i try to stay out of discussions now..but need to point out something about hadith.
Regardless of what our views are, there is something that ought to be spelled out clearly:
SAHIH hadith, does NOT mean AUTHENTIC as in :the report is beyond the shadow of a doubt authentic.
HADITH reliability is based on the ISNAD...and what it means is that AS FAR AS MEETS THE EYE, we know nothing BAD about the CHAIN..i.e. the witnesses are credible. If we understand this, then it means that we can later disprove a hadith. This is why scholars, even after the six collections were rated as sahih, did later disprove certain hadith.
It is like a witness in a case here: we accept the testimony based on the witness' rectitude. If the witness is incorrect becuase of having MISCONSTRUED something, we don't prosecute him. IF however he deliberately lies, we go after him for perjury. A SAHIH hadith therefore is one that is NOT intentionally perjurious. That leaves room for investigation. It is the specialist take.
ONly later lay readers took authentic to mean "beyond shadow of doubt."
Hopefully, this ought to dull the impact of some arguments.

This can be extrapolated from the DEFINITION..that which is related by an aadil, daabit, and there is no 'illa or it is not shadh. IN all of these conditions, we note the focus on the narrator NOT on text. IT proves that the early scholars were quite smart, knowing that epistem0logy is of prime importance. SO they put the onus on the Narrator.