Page 4 of 6

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:57 pm
by AhmedBahgat
Ahmed chose to reply to filthy enemy of Islam Bin Fagin:

Bin Fagin wrote:And even your Quran , it turns out, did NOT recommend praying 5 times per day and instead only listed three, and the other two comes from the hadiths.


Here are the times of Salat Zuhr (second salat) and Salat Isha (fifth salat) mentioned again in the Quran, you ignorant dumb filthy bum of a hadith worshipping kafir bound to hell:

وَلَهُ الْحَمْدُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَعَشِيًّا وَحِينَ تُظْهِرُونَ (18)
And to Him belongs all praise in the heavens and the earth. And at night and when you are at noon.
[Al Quran ; 30:18]

-> See, you ignorant: وَلَهُ الْحَمْدُ .....………..عَشِيًّا وَحِينَ تُظْهِرُونَ , i.e. to Him belongs all praise ……… at night and when you are at noon

Here you have, inmate:

Image # 96

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:59 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
AhmedBahgat wrote:Ahmed chose to reply to filthy enemy of Islam Bin Fagin:


I am an enemy of liars, which is precisely what you are and you even know it but you don't care. It's good to lie for Islam, right?? Yes, it must be.

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Bin Fagin wrote:And even your Quran , it turns out, did NOT recommend praying 5 times per day and instead only listed three, and the other two comes from the hadiths.


Here are the times of Salat Zuhr (second salat) and Salat Isha (fifth salat) mentioned again in the Quran, you ignorant dumb filthy bum of a hadith worshipping kafir bound to hell:

وَلَهُ الْحَمْدُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَعَشِيًّا وَحِينَ تُظْهِرُونَ (18)
And to Him belongs all praise in the heavens and the earth. And at night and when you are at noon.
[Al Quran ; 30:18]

-> See, you ignorant: وَلَهُ الْحَمْدُ .....………..عَشِيًّا وَحِينَ تُظْهِرُونَ , i.e. to Him belongs all praise ……… at night and when you are at noon

Here you have, inmate:




What's you point?? That mentions Noon and night and it actually doesn't even specifically mention prayers. The following verses actually mention prayers, so when the Quran is talking about prayers, it says prayers and when it's talking about praise or appreciation for Allah's creation, it says praise. Praise and prayers are not automatically the same thing.


17:78
Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night and the morning recitation; surely the morning recitation is witnessed.

This is night and morning


2:238 Attend constantly to prayers and to the middle prayer and stand up truly obedient to Allah.

This doesn't specify when, so maybe we'll just assume it means noon.

11:114 And keep up prayer in the two parts of the day and in the first hours of the night; surely good deeds take away evil deeds this is a reminder to the mindful.

This suggests there are only three times for prayer each day, and although it's not clear or specific at all, it would appear to be speaking about morning noon and night. That would make perfect sense and matches the other verses perfectly.


24:58
O you who believe! let those whom your right hands possess and those of you who have not attained to puberty ask permission of you three times; before the morning prayer, and when you put off your clothes at midday in summer, and after the prayer of the nightfall; these are three times of privacy for you; neither is it a sin for you nor for them besides these, some of you must go round about (waiting) upon others; thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.

This is the morning, and then another repeated mention of prayers at night. So let's tally it up. We have morning, noon, and night after the sun sets. That's three.

So where's numbers four and five?? Let's go liar. Let's have an answer.

And don't even try to pull a fast one on 24:58 and suggest it means "late" night as opposed to early night or evening, because that's simply false. There is no "late" in there, there is only night prayer. And even if you pulled that off, it still only adds up to 4. But you and I both know, the Quran mentions three times and it's right there in the verses I quoted.

