The science governing what hadith are the most reliable (many are held as spurious by nearly every school of Muslim thought on the planet and yet they are preserved for didactic reasons and often quoted by Islamaphobes and those Muslims who prey upon the desperate and uneducated muslims throughout the world to instill greater hostility toward the countries [redacted for possible breach of rules regarding politics]) is complex and varied. Hence the drive for the Koran onlyists to get back to the "real" Islam.
There are no the hadith in other words.
I think that’s not quite the state.
Over the course of Islam there have arisen Hadith that are relied upon. Bukhari is accepted by more Moslems than other collections.
They themselves offer this up as an authentic look into Islam THROUGH the ‘science of hadith’ – it makes logic for them to back up by such claims the books that they rely upon.
You seem to think that they are confused (in not knowing what Hadith to rely upon) and are moving back to a Koran-only interpretation.
I am not aware of any great trend in Islam to do this.
This is not to say that there are no hadith which are held to be relatively reliable which would bother the moral sensibilities of most contemporary people living in wealthy nations.
This is a misrepresentation too. It’s a very moral relativist stance; things that Muhammed did are wrong; and were wrong back then as now
The funny thing about the hadith or the proliferation of shariah in complexity is that some of the most widely held to be authentic hadith have Mohamed warning about making laws too specific, numerous, or burdensome, lest they become ultimately too difficult to maintain and thus damning nearly everyone.
Islam’s attraction for some is its very legalism. Every aspect of one’s life can be guided by it. It is very comprehensive; even to the point of arguing whether one should pee standing up, or squatting.
Is it haraam to urinate standing up?http://islamqa.info/en/ref/9790
Again, the thrust of the early Muslim critique of Judaism (And its ethnocentrism which the Muslims soon after Mohamed's death basically took up and made being an Arabic a requirement for conversion, they more often than not didn't convert by the sword and even opposed the conversion of those they conquered. There were bigotries at play and the non-Muslim paid more tax, so really the religion was hardly promoted by the sword as whoever would have you believe.) and Christianity went to the over complexity of rules and laws or what they saw as the nearly bordering on idolatrous notion of piety.
I agree that they didn’t have to literally make people Moslem at sword-point. Once they conquered a land they imposed Islamic law with its myriad of laws in place to make being a non-Moslem very much more difficult.
However they also forcibly made converts. They used terror against opposition too.
Even when Muhammad was alive they practiced genocide, such as the destruction of one tribe; the Banu Qurayza
Sorry for the run-on blah blah. In short, picking and choosing hadith is a complicated affair especially if you do so in order to understand how Islam has been understood over the course of history in the variety of ways it has been.
That then would be a major problem in Islam, that they don’t seem to be suffering from.