Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

[Pragmatist]

See how the prophet warned the people against talking way too much about him: اياكم و كثرة الحديث عني , Iyakum Wa Kuthrat Al Hadith Anny, i.e. Be warned of talking TOO MUCH about me

A Question AB: What is the primary source of this story of your prophet warning people against talking too much about him? I cannot find it in al-Qur'an.

See, soon after the prophet death, his wife Aysha, and

The Battle of Bassorah, Battle of the Camel, or Battle of Jamal was a battle that took place at Basrah, Iraq, in year 656 between forces allied to Ali Ibn Abi Talib (Mohammed’s cousin and son-in-law, Rightly Guided Caliph and Commander of the Faithful) and forces allied to Aysha (widow of Muhammad, and called the Mother of the Faithful) who wanted justice on the perpetrators of the assassination of the previous caliph Uthman. At least 5000 Muslims were killed by Muslims.

Again AB. What is the primary source of the above tale concerning a battle of a camel that took place at Basrah, Iraq? It is likewise mentioned nowhere in al-Qur'an. Neither are these Ali Ibn Abi Talib and Ayesha who you respectively call "Mohammed's cousin and son-in-law/Rightly Guide Caliph" and "Mother of the faithful"/"Widow of Muhammad". What is the primary source that refers to these characters and the titles you give to them?

Dismissed

Ahmed caught

Yo Baggy, I didn't see you dismiss Khalil before running from "that" thread [/quote]


How hilarious to see our Krap Kran and ORAL (HEARSAY) Hadith only Mohammedan clown getting caught in his lies and deceit yet AGAIN.

[Pragmatist]

Why do not you tell everyone if you believe what Bukhari promoted about the prophet that he married Aysha when she was 6 years old?

If Bukhari had a single cell of brain, he should have realized that such hadith is nothing but a lie, the facts from the books of man made sirah is clear as light:

1) Asmaa Bin Abi Bakr died on year 73 H at the age of 100
2) Aysha was 10 years younger that Asmaa
3) Mohammed married Aysha 2 years before Hijrah
4) Asmaa was 25 years old, 2 years before Hijrah
5) Because Aysha who was 10 years younger than Asmaa, she must have been15 years old, two years before Hijrah
6) i.e. Aysha was 15 years old when Mohammed married her

See, Bukhari did not have a single cell of brain, likewise all his followers and admirers.

SO NOW!!! Ahmed realised how WRONG it is for a grown man to have sex with a 9 year old girl.

So what to do now?

Help muhammad by slamming the hadiths that said Aisha was 6 years old when Muhammad married her and 9 years old when he bonked her.

The Proof? Use another hadith...... ???!!! what the...............

Storyteller, how about showing us WHERE in the quran did it say Aisha was 15 years old (points 1 - 6)?

HEY!!!! WAIT A MINUTE.......... DIDN"T YOU DENY THE EXISTENCE OF AISHA????

So now she really existed?



dumb

Ahmed Baghat never lets the TRUTH or what HE has previously posted get in the way of a GOOD STORY to twist and turn and lie and deny over and over and over again. This guy is just full of bluff and bluster and Mohammedan ego and arrogance and he obviously thinks we kaffirs are just as GULLIBLE and brain damaged as HE and most Mohammedans quite obviously are.

[AhmedBahgat]

Far out, not again you punks parading on another thread of mine

[Pragmatist]

look filthy, and I am still denying her existance you fool, I was only cornering a confused Muslim, to uppercut her, and I successfuly done that

Finally, I never talked about having sex with a 9 years old you manipulated filthy manipulator, I only talked about MARRYING a 6 years old child, you blind

Back to your cell, filthy

marriage = sex , you moron.

So you 'uppercut' her not by telling her that Aisha never existed but by SOMEHOW figuring out the exact age of a non-existent Aisha?




dumb

How absolutely HILARIOUS AB tries to PROVE the age of a WOMAN that HE denies exists :lol1: . and using Hadiths that HE says are to be ignored.You could not invent Mohammedans could you they are just too stupid no one would believe it until you see them in action. AB has been caught in exactly this same situation previously and used the SAME pathetic excuse then and of course RAN AWAY . They never learn do they or rather they are incapable of learning must be the brain damage.

