Did the Muslims who created the hadith secretly hate Muhammad and Islam?

[Common Soldier]

When you read the hadiths about Muhammad from even the most trusted Muslim sources, what they sometimes say about Muhammad is so bad that it even the worst enemies of Islam would have invented because no one would believe that the stories.

For example, there are hadiths (stories about the sayings and doings of Muhammad, usually short, just a few paragraphs, and often dealing with thr background of a particar verse in the Quran) from the most trusted Muslim sources that tell the following about Muhammad.

1. Muhammad would only get revelations from Allah while wearing his wife Aisha's clothes

2. There was a verse in the Koran about have women suckle grown men who were not their husbands with their breasts as a way to avoid having the men avoid lusting after them. This verse was lost ro thr Koran when a tame sheep ate that part of the Koran when his wices were distracted after Muhammad's death.

3. There was a verse in the Koran about stoning adulterers, but that verse was also lost when eaten by the previously mentioned sheep


4. Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9.

5. Muhammad had his critics killed, including a woman poet who was sleeping with her young child

6. Muhammad initially thought he was possesed by a demon and thought about suicide, but talked out of it by his first wife.

7. The entire Satanic verse thing - your prophet can't tell revelations coming from Satan from those coming from Allah? Maybe the entire Koran comes from Satan and Muhammad was right in his first impression about being demon possesed?

Some of the hadiths might have bothered ancient Muslims, such as Aisha only being 9; even today some Muslim teachers defend such actions, and some Muslim countries like Iran have no minimum age limkt for marriage. And killing your critics might be considered by many Muslims a good thing. But having your prophet wear women's clothing? That sounds like someone inventing a story as an inside joke for people he believed were so gullible that would believe anything.

And losing parts of your perfectly preserved Koran because parts of it were eaten by a sheep? Come on. And having revelations about breeast feeding adult men to avoid lust? No one would ever believe that to be real, but assume they were just invented by the enemies of Islam if those stories hadn't been hadn't come from the Muslims own sources.

Lest anyone think I am inventing these hadiths, here is the one on breast feedinf from Sahih Muslim, which along with Sahih Bukhari are regarded as the most reliable set of hadiths, regarded by most Muslims as second only to the Koran https://quranx.com/Hadith/Muslim/USC...8/Hadith-3425/


Note, when al-Bukhari put together his collection of good hadiths, he had to sort through some 600,000 hadith to find some 7,000 odd hadiths he considered good, meaning something like 98% of a hadiths were bogus. Sahib Muslim had 59 sort through similar numbers, and also found similar small percentage of the hadiths as valid. I wonder whar kind of value system these guys had not come across a hadith on breast feeding adults and not say "Give me a break, this hadith can't bd real". What kind of criteria were they using that allowed breast feeding adult men to avoid lust to pass the muster as legit?

And while some hadiths aren't quite as silly as sheep eating the Koran or breast feedinf adults, they cover such trivial and mundane topics you wonder why anyone care or why they were bothered to be preserved, such as Aisha sharing a tub with Muhammad when she took a bath, or Muhammad could sexually satisfy all his wives in one night because he had the strength of 30 men* https://quranx.com/hadith/Bukhari/US...-5/Hadith-268/

*However there was another hadith that said Muhammad had only imagined he had sex with all his wives in one night https://quranx.com/hadith/Bukhari/US...71/Hadith-660/ Looking at all these hadiths, do you really think they were meant to be taken seriously or were the inventors of them rolling on the floor with laughter?

[Hazzard]

I'm not massively familiar with the culture this came from, but I think it comes from a culture where a lot of these aren't seen as negative in their original context. But I know a little bit about Aisha.

According to some scholars, she is given a young age to guarantee that she's a virgin. And not being a virgin when she marries Muhammad would be worse than marrying a child, because this is not that far removed from the Greek world of pedarasty.

[Common Soldier]

I'm not massively familiar with the culture this came from, but I think it comes from a culture where a lot of these aren't seen as negative in their original context. But I know a little bit about Aisha.

According to some scholars, she is given a young age to guarantee that she's a virgin. And not being a virgin when she marries Muhammad would be worse than marrying a child, because this is not that far removed from the Greek world of pedarasty.

