Is the Hadith a Forgery?

[ScienceAf]

How are the hadiths authentic, at least from what I read I found no mention of hadiths in the Qur'an.
And the Qur'an supposedly has all the answers to all the questions.

The Qur'an is clearly based on the Old Testament, and the Hadiths are simply the equivalent of the New Testament. That is the way I see it anyway. Made up bollocks to just persuade sheep to join.

The Qur'an acknowledges that those bibles are bullshit and the original bible is the ingel, no old or new testament.
Just Ingel.

[RobertE]

The Qur'an is clearly based on the Old Testament, and the Hadiths are simply the equivalent of the New Testament. That is the way I see it anyway. Made up bollocks to just persuade sheep to join.

The Qur'an acknowledges that those bibles are bullshit and the original bible is the ingel, no old or new testament.
Just Ingel.

Injil. Either way, it is still bullshit. Just one pleb who spoke to a bunch of illiterate people and they took his word for it. Many people in the United States are intelligent, but it doesn't stop them believing in the Intelligent Design, or the God of the gaps. So, imagine what it would have been like in and around 600AD. 

What it means to be literate is not an absolute standard even now.  This was even more true in the Middle Ages when the majority of the population couldn’t read at all, a certain percentage could read and not write, and the only way to be ‘literate’ at the time was if a person could read Latin.  Literacy in other languages didn’t count.

This was medieval England at the time where you were considered literate if you could read latin. Again, all it takes is one person who is intelligent enough to lead a bunch of sheep.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think there's some confusion over what is meant by the term 'forgery'.

Forgery is sort of a sub-category of fraud, but with a significant difference. In order for a hadith to be a forgery, someone would have had to have made a copy of an 'authentic' hadith, and tried to pass it off as the genuine article. In that sense, at least, the idea that ANY hadith are forged is not provable.

But even if we accept all hadith as genuine/authentic, that says nothing about their truth or falsity. In essence, a hadith is a report of something Muhammad said or did. Such a report can be genuine (not forged) and still be untrue.

And the reason that the hadith are not mentioned in the Q'ran is that hadith are, by definition, things that are not mentioned in the Q'ran.

Boru

[ScienceAf]

I think there's some confusion over what is meant by the term 'forgery'.

Forgery is sort of a sub-category of fraud, but with a significant difference.  In order for a hadith to be a forgery, someone would have had to have made a copy of an 'authentic' hadith, and tried to pass it off as the genuine article.  In that sense, at least, the idea that ANY hadith are forged is not provable.

But even if we accept all hadith as genuine/authentic, that says nothing about their truth or falsity.  In essence, a hadith is a report of something Muhammad said or did.  Such a report can be genuine (not forged) and still be untrue.

And the reason that the hadith are not mentioned in the Q'ran is that hadith are, by definition, things that are not mentioned in the Q'ran.

Boru

Hmm.
So it's not a forgery.
It's worse.

It's bullshit.

~ Love
Science

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think there's some confusion over what is meant by the term 'forgery'.

Forgery is sort of a sub-category of fraud, but with a significant difference.  In order for a hadith to be a forgery, someone would have had to have made a copy of an 'authentic' hadith, and tried to pass it off as the genuine article.  In that sense, at least, the idea that ANY hadith are forged is not provable.

But even if we accept all hadith as genuine/authentic, that says nothing about their truth or falsity.  In essence, a hadith is a report of something Muhammad said or did.  Such a report can be genuine (not forged) and still be untrue.

And the reason that the hadith are not mentioned in the Q'ran is that hadith are, by definition, things that are not mentioned in the Q'ran.

Boru

Hmm.
So it's not a forgery.
It's worse.

It's bullshit.

~ Love
Science

Of course it's bullshit. This is news?

Hugs and kisses,

Boru

[ScienceAf]

Hmm.
So it's not a forgery.
It's worse.

It's bullshit.

~ Love
Science

Of course it's bullshit.  This is news?

Hugs and kisses,

Boru

No homo but xoxo.

[Minimalist]

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

Given their nature, how could they be anything but?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

The hadith literature is based on spoken reports that were in circulation in society after the death of Muhammad. Unlike the Qur'an the hadiths were not quickly and concisely compiled during and immediately after Muhammad's life.[3] Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries, generations after the death of Muhammad, after the end of the era of the "rightful" Rashidun Caliphate, over 1,000 km (620 mi) from where Muhammad lived.

Different branches of Islam (Sunni, Shia, Ibadi, Ahmadiyya) refer to different collections of hadith, and the relatively small sect of Quranists reject the authority of any of the hadith collections.[10][11]

Fucking mohammed must have gotten around, huh?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But something passed down in oral tradition doesn't necessarily qualify as a forgery.

Boru

[Minimalist]

That's the best that "god" could do?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Immaterial. The question before is isn't whether the ahadith are holy, but whether they're forged.

Boru