[sword_of_truth]

You could not invent Mohammedans could you they are just too stupid no one would believe it until you see them in action. AB has been caught in exactly this same situation previously and used the SAME pathetic excuse then and of course RAN AWAY . They never learn do they or rather they are incapable of learning must be the brain damage.

No, he's not being dumb in this case. I will refrain from pointing out where he's being dumb to avoid offending him. What Ahmed said about Aisha is legitimate. It's the same thing we do. Assume that the Hadiths are true and see what inconsistencies and absurdities it produces. He apparently found a flaw in the Hadith. Finding flaws in the Hadith is commendable, even if they call into question one of our big pieces of ammunition against Islam. The only thing wrong is that he didn't say where he got his information from.

[sword_of_truth]

The trouble is the "Quran -oriented" Muslims are nothing of the sort. They are deceivers out to trick unwary potential "reverts" into Islam on the false premise that the Koran alone is peaceful coexistence and tolerance on the basis of genuine equality (although I think AB has been deceiving so long he has half come to believe his own deceits).

It's true that there may be some danger there as far as making Islam more appealing. However, I think it is unfair to dismiss all Quran-oriented muslims without proof. I'm sure many of them are just sneaky and have no noble motives. But my impression is that Quran-focused muslims also tend to argue against a lot of the bad things, as we see with Ahmed. Good muslims are fighting against Islam as well, so we should not ignore their contributions to our cause.

However this is not so. For instance, the standard penalty for apostasy is clearly deducable from the Koran alone:

O Prophet! strive hard [perform violent jihad] against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites...They swear by Allah that they said nothing, yet they did say the word of disbelief, and did disbelieve after their Islam..." (9:73-74)

if they [hypocrites] turn back [ie openly apostatize] then take them and kill them wherever ye find them (4:89)
I am of course ready for any claims by Muslims that I have taken the above "out of context".

That's a good point, but I was aware that people had made arguments from the Quran. However, these muslims, and Ahmed Bahgat, in particular, are arguing against this.

Of course, the Quran is terrible, too.

It just isn't as bad. It's basically less Islam. They throw a big bad chunk of it out and with less of it there, there is less harm done. The less Islam, the better.

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

Today’s Bukhari Sunnah lesson is very interesting, I will add to it a Quran lesson, possibly some may give heed. We will look at an alleged hadith that suppose to have happened straight after the prophet died and before the prophet corpse was buried.

I actually like this hadith, however there is still no Sunnah in it, rather some information to what happened at such moment after the prophet death.

The hadith is alleged by someone named Abu Salmah (and I am sure that most of us do not know who the hell he is) who reported that Aysha told him something, and the whole thing is alleged by Bukhari. Because the hadith is about Aysha’s father, as Mohammed was dead at such point of time, the hadith implies truthfulness in its story, however we are still unable to confirm that, what we are about to read, had really happened, it should still be classified as Zunn (conjectures), therefore, only Allah is The One Who knows the truthfulness in such allegation, simply all of us cannot know that. Let’s look at such allegation of hadith and see if we may learn something from it:



http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... 1165&doc=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bukhari listed the Above allegation under a chapter that he named الجنائز , i.e. The funerals, under such chapter, Bukhari listed a sub-chapter that he named: الدخول على الميت بعد الموت إذا أدرج في أكفانه , i.e. Seeing the one who died after he was wrapped in his coffin.

Well, you will be able to see that, the above story which I am about to walk you through, CANNOT be a sunnah from the prophet, a Muslim child should understand that with ease.

Now, if I ask that Muslim child: Why you think that story which we are about to read cannot be a Sunnah by the prophet? I am sure he will reply saying: Because the prophet was DEAD at that moment of time. I say to such child: Good boy, your parents failed to understand that.

See, it was (clearly and irrefutably) Bukhari who invented such sunnah, an invented and un-required sunnah, trying to create a law that controls the following aspect:

Should we see anyone who died after he/she was wrapped in his/her coffin?

