It doesn't make too much of a difference as far as answering this question is concerned. Obviously the above conclusion is a stupid conclusion.Read the article below from answering islam.It answers your question.. Malik Muwatta ignores Bukhari's work because Bukhari didnt include many of the Malik Muwatta's collection and the reason is explained below in the spoiler. Bukhari however didn't completely ignore him.The Cat wrote: Another proof that you understand nihil. It's the other way around... Read again:
It's the previous well searched Muwatta that completely ignores Bukhari's hadiths. Thus they were forged later... Get it now?
Sometimes its wise not to reply because there is simply no point in arguing if the opponent is bent onto not accepting himself as wrong.The Cat wrote: That's the Muslims usual dismissive attitude when cornered, you sound exactly like AB!
Skipping the following
Quran is also a chinese whisper but as far as ahadith are concerned atleast a careful approach was followed in their compilation.The Cat wrote: 1) The Chinese Whispers debunk 200 years of 'reliable' oral transmissions.
I have already shown you that some of the ahadith which portray muhammad as a criminal satisfy this criteria and also quran doesnt satisfy this criteria completely.The Cat wrote: 2) + The criteria of mutawatir and of two witnesses (2.282; 5.106; 65.2)
It proves you do know what you talk. The reason as to why Muwatta of Malik doesn't contain anything of Bukhari is explained above and hence the conclusion drawn by you here is fallacious.The Cat wrote: 3) + Their absence from the former, years-searched, Muwatta of Malik.
3) All of the above are proving the unreliability of the 'sahih' hadiths.
If that is the case then how in the world can we trust quran? what if these same men used their conscience while writing quran and added statements on their own? Btw I can quote here plenty of ahadith which show that word of Muhammad was taken as final authority. Many people used to dispute and come to muhamamd for solutions and whatever Muhammad said was taken at face value.The Cat wrote: 4) In defying the example of Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar and Ibn Thabit followed their conscience to collect the Koran.
They didn't follow his example. Thus, Muslims are too to follow their conscience first.
As far this case is concerned Muhammad never said that quran shouldn't be collected and ABu Bakhr , Umar and Thabit didnt want people to go astray and hence they took up this task.Had muhammad forbidden collection of quran then they wouldnt have followed their conscience.
Oh please cut that jargon that you use. I doubt whether you understand the words you use. Raiding was never a custom. Where is the evidence for that? Also you are supposed to show us the evidence that raping women, killing people for disbelief was normal amongst everyone including non muslims. YOur failure to show that would mean Muhammad didnt act morally as per the standards of his time. You haven't shown any evidence to prove that these acts committed by Muhammad were the norm of the day.The Cat wrote: 5) Raiding and looting was a custom -for all nomads in general-, thus you've indulged in the fallacy of Presentism.
And relying on yet another fallacy (Moving the goalposts) doesn't help your case at all.
More ever if quran and ahadith want entire mankind to judge them as per their standards then who are you to say that we shouldnt be judging them on our standards? Clearly ahadith and quran glorify Muhammad and claim that his example is for entire mankind and hence they want mankind to judge them and its obvious every mankind is going to judge as per his own standards.
But how do we know whether Muhamamad looked forward unto Allah? Again we need the details of his life to know how Muhammad can serve as an example in looking forward to Allah. I have also shown you 2:151 which clearly states that Muhammad is supposed to teach/instruct the scripture, the wisdom and NEW TEACHINGS. NEW TEACHINGS cannot be a part of scripture otherwise it makes no sense to mention them seperately.The Cat wrote: 6) A pervert Muhammad (93.7) cast no example, except in 'looking forward unto Allah' (33.21) and obeying The Messenger (ie. Gabriel).
IT doesnt. It supports the quran. After reading the quran one can easily know that he/she cannot become a muslim unless he/she accepts Allah as the only God and Muhammad as his messenger and hence content of Shahada is in line with quranic teachings.The Cat wrote: 7) The Shahada goes directly against many Koranic injunctions (3.84; 18.110). Thus 1st 'pillar of Islam' is definitively not Koranic.
There is no logical connection between 4:105 and 5:44-49. These are illogical leaps What is the basis for establishing such a conclusion when 2:151 doesn't even mention anything about previous scriptures?The Cat wrote: 8) From 4.105 and 5.44-49 we learn that Muhammad had to judge Jews and Christians,
according to their own scripture, along with bringing the new one, ie. the Koran (2.151).
Really? What happens to all these scriptures if all these prophets were a fraud? Their character is very much important to the message to be genuine. If Muhammad is proven as a criminal then quran loses its credibility and hence messengers have importance in what they do and say and hence knowing life of Muhammad is essential and quran doesnt describe his life.The Cat wrote: 9) Muslims are to obey all prophets alike. Yet no messenger has much importance by its own self, none (3.84; 18.110).
Those tafsir scholars were closer to Muhammads time and hence I think they knew better rather than you or me who are born in 20th century. Ibn Abbas a companion of Muhammad also mentioned the same so I guess you should not act as if you know more than him. Had they been lying then their lies wouldn't match. Many of the tafsir scholars didnt coexist and hence their lies cant match. It would be too much of coincidence.The Cat wrote: Note: The 'honest scholars' of tafsirs all went against 3.7 in attempts to biased the Koran.
Ex.: In the tafsir of 31.6 they sweared that 'lahwa al-hadeethi' meant music and not idle tales.
ie. their own tafsirs, + hadiths.
Both of us dont like stupidity and dishonesty and that's we are averse to your kind of thinking.We are not interested in appeasing islam by lying for it which is precisely what you are doing. We are here to expose islam for what it is . WE dont like people who want to whitewash sins of muhammad. The truth is that many of those ahadith are true and Muhammad was a criminal.The Cat wrote: Thanks to people like snb and MbL this site is developing the same mentality as Sunnite's.
Two sides of the same dismissive clan/clowns attitude.