Image

You lose again. # 97 :lol:

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:19 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
Ah yes, the beautiful sound of a liar being silenced once again. :lol:

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 6:20 pm
by The Cat
As far as I could get it, the five prayers are mentioned in the Koran, like so:

http://www.submission.org/salat-where.html
(1) The Dawn Prayer (Fajr in Arabic) given in 11:114, 24:58
(2) The Noon Prayer (Zuher in Arabic) , given in 17:78 and 30:18
(3) The Afternoon Prayer (Asr in Arabic), given in 2:238
(4) The sunset Prayer (Maghrib in Arabic), given in 11:114
(5) The Night Prayer (Isha in Arabic), given in 24:58

But the very notion of what is the koranic meaning of Salat (Arabic Sol-la'a) is much troubling. According to a koraner-only site:
http://mentalbondageinthenameofgod.wordpress.com/ (its chapter four and five are loaded with arguments...)

In the link given above, the author ends up (Part V) asking the Islamic clergy some pertinent questions:
How did the Prophet lead the ritual prayers for the non-believers according to (your reading of) 4:101-102?

Likewise, how does the word yuSollee in 3:39 turn into ritual prayer while in 33:43 it is said to mean honour?

How do the birds in the sky and everything between the heavens and the earth (including frogs, termites and trees, for example)
perform their ritual prayer? (24:41)

How could the ritual prayer (Sol-laa-tuka) of Shuaib in 11:87 have changed the economic system of the people?

It is inappropriate for the word Sol-laa or any of the derivatives (generated from the same root word) to be rendered as a ritual act
by people toward God. Its meanings relate to the commitments which link a human being to God through their deliberate deeds.
Sol-laa is the commitment to observe the prescribed covenants.

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:50 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:If Muhammad was merely a messenger and his job was to convey message then quran shouldn’t have said obey him because commanding isnt his job.

So the Koran defines him as a plain warner, a -remembrancer-, NOT a warder:
88.21-22: ''Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them.'' also: 10.108; 39.41; 42.48; 6.107:
''We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them.'' Something the hadiths had to contour any witch way!

It NEVER states to obey Muhammad's sunna (sunnata nabi) but that of Allah. Full Stop.
http://tawhiyd.webs.com/sunnainquraan.htm
On 17.77
Image
Examine Qur'aan 17:77 and you will see that the "SUNNA" is in past tense, so therefore the "SUNNA" that is spoken of in the Qur'aan
has nothing to do with the books called hadiyth (written by Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Muslim etc. which Sunni Muslims say is the sunna of
Muhammad) that were again written in the future (AFTER) the revelation of Islaam (Al Qur'aan) and not BEFORE.

On 48.23
Image
Again the "Sunna Allah" in that verse is in past tense, so therefore the "SUNNA" that is spoken of in the Qur'aan has nothing to do with
the books called hadiyth (written by Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Muslim etc. which Sunni Muslims say is the sunna of Muhammad) that were again
written in the future (AFTER) the revelation of Islaam (Al Qur'aan) and not BEFORE.


Prophet Muhammad followed the Sunna of Abraham and all the Messengers before him; Prophet Muhammad followed the Sunna of Allah (the way of Allah as recorded in the revelation of Al Qur'aan). Milla Ibrahiym and Sunna Allah are the same thing which is the revelation of Islaam, which has always existed since the beginning of time. (16.123);.... This is why their so-called sheiks, religious leaders, imams, ulama, mullas NEVER point this out to their followers within the plethora of their sects and schools of thought that they created in Islaam because they (sheiks, religious leaders, imams, ulama, mullas) who are concealers of the truth do not want the falsehood of their sect and their sectarian teachings in Islaam to be exposed.

So they keep us in darkness and do not teach us Arabic so that we can see that "hadiyth" and "sunna" are in fact in the Qur'aan and has nothing to do with the ahadiyth books written by Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Muslim etc, just to name a few hadiyth writers.

Yep. Muhammad himself was commanded to follow the path of Abraham the Upright. 42.13: ''He hath ordained (SHARA'A) for you that religion (DIN) which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the righteous path, and be not divided therein....''. So why should Muslims deviate from this through Muhammad's sunna?

But it DOES say obey Jesus in clear ways: 3.50; 43.63; 5.111, created in the likeness of Adam (3.59) in which Muhammad is asked not to waver (3.60)! And, in case of doubt, he's to consult ''those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee'' (10.94). How's that? The so-called 'perfect' example for Muslims to follow has himself need for guidance, for he is 'nothing new', just a warner(46.9)! The same is emphasized in 3.7: does it says Muhammad will later explains better Allah's revelations, or you'll need the tafsirs and hadiths to understand? -NO-.