Far out, why the hell we need such Bukhari sunnah?. Well, even if the above allegation of a sunnah ended up by prohibiting it, I will still have a look at a dear relative after being wrapped in his/her coffin, if I want to, THERE WILL BE NOTHING TO STOP ME, I tell ya.

Let’s now see what Bukhari has established for us as a sunnah regarding such useless aspect, anything between brackets are my own comments and is not part of the allegation as documented and explained by me.

The allegation goes like this, Abu Salmah said that Aysha told him that:

Her father Abi Bakr came to her from his house riding his horse, so he entered a mosque and did not talk to anyone until he entered before Aysha (seems that he was very upset hearing the news that Mohammed has died), so he went to the prophet coffin and removed the cloth covering the prophet face, then leaned over and kissed him, then he cried (obviously Bukhari is telling us that it is ok to uncover dead humans to have a final look before they are buried, and even kiss them final goodbye)

After Abi Bakr cried for a moment, (he said something that I could not understand, however it is not related to the invented law of uncovering the dead or not to see them), sort of Abi Bakr said: My very dear messenger of Allah, Allah will not gather upon you two deaths, as for the death that was decreed upon you, you have fulfilled it. (I really could not understand what he was trying to say)

Abi Bakr then went outside while Omar was speaking to the gathered people, so Omar asked him to sit down, but Abi Bakr refused, then Abi Bakr stated the Shahada, so all the people directed their attention to him instead of Omar, so Abi Bakr said to the people:

To whoever among you who worships Mohammed (peace be upon him), then Mohammed (peace be upon him) has died, and whoever among who worships Allah, then Allah is Ever-Alive Who does not die. Then he recited the following Quran verse to the people:

And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed before him; so if he died or is killed, you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will not harm Allah a thing, and Allah will reward the grateful.
[Al Quran ; 3:144]

وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىَ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ (144)


I will walk you through this very important verse that Abi Bakr recited to the people during Mohammed funeral later on, but after I finish this allegation of hadith walk through.

Abu Salmah then said:

By Allah, the people never knew that Allah has sent this verse until Abi Bakr recited it to them (looks like the verse was revealed to Mohammed a while back and the people just forgot about it, how confused they were, even during the time of the prophet). Abu Salmah then said that the people took the verse from Abi Bakr and kept reciting it forever, and that was the end of the allegation of hadith.

Now a few questions must be raised:

1) Why Abi Bakr told the people: To whoever among you who worships Mohammed, then Mohammed has died?

The answer should be clear; it seems that Abi Bakr has witnessed so many people who were doing just that, i.e. WORSHIPPING MOHAMMED.

Can you sense that what Abi Bakr said in a funeral, is not really something that is common, nor that it is offering condolences to the people, RATHER something that you expect to never hear in a funeral, and even may be offensive to be said in such sad times. YET, Abi Bakr who was a very wise man and also loved Mohammed dearly (more than anyone for that matter) comes out and says such tough words that clearly differentiated between Mohammed and Allah as two separate and incomparable entities. Both (Allah and Mohammed) have the same cause of course, because Mohammed was only working for Allah and doing what Allah commanded him to do, however the two can never be equal, such equality does not have to be by saying it, rather it happens more commonly through the actions of the so called believers while they are unaware of their horrible crime (worshipping others other than Allah, which should also mean shirking others with Allah).

2) Why Abi Bakr tells the people the fact about Allah that He is Ever-Alive and does not die?

Again, the answer is simple, see, the above fact about our God, that He is Ever-Alive and does not die, should be firmly known by any so called believer, it is something of the basics of belief, but it seems that Abi Bakr sensed that so many people were so ignorant to such simple fact about Allah while they have been indulged in their worshipping of Mohammed. It seems that they did not even care about such fact about Our God.

3) Why Abi Bakr selected such verse 3:144 to recite it to the people?

