[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: MAIN_Books-Hadith.jpg (240 KB, 1200x600)
240 KB
240 KB JPG
today a muslim came up with this argument, he said:

"islam is much more reliable and trustworthy, since we can track back the hadiths to the original"

he said that no one can proof what jesus said or what he did since there are no real connections back to it. But the hadiths were transfered from one guy to another so you have a list of names which shows the chain.

What do you think about it? I think it proofs nothing, wow you have 100 names tracking back to the prophet who said something, how the fuck are you gonna proof that one of the hundred really said that or that hadith?
>>
>>10516497
The men who narrated the hadith were considered to be morally and mentally sound. If a narrator had any slight defect in these two (if he ever lied, or was found to be forgetful) then the hadith would be considered weak.

Many of the hadith are also verified by multiple companions being present with the prophet at the time of him conveying said message.
>>
abu huraira (famous and prolific narrator of hadiths) said that while people were going to the markets he was memorizing what muhammad said
people had fewer distractions in those days

also what >>10516573 said
>>
>>10516573
>>10516579
Any sources outside of Islamic literature? It’s all Islamic fabricated
>>
>>10516497

the quran is as messed up in copies as is the bible
>>
>>10516591
why aren't islamic sources valid
>>
>>10516573
>Many of the hadith are also verified by multiple companions being present with the prophet at the time of him conveying said message.
How’s that different from the gospels? Lol
>>
>>10516605
Geez I wonder why, maybe because they are in favour of everything to be correct?

Why is everyone asking for non Christian sources when it comes to Jesus but not for muhammed?
>>
>>10516497
>Islam is much more reliable and trustworthy, since we can track back the hadiths to the original

What they forget to mention when they say that the first hadiths that were accepted were not collected until 200 years after the death of Muhammad - and bear in mind they had enough trouble keeping the Quran preserved within the first 50 years and that was a much shorter and easier to remember text.

Other than that we just have to trust that these 6 people collected the right stories because there is no effective way of validating them
>>
All these desert monotheistic religions are vile retrograde garbage for the mind & society. They were created to corral barbaric people that wouldn't stop raping and killing.

That said, Christianity (Catholic mainly) is the most updated and civilised version, with lots of the most evil shit found in Judaism (but kept in Islam) being trimmed off. Many Christians even choose to ignore the Ancient Testament entirely and only follow the word of Jesus.

But the problem with Christianity is that it cannot defend itself against barbarism. Like Buddhism, this is the problem with civilised religions. They lose against barbaric religions that allow things like killing other ethnic groups to enslave them (Islam/Judaism).
>>
>>10516668
dilate, tranny
>>
>>10516497
He's wrong, hadiths are about as historically reliable as the bible.
t. quranist
>>
>>10516609
Because the gospel is made up centuries and decades after the fact in different geographic areas of christian society, and then combined because the byzantines wanted to make a standard christian model
>>
>>10516497
didnt one of the caliphs round up and burn every copy of the quran he didnt like
>>
File: Screenshot_60.png (71 KB, 724x777)
71 KB
71 KB PNG
>>10516778
>Because the gospel is made up centuries and decades
lol good one bro
>>
>>10516762
the quran says to follow the sunna, libshit
>>
File: Screenshot_61.png (25 KB, 1204x261)
25 KB
25 KB PNG
>>10516778
seeth
>>
>>10516804
yeah, uthman
>>
When Were the Four Gospels Written?

When all the evidence is in, it shows that the four gospels were written soon after the events they recorded. An examination of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke show that each one has Jesus predicting the destruction of the city of Jerusalem as well as the temple.

However, none of these writings records the fulfillment. Since the city and temple were both destroyed in the year A.D. 70, there is good reason to believe that these three gospels were written before this destruction took place. The same is true with the Gospel of John. It is written from the perspective of the city of Jerusalem still standing. This would make all four gospels written during the period when eyewitnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, were still alive.

There is also some possible evidence from the Book of Acts as to the early date of the gospels. Acts is the second part of two books written by Luke. There is internal evidence from Acts that it should be dated before the death of Paul. If this is true, then it was composed before A.D. 68. Since Luke’s gospel was written before Acts, that would place it in the early 60’s of the first century or earlier.

Add to this the possibility that Luke may have used Mark as a source; this would mean that we have an earlier date for Mark. Finally, the early church unanimously believed Matthew was the first gospel written. This places the writing of the first three gospels within thirty years of the resurrection of Jesus.

Therefore, between the lack of the recording of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, as well as working back from the end of the Book of Acts we have internal evidence from the New Testament that the gospels were composed fairly soon after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
>>
>>10516497
All religion is alegory for mans condition.
Having one be more "verifiable" than the other is totally useless, because its not about facts.
>>
>>10516826
Yeah, God's sunna. Not anyone else's. Try reading it without bias sometimes.
>>
>>10516762
Don't 99% of muslims consider you guys heretics lol you sound like an IDF subversion officer
>>
>>10516887
I'd say it's an american
not saying it's CIA, but it's CIA
>>
>>10516816
>>10516839
why should i trust christian sources? obviously the christcucks will just claim its true and that it was written after his death
>>
>>10516909

>>10516605
>>
>>10516497
How long before the hadiths were written down, as well as what stops people collectively lying about a hadith?
>>
>>10516497
>>10516573
>>10516579
These are all the same poster. This is yet another blatant shill thread.
>>
>>10516573
>>10516579
"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 Rashidun Caliphate, over 1,000 km (620 mi) from where Muhammad lived."

damn
>>
>>10516497
>we can track back the hadiths to the original

> he said that no one can proof what jesus said or what he did since there are no real connections back to it.

We can do that too, look up Apostolic Succession.
>>
>>10517147
>Mohammed died 632
>Only written down and collected during the 8th and 9th centuries
This should be a big problem to Muslims. This is almost as bad with what Buddhists have with not writing anything down for 500 years after the death of the Buddha.
>>
If you read historical non islamic sources of the early Islam you can see how this tradition is a fabrication.
>>
>>10517659
thats what I thought.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.