I agree that some of the hadiths likely would not have been considered bad at the time, such as lighting a fire.on a man's chest to torture him ro find our.where he hid some money of a village you conquered. Bur what society would support women breast feeding grown men as a way to avoid lust? And what ancient society would think it ok for men ro wear women's clothing? If anyone other than Muhammad had command it, Muslims would have killed him.

Also, a "sheep" ate the Koran? That is like the dog ate my homework, but since dogs are considered disfusting ans evil creatures, a sheep was used instead. No Muslim would allow a dog to wander in the bedroom and munch on the Koran the way the sheep did.

And some of the wives of Muhammad were widows, so being a virgin was not that important. Muhammad's first wife Khadijah had been married before and was not a virgin either. And any sociery that thinks you have to marry a 9 year old to ensure she is a virgin is a sick and immoral society

Note, despite some ro whitewash Muhammad, few even ancient socieries okayed marriages and having sex with prepubescent girls. Moat societies had a minimum age of around puberty, which back in ancient times would typically be 12 to 14. Only with better nutrition and possibly modern chemical contaminants so you see girls reaching puberty at 9 or 10 https://www.sciencealert.com/girls-a...g-term-effects

I recall one Roman writer making the snide remark when 50 year old Pompey married a 21 year old that the woman would be better suited to be the bride of Pompey's son than Pompey. But I agree that pre-modern Muslims saw nothing wrong with having sex with prebubescent 9 year old girls, they only started having problems with Aisha's when they realized all non-Muslim world, 3/4 of the world thought it disgusting for a 50 year old having sex with a 9 year old. You started seeing Muslims flat out lie and claim Aisha was really 19 or some other lie, but unfortunately for those Muslims there simply too many sources that clearly show Aisha was only 9. You don't see Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Alexander the Great, Caesar, Ghengis Khan Attila the Hun or even Adolph Hitler having sex with 9 yewr old girls.. It shows sick Islamic morality is that it ever thought it was ok.

Note, Muslims frequently flat out lie. The worst was when Yusuf Estes said Alexander the Great founded the Catholic Church in Rome and insisted it was on the Catholic Churches website!! http://en.protothema.gr/alexander-th...m-sheik-video/ So take anything those scholars say with a great deal of skepticism and fact check them.

[Aexodus]

And slavery was considered acceptable in Roman times. This doesn’t mean that following the Roman example through organised religion still isn’t a bad thing.

[wanderwegger]

There are many many gospels, some essential to the early Christian church some less so, and teachings of Church fathers and councils for hundreds of the years, the Hadiths are legion in comparison number. The earliest Hadiths we have weren't written for well over a hundred years after Mohammed, and really much much longer. The oldest gospel included in the NT is 60 or so years after Jesus' death as comparison and the vast majority of Christian gospels were deemed dangerous when the NT testament was assembled in the 300-500 years post Jesus.

Think of the Hadiths as the internet. There is so much crap out there. A lot of stuff built off crap or turned crap over time. The truth is we know barely nothing about Jesus' certain teachings and his contemporaries ignored him but even less about Mohammeds certain teachings even though he exists in some form to contemporaries in the historical record. Jesus more legend than man. But Mohammed is a cipher.

There is good reason one of the earliest and still most respected scholarly pursuits in Islam is judging the quality of Hadiths from real teaching to gobbledygook.

[Common Soldier]

There are many many gospels, some essential to the early Christian church some less so, and teachings of Church fathers and councils for hundreds of the years, the Hadiths are legion in comparison number. The earliest Hadiths we have weren't written for well over a hundred years after Mohammed, and really much much longer. The oldest gospel included in the NT is 60 or so years after Jesus' death as comparison and the vast majority of Christian gospels were deemed dangerous when the NT testament was assembled in the 300-500 years post Jesus.

A few points to make:

1. The oldest gospels (Mark) was written 30 - 40 years after Jesus death, the overwhelming consensus of sxholars is thst Mark was written around 60 to 70's AD. Thr only scholars today whonthink Mark was writren as late as 90 AD are mythicist, who pick thst late a date dor ixeological reasons, not scholastic ones. 60 years (90 AD) is about when the latest of the gospels.was written, although some have given a date for the last gospel, John, as late as 110 - 120 AD. Most.scholars date Joh to around 90 to 100 AD.