Again and again, the answer is very clear, because the people were ignorant of it, such ignorance was confirmed in the same allegation of hadith, see what Abu Salmah said at the end: ‏والله لكأن الناس لم يكونوا يعلمون أن الله أنزلها حتى تلاها ‏ ‏أبو بكر , i.e. By Allah, the people never knew that Allah has sent this verse until Abi Bakr recited it to them , i.e. the people did not know the verse, DESPITE that it was revealed to them soon after the battle of Uhud, when during the battle and while the Muslims were getting defeated, a rumor spread around the battle field that the prophet was killed, so the Muslims started to drop their weapons and surrender to the enemy thinking that there should be nothing left for them to fight for after the death of the prophet, as alleged in their books of hadith.

So, for so many years from the time of the battle of Uhud until the prophet natural death, the people never pondered upon such verse 3:144, and even forgot it totally to a degree that they would have never know that it was revealed, they may be excused actually because up to such moment, having your own copy of the Quran was almost impossible.

It seems that they were given a very tough lesson by Abi Bakr, so after they heard it from him, they just kept reciting it. I actually believe that they were not reciting it so many times to ponder upon it, RATHER to pay condolences to themselves after the idol they were worshipping has died. So it is possible that they learnt nothing from Abi Bakr.

From all the above we can conclude the following:

1) There are people who indeed worship Mohammed. And it was since the time of Mohammed, till this very moment.

2) There is no sunnah by the prophet that is related to Quran one way or another, rather an incident by some other people after the prophet died

3) Bukhari tried hard to invent his own sunnah using such allegation, by creating a useless Sharia that is based on the useless query of (Is it allowed to see dead humans after they died and have been wrapped in their coffin and before their burial?). The answer was not even given to us, rather we should work it out from the allegation based on the fact mentioned in there that Abi Bakr did so by uncovering the prophet then kissing him, i.e. it is ok for us to do so, but as I said earlier, even if someone stopped Abi Bakr from doing so, NOTHING IS GOING TO STOP ME FROM DOING SO.

A final note before stating the conclusion of such hadith, see how many times Allah was mentioned in the above hadith:

1- When Aysha was mentioned in the chain of narrators, she was praised by saying: ‏عائشة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنها , i.e. Allah is pleased with her, I have translated it as the exact Arabic words, which used the verb of pleasing in past tense, it is not a Dua to Aysha like Asa An Yardda Allah Anha, i.e. May Allah be pleased with her, i.e. it is a boast (praise) of Aysha that Allah is already pleased with her, which is fine with me, but can you see that in the process they mentioned Allah without praising Him? And that is not fine with me:

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 1

2: When the prophet was mentioned in the chain of narrators as being the husband of Aysha: ‏زوج النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم , i.e. the wife of the prophet salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam, i.e. praising Mohammed, which is fine with me, in fact it is a command from Allah, however I am not at all fine with the fact that in the process of praising Mohammed, they mentioned Allah without praising Him:

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 1
Mohammed: 1

3: When Abi Bakr was mentioned: ‏أبو بكر ‏ ‏رضي الله عنه , i.e. Abi Bakr, Allah is pleased with him, i.e. praising Abi Bakr, which is fine with me, but during the process of praising Abi Bakr, they mentioned Allah without praising Him:

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 1
Mohammed: 1
Abi Bakr: 1

4- When Aysha was mentioned again in the hadith itself, she was praised again by saying: ‏عائشة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنها , i.e. Allah is pleased with her, i.e. praising Aysha again, which is fine with me again, but during the process of praising Aysha again, they mentioned Allah without praising Him again:

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 1
Abi Bakr: 1

5: When the prophet was mentioned again in the story itself: ‏ النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم , i.e. the prophet salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam, i.e. praising Mohammed again, however I am not at all fine with the fact that in the process of praising Mohammed again, they mentioned Allah without praising Him again:

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 2
Abi Bakr: 1

6: When Ibn Abbas was mentioned: ‏ابن عباس ‏ ‏رضي الله عنهما , i.e. Ibn Abbas, Allah is pleased with them both (I really do not who is the second), let’s just assume they meant Allah is pleased with Ibn Abbas only, i.e. praising Ibn Abbas, and in the process, they mentioned Allah without praising Him:

