Originally Posted by BD-Shardul
Because what is hadeeth? It has to be the word of the holy prophet, or his deed or his silent support to any deed. The above example din't fall in this catagory, so of course this is not a hadeeth.
i agree about the lack of actual evidence that Aisha (ra) was 6...but even if she were, it wouldn't really matter to me much, as i have other evidences that Muhammad was indeed the final Messenger of God.
Also, the hadeeths are memorised just like Quran. Until the invention of paper and printing, hadeeth was preserved the the way Quran was preserved-memorising. While memorising, and reporting hadeeths, sahabae keram mentioned not only the exact words of the prophet, but also exactly from whom they have heard or memorised the hdeeth.
here i must ask a few questions. some hadith are memorized, but the importance of hifzu quran has always been more important. plus as BT bhai said, Allah only promised to guard the quran and not the hadith. this is the crux of my argument.
sahibe ekram were holy persons and i do not believe that they would mislead others by willfully changing the sayings or teachings of the prophet. but they were fallible and thus could have made mistakes in transmitting the hadith.
then of course there are those who came much later than the tabe tabeen who could have intentionally changed the content of the hadith.
if there are so called islamic scholars or alims who today use islam as a political smokescreen and excuse to further their personal un-islamic agendas, then it could have happened 1000 years ago as well.
the proof is that even within respected "authentic" books like sahih al bukhari you have contradictory hadith.
personally, to me it matters little if the hadith i read was actually said by the prophet (saw) or not. what is of utmost importance is if the said hadith is in accordance with the spirit of the quran. if it is then it should be accepted and if not then it should be rejected.