Limitations Inherent Within a Human-Developed Quality Check Process

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Limitations Inherent Within a Human-Developed Quality Check Process." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2024.  [cartoon pending] Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE  below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!
************************************* Q: If atheists are good at criticising Christianity and the Bible, why is it so hard for them to criticise Muhammad and the Islamic texts, since there is so much low hanging fruit for ammunition such as Muhammad’s pedophilia?
Krister Sundelin (atheist) - There are several reasons.
The first is that many atheists in the west have no real knowledge about Islam. We live, after all, mostly in countries dominated or formerly dominated by Christianity. Not only that, but many Christians are very in your face about their Christianity, just like you are. So we know more about Christianity than Islam.
The second is again a consequence of living in countries dominated or formerly dominated by Christianity. While many Christians spread their faith to any and everyone regardless if the audience wants it or not, Muslims in the west is a minority, and therefore mostly keep their religion to themselves as to not stand out so much and offend the host country.
The third is a corrollary to the second: the reason that we criticise Christianity is that you push it on us all the time. That merits a response. Muslims generally do not push their religion on anyone else, but when they do, they get the same kind of response.
I am also a bit surprised about your hangup on Muhammad’s pedophilia, and just gloss over the pedophilia of about a gazillion Christian priests – something which is still happening and which is even lower-hanging fruit than Muhammad’s.
You know, John 8:7, Matthew 7:5 and so on.
Ian MacKinnon - How old was Aisha when she got married? As for the Catholic priests, reprehensible no doubt, but their actions don't excuse pedophilia by others-pure "whataboutism, no?
Jake Mikelson - Aisha was 6 when married and 9 when the marriage was consummated. In today’s world we find this disgusting and reprehensible. However this was fairly standard in the ancient world.
The issue is that Muhammad is meant to be “the most perfect human” and so we should follow his example. Of course this is ridiculous and he was a product of his environment and time.
Starbuck - There are numerous misconceptions regarding Aicha's age.
Before she married the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Aicha was already betrothed to a polytheist named Jubayr ibn Mutim, which can only suggest she was much older than the hadith would have us believe.
The Qur'an which has an authoritarian character and does not mention the age of marriage, it forbids if a person lacks biological maturity as well as emotional, psychological, intellectual, and moral maturity.
And this is evident from the following verse;
"Test the orphans' ability until they reach marriageable age. Then if you think they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them. And don't consume it wastefully and hastily before they grow up to demand it. If the guardian is right" ~(Qu'ran 4:6)
In Bukhari we read: “O young men, whoever of you is able to bear the responsibilities of marriage, may he/she enter into marriage. This will lower his gaze and keep him/her chaste. Whoever is unable, let him/her fast. Because fasting reduces (physical) desire.” ~(Bu. 62:4)
The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said also:
"The widow and the divorced woman should not be given in to marriage until an order is received from her, and the virgin should not be given in marriage until permission has been obtained from her" ~(Bu. 67:42)
So we see that Allah the Exalted protects individuals who are not intellectually capable of bearing the obligation of a marriage.
In summary, someone who thinks rationally understands that Aicha must have been far older than the given age.
Partly because Aisha would not have joined the combat in Uhud if the Prophet had not issued a ruling requiring everyone wishing to fight to be at least 15 years old.
This including Abdullah ibn Umar, Zaid ibn Thabit, Usama ibn Zayd ibn Harithah, Abu Saeed al Khudri, and Zaid ibn Arqam. They all were sent away, except for Raf'i ibn Khadij who was 14 years, he was asked to remain because he was an excellent archer.
Jake Mikelson - The majority of Muslims scholars do not contest the age of Aisha and is a somewhat recent approach by modern Muslims to try and come to terms with the concept that their prophet married and had sex with a 9 year old child.
However, if you say that the Quran and Muhammed was from a time long long ago then that is a different story. These types of marriages to young girls was not uncommon. But in today’s modern society this is disgusting and reprehensible which is why Muslims try to bury it or make up excuses or stories that she was much older.
Starbuck - Let's assume for the sake of argument that what the Hadith states is true, then we are left with the question of why the Prophet was not accused of this act?
For his enemies, the polytheists sought every opportunity to discretize him, he was accused of a liar, a madman, a sorcerer yet never was he accused of marrying a 9 years old, why is that?
Jake Mikelson - There is no need to assume for the sake of argument. The Hadiths are considered Sahih so they are authentic and accurate.
Starbuck wrote: "we are left with the question of why the Prophet was not accused of this act?"
There is nothing to “accuse” him of. Marriage of young girls was fairly common 1,400 years ago, so what would they accuse him of? However, so was slavery if you want to make that case.
