Hadīths: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Protected "Hadīths" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=1) Epistemic framework= | ==1) Epistemic framework== | ||
==2) Joshua Little's 21 reasons why critical historians are skeptical of Hadīths== | |||
1) Prior probability of false ascription in religious-historical material | 1) Prior probability of false ascription in religious-historical material | ||
| Line 5: | Line 7: | ||
2) The earliest extant collections were recensions from the ninth century onwards | 2) The earliest extant collections were recensions from the ninth century onwards | ||
3) | 3) Hadīths are full of contradictions | ||
4) A large number of | 4) A large number of hadīths suspiciously look exactly like later religious sectarian, political, tribal, familial, and other partisan, polemical and apologetic creations | ||
5) | 5) Hadīths talking about later terms, later institutions, later events, and later phenomena. | ||
6) Putative supernatural explanations for texts have a vanishingly low prior probability of explaining the existence of these reports | 6) Putative supernatural explanations for texts have a vanishingly low prior probability of explaining the existence of these reports | ||
| Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
7) Reports of mass fabrication | 7) Reports of mass fabrication | ||
8) | 8) Isnāds rose relatively late, and became widespread even later | ||
9) Early usage of the word Sunnah was a generic notion of sunnah as good practice, which was not specifically Prophetical, and was independent of | 9) Early usage of the word Sunnah was a generic notion of sunnah as good practice, which was not specifically Prophetical, and was independent of hadīths | ||
10) A rapid numerical growth in | 10) A rapid numerical growth in hadīths can be observed | ||
11) Absence of | 11) Absence of hadīths in early sources | ||
12) Retrojection of | 12) Retrojection of hadīths; ratio of cited hadīths changes from mostly ascribed to followers then to companions then to the Prophet | ||
13) Various peculiar correlations, descriptions, and content that don't make sense as a product of genuine historical transmission but make more sense as a product of later debates and later ascription preferences | 13) Various peculiar correlations, descriptions, and content that don't make sense as a product of genuine historical transmission but make more sense as a product of later debates and later ascription preferences | ||
14) | 14) Hadīths contradicting earlier literary and archeological sources | ||
15) Orality means less precision in transmission | 15) Orality means less precision in transmission | ||
16) Extreme variation, early rapid mutation and distortion across the | 16) Extreme variation, early rapid mutation and distortion across the hadīth corpus | ||
17) Artificial literary or narrative elements; Recurring topoi | 17) Artificial literary or narrative elements; Recurring topoi | ||
18) | 18) Hadīths exhibit telltale signs of storyteller construction | ||
19) Exegetical reports about the context of the | 19) Exegetical reports about the context of the Qur'ān are exegesis in disguise | ||
20) Recurring disconnect between the | 20) Recurring disconnect between the hadīths and the Qur'ān in terms of historical memory | ||
21) There was no effective method for distinguishing between authentic and inauthentic | 21) There was no effective method for distinguishing between authentic and inauthentic hadīths | ||
Latest revision as of 17:43, 17 August 2024
1) Epistemic framework
2) Joshua Little's 21 reasons why critical historians are skeptical of Hadīths
1) Prior probability of false ascription in religious-historical material
2) The earliest extant collections were recensions from the ninth century onwards
3) Hadīths are full of contradictions
4) A large number of hadīths suspiciously look exactly like later religious sectarian, political, tribal, familial, and other partisan, polemical and apologetic creations
5) Hadīths talking about later terms, later institutions, later events, and later phenomena.
6) Putative supernatural explanations for texts have a vanishingly low prior probability of explaining the existence of these reports
7) Reports of mass fabrication
8) Isnāds rose relatively late, and became widespread even later
9) Early usage of the word Sunnah was a generic notion of sunnah as good practice, which was not specifically Prophetical, and was independent of hadīths
10) A rapid numerical growth in hadīths can be observed
11) Absence of hadīths in early sources
12) Retrojection of hadīths; ratio of cited hadīths changes from mostly ascribed to followers then to companions then to the Prophet
13) Various peculiar correlations, descriptions, and content that don't make sense as a product of genuine historical transmission but make more sense as a product of later debates and later ascription preferences
14) Hadīths contradicting earlier literary and archeological sources
15) Orality means less precision in transmission
16) Extreme variation, early rapid mutation and distortion across the hadīth corpus
17) Artificial literary or narrative elements; Recurring topoi
18) Hadīths exhibit telltale signs of storyteller construction
19) Exegetical reports about the context of the Qur'ān are exegesis in disguise
20) Recurring disconnect between the hadīths and the Qur'ān in terms of historical memory
21) There was no effective method for distinguishing between authentic and inauthentic hadīths