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 2
Abi Bakr: 1
Ibn Abbas: 1

7: When Abi Bakr was mentioned again: ‏أبو بكر ‏ ‏رضي الله عنه , i.e. Abi Bakr, Allah is pleased with him, i.e. praising Abi Bakr again, which is fine with me again, but during the process of praising Abi Bakr again, they mentioned Allah without praising Him again

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 2
Abi Bakr: 2
Ibn Abbas: 1

8: When Omar was mentioned: ‏ ‏ ‏ ‏وعمر ‏ ‏رضي الله عنه , i.e. And Omar, Allah is pleased with him, i.e. praising Omar, and in the process, they mentioned Allah without praising Him:

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 2
Abi Bakr: 2
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1

9: When Abi Bakr was mentioned for the third time: ‏أبو بكر ‏ ‏رضي الله عنه , i.e. Abi Bakr, Allah is pleased with him, i.e. praising Abi Bakr for the third time, which is fine with me for the third time, but during the process of praising Abi Bakr for the third time, they mentioned Allah without praising Him for the third time:

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 2
Abi Bakr: 3
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1

10: When the prophet was mentioned for the third time: ‏ ‏محمدا ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم , i.e. Mohammed salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam, i.e. praising Mohammed for the third time, and in the process of praising Mohammed for the third time, they mentioned Allah without praising Him for the third time:

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 3
Abi Bakr: 3
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1

11: When the prophet was mentioned for the fourth time: ‏ ‏محمدا ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم , i.e. Mohammed salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam, i.e. praising Mohammed for the fourth time, and in the process of praising Mohammed for the fourth time, they mentioned Allah without praising Him for the fourth time:

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 4
Abi Bakr: 3
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1

12: When Abi Bakr was mentioned for the fourth time: ‏أبو بكر ‏ ‏رضي الله عنه , i.e. Abi Bakr, Allah is pleased with him, i.e. praising Abi Bakr for the fourth time, and in the process of praising Abi Bakr for the fourth time, they mentioned Allah without praising Him for the fourth time:

Score of praise:

Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 4
Abi Bakr: 4
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1

13: When Allah was mentioned as the One saying the Quran verse 3:144: ‏ ‏ قال الله تعالى , i.e. Exalted Allah said, finally they praised Allah for the first time:

Score of praise:

Allah: 1
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 4
Abi Bakr: 4
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1


However, Allah was mentioned another 5 times on His own (not during using Him for praising others), and they never praised Him:

a- لا يجمع الله عليك موتتين , Allah will not gather over you two deaths
b- ومن كان يعبد الله , and whoever worships Allah
c- فإن الله حي لا يموت , indeed, Allah is Ever-Alive Who does not die
d- ‏والله لكأن الناس , By Allah, the people were
e- أن الله أنزلها , that Allah has sent it down

Omar too was mentioned a second time without praising him:

Final score of praise:

Allah: 1 - 5 = -4
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 4
Abi Bakr: 4
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1 – 1 = 0

Do I really believe that most Muslims cared or currently care about Allah and His message? Well, I doubt it indeed

Let me walk you through verse 3:144 which Abi Bakr reminded the people with, after Mohammed death, and see if we can learn something from it:

And Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away; so if he died or is killed, you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will not harm Allah a thing, and Allah will reward the grateful.
[Al Quran ; 3:144]

وما محمد الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل افان مات او قتل انقلبتم على اعقابكم ومن ينقلب على عقبيه فلن يضر الله شيئا وسيجزي الله الشاكرين

-> How clear as stated by Allah: And Muhammad is not except a messenger, it seems that Allah knows that the people will worship Mohammed one way or another and make him more than a messenger even, so Allah revealed such message for all of us to tell us who is Mohammed, next we read something that is more compelling: indeed, the messengers before him have passed away, i.e. Mohammed is like all other messengers, again it seems that Allah knows that the people will differentiate between Mohammed and all the rest of the messengers. HOW COMPELLING. We can see this clearly now days, and I will show it to all of you (many times) from their own hadith and hopefully the blind should be able to see it inshaallah.