As I stated, even Zainab the daughter of Muhammed was around 10 when she was married. His daughter Ruqqaya was also betrothed when she was 9.
So the issue is not specially that Muhammed married a 9 year old, but that Muhammed is supposed to be the prophet of God! Is this the behavior and example you would expect from the chosen one of God? And to be held up as the perfect human and an example for all mankind for all time?!
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “The Hadiths are considered Sahih so they are authentic and accurate”
“Sahih/authentic” means that the person being interviewed passed the hadith collector’s quality check test. It doesn’t mean the content of the hadith really came from the person.
Jake Mikelson - As you say, it passed the quality control of the interviewer to determine that the person that has memorized the hadith is honest and trustworthy, along with the chain of narration.
It doesn’t mean that the person himself said the words (hadith), but it can be reliably traced back to the source (i.e. Muhammad).
The stamp of “sahih” is the highest grade a hadith can be given, therefore it should be taken as accurate.
Muhammad Rasheed - Again, all that Sahih/authentication means is that the hadith collector had a checklist they used to determine if the person being interviewed could be trusted or not. They could not verify whether the interviewee was passing along a false hadith or not, only that as far as the interviewee themselves knew, it was real and they weren’t deliberately passing along false info.
“Sahih/authentication” is only a limited QC tool, it is not proof that the hadith did in fact come from the prophet and the sahaba. Other methods need to be used to determine that next level of QC, including whether the hadith align to the letter and/or spirit of the Word of Allah (Qur’an).
Jake Mikelson - I agree with most of what you said. However, determining what is really real and not would prove almost impossible. If a person has been deemed trustworthy, honest and a keeper of hadith, that is as close as we could possibly get. I understand Bukhari had a very strict grading system and would only accept hadith from the highest quality of people, even 1 small concern caused him to disregard many.
It seems to me, from discussions I've had with Muslims, they will reject hadith that make Muhammad look bad and only accept positive ones.
This is intellectual dishonesty.
If a hadith has been graded as sahih then you would need a very compelling argument to disregard it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “I agree with most of what you said.”
I’m sure you have your own special reasons for doing so.
Jake wrote: “However, determining what is really real and not would prove almost impossible.”
Well, I’m actually Muslim and have the Qur’an as my guide — it’s on earth for that very purpose, so the task isn’t impossible, one just has to care.
Jake wrote: “If a person has been deemed trustworthy, honest and a keeper of hadith, that is as close as we could possibly get.”
There’s a clear difference between being an honest and trustworthy person and reciting something that didn’t actually come from the prophet and his companions that you assumed did come down from the prophet.
Jake wrote: “I understand Bukhari had a very strict grading system and would only accept hadith from the highest quality of people, even 1 small concern caused him to disregard many.”
It’s true, but what’s important here is that the method he chose to formulate his quality checklist still possessed elements of arbitrariness, for one, and for two, the body of hadith literature never pretends to be anything but a work of mere men doing their best to collect the numerous sayings of the prophet as passed down in a couple of generations at that point. it’s not a divinely protected work. It’s strength is that there are a LOT of them collected, and the most numerous ones are of the most strongly supported class of material — which backs up the pillars & tenets of Islam commanded in the Qur’an. The weakest hadith are the ones rarely mentioned in the body of hadith and are the most obscure, which gain the fascination of our enemies & rivals.
Jake wrote: “It seems to me, from discussions I've had with Muslims, they will reject hadith that make Muhammad look bad and only accept positive ones.”
Which makes sense considering the prophet’s actual reputation and character known during his lifetime. There are far more accounts that support him being trustworthy and an exemplary human being than otherwise.
Jake wrote: “This is intellectual dishonesty.”
I would think that a hostile outsider expecting me to blindly accept as true poorly-supported things that claim the prophet of Allah was a degenerate, just because our enemies want to think that of him and push to pretend those items represent truth, as an example of intellectual dishonesty.
Jake wrote: “If a hadith has been graded as sahih then you would need a very compelling argument to disregard it.”
Not aligning to the Word of God is a very compelling argument. But as a strict monotheist, I am, of course, biased in this regard.
Jake Mikelson - M. Rasheed wrote: "I’m sure you have your own special reasons for doing so."
I agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from Muhammad. But a sahih hadith is as close as possible. And I have no reason to doubt those that are graded sahih. It has nothing to do with whether it makes Muhammad look good or bad. We must take it as authentic and accurate.
M. Rasheed wrote: "There’s a clear difference between being an honest and trustworthy person and reciting something that didn’t actually come from the prophet and his companions that you assumed did come down from the prophet."