What the Islamic clergy has done is to divert it all into the shirk of Muhammadanism's worship, through the compulsory lies of hadiths!
http://www.free-minds.org/obey
http://www.free-minds.org/obeygod2
http://www.free-minds.org/conflict
http://www.free-minds.org/obeygod

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:05 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:The gist of my argument is that just because muhammad forbid any book other than quran we cannot reject the entire hadith as a source of information on muhammad because many of the hadiths can be proven as true. Many of them confirm quran and hence to judge character of muhammad we can consider hadiths as authentic.

Wrong. Many hadiths undermined the Koran, like instituting man-made Sharia instead of the koranic laws (stoning, apostasy, women, etc).

All hadiths and tafsirs defame the Koran (3.7 and a plethora of other verses), especially when considered as law abinding religious guidance, worse still 'sacred' (hadith Qudsi), or pretending to 'explaining it' as do the Muhammadans. More so, in the case of Huraira, he's an aahad, the sole witness of his testimonies, yet a law giver, which is against all Islamic rules asking for at least two testimonies in ALL legal cases.

But, according to you, the hadiths are reliable because the hadiths say so (!!!). :wacko:

skynightblaze wrote:If Huraira was unreliable grandsons of Umar wouldn’t narrate hadiths from him.

Your logic is as delusional as the Muhammadans. They weren't Umar, no more than you are your grandfather.
That's a circular 'proof' by a hadith: the hadiths are reliable because they say so (!!!) :nono:

skynightblaze wrote:If Huraira is proved to be reliable then the pupil of Huraira too becomes reliable.The link that I gave above refutes most of the allegations against Abu Huraira and infact they establish that he was a reliable source.

How can Hurairah be reliable since we have -nothing- from him! Your circular reasoning is like the fabrication of the chain of narrators: so heard that from so, who got it from so, who got it from a 'trustable' companion, all of them worthy of canonical trust, while sura 9 tells the opposite.

That Huraira, the aahad, says that he's reliable is a circular hadith reasoning, worthy of trash. Your link, following the apologetic Muhammadan tradition, has no ground except that of a thousand storytellers' hearsays. Still, the hadiths are sound since the hadiths say so (!!!). :D

3.79: ''It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah; but (what he said was): Be ye faithful servants of the Lord by virtue of your constant teaching of the Scripture and of your constant study thereof.''

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:12 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:Show me where I said sahih hadiths are reliable because they say so? I defended hadiths using hadiths only once and that too when you and bahgat came with the accusation that hadiths themselves tell us that anything other than the quran should be deleted. .

L-I-A-R !!!
viewtopic.php?p=108550#p108550
Abu Huraira was carrying out the wishes of his prophet. I am using hadith to defend the position of the hadith.

LIAR! You wrote: ''The link I gave provides evidence that Abu Huraira was even trusted by grandsons of Umar so it can be established that whatever accusations Umar made against Huraira were unproven.'' That's from hadith. Or, in another thread, you've quoted to me B.1.4.161 to state that ''Uthman wasn't against the -narration- of reliable hadiths. That's a hadith too.

skynightblaze wrote:I already refuted that by saying that muhammad telling no to hadiths doesnt mean they are lies. It only means that muhammad didnt want anyone to take them as guidance. Many of the things from the hadiths can be proven as true and many hadiths help us in explaining the quran

Apart from the blasphemy of trying to explain the Koran, the hadiths introduced many things like Muhammad's intercession. They became more than guidance but a major source of laws, many of them from Huraira and other 'qudsi hadiths' (sacred). All this being sacrilegious, shirk.

See how you're merely parroting the Sunnites that the hadiths are reliable... because they say so. And Muhammad interdicted the writing of his sunna and hadiths, interdiction well followed by the four righteous caliphs and historically demonstrated.