-> We are told that the above verse was revealed when a rumor spread during the battle of Uhud, that the prophet was KILLED, so you expect that the above verse should be talking about the KILLING of the messenger only, yet we see the wisdom of Allah in His book, He also included with KILLING, NATURAL DEATH, see: so if he died or is killed , HOW ACCURATE AND FULFILLING, not just if Mohammed has been killed, rather if he has been killed or died natural death. Now, let’s read what Allah is warning the people of doing after Mohammed death: you turn back upon your heels? .Well, well, well, it seems that Allah knows that this is exactly what will happen with the Muslims, that they will turn back on their heals by committing (at least) what Allah explained to us in the same very verse, that Mohammed is no more than a messenger like all the rest of messengers (we should absolutely make no distinction between all of them as stated in the Quran in at least 3 locations), now the Above verse can not apply to what happened during the Battle of Uhud only, because the verse is also talking about the possibility of his natural death in addition to the possibility of being killed, therefore it must apply to the Muslims now days as well, and for those Muslims who sport of worship Mohammed, Allah has an important message for them: And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will not harm Allah a thing , indeed, they are only harming themselves while they conceive not. And for those who will not turn back on their heels, Allah has other important message for them: and Allah will reward the grateful. , certainly the grateful cannot be those who turned back on their heels to what Allah clearly explained to them regarding the status of Mohammed as being a messenger of His, who should be for us as any other messenger before him.

While I am walking you through the above great verse from Allah, something struck my head through another verse, I actually talked about such verse before but never clicked in my head that there might be a hidden and very important message between the lines, based on the fact that the following words in verse 3:144 about Mohammed: ما محمد الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل , i.e. Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away , are almost the same word for word in another verse about another messenger, in addition to Mohammed, and those words were only said about these two messengers explicitly, let me bring the verse in here:

The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat the food. See how We explain to them the signs then see how they are deluded.
[Al Quran ; 5:75]

ما المسيح ابن مريم الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل وامه صديقة كانا ياكلان الطعام انظر كيف نبين لهم الايات ثم انظر اني يؤفكون

-> See, the same words about Jesus, let me put the two sentences under each other so you see that the words are almost identical:

3:144 ما محمد الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل
5:75 ما المسيح ابن مريم الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل

3:144 Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away
5:75 The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away

Well, if you have studied the Quran, then I am sure that you should know that Mohammed and Isa (Jesus) are the only two messengers that have been described with the same exact words above, that both of them are not except messengers, indeed, the messengers before them have passed away

How striking? Will, I may think of it, that possibly there is a hidden sign in there, that may be indicating that these two messengers (only) out of all messengers, are the most who are worshipped by the most humans on earth. Allah knows best

Salam all

[MastaBlaster]

-> See, the same words About Jesus, let me put the two sentences under each other so you see that the words are almost identical:

3:144 ما محمد الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل
5:75 ما المسيح ابن مريم الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل

3:144 Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away
5:75 The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away

excellent observation bro, really.

the part with the goals Allah vs aisha vs abu bakr etc was hillarious hahahaha

did the lady answer you by the way

[AhmedBahgat]

-> See, the same words About Jesus, let me put the two sentences under each other so you see that the words are almost identical:

3:144 ما محمد الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل
5:75 ما المسيح ابن مريم الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل

3:144 Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away
5:75 The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away

excellent observation bro, really.

Salam mate

To be honest, this is the first time that it struck me regarding the possible similarity of worshipping these two messnegers by MASSES of humans

the part with the goals Allah vs aisha vs abu bakr etc was hillarious hahahaha

Lol, mate, despite it sounds a bit sacrcastic, I do have a very valid and strong point against all those people who like to priase other humans

did the lady answer you by the way

No she did not, and I do not think that she will ever will, I caught her ignornace way too many times, that someone in her position will have nothing to say really

My best friedn in Egypt who is a Civil and Computer Engineer, was arguing with me since 5 years ago, he was in favour of hadith books of course, when he read my reply to such lady on facebook, he only had one sentence to say, that the arguments I presented are very powerful. period

See it took my very intelligent friend about 5 years to just start opening his eyes and handling the truth, it is not going to be easy for any, trust me, it has never een easy for myself. Now, everything is like a piece of cake, alhamdullellah

Salam

[SAM]

Hi AhmedBahgat , I'm too busy... for the past few months, I hope I will have more time to forum after March.
SAM

[Pragmatist]

[quote="AhmedBahgat"]Salam all

Today’s Bukhari Sunnah lesson is very interesting, I will add to it a Quran lesson, possibly some may give heed. We will look at an alleged hadith that suppose to have happened straight after the prophet died and before the prophet corpse was buried.

