency in Medina immediately before Malik and are the result of the activity of a pressure group of traditionists, whose alms were the same as those of a corresponding group in Iraq, each group in sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful opposition to its local school of law.

One of these is that isnads have a tendency to grow backwards, that after going back to, say, a Successor to begin with, they are subsequently often carried back to a Companion and finally to the Prophet himself;9 in general we can say: the more perfect the isnad, the later the tradition. Whenever traditions claim an additional guarantee by presenting themselves as transmitted amongst members of one family, e.g., from father to son and grandson, from aunt to nephew, or from master to freedman, it can be positively shown that these family isnads are not a primary indication of authenticity, but only a device for securing its appeara­nce.10 In other words: the existence of a family isnad, contrary to what it pre­tends, is a positive indication that the tradition in question is not authentic. This applies, for instance, to the legal and historical traditions related, according to their isnads, on the authority of 'Urwa b. Zubayr by his son Hisham, and on the authority of Ibn 'Umar either by his sun Salim or by his freedman Nafi. I do not deny, of course, that 'Urwa was the father of Hisham, or Ibn 'Umar the father of Salim, or that a person called Nafi' was a freedman of Ibn 'Umar. But it is cer­tain that neither 'Urwa nor Ibn 'Umar had anything do to with the traditions in question, and it can even be positively shown that the references to Hisham, Salim, and Nafi' themselves are spurious.

In this critical study Professor Brunschvig examines "historical" tra­ditions relating to the Arab conquest of North Africa and shows how deeply imbued they are with legal interest, how the seemingly straightforward state­ments on historical persons and events are often nothing but decisions of legal problems, provided with alleged historical precedents; he concludes that the whole of the "historical" narrative is subject to grave doubts, that only the barest outlines represent, or are likely to represent, authentic historical recollection, and that the details are unreliable.
-A Revaluation of Islamic Traditions
journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5787564

Bukhari's method of authenticating Hadith falls under his criticism, indeed, you specifically state that bukhari's method of authenticating a hadith by Isnad was as 'rigorous' as todays historian, an attempt to lend credibility.

While modern historians consider the exact opposite, the isnad, the stronger it is under this exact Islamic system you described in your first post in this thread, shows it to be even more fraudulent.

I understand Schacht's argument, so no need to keep quoting that rather large passage.

He believes that just about all Prophetic legal traditions are not authentic, but he is not saying that the better the isnad - according to Bukhari's method - the more likely it is to be fake. He refers specifically to traditions that claim authenticity by use of a family isnad, and also isnads that contain great and famous leaders. Of course he would consider Bukhari's collection to be mostly unauthentic too, but he doesn't cite Bukhari's method per se as being at fault.

vanatos wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 12:01pm:


And how would you know? You started this thread by boldly claiming that Bukhari's "method" consisted of nothing more than sifting through which ahadeeth conformed to the quran, and discarding the rest.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 12:16pm:

He doesn't have to cite bukhari specifically, because his criticism directly targets bukhari's method, just like he doesn't cite specifically every single collector of the traditions he has analyzed.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 12:16pm:

Schact concludes from analysis that the stronger an isnad is under the Islamic system, the more demonstratably it is fraudelent and unreliable, that directly applies to Bukhari's method as stated by your wiki source in the first post in this thread.

Or are you going to keep playing a game of 'i wont read or listen to what you just supplied, give me evidence?


1. You improperly applied the terms of scientific, empirical and 'as rigorous as todays historians' to bukhari's method of authenticating hadith by isnad which is hypocritical since you demand evidence of me about Bukharis method but you conveniently havent given me any evidence of his historical verification that sources met or existed in the same lifetime.

2. You don't even know the quran, because i had to show you where in teh quran it says the moon was split, something you did not accept.

3. You tried to give confidence of the hadith, implying it was as credible in rigor as todays historians, when todays historians consider the Islamic method of authenticating hadith to be absolutely atrocious.

At least do some proper research, come back and post something at least comparable to a scholarly paper in a peer reviewed journal to back up your points.