I wouldn't go that far but good for him. Sunnis deify hadith and the saxaba to a great extent tbh.
Also, that's not what he said? He's just saying depending on what assumptions you take, you arrive at different conclusions. No where did he say any of the stuff in the title. Kinda clickbaity ngl.
You know i ain't lying tho.
I call bs on this. From my own understanding, most hadiths stand on shaky ground. Some muslims groups believed the same. Only later did they become this thing thats almost a second quran. Thats when things started going downhill imhoIf hadith science was western they would hold it in the highest regard ever. Hadith science took the the lives blood and sacrifices of many muslims to uphold. Western standard is a fart in comparison they take things from anecdotal evidence and clearly biased point of views, only fair representation of vikings came from Muslims cause other westerners would lie all the time and make stupid assumptions or not even know the language they are writing books about a domain for the entitled brats. To be fair to yasir qadi he was only listing what the western academia believe, however I still dont like him because of his zombie gog and magog theories
Another stupid kid who doesn't know what he is talking about. Hadith authenticity is clearer than any other historic text. Multiple chains leading to the same hadith, each narrator is verified and would be dismissed if he even had small inconvenience about him. Hadith like Quran is guarded by allahI call bs on this. From my own understanding, most hadiths stand on shaky ground. Some muslims groups believed the same. Only later did they become this thing thats almost a second quran. Thats when things started going downhill imho
The chain being correct does not imply the contents of the hadith are also correct. The westerners are not the first to look at hadith with suspicion. Lots of other muslims were before them.Another stupid kid who doesn't know what he is talking about. Hadith authenticity is clearer than any other historic text. Multiple chains leading to the same hadith, each narrator is verified and would be dismissed if he even had small inconvenience about him. Hadith like Quran is guarded by allah
Muslim, Bukhari and their like are super overrated imho. They did hard work sure, but they were off the mark.
You have to remember most of the time the nebi csw was not addressing people one on one but rather he would address a large number of people at once. So those people would all internalise his words and pass it on to next couple generations like this. And you have to remember these are the same couple generations that became xaafidul quraan without touching the mushaf. These axaadiith saxiix ah that bukhaari and muslim et al were compiling were collected from all these different people who heard from different people and from a whole 30 seconds worth of speech just maybe one word has a synonym with another narrator. And even that is scrutinised based on the worthiness of the chainThe chain being correct does not imply the contents of the hadith are also correct. The westerners are not the first to look at hadith with suspicion. Lots of other muslims were before them.
I just can't trust something that has been written literal hundreds of years after the prophet. Especially with something as important as islam. Others believed this as well saying that the only hadiths that could be used in matters of theology were mutawatir hadith.
Muslim, Bukhari and their like are super overrated imho. They did hard work sure, but they were off the mark.