Joseph Schacht: ''in general we can say: the more perfect the isnad, the later the tradition. Whenever traditions claim an additional guarantee by presenting themselves as transmitted amongst members of one family, e.g., from father to son and grandson, from aunt to nephew, or from master to freedman, it can be positively shown that these family isnads are not a primary indication of authenticity, but only a device for securing its appearance. In other words: the existence of a family isnad, contrary to what it pretends, is a positive indication that the tradition in question is not authentic....''

Patricia Crone: ''One of the biggest problems with the method of authentication by isnads is early traditionists were still developing the conventions of the isnad. They either gave no isnads, or gave isnads that were sketchy or deficient by later standards. Scholars who adhered strictly to the latest standards might find themselves rejecting or deprecating what was in fact the very earliest historical material, while accepting later, fabricated traditions that clothed themselves with impeccable isnads".

Now -carefully- read again my post, it debunks WHATEVER you may come with on the hadiths' reliability.
Hadiths: Its history says it all
viewtopic.php?p=122489#p122489

So let me rephrase my laughing matter, so that -even you- may understand....
Still the hadiths are reliable because... the scholars of hadiths say so... as per skynightblaze! :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:34 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:Why is anyone supposed to ignore the hadiths that show muhammad in bad light? Its not just Huraira but almost all the hadith narrators telling us something negative about muhammad so why are they supposed to be discarded?

That's YOUR perception. You would easily be killed for stating that ANY hadith show Muhammad in a negative light. See?
Image

skynightblaze wrote:I can understand one of them to be a fat liar but all?? This is ridiculous. Out of some 10,000 hadiths all are lies?

Alright. The Islamic tradition tells us that Muhammad was born in The Year of the Elephant, ie.570. The chain of narrators depends on this.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... man_av.htm
According to the most recent scholarship, Abraha died in 553 A.D. or shortly thereafter – but, according to the Muslims, Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. So, if we want to believe the Muslim traditions concerning Abraha, we have to push Muhammad's birth back 15, 16 or even 18 years. This has enormous consequences for much of early Islamic history. (...) The accuracy of their so-called "Sahih" Hadiths cannot be trusted because the "chains of transmission" may now be broken - most events in the life of Muhammad has been pushed back 18 years and gaps are bound to open up somewhere in the chains between Muhammad and the time of Bukhari, Muslim, and the other collectors.

The faulty chronology belongs to Abbas, founder of the Abbasids, in his urge to be the prophet's related, from the forged al-Muttalib of whom the Abraha inscription makes no mention, nor of any Mecca! So... the whole thing is a historical forgery.... for there were no Mecca in the 6th century.

A research over the archeological Mecca...
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm

Closing this, I came to another major historical blunder... discrediting Bukhari now and forever, escaping all scholarship so far...

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. How could this have escaped Bukhari?

For more about the hadiths
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithhistory
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithmyth
http://www.free-minds.org/hadith
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithcon
http://www.free-minds.org/aisha
http://www.free-minds.org/bukhari
http://www.free-minds.org/testimony
http://www.free-minds.org/seven
http://www.free-minds.org/rethink
A Pakistani court decision made by the judge Justice Muhammad Shafi subordinated the hadith compared to The Quran, he stated that "When The Quran demands obedience to the Prophet all it means is that one should be honest, steadfast, earnest, religious and pious as he was. And not that we should think and act as exactly as he did, because this is unatural and humanly impossible and if we attempted to do that, life will become absolutely difficult" (p135). He also stated "Every believer must have the right to read and interpret The Quran for him or herself, no interpretation can be considered binding." He was quickly replaced due to these comments.

But from what I got in many Islamic forums, the hadiths are being thorn apart. So, there's a lot of braining going on...

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:36 am
by AhmedBahgat
Salam all

My massive library of al-Mushrikoon man made books have reached over 500. Today I am going to show you a small part from one of the highly worhsipped man made books by al-Mushrikoon:

Book: سير أعلام النبلاء, Sayar Aalaam Al-Nubalaa, i.e. The stories of noble ones

Author: شمس الدين أبو عبد الله محمد بن أحمد الذَهَبي , in brief: Shams Al-Zahabi

In this book, we read a lot of hadith, but before I show you this one, I need to explain to you that there was a Jewish guy named Kaab Al-Ahbar who was the best friend of Abu Hurairah, he also embraced Islam with Abu Hurairah after the battle of Khaibar. which was fought on year 629, we know that prophet Muhammed died on 8th June 631 i.e. Abu Hurairah accompanied prophet Muhammed for under 3 years.