2. From an early date most Christians accepted only the 4 Gospels we have as canonical. Dozens (not hundreds as you say) of other gospels mzy have been written, but none of the others were ever acceptrd as canonicL with the same authority as the 4 gospels. The early Church Father Iraneus stated in the second cenruey that there were only the 4 gospels, and early Chirch fathers are not sedn quoting from these other non canonical gospels.

3. In contrast to the 4 gospels which are acceptrd by a branches of Christianity, there was a debate thst continues to this day about the reliabilith of some hadiths. While most Muzlims accept the hadiths from the collections regarded as trustworthy, some Muslims reject all the hadiths, some Muslims accept only some but not all of the hadiths, and others hadiths outside the main hadith collections.?

Think of the Hadiths as the internet. There is so much crap out there. A lot of stuff built off crap or turned crap over time. The truth is we know barely nothing about Jesus' certain teachings and his contemporaries ignored him but even less about Mohammeds certain teachings even though he exists in some form to contemporaries in the historical record. Jesus more legend than man. But Mohammed is a cipher.

It is not that the hadiths themselves that are so much the issue, but that some of these hadiths were accepted as being authentic by most Muslims. You cannot prevent people from making their own gospels or hadiths, anyone can write one, but you don't have to recognize the gospel or hadith as being valid simply because someone wrote it and said it was valid. It is the fact hadiths like the one where parts of the Koran was lost because a sheep ate it, or that Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old, are accepted as valid hadiths in the good collections of hadiths that is the issue. Anyone could write an hadith showing Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old, an enemy.of Islam could havs written, but for Muslims to accept if as a valid and true hadith, as Muslims.do, is another thing.

There is good reason one of the earliest and still most respected scholarly pursuits in Islam is judging the quality of Hadiths from real teaching to gobbledygook.

I question the quality of scholarship that accepts hsdiths that have verses from thr Koran being lost because a pet sheep ate them, or hadiths that talk about verses in the Koran where womdn were commanded to suckle grown men with their breast to avoid lust (fortunately, the said sheep ate those verses). Muslim scholarship accepted those hadiths as valid.

If verses of the Koran being lost due to being eaten by sheep* was regarded by respected scholars as being as being real teaching, I wonder what it would take to be regarded as gobbledygook.

[wanderwegger]

And all muslims accept the Quran. The hadiths are different like the Catholic catechism is different. There are no Islamic sects as out there as say the Mormons are to Christianity.

[Common Soldier]

And all muslims accept the Quran. The hadiths are different like the Catholic catechism is different. There are no Islamic sects as out there as say the Mormons are to Christianity.

True, but the majority of Muslims accept the hadiths as authentic and authoritative as well. 3 out of the 5 essential Pillars of Islam followed by all Muslim are found only on the hadiths. Important Muslim practices universally practiced by Muslims are found only in the hadiths, such as circumcism. So.don't underestimate the importance of the hadiths - for most Muslims, the hadiths are more important than the bible is for.many Christians.

[wanderwegger]

.
.
.
What are your thoughts on the Bible laws on genocide and child marriage?

Girls were married off at puberty in biblical times more often than not so these post sack marry and raping was all little girls.

Abrahamic religions are vile if their holy books are the word of god as they like to claim. Islam no more or less than the others.



17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18

in a different translation

But all the female children that have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves. – Numbers 31:18

and another

Only the little girls may live; you may keep them for yourselves. – Numbers 31:18

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT) – “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 Take her to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

Whedon’s Commentary on the Bible:

Verse 17-18.
The little ones — The object of the command to kill every male was to exterminate the whole nation, the cup of whose iniquity was full. For the righteousness of the mode see Joshua 6:21, note. Every woman who might possibly have been engaged in the licentious worship of Peor was to share the fate of the male children, to preserve Israel from all taint of that abomination. The pure maidens could be incorporated into Israel without peril to the national religion. Joshua 6:23-25, notes. They could not be treated as concubines, since the law against fornication was in full force, (Deuteronomy 22:25-29,) but they could be lawfully married to their captors (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).

Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible:

Numbers 31:18
‘But all the women-children, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.’ But the young women children were a different matter. They could be taken in marriage or as servants and would expect to accept the religion of their new husbands or masters. They would gradually be merged into Israel. Compare Deuteronomy 21:10-14. They would not feel the same responsibility for blood vengeance which was mainly incumbent on the males.

I could go on and on with biblical laws on marrying and raping little girls.
Can you find one law in the Quran on it?

Or just the hadiths. If we want to go to church canon the hadith equivalent of the different sects let me point you to the Mormons. Or the time period in the Christian Europe churches when these hadiths were likely written.

You refuse to acknowledge any argument but your own and constantly state it. You say one thing on this thread and then post the same day in the Slavery thread contradicting yourself. Why should anyone take anything you say in a spirit of respect when you don't respect your own arguments.

And even if you did argue in good faith, why should I respect regurgitated tired anti semitic, racist, pro white europe arguments from you any more than I do from any nazi/kkk/nationist etc on earth?

[Infidel144]

What does any of that have to do with Muhammed and the hadith?

[wanderwegger]

What does any of that have to do with Muhammed and the hadith?

Abrahamic religions not only all come from the same legacies; because of their geographies they have shared much in the interim. Thinking it as the jews begot the christians begot the muslims is silly. Modern Christianity and Islam are interconnected. Their ideas and especially the Judaism of the Persian lands have been influencing each other for centuries and centuries.

To see the Hadiths as coming solely from Muslims is even sillier. They are deeply influenced by Jewish and Christian thought. Jesus is a great teacher in Islam too.

Any conversation about the Hadiths that fails to recognize how essential the Bible is as the source material for the thoughts and ideas expressed is pointless.

The Hadiths ideas about child marriage didn't appear out of thin air. They were passed to them by Christian and Jewish thinkers. Much of Islam as it formed post Mohammed, where the hadiths come from, are the result of the Persian Islamic empires where Jews played an outsized influence (much of what eventually became the duality of Christian thought too, Praise Zoroaster).

It would be like debating what a hamburger tastes like and only describing the meat, no bun, no condiments, no toppings.

[Infidel144]

Show it by tying the specific hadith to the specific verses you quoted. Show how those hadith came from these biblical verses.
Otherwise it is like debating what a hamburger tastes like and you going 'but brussel sprouts'...

[wanderwegger]

Show it by tying the specific hadith to the specific verses you quoted. Show how those hadith came from these biblical verses.
Otherwise it is like debating what a hamburger tastes like and you going 'but brussel sprouts'...

While I find your analogy lacking, I fail to see how that isn't exactly what I did. Common quoted the hadiths discussing child marriage, I quoted the biblical text discussing child marriage which influenced the hadiths. Showing how something this complex happened is for an academic thesis not an internet post. I included some of the how (geography, shared religious views and texts, intermingling of ideas and even got more specific citing the Jews of the Persian Empires who helped compile the hadiths for said empires).

I assumed people were able to follow this because it is commonly assumed in conversation.

[Common Soldier]

.
.
.
What are your thoughts on the Bible laws on genocide and child marriage?

Archeological evidence seems to indicate the E?xodus did not happen, that Hebrews arose locally, and so all thr killing of the Canaanites was a myth. According to thr Bible, the Canaanites were really quicked, so killing them was like bombing German cities in world war 2 and killing hundreds of thoshands of German civilians to stop the Nazis

Girls were married off at puberty in biblical times more often than not so these post sack marry and raping was all little girls.

Nine is not puberty, it is well before puberty in ancient times. Puberty was more like 13 or 14 years old in ancient times, nutrition was not as good. Also Aisha was only 6 when she was married. Even in ancient times 6 was very young to be married

As far as I know, the Bible does not give any specific age when girls were married. The examples you give from the Old Testament are not comparable, since the hadith clearly talks about girls before puberty and the bible does not

Abrahamic religions are vile if their holy books are the word of god as they like to claim. Islam no more or less than the others.

