>accounts taken from a guy who kew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew Muhammad.
>the very earliest ones written and compiled over 200 years after even Ali was long dead
>Folkloric. Taken largely from commoner's knowledge. Commoners whose forefathers never even knew Muhammad.
>Work of Man. Doesn't even try to pass itself off as God given or even inspired.
>Contradictory and corrupt (admitted to be this even by Muslims)
>Based on the seeming moral character of enformants instead of the consistency and sense of their claims
Literally why is anyone, Muslim or otherwise, stupid enough to take the Hadiths as legitimate Historical records/Religious writings?
Many things like the Nahjul Balagha (sermons of Ali) were firsthand accounts, and many narrations come from Muhammad's family.
This is a gross oversimplification of the complexity of Hadith authenticity. While we should be very scrutinous with Hadiths, it doesn't mean much of it isn't true.
Also compilation =! Originally written. Bukhari may have compiled some hadiths but those existed before he compiled them. Though the Umayyads were self-serving and did distort much of the Sunna
MUH TRADITION MUFUGGA
MUH DIVINE GUIDANCE
>>1342568
But the earliest ones were written down around the same time it was compiled.
And while members of Muhammad's family are narrators, they are cited by a subnarrator who is cited in a chain. It's still a game of Telephone with Arab peasants no matter how much effort you use to collect them. It's folklore. And treating it as anything more than that is rediculous. Fair point on The Peak of Eloquence.
But there's no way of knowing if that was actually Ali who gave the sermons or if it was the handiwork of one of the many Ghulat sects that claimed to have some esoteric documents attributed to one of the Ahlu Bayt they worshipped.
The latter is pretty likely.
