H20
1. you don't have the authority to reject the early islam fathers who compiled the hadiths
2. the hadiths are allready sorted out truth from error at the very beginning
3. I have hadiths in wich Muhammed commands the punishment of stoning... so it doesn't concern the torah but the quran as Muhammed points out when he commands it. If you want i'll post them for you.
4. If the hadith needs to confirm the quran, then there is no needs for hadiths, it's all in the quran allready.
5. Why does 90% of the sharia laws consist of hadith material? when there is no need for external scripture.
6. Why do you base holy laws on laws that should be rejected because the lack of confirmation in the quran? For example, what if you had to pray 10 times instead of 5 in order for Allah to hear you? can the quran confirm this? no, the hadith is the only material for this, and it's a untrustworthy book as you pointed out. Your way of reasoning crumbles if you look into it.
And i've come across sites from muslims who literally hate muslims that disregard bukhari and muslim material as utterly false or weak because it doesn't apply to 21th century western standards.
1. While most of these people that reject them, never probably read the hadiths fully and probably aren't even scholars on the subject
2. Muhammed was not a role model for the 21th century or any time for that matter... even without the hadith the quran could confirm this. You can flip flop all you want, but the truth remains the same.
and i don't mind sounding like a revolving door, i'm giving facts and points... arguments work like nails, if you hit them a couple of times they'll run trough to you. When you don't you only stumble over them pick yourself up and continue as if nothing happend.