Now, these two good friends Abu Hurairah and Kaab Al-Ahbar went mad talking hadith about the prophet. So Omar Ibn Al-Khattab was pissed off, so Omar Ibn Al-Kattab threatened both of them as follow:

سَعِيْدُ بنُ عَبْدِ العَزِيْزِ: عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيْلَ بنِ عُبَيْدِ اللهِ، عَنِ السَّائِبِ بنِ يَزِيْدَ، سَمِعَ عُمَرَ يَقُوْلُ لأَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ:
لَتَتْرُكَنَّ الحَدِيْثَ عَنْ رَسُوْلِ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- أَوْ لأُلْحِقَنَّكَ بِأَرْضِ دَوْسٍ.
وَقَالَ لِكَعْبٍ: لَتَتْرُكَنَّ الحَدِيْثَ، أَوْ لأُلْحِقَنَّكَ بِأَرْضِ القِرَدَةِ. (2/601)


i.e.

Sa’ib Bin Yazeed heard Omar Ibn Al-Khattab saying to Abi Hurairah:

You must stop saying hadith or I will expel you to the land of Dous

And Omar Ibn Al-Khattab said to Kaab Al-Ahbar:

You must stop saying hadith or I will expel you to the land of monkeys.

-------------------------------

How humiliating for both of them, especially for Kaab Al-Ahbar, the one who mostely infected our great religion with some Jewish rubbish being an ex-Jewish

Under the above hadith in the same book, Abu Hurairah himself admitted that he was concealing hadith while Omar Ibn Al-Khattab was alive, fearing for his life. HOW COWARD AND DISHONEST ABU HURAIRAH WAS. See:

يَحْيَى بنُ أَيُّوْبَ: عَنِ ابْنِ عَجْلاَنَ:
أَنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ كَانَ يَقُوْلُ: إِنِّي لأُحَدِّثُ أَحَادِيْثَ، لَوْ تَكَلَّمْتُ بِهَا فِي زَمَنِ عُمَرَ، لَشَجَّ رَأْسِي.
قُلْتُ: هَكَذَا هُوَ كَانَ عُمَرُ -رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ- يَقُوْلُ: أَقِلُّوا الحَدِيْثَ عَنْ رَسُوْلِ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-.


i.e.


Ibn Aglaan said that Aba Hurairah used to say:

I tell you hadith that if I said it during Omar time, my head would have been broken.

And that is how Omar was always saying:

Minimise the hadith that you say about the messenger of Allah.

---------------

-> See the coward and dishonest Abu Hurairah: I tell you hadith that if I said it during Omar time, my head would have been broken. This certainly means that such hadith was never important or even be considered by all Muslims.

-> Can you see also that Omar Ibn Al-Khattab always commanded all the people to not to talk much about the prophet: Minimise the hadith that you say about the messenger of Allah.

So I must ask those hadith worshippers:

From where have you got all these millions and millions of hadith while the people were commanded by Muhammed and Omar to not to talk much about the prophet?

Did Abu Hurairah obey Omar? Impossible while he is the #1 hadith maniac who talked the most about the prophet.

This book سير أعلام النبلاء, Sayar Aalaam Al-Nubalaa, i.e. The stories of noble ones (as the printed copy) is 35 word documents, the above two hadith are found in document #3. I have highlighted this part in yellow in page 234 of 237. You can download it from the following link:

Download

Image # 2

Salam

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:36 am
by sum
Hello my most erudite friend, AhmedBahgat

Does what you present mean that the ahadith created by Abu Hurairah were incorrect?

Do you really think that people would stop talking about Muhammad? They had to talk about what he said and did in order to follow the correct Islamic way. They would need to keep each other informed.

Quote -
Under the above hadith in the same book, Abu Hurairah himself admitted that he was concealing hadith while Omar Ibn Al-Khattab was alive, fearing for his life. HOW COWARD AND DISHONEST ABU HURAIRAH WAS.