Debatable. The remains of the Twin Towers is a testimony that Islam is more violent, as is ISIS. I don't know of another religion today where believers come all over the world to form an army to conquer countries and impose their ideology on others. Maybe many centuries past, but only Islam is doing it now. Only Muslim countries have the death penalry for leaving one's religion. Only Islamic countries execute adulterers.


Further, the Quran is the regarded by Muslims as the verbatim word of Allah, while the Bible is merely regarded as the inspired word of God by Jews and Christians. The Bible was written by men who were ispired by the Holy Spirit, but since men are.imperfect, it leaves open the possibility the men made mistakes, since nothing men do is entirely perfect Most Christians are willing to accept the bible could have errors, any error in the Koran is unacceptable to Muslims.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
[FONT=&amp]18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18

Those commands are given only with regard to the wicked Canaanites and not general examples given to be followed for all time - they apply to a very specific time and place only, and later Jews did not do such things. Of course, that is if they happened at all. Those who wrote Numbers were writing about things that would have been many hundreds of years in the past.

Or just the hadiths. If we want to go to church canon the hadith equivalent of the different sects let me point you to the Mormons. Or the time period in the Christian Europe churches when these hadiths were likely written.

You show your i?gnorance and lack of understanding - the hadiths are much more than church canon, and they are accepted by thr most of the Muslim.communities, which is not even close to being similar the Mormons, who only represent a small fraction of all Christians

There are fundmanetal differences between the hadiths in this case and the Old Testament you describe:

1. The example of Muhammad in the hadiths is still being followed by Muslims today, the actions you describe are not being done by Jews today, since the Old Testament events were desribing events applicable to a specific and place.

2. Muhammand is supposed to be a role model, an example for the rest of us.. Muhammad is the seal of the prophets. You don't see Moses, Joshua, Jesus, David, Jermiah,Buddha having sex with 9 years old girls,, only Muhammad.

3. Iran has a problem with child brides precisely because of the example.set by Muhammad in the hadiths https://www.newsweek.com/un-condemns...oung-10-423435 If the hadiths had shown Aisha ro be older Iran would have set an older age.

If Jewa and Christians were following the example decribed in Numbers of killing every one but sparing young women of captured land, then the Old Testaments would be a problem, but they aren't, because those pasages you cited were describing past events and only applied to specific time and place. That is something very different.

You refuse to acknowledge any argument but your own and constantly state it. You say one thing on this thread and then post the same day in the Slavery thread contradicting yourself. Why should anyone take anything you say in a spirit of respect when you don't respect your own arguments.

Because I provide a lot of relevant facts while you don't. You on the other hand, routinely say things whixh are not true, and routinely hurl insults wirhout addressing any of the arguments raised. You have yet to answer any of the questions asked you. Why should anyone pay any attention to you when all you do is lie and insult?

And even if you did argue in good faith, why should I respect regurgitated tired anti semitic, racist, pro white europe arguments from you any more than I do from any nazi/kkk/nationist etc on earth?

Why should I bother respond to you when all you do is engage calling in calling names? You don't have to respond, but you have no right to hurl insults as you do.

Please note, this thread about the hadiths, but all you did was post about the Old Testament, apparently you are too ignorant to know the hadiths are not the Old Testament. You are free to create your own thread instead of hikacking this one for your rants.

[Infidel144]

While I find your analogy lacking, I fail to see how that isn't exactly what I did. Common quoted the hadiths discussing child marriage, I quoted the biblical text discussing child marriage which influenced the hadiths. Showing how something this complex happened is for an academic thesis not an internet post. I included some of the how (geography, shared religious views and texts, intermingling of ideas and even got more specific citing the Jews of the Persian Empires who helped compile the hadiths for said empires).

I assumed people were able to follow this because it is commonly assumed in conversation.

Then show the specific hadith coming from those biblical verses. Provide quotes from the compilers stating it. Otherwise you are just making declarative statements.
If your intent is to change the focus to something you find less disturbing, such as criticizing Old Testament verses, then you might be better off starting a thread to do so.

[wanderwegger]

Plenty of Christian atrocities that make the twin towers seem like nothing.

