skynightblaze wrote:A lot of crimes have been attributed to Muhammad in the hadiths and some of them are confirmed by quran
The Koran confirms that Muhammad have erred many times, rescued by the Grace of Allah (93.7).
So he is not the perfect example to be followed as wrongly portrayed in the hadiths (47.19, 40.55, etc).
skynightblaze wrote:From the quran itself we can prove paedophilia so hadiths showing Muhammad as a paedophile must be true.
Prove it unequivocally -from the Koran- or stand corrected.
skynightblaze wrote:Hadiths aren’t complete lies.When they narrate crimes of Muhammad they must be true
So when they say good stuff they aren't? That's a bold twisted assumption which you have to prove not only from the narration but also from the line of narrators implied.
skynightblaze wrote:The fundamental muslim belief is that Muhammad cannot be wrong
That's a sectarian Muhammadan belief which is idolatrous, plain shirk. Only Allah can't be wrong.
You are selectively picking up statement A and drawing conclusion that hadiths shouldn’t be written so what I did was show you that there is another statement contradicting the statement A i.e statement B and hence statement A cannot be taken as the truth because there is an equal probability that statement B.
That is why I've asked you to read again my post:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
History proves that they didn't happen before... well the Islamic tradition says 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz (80 years after Mo) but it must be discarded on the ground of the historical and theological flaws in the following hadith, from... Huraira.
B.1.3.98. Narrated by Abu Huraira:
I said: "O Allah's Apostle! Who will be the luckiest person, who will gain your intercession on the Day of Resurrection?" Allah's Apostle said: O Abu Huraira! "I have thought that none will ask me about it before you as I know your longing for the (learning of) Hadiths. The luckiest person who will have my intercession on the Day of Resurrection will be the one who said sincerely from the bottom of his heart "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah." And 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr bin Hazm, "Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish and the religious learned men will pass away (die). Do not accept anything save the Hadiths of the Prophet...."
Thing is that Huraira (603-681) was dead before Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz (682-720) was even born.
He couldn't possibly have related this. So it was invented later, probably by his pupil (d.750). That such a forgery past through Bukhari's scrutiny completely annihilate his credential and that of his pupil, ibn Munabbih (one of the earliest known hadith collector). Now, then and forever... GET IT NOW?
I'm not even commenting of the shirk of Muhammad's intercession, or the obvious felony towards Muhammad, the Koran, the four rashidun caliphs that this ''Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish
'' mean. Anyone not admitting that this is sacrilegious (the Koran to vanish!??) has about the mental capacity of skynightblaze or of the Muhammadans.
So we're down to the 'Muwatta' of Malik bin Anas (d.795) the founder of Maliki school of jurisprudence. ''It is not a corpus of hadith in a true sense but a collection of practices of people of Madinah.
'' So even this must be discarded as hadiths about the prophet. This deafening historical silence is thus only first broken by ibn Hanbal's collection of hadiths, the Musnad of Ahmad. But he's not even yet a 'sahih' collectors.
It's from this period that, according to Ibn Hanbal, Zayd Ibn Thabit (The Prophet's closest revelation writer) visited the Khalifa Muawiya (some 30 years after the Prophet's death), and told him a story about the Prophet. Muawiya liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said: "the messenger of God ordered us NEVER to write anything of his hadith."
What is it that skynightblaze, or Hanbal, didn't understand about NEVER and ANYTHING?
I'm not ''selectively picking up statement A'': History does that LOUD and CLEAR. Get it?
skynightblaze wrote:Its time to give you a thrashing of your life here.You need some lessons on logic.
skynightblaze wrote:Finally it may appear that I am trying to cover up for my previous argument but nevertheless it isn’t wrong
skynightblaze wrote:Common sense tells us that grandsons of Umar wouldn’t narrate hadiths from Abu Huraira if their grandfather and all the people before them considered Abu Huraira as a liar and obviously Pussy Cat the grandsons of Umar knew better than you who is born in 21st century.
See above while I catch my breath from laughing. You're hilarious!
skynightblaze wrote:Quran and logic decide which hadith is authentic.Period.
5.92: Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and beware! But if ye turn away, then know
that the duty of Our messenger is only plain conveyance (-al-balaghu, of the message).
5.61-63: When they come unto you (Muslims), they say: We believe; but they came in unbelief and they went out in the same;
and Allah knoweth best what they were hiding. ---And thou seest many of them vying one with another in sin and transgression
and their devouring of illicit gain. Verily evil is what they do. ---Why do not the rabbis and the priests (mullahs, imams, shiekhs)
forbid their evil-speaking and their devouring of illicit gain ? Verily evil is their handiwork.
skynightblaze wrote:Inspite of your trying hard to deny authenticity of hadiths I have showed you that they were indeed authentic using the quran itself so you really need to dismiss your crap somewhere else.
7.185: In what fact (hadithin) after this will they believe ?
45.6: These are the portents of Allah which We recite unto thee (Muhammad) with truth.
Then in what fact (hadithin), after Allah and His portents, will they believe?
Keep on, please. You're a show about credulity all by yourself... over yourself, much like the sectarian Muhammadans.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.