He might have been a coward but do not forget that he was frightened of the only argument that Islam has - killing. Concealing the ahadith does not mean that they are untrue. Are you using ahadith to discredit other ahadith? Something a bit fishy here.

sum

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:15 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:If Muhammad was merely a messenger and his job was to convey message then quran shouldn’t have said obey him because commanding isnt his job.

So the Koran defines him as a plain warner, a -remembrancer-, NOT a warder:
88.21-22: ''Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them.'' also: 10.108; 39.41; 42.48; 6.107:
''We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them.'' Something the hadiths had to contour any witch way!

It NEVER states to obey Muhammad's sunna (sunnata nabi) but that of Allah. Full Stop.
http://tawhiyd.webs.com/sunnainquraan.htm z


3.32.
Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger.: But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.
If it was about obeying Allah alone then quran would have stopped at saying Obey Allah but it goes further and says obey Muhammad too.if Obeying Muhammad again meant obeying Allah then its redundancy.

I don’t see any difference between you and Eagle here.Depending on verses where it says Muhammad is just a warner you are forcing a conclusion that obeying Allah and obeying the messenger must be meaning obey only Muhammad overlooking or ignoring the fact this is an internal contradiction.

The Cat wrote:On 17.77
Image
Examine Qur'aan 17:77 and you will see that the "SUNNA" is in past tense, so therefore the "SUNNA" that is spoken of in the Qur'aan
has nothing to do with the books called hadiyth (written by Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Muslim etc. which Sunni Muslims say is the sunna of
Muhammad) that were again written in the future (AFTER) the revelation of Islaam (Al Qur'aan) and not BEFORE.


Why are you bringing useless stuff into the debate? Did I ever mention 17:77 being a proof or a command for muslims to follow hadith? I didn’t .

The Cat wrote:On 48.23
Image
Again the "Sunna Allah" in that verse is in past tense, so therefore the "SUNNA" that is spoken of in the Qur'aan has nothing to do with
the books called hadiyth (written by Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Muslim etc. which Sunni Muslims say is the sunna of Muhammad) that were again
written in the future (AFTER) the revelation of Islaam (Al Qur'aan) and not BEFORE.


Again I didn’t bring these verses .

The Cat wrote:Prophet Muhammad followed the Sunna of Abraham and all the Messengers before him; Prophet Muhammad followed the Sunna of Allah (the way of Allah as recorded in the revelation of Al Qur'aan). Milla Ibrahiym and Sunna Allah are the same thing which is the revelation of Islaam, which has always existed since the beginning of time. (16.123);.... This is why their so-called sheiks, religious leaders, imams, ulama, mullas NEVER point this out to their followers within the plethora of their sects and schools of thought that they created in Islaam because they (sheiks, religious leaders, imams, ulama, mullas) who are concealers of the truth do not want the falsehood of their sect and their sectarian teachings in Islaam to be exposed.

So they keep us in darkness and do not teach us Arabic so that we can see that "hadiyth" and "sunna" are in fact in the Qur'aan and has nothing to do with the ahadiyth books written by Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Muslim etc, just to name a few hadiyth writers.

Again irrelevant because this is something I didn’t bring into the debate!

The Cat wrote:Yep. Muhammad himself was commanded to follow the path of Abraham the Upright. 42.13: ''He hath ordained (SHARA'A) for you that religion (DIN) which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the righteous path, and be not divided therein....''. So why should Muslims deviate from this through Muhammad's sunna?

You are using flawed muhammedian arguments . How did Muhammad follow Abraham,Noah,Jesus or Moses? He referred to those corrupt books?
If Muhammad followed the previous prophets and if muslims follow Muhammad doesn’t it mean that muslims follow the previous prophets(By property of transitivity , A follows B , B follows C and hence A follows C)?

