[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[WinterHold]

So says Islamic tradition. Do we have historical evidence to back this up?

According to Catholic tradition, Mary was perpetually a virgin and assumed into heaven upon her death. Doesn't make it true.

Even so, all this shows is that Muhammad was exceptionally good with Arabic words. So even in your description of the tradition you speak of, you don't bring up anything blatantly miraculous.

Everything reliable islamic tradition says is based on Isnad which, roughly speaking, determines the degree of confidence we can have about some particular statement Muhammad said, and we do that by looking at the chain of known historical figures who reported the subject and how truthful they are etc.

It's a complicated subject, and actually an entire field of study in Islamic theology given its importance. It's enough to know that it was acclaimed even by orientalist scholars:



If Muhammad's challenge is successful, there is no way around warranting a supernatural entity. How else can one explain uttering extraordinarily good literature dealing with all aspects of life and challenging all the future generations to come up with anything remotely comparable.

Also, his claim was by and large falsifiable, as any contemporary could've noticed an internal inconsistency or come up with his own version of a holy book, but none of that was reported despite the Qur'an itself reporting all the famous objections made by Meccan pagans to Muhammad's message.

This might seem like empty words to anyone who doesn't understand Arabic. But I think it's enough for a nonnative speaker to know that Arabic grammar itself was built in large parts around the literary themes of this holy book.

Translating the Arabic text so people can understand:

"     Though the "theory of Isnad" did make a lot of problems become mandatory because search about the validity of reciters does cause that, and because the forging of Hadiths was a common thing and sometimes was taken lightly; but the value of the "theory of Isnad" in achieving accuracy is in a position of no doubt; Muslims have the right to be proud with the science of Hadith. "

Anyways; this is one text from Islamic books; right?
Read it once..Read it twice.....

Hell read it thrice.

Isn't there something wrong? the author is saying "forging Hadith was common"..then in the end takes a blind leap of faith regarding the authenticity of what he himself called "forged" a few line back..

Nothing is wrong??

---

A very interesting link from wikipedia says:

Mainstream Muslim view

Muslims view this hadith as notable and important on several accounts: several prominent persons are mentioned in the hadith and several controversial issues are dealt with.
Sunni view

Muhammad Husayn Haykal
“ Umar ibn al-Khattab once tried to deal with the problem of committing the Hadith to writing. The companions of the Prophet whom he consulted, encouraged him, but he was not quite sure whether he should proceed. One day, moved by God's inspiration, he made up his mind and announced: "I wanted to have the traditions of the Prophet written down, but I fear that the Book of God might be encroached upon. Hence I shall not permit this to happen." He, therefore, changed his mind and instructed the Muslims throughout the provinces: "Whoever has a document bearing a prophetic tradition, shall destroy it." The Hadith, therefore, continued to be transmitted orally and was not collected and written down until the period of al-Mamun.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_..._on_hadith

So Hadith -even by very very very very early Islamic Sunni tradition; was "to be burned down", until Ummayads ruled and changed the rule.