Does Hadith Qudsi proves that the entire Hadith collection is unauthorized?

So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from God," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. Quran 2:79

The interesting case of the Hadith Qudsi sheds light on the issue of authenticity from another angle. The claim that they are Revelations from God, in addition to the Quran of course, poses an interesting dilemma for the traditionalists because in their zeal to promote Abu Hurraira the whole thing backfired on them badly. Will get to his role in a minute.

But first, if Hadith Qudsi were indeed revelations then the Prophet of God when prohibiting the writing down of all Hadith surly would have made the Qudsi Hadith as an exception to the rule of not writing down. Obviously, no such exception is on record.  Nor a mention when according to the traditionalist it was allowed at a later date. (If truth be told even their own literature points to only as a private collection to overcome weak memory)

I think by the time the blunder was discovered it was too late to insert new reports :)

The other thing that stands out as far as these 40 Qudsi Hadith goes has to to do with the fact that a full 25 out of the 40 reports are narrated by one of the most controversial companions Abu Huraira. Given that there were thousands of Sahaba and the period of Revelation extended over 23 years, what are the odds of one Sahaba narrating 25 out of 40 Qudsi Hadiths, especially when he was only around for less than three years and that too towards the end of the Prophet-hood. Who is kidding who?

The thing that really muddles the issue to farcical levels is; not all the 40 Qudsi Ahadith are considered Sahih. Go figure.

Now add to it the fact that Muslim converts of Yathrib under the collective name Ansar are specifically associated with the city of Madina. Quran 9:101 has this to say about the possible hypocrites among the people of Medina;

Some of the Arabs of the desert around you are hypocrites, and some of the people of Madina are stubborn in hypocrisy. You are not aware of them; We know them and will punish them twice, and they will be sent to a harrowing doom. Quran 9:101

As per the above verse, there is certainty that one or more people referenced are hypocrites from Medina and since there is no known methodology in the "Science of Hadith" to identify these hypocrites then why on Earth would one accept reports narrated by nonother than one Abu Huraira a resident of Medina. Especially when the claim is that these reports are not only ascribed to the Prophet of God but that the Prophet supposedly ascribed them in turn to God Himself. Not to mention the lottery winning odds, as mentioned above that he happens to be the narrator of a full 25 out of the 40 reports. Why the insistence on a position that is impossible to defend?

The solution in the twisted mindset of the Hadith peddlers is nothing short of a sketch from a comedy routine. Google "Abu Huraira refuted" and read the top entry. Basically what the author did was; in order to defend Abu Huraira, he simply quotes  Abu Huraira, repeatedly.

You know what, God is clear on the issue of obeying the messenger. Any logical person would conclude that obeying the official messenger of God can only mean to obey God's official message. Interestingly God is also clear on not to obey liars;

Sura Al-Alaq

Does he not know that God sees? (14) And yet indeed if he does not desist We shall drag him by the forelock, (15) By the lying, the sinful forelock. (16) So let him call his associates, (17) We shall call the guards of Hell. (18) Beware! DO NOT OBEY HIM, but bow in adoration and draw near (to your Lord). (19)