Also if Muhhammad followed jesus and previous prophets and If Muhammad never ever told us other than what Allah commanded then why is following him wrong? Do muslims believe that Muhammad is going to mislead them by telling them something other than what Allah has told him?.By following Muhammad they are going to follow Allah himself because of the muslim assumption that Muhammad cant violate quran or Allah’s teachings so this explains as to how following Muhammad wouldn’t mean deviating from quranic teachings.Following verse confirms my point…

4.80.
He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah. But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds).
If you still think that muslims are deviating by following Muhammads sunnah then in order for them to not deviate from the sunnah they must follow previous prophet’s sunnah. How are they going to follow it ?What sources are to be used and what about their reliability?

The Cat wrote:But it DOES say obey Jesus in clear ways: 3.50; 43.63; 5.111, created in the likeness of Adam (3.59) in which Muhammad is asked not to waver (3.60)! And, in case of doubt, he's to consult ''those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee'' (10.94). How's that? The so-called 'perfect' example for Muslims to follow has himself need for guidance, for he is 'nothing new', just a warner(46.9)! The same is emphasized in 3.7: does it says Muhammad will later explains better Allah's revelations, or you'll need the tafsirs and hadiths to understand? -NO-.


Already replied above! Following Muhammad wouldn’t mean deviating from Allahs path.Also if he is just a warner then Muhammad shouldn’t be followed.Its an internal contradiction.

Also 16:44 refutes your claim about Muhammad not required to explain quran.Lets see it..

(We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.

If Muhammad is not to be obeyed why is he asked to explain Allah’ quran?

The Cat wrote:What the Islamic clergy has done is to divert it all into the shirk of Muhammadanism's worship, through the compulsory lies of hadiths!
http://www.free-minds.org/obey
http://www.free-minds.org/obeygod2
http://www.free-minds.org/conflict
http://www.free-minds.org/obeygod


Will go through it when I have time.

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:25 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:The gist of my argument is that just because muhammad forbid any book other than quran we cannot reject the entire hadith as a source of information on muhammad because many of the hadiths can be proven as true. Many of them confirm quran and hence to judge character of muhammad we can consider hadiths as authentic.


Wrong. Many hadiths undermined the Koran, like instituting man-made Sharia instead of the koranic laws (stoning, apostasy, women, etc).


That’s why I accepted that hadiths cant be taken as source of guidance but certainly you can generalize the character of Muhammad because of a consistency pattern showing him in bad light .

Let me give an example to prove my point. Imagine that a certain rogue has commited some crime and he disappears from the scene. Now the people who witnessed the crime give a rough description of how the rogue looks like .From the description of the rogue the artist draws a sketch approximately.The sketch may not be accurate exactly but certainly it gives us a rough idea of how the rogue looks like.Obviously details narrated by different people will not be same exactly but the artist gets the approximate picture of the rogue when many of the details narrated by people match . They don’t discard people descriptions merely because some of them don’t match.Same is the case here.Infact our case is more strong because many hadiths are confirmed by quran which is considered authentic.

A lot of crimes have been attributed to Muhammad in the hadiths and some of them are confirmed by quran too for e.g looting people or raping the slaves. Now since quran confirms these hadiths we get a hint that Muhammad must be some nasty individual so one thing is sure that Muhammad wasn’t any saint but a rogue.So the point is that hadiths aren’t exaggerating when they show Muhammad in bad light.From the quran itself we can prove paedophilia so hadiths showing Muhammad as a paedophile must be true .

So here we are heading towards some conclusion … Hadiths aren’t complete lies.When they narrate crimes of Muhammad they must be true because no believer who is ready to sacrifice his life for Muhammad would portray Muhammad in bad light deliberately and send himself to hell and on top of that quran wont confirm to hadiths if they were lies so inspite of many hadiths being wrong conclusion doesn’t change i.e all hadiths aren’t lies!

The Cat wrote:All hadiths and tafsirs defame the Koran (3.7 and a plethora of other verses), especially when considered as law abinding religious guidance, worse still 'sacred' (hadith Qudsi), or pretending to 'explaining it' as do the Muhammadans.


The fundamental muslim belief is that Muhammad cannot be wrong and he cant mislead them so whatever muhamamad says must be from Allah so following Muhammad wouldn’t mean deviating from Allahs path so that refutes your allegation that qudsi hadiths shouldn’t be followed.4:80 which I brought up previously confirms my point.One more thing here , I already accepted that hadiths cant be taken as source of guidance but the problem is quran becomes incomplete in many cases .