I actually like this hadith, however there is still no Sunnah in it, rather some information to what happened at such moment after the prophet death.

The hadith is alleged by someone named Abu Salmah (and I am sure that most of us do not know who the hell he is) who reported that Aysha told him something, and the whole thing is alleged by Bukhari. Because the hadith is About Aysha’s father, as Mohammed was dead at such point of time, the hadith implies truthfulness in its story, however we are still unable to confirm that, what we are About to read, had really happened, it should still be classified as Zunn (conjectures), therefore, only Allah is The One Who knows the truthfulness in such allegation, simply all of us cannot know that. Let’s look at such allegation of hadith and see if we may learn something from it:


Will you please stop SPAMMING the Forum with your overlong Mohammedan PROPAGANDA posts and please note this is an ENGLISH LANGUAGE Forum not an Arabic lesson Forum. I know, and have seen the evidence, that YOUR English is pathetic but please try harder. If you want to bring translations please use the well know respected translators not modern day apologist deceitful upstarts such as YOURSELF.

[antineoETC]

YET, Abi Bakr who was a very wise man...

What evidence do you have that this "Abi Bakr", who is mentioned nowhere in al-Qur'an, actually existed? Please name your primary source.

[AhmedBahgat]

This is Bukhari's Sunnah Lesson # 2 which I missed between my comments above:

Salam all

I hope you enjoyed Bukhari Sunnah Lesson # 1, I guess there will be no Muslim who will be able to refute such lesson because in their refutation, they need to tell us what is the relation between the oneness of Allah and the silly argument that suppose to have happened or will happen between two of the noble prophets (Adam and Musa).

In today lesson, I will show you one hell of a lie by Bukhari himself, for this hadith I will bring Fath Al Bari explanation to it, let’s have a look

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... 6736&doc=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



As you can read above, again, the hadith is an allegation by the always questionable Abu Hurairah, this hadith however is indexed under a chapter named: الاقتداء بسنن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم , i.e. Taking the sunnah of the prophet salla Allah alihi wa sallam as an example

The hadith is very short actually, the chain of narrators is indeed longer than the Matn (the content) itself

The allegation in such hadith that a few people were with the prophet who possibly had to judge between two persons, the hadith actually never told us such details, rather as explained by Fath Al Bari book as you can read above under the hadith itself

The hadith only mentioned that prophet Mohammed told them: I am going to judge between you using the book of Allah

Obviously why the prophet said so, is unknown from the Matn of the hadith, all we know from it, that when the prophet had to judge between two conflicting parties, he said that HE WILL USE THE BOOK OF ALLAH

Now if you ask any believer, what the words The book of Allah, suppose to mean, most of them if not all, should tell you that it should mean The Quran

Mister confused Bukhari did not see so, he saw it as something else, let me put the exact Arabic words as stated in Fath Al Bari book, so you see it for yourself:

واقتصر البخاري هنا عليه لدخوله في غرضه من أن السنة يطلق عليها " كتاب الله " لأنها بوحيه وتقديره , لقوله تعالى ( وما ينطق عن الهوى إن هو إلا وحي يوحى )

They are saying that Bukhari position is that the Sunnah is called the Book of Allah, because it was also revealed to Mohammed as the Quran is revealed, then they stated the Quran verse that Mohammed never talked of his own desires

Well, well, well, firstly Mohamed never talked or acted of his own desires, is only what is revealed to him from the Quran, in fact the same Quran told us that at least 3 times the prophet acted according to his own desires and faulted and was exposed by Allah and was corrected (no way in those three times he was under revelation from Allah), this will be another comment inshaallah to slam dunk those confused Mushrikoon.

