Is the Hadith a Forgery?

[Minimalist]

Experience shows that oral tales are not reliably transmitted from person to person.  There is no way to verify what they originally said.... if they said anything.

Which still doesn't make them forgeries.

Boru

It is a word which is used much too loosely, and not always in our century.  For example,  the Acts of Pilate, was denounced as a forgery in the 4th century by Eusebius himself, the probable forger of the Testimonium Flavianum.

Having forged, to be sure, Memoirs of Pilate and Our Saviour, full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, with the approval of their chief they sent them round to every part of his dominions, with edicts that they should be exhibited openly for everyone to see in every place, both town and country, and that the primary teachers should give them to the children, instead of lessons, for study and committal to memory. (H. E. 9.5.1)

Here's the thing, we can't know the intention of the author of Acta Pilati.  It could have been merely the literary musings of a man who said "suppose Pilate had written a report about the crucifixion.... what would it have said."  Such an author is not responsible for the actions of later believers who accepted his musings as factual.  Thus there may have been no intent to defraud.  Unlike what Eusebius himself did with the TF in which he wrote in exactly what a good 4th century jesus freak would want to see in a first century document to make himself feel better about his godboy.

Another example being the so-called Pastoral Epistles of Paul.  These are at least late 2d century documents which no one living at the time would have assumed were written by "paul" who they set in the first century.  They are pseudoepigraphical [ http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pseudepigraphy : noun1.
 the false ascription of a piece of writing to an author. ]

and certainly dishonest in that whoever wrote them was trying to enhance their authority by giving the name of a revered writer of the past but did he actually write them and expect people to think they were pauline or did later believers simply like what they saw and vacuumed them up into their canon?  We can never know for certain.  But then, so much of the NT is pseudoepigraphical with only the dumbest of fundies still thinking that their so-called gospels were written by the people whose names are attached to them.

In the case of the hadith there seem to be political ramifications to them for the various sects claiming support for their beliefs over and above other sects and that almost certainly ensures tampering which would rise to the level of forgery in that there is intent to defraud.  The most certain evidence is when they contradict each other - something known even to muslims.

https://pressthat.wordpress.com/2007/05/...y-hadiths/

I chose a favorite.

2) TURNING TOWARD MECCA DURING URINATION OR DEFECATION
The first contradictory hadith: You must not turn yourself to Mecca while you are urinating or defecating.
Hanbal

The second contradictory hadith: Having witnessed that certain people avoided turning toward Mecca while urinating or defecating, the Prophet had his toilet designed pointing to Mecca to avoid pandering superstitions.
Bukhari

Whereas in one hadith it is stressed that one should not direct oneself toward Mecca while urinating or defecating, in another, the Prophet is illustrated doing exactly the contrary of what is firmly believed. As one can see, to ascribe things to the Prophet devoid of any justification is to cast aspersion on him.

[Brian37]

It depends on your personal beliefs about history.
History is written by the victors, also history in the Ancient world wasn't documented probably; you can see examples allover the world.

Even natives of Arabia and Persia are fighting for 1400 years over history books and Hadith books.

Personally? I quit believing in the Hadith. I can never trust its authors.

The Hadiths are really no different than calling it a supplement "side book" like the Torah and Talmud are to Jews and "The book of Mormon" are to Mormons.

Main holy books and their supplements are still based on the naked assertion that the claimed god of each has rules and a plan, but they all are under the idea that a fictional super hero exists. It is basically humans guessing at what they think a god wants, be it in the main book or the supplement. 

You shouldn't trust the Hadiths or Quran or Bible or Torah or Talmud or Bible or Buddha or the Vedas. You should value our modern knowledge over antiquity written by humans who didn't know any better.

[ScienceAf]

It depends on your personal beliefs about history.
History is written by the victors, also history in the Ancient world wasn't documented probably; you can see examples allover the world.

Even natives of Arabia and Persia are fighting for 1400 years over history books and Hadith books.

Personally? I quit believing in the Hadith. I can never trust its authors.

Yeet.

[WinterHold]

The Ummah needs more wise people like you to lead it Atlas. It must be saved from itself. Reform is inevitable.

They lost their souls when they allowed people like the Sauds to lead; and accepted the Wahhabi school to control their lives.
The Ummah allowed ignorance to lead, and just accepted the state of blindness that they caused themselves to dwell into.

Brian37

The differences between Islam and other beliefs or even lack of belief, should never give Muslims the excuse to be what they are now.

Sunni/Shia versions of Islam call for blood, vengeance, and ship insanity right to the doorstep of each believer; they threaten difference with the sword and control people with collars like cattle.

I can track every violent idea islamists do and believe in, to a non-Islamic source; mainly to Middle Eastern customs. One famous example is the Niqab:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b..._face_veil 

The Hadiths are really no different than calling it a supplement "side book" like the Torah and Talmud are to Jews and "The book of Mormon" are to Mormons.

Main holy books and their supplements are still based on the naked assertion that the claimed god of each has rules and a plan, but they all are under the idea that a fictional super hero exists. It is basically humans guessing at what they think a god wants, be it in the main book or the supplement. 

You shouldn't trust the Hadiths or Quran or Bible or Torah or Talmud or Bible or Buddha or the Vedas. You should value our modern knowledge over antiquity written by humans who didn't know any better.

In Wahhabi schools, that is the first rule they teach.

"Al Ketab (Quran) Wal Sunnah"
or in English "the book (Quran) and the Sunnah".

Though, here's where I differ in my faith. I think the Sunnah was written under the pressure of politics, gold and threats.
Having access to these sources in the native language, I found so many contradictions, prophecies that never happened, and hilarious pieces of text.
Above all, they were written 200 years after Mohammed's death; after storms of warfare and military coups took the Ummah.

The Quran on the other hand, was always a single piece. We don't have different Qurans, it's always the same, and collected versions proved this.
Then, reading through it is not a hilarious experience. Actually, it's terrifying and cheering, depending on how a person cuts through the day.

SciencAF

Knock-knock!

[The Grand Nudger]

"I don't believe those other books, for reasons™ which my favorite bedtime story is exempted from."

[downbeatplumb]

Given their nature, how could they be forgeries? What would it mean for the Hadiths to be forgeries?

Indeed there is no real Christianity or Islam or whatever because it is all made up. None of it is inspired or written by god or gods so all the papers letters and books associated with them are not real. Is the suggestion that the hadith is like Marvel fan fiction and not part of Iron mans official cannon?

[ReptilianPeon]

I wish I could give you more Kudos Atlas. You know, here's an interesting little fact: there's currently a war going on between the members of the Cult of Najd in my country. Remember that Adnan Rashid guy who defends stoning?

Well he's now upset that "DawahMan" is misrepresenting people like Haytham al-Hadad (crime: hanging out with Shiites and promoting tolerance, despite being a member of the Cult of Najd who are known for their intolerance) and Yasir Qadi (crime: according to DawahMan Yasir Qadi's lecturing job at Yale University has corrupted him and now believes the Quran has been changed). He suspects DawhMan may have mental health problems (which is something I've always thought because he's often so hyperactive and rude). He is also upset at DawahMan's cronies for supporting him. Yasir Qadi (very popular individual) left the Cult of Najd a few years ago so that's probably with DawahMan is butthurt, because his cash-cow is a dying breed (e.g. some of them go and fight for al-Saud's Henchmen).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaF3M89aqtc