What would archeological evidence matter here? Contemporary evidence can't even confirm Jesus was a real person, certainly can't confirm Moses was, doesn't mean the influence isn't real?

Where in the Quran does it say marry young girls? We have established it says it repeatedly in the Bible.

Plenty of places in Africa where Christians marry young girls today. Used to be plenty of places in Europe and the US too not so long ago. Who are you kidding?

Your views of the bible are incredibly unique. I will give you that. Your views on Islam are straight out of a far right primer.

How exactly would bronze age warfare achieve a quick death like bombing (which also probably was as rosy as you make it out to be)? Game it out for us.

[wanderwegger]

Then show the specific hadith coming from those biblical verses. Provide quotes from the compilers stating it. Otherwise you are just making declarative statements.
If your intent is to change the focus to something you find less disturbing, such as criticizing Old Testament verses, then you might be better off starting a thread to do so.

How about this (since its clear you know nothing of the Hadiths or how the study of history works); you prove to me that these hadiths were written by Muslims, the compilers showing the authenticity of their authorship? My declarative statements aren't mine at all. You can find them in any divinity school or history text.

I thought it was clear I am disturbed by all Abrahamic religions. Not one over the other. I think any religion whose holy texts support marriage to young girls is a morally corrupt religion. Do you disagree?

[Infidel144]

How about this (since its clear you know nothing of the Hadiths or how the study of history works); you prove to me that these hadiths were written by Muslims, the compilers showing the authenticity of their authorship? My declarative statements aren't mine at all. You can find them in any divinity school or history text.

You are now trying to shift the burden of proof. You made assertions, the burden of proof is on you.

I thought it was clear I am disturbed by all Abrahamic religions. Not one over the other. I think any religion whose holy texts support marriage to young girls is a morally corrupt religion. Do you disagree?

Yet you claim to be disturbed by the hadith criticism focused on the age of Aisha, indeed you presume to speak for everyone in that regard, but then go on to provide Torah verses when the OP continues.
So it was just whataboutery.

[Common Soldier]

Abrahamic religions not only all come from the same legacies; because of their geographies they have shared much in the interim. Thinking it as the jews begot the christians begot the muslims is silly. Modern Christianity and Islam are interconnected. Their ideas and especially the Judaism of the Persian lands have been influencing each other for centuries and centuries.

This is not about the past it is about today. Unlike for Jews and Christians, Muslims are stilling doing large scale killing solely in the name of religion, Jews and Christians no longer are. Islam snd Christianity are not interconnected, they are different While Islam might havd plagarized from Christianity, that does not make thrm interconnected. Islamic culture might havd influence Christisn culture, the Islamic religion has not exerted influence modern Christianity. The main influence of Islam on medieval Christianity was to inspire the Crusades, the Crusades being isnpired by centuries of Islamic Jihads agsinst non Muslims in the centuries before the Crusades.

To see the Hadiths as coming solely from Muslims is even sillier. They are deeply influenced by Jewish and Christian thought. Jesus is a great teacher in Islam too..

What you say shows total ignorance and is completely ridiculous, total nonsense. Only someone who obviously has never read the hadiths could make so stupid a claim, real idiotic.

The hadiths deal with the life and actions of Muhammad and sbow no influence whatever from Christianity. The concerns of Muhammad are alien to Christian thought ans thr behaviour of Muhammad are the anti-thesis of the ideal of a Christian leader, including Jesus:

1. The Christian leader ideal is one of sexual abstinance, refraining from sex - men like John, Jesus, Paul were not married and Paul exicitedly states it is better to remain singls if you can. In absolute contrast, the hadiths Muhammad's sexual prowess, how Muhammad could satisfy all 9 of his wives in a single night.

2. Christians are expected to live by a higher standard than others. Again in contrast, Muhammad is given special dispensation so the rules that applies to others do not apply to Muhammad and these rules aplly only to Muhammad

3. Hadiths are full of concerns of this world like wills, women menstrual cycles, and how eclipses singles the death of someone and stars are missiles thst are shor at demons to prevenr the demons from spying on the angels. The concerns of the hadiths show zero influence from Christianity.