Very clear, that Bukhari claimed that the Sunnah of Mohammed is called the Book of Allah, which I believe for certain that it is another clear sign of how confused was Bukhari and how he misled masses of people, well the important thing that those people should know is simply, they will not be able to blame the confusion of Bukhari for their own confusion.

Kul Nafs Bima Kasabat Rahinah

Every soul will be held hostage for what it has earned

If there will be any lesson learnt from the above allegation of hadith, it is imply, when the prophet judged between the people he only judged using the book of Allah, i.e. the Quran.

Salam

[AhmedBahgat]

YET, Abi Bakr who was a very wise man...

What evidence do you have that this "Abi Bakr", who is mentioned nowhere in al-Qur'an, actually existed? Please name your primary source.

Idiot

I do not know if he existed or not, but I can find out for you from the Quran later on when I have time

however, I am using it against one who believes that he existed, as well believes that the story in such allegation of hadith is Sahih

therefore it is between me and such person, you however need to bugger off or shut the hell up and enjoy being one of the audience, you are dismissed

[antineoETC]

YET, Abi Bakr who was a very wise man...

What evidence do you have that this "Abi Bakr", who is mentioned nowhere in al-Qur'an, actually existed? Please name your primary source.

Idiot

I do not know if he existed or not

So YOUR above statement that he (Abi Bakr) was a "very wise man" should not be regarded as an implicit acceptance by you of his existence. Correct?

[AhmedBahgat]

YET, Abi Bakr who was a very wise man...

What evidence do you have that this "Abi Bakr", who is mentioned nowhere in al-Qur'an, actually existed? Please name your primary source.

Idiot

I do not know if he existed or not

So YOUR above statement that he (Abi Bakr) was a "very wise man" should not be regarded as an implicit acceptance by you of his existence. Correct?

Well, according to the Quran, he existed, therefore my statement is accurate, time bandit

[skynightblaze]

antineoETC &piscohot

Ahmed is right here. Using hadith to prove hadith as wrong is acceptable and it doesnt necessary mean that he has to believe in it. He could say the same thing to us. We use quran to prove quran wrong . Does that mean we are believers in quran? TO criticize any text one isnt required to believe in it.

[antineoETC]

YET, Abi Bakr who was a very wise man...

What evidence do you have that this "Abi Bakr", who is mentioned nowhere in al-Qur'an, actually existed? Please name your primary source.

Idiot

I do not know if he existed or not

So YOUR above statement that he (Abi Bakr) was a "very wise man" should not be regarded as an implicit acceptance by you of his existence. Correct?

Well, according to the Quran, he existed, therefore my statement is accurate, time bandit

Chapter and verse please

[AhmedBahgat]

YET, Abi Bakr who was a very wise man...

What evidence do you have that this "Abi Bakr", who is mentioned nowhere in al-Qur'an, actually existed? Please name your primary source.

Idiot

I do not know if he existed or not

So YOUR above statement that he (Abi Bakr) was a "very wise man" should not be regarded as an implicit acceptance by you of his existence. Correct?

Well, according to the Quran, he existed, therefore my statement is accurate, time bandit

Chapter and verse please

9:40

[antineoETC]

antineoETC &piscohot

Ahmed is right here. Using hadith to prove hadith as wrong is acceptable and it doesnt necessary mean that he has to believe in it. He could say the same thing to us. We use quran to prove quran wrong . Does that mean we are believers in quran? TO criticize any text one isnt required to believe in it.

False logic. Consider AB's above statement:

See how the prophet warned the people against talking way too much about him: اياكم و كثرة الحديث عني , Iyakum Wa Kuthrat Al Hadith Anny, i.e. Be warned of talking TOO MUCH about me

I asked AB what was the source of this alleged saying of Muhammad. His response was to "dismiss" me. He is presenting the above saying - found nowhere in the Koran - as a reason why people should not believe in hadith or any any other source of "guidance" than the Koran. For people to reject hadith on the basis of the above alleged statement involves their accepting it as genuine. The question logically arises: on what criteria should they accept it as genuine and reject other alleged sayings and doings of Muhammad as false?