That’s a contradictory statement. If you are deemed to be an honest and trustworthy person, then there is no reason not to accept the hadith to be accurate.
M. Rasheed wrote: "The weakest hadith are the ones rarely mentioned in the body of hadith and are the most obscure, which gain the fascination of our enemies & rivals."
I am only focusing on hadith graded as sahih. You cannot have a weak sahih hadith, that is nonsensical.
M. Rasheed wrote: "Which makes sense considering the prophet’s actual reputation and character known during his lifetime. There are far more accounts that support him being trustworthy and an exemplary human being than otherwise."
Here is where we diverge. There are numerous sahih hadith that show Muhammad to have done some terrible things.
M. Rasheed wrote: "I would think that a hostile outsider expecting me to blindly accept as true poorly-supported things that claim the prophet of Allah was a degenerate, just because our enemies want to think that of him and push to pretend those items represent truth, as an example of intellectual dishonesty."
Nobody expects you or anyone else to “blindly accept” anything. Check the many Muslim sources yourself, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Rashid, Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari. They don’t pretend to know why Muhammad did anything, but in describing what he did, they paint a remarkably consistent picture. Let alone the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim.
But I am going off topic.
If a hadith is graded sahih, then it should be taken as accurate and that it came from Muhammad or a companion as recorded in the chain.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “I agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from Muhammad. But a sahih hadith is as close as possible.”
Meaning that the best that the hadith collectors could do was at least try to ensure that the people they interviewed were not deliberately lying, whether the hadith they quoted were true or not.
Jake wrote: “And I have no reason to doubt those that are graded sahih.”
Agreed. With “graded sahih” meaning that the interviewee wasn’t lying as far as the determination of the hadith collector’s QC check.
Jake wrote: “It has nothing to do with whether it makes Muhammad look good or bad.”
If the hadith really was originally fabricated before it reached the interviewee who recited it, then it ultimately does matter which is why further QC checks are required — it’s not wise to take all of the hadith at face value since we agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from the prophet and the sahaba.
Jake wrote: “We must take it as authentic and accurate.”
We must take it that it passed the level of the hadith collector’s limited QC check, but to pretend that represents true authenticity & accuracy after we both agreed that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from the prophet and the sahaba is unreasonable.
Jake wrote: “That’s a contradictory statement.”
No, it’s not.
Jake wrote: “If you are deemed to be an honest and trustworthy person, then there is no reason not to accept the hadith to be accurate.”
The only honest & trustworthy being in existence who doesn’t make mistakes is God. Well-meaning humans accidentally pass along false info they mistakenly assumed was correct all the time.
Jake wrote: “I am only focusing on hadith graded as sahih. You cannot have a weak sahih hadith, that is nonsensical.”
Again, sahih/authentic hadith are those that were collected from interviewees determined to be trustworthy according to the hadith collector’s QC checklist. The method cannot verify whether the hadith really came from the prophet and the sahaba, therefore, of the body of sahih hadith, some are stronger than others.
Jake wrote: “Here is where we diverge. There are numerous sahih hadith that show Muhammad to have done some terrible things.”
Those hadith are in the minority of collected hadith. The majority of collected hadith are those that show the prophet as truthful, of exemplary character, and affirm the tenets and pillars of the faith.
Jake wrote: “Nobody expects you or anyone else to ‘blindly accept’ anything.”
Your last post gives the impression that you want ‘sahih’ to mean that all of the hadith so labeled should be accepted as authentic & accurate, despite it 1) not being possible to verify whether the sayings really were uttered by the prophet and 2) the fact that ‘sahih’ is only a reference to the QC method developed to determine the interviewees trustworthiness and not the content of the hadith itself.
Jake wrote: “Check the many Muslim sources yourself, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Rashid, Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari. They don’t pretend to know why Muhammad did anything, but in describing what he did, they paint a remarkably consistent picture. Let alone the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim.”
My point was that, of the vast collection of ahadith, those that show the prophet in a poor light are in the minority and are the least supported. There’s no reason to give extra attention to them since they are less likely to be accurate. The biased opponents of Al-Islam would like to take the opposite approach for obvious reasons, but objectively that wouldn’t make any sense.
Jake wrote: “If a hadith is graded sahih, then it should be taken as accurate and that it came from Muhammad or a companion as recorded in the chain.”
It should be as long as it agrees in letter and/or spirit with the revelation of the One God (Qur’an). If it does not, then it clearly fails the next level of authenticity quality check, which was a method not included in the collection processes of the original hadith collectors.