4. There are a number of hadiths covering when you can divorce and remarriage, of how you cannot divorce a woman while she is menustrating, how long you have to wait, when you can remarry. None of that came from Christianity or Judaism for that matter.

Any conversation about the Hadiths that fails to recognize how essential the Bible is as the source material for the thoughts and ideas expressed is pointless.

Please point.out to me where it says that stars are missiles to shoot at demons al-Bukhari Vol 5 Book 44 Hadirh 3324 https://sunnah.com/urn/680350

Or where thr Bible talks about its prophets could have sex with all their wives on a single night like Muhammad al-Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 62 Hadith 142 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/148.

The Hadiths ideas about child marriage didn't appear out of thin air.

The hadiths all come from the examples of Muhammad's life, not Jewish or Christian writers.

They were passed to them by Christian and Jewish thinkers.

Outright lie and shows total ignorance. Christian thinkers did not say much on the age of marriage, leaving it up to local society. You are also being dishonest as well. Most societies regarded puberty as when a kid became an adult, and Christians never okayed sex before puberty, so by definition a girl married at puberty was no longer a girl. The issue with Muhammad and the hadiths is that Muhammad had sex with a girl before puberty - at 9, Aisha would not yet have reached puberty. The Quran recognizesnsex with pre-pubescent girls by giving directions on divorcing girls who haven't started menstrating Surah 65:4
??????

Much of Islam as it formed post Mohammed, where the hadiths come from, are the result of the Persian Islamic empires where Jews played an outsized influence (much of what eventually became the duality of Christian thought too, Praise Zoroaster).

True, much of Islam was likely formed post Muhammad, but the hadiths were not influenced by Christianity, but mostly by tribal Arab customs. I don't see any Perian influence.

Please tell me what Persia influence created this hadith, which tells the story of how Muhammad putnhis head between the thighs of his menustrating wife ro warm himself? Al-Adab Al-Mufrad https://sunnah.com/search?q=pet+sheep+

Or this hadith about divorce - a man who divorces his wife, and she marries another marries another man wbo also divorces her, cannot remarry the first husband unless the 2nd husband had consummated the marriafd al-Bukhari Vol. 7 Book 63 Hadith 187 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/68/11 Exactly where was the Persian source for that hadith? (A man cannot remarry a woman he divorces until she remarries, and until a marriage is consumated, it does not count.)

I have never debated a topic with someone as truly ignorant of the subject as you.

[Common Soldier]

How about this (since its clear you know nothing of the Hadiths or how the study of history works); you prove to me that these hadiths were written by Muslims, the compilers showing the authenticity of their authorship? My declarative statements aren't mine at all. You can find them in any divinity school or history text.

I am assuming it is all an act and you are just pretending you are totally ignorant of the hadith and never read one in life. The hadiths are all about Muhammad, and each hadith as a chain of Muslim witnesses going back to Muhammad!!! This chain of transmision is what makes the hadith authentic and why.collectors included them.

Your question either shows you know nothing at all, or you just are pretending to be ignorant. If you were not pretending ignorance, you would be literally the most ignorant person I have ever met debated on a subject. The collections I gave you were collected by Muslims, and collections are regarded as authentic by Muslims. Muslims acknoweledge this. Here is a Muslim site saying thst Al-Bukhari has one of the 2 most respected books of hadiths https://www.the-faith.com/islamic-hi...cholar-hadith/ .

I thought it was clear I am disturbed by all Abrahamic religions. Not one over the other. I think any religion whose holy texts support marriage to young girls is a morally corrupt religion. Do you disagree?

So show me where Christianity specifically supports marriage to young girls? By Christianity, I mean major respected Christian thinkers and theologians, and by young, those younger than 12. Even if a person claims to be Christian, you agree that his actions might not always be in accordance with his professed religion. Jesus never married any young girls, nor did Paul, nor does the Bible show any of the majorbiblicsl characters marrying girls young girls. Nor do we find any records showing Buddha having sex with a 9 years old. Muhammad stands alone among the main religious leaders in committing statutory rape in any country but Muslim ones. (Some Muslim countries, like Iran, following Muhammad's wonderful example, allow.sex with 9 years old.)