(January 14, 2011 at 9:20 pm)annatar Wrote: Some muslims believe that all hadiths are unreliable because its written long after muhammed.
Well, it's a valid argument but,
No, it isn't a valid argument because, despite that you don't seem to have the foggiest idea about what happened between Muhammad PBUH's era and the first hadith collections, you allow yourself to make such sweeping statements. So, your argument, once reformulated, goes as follows:
Premise 1. I read somewhere in the internet that hadiths were written 200 years after the Islamic prophet's death.
Premise 2. I don't have a clue about what happened during these 200 years.
C : Therefore, hadiths are unreliable.
Terrific argument.
(January 14, 2011 at 9:20 pm)annatar Wrote: Al-Bukhari is the main source and most trusted hadith collecter among muslim world. He lived in 8th century and finished collecting hadiths around 846 and he is oldest hadith collector I know.
Well, you should know better. The hadith collection Muwatta Imam Malik is also extremely popular, fairly reliable and earlier than Al Bukhari's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muwatta_Imam_Malik
Quote : "The Muwaṭṭaʾ (Arabic: الموطأ, "well-trodden path") or Muwatta Imam Malik (Arabic: موطأ الإمام مالك) of Imam Malik (711–795) written in the 8th-century, is the earliest collection of hadith texts comprising the subjects of Islamic law, compiled by the Imam, Malik ibn Anas.