The Cat wrote: More so, in the case of Huraira, he's an aahad, the sole witness of his testimonies, yet a law giver, which is against all Islamic rules asking for at least two testimonies in ALL legal cases.


Abu Huraira wasn’t passing any legal laws. HE was narrating hadiths. Big difference!

The Cat wrote:But, according to you, the hadiths are reliable because the hadiths say so (!!!). :wacko:


Ok I have to accept that in some way I was wrong when I said hadiths can be used to defend hadiths because I should have explained what I meant by that when I said that. I am not completely wrong when I said this..

Its time to give you a thrashing of your life here.You need some lessons on logic.

You accused me of being a liar in further posts because I denied quoting hadiths to defend hadiths but I already had declared before that I only used hadiths regarding uthman telling us why hadiths need to be written.Now let me explain it to you how I aint completely wrong..

For your information even the person being accused in the court is allowed to defend himself. Obviously when he defends we don’t take as statements to be exactly true
but he is allowed to defend himself .Now let me come to the core of the argument..

Consider the following 2 statements A and B..
A)The hadiths themselves say that they shouldn’t be written
B)Hadiths say they should be written

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 could be true and A is false so your argument depending on statement A is invalidated. That’s why I said that you also need to look at hadiths that tell us why they were written .In other words the hadiths get the benefit of doubt.Its in this sense I am allowed to defend hadiths to defend hadiths.

All I am doing is bringing all the statements related to authenticity of hadiths together from the hadiths and then trying to draw a conclusion but you on the other hand oppose this because you don’t understand the simple fact that before we draw any conclusion we need to examine all the statements . Now to find which statement whether A or B is right you can use logic or some other source like Quran .

Its because of the above logic I have the right to bring them into debate and to show you that a definite conclusion cant be drawn when we see 2 contradictory statements so in this way hadiths can be used to defend the hadiths.
Also a liar like you didn’t quote me completely. Lets see what I wrote previously..

skynightblaze wrote:
AS far proving authenticity of hadiths is concerned I can use logic and also the quran to validate the hadiths.

So you see the underlined part ?TO validate the authenticity I agreed I need to use quran and logic.Before writing this statement I said to you that if you see what hadiths say on one hand about anything we should also see what they say about the same concept somewhere else before we draw any conclusion and thats how hadiths can be defended using hadiths
.
skynightblaze wrote:Well if you accuse hadiths using a hadith then we also need to see what the same hadith say about collection of hadiths.I quoted hadiths in response to Bahgat to show as to why the companions of muhammad decided to narrate the hadiths.
Its like when you accuse quran of any error the person who believes in quran has the full liberty to use the quran for its defense


Finally it may appear that I am trying to cover up for my previous argument but nevertheless it isn’t wrong .

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:If Huraira was unreliable grandsons of Umar wouldn’t narrate hadiths from him.

Your logic is as delusional as the Muhammadans. They weren't Umar, no more than you are your grandfather.


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.They were muslims and no muslim would dare to refer to a known liar to understand their prophet. Show me a single case today. I will accept your argument.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:If Huraira is proved to be reliable then the pupil of Huraira too becomes reliable.The link that I gave above refutes most of the allegations against Abu Huraira and infact they establish that he was a reliable source.


How can Hurairah be reliable since we have -nothing- from him! Your circular reasoning is like the fabrication of the chain of narrators: so heard that from so, who got it from so, who got it from a 'trustable' companion, all of them worthy of canonical trust, while sura 9 tells the opposite.

Quran and logic decide which hadith is authentic.Period.

The Cat wrote:That Huraira, the aahad, says that he's reliable is a circular hadith reasoning, worthy of trash. Your link, following the apologetic Muhammadan tradition, has no ground except that of a thousand storytellers' hearsays. Still, the hadiths are sound since the hadiths say so (!!!). :D


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. I have explained why I used a hadith to defend itself above.I don’t say that hadiths are reliable because hadith says so.

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:31 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Show me where I said sahih hadiths are reliable because they say so? I defended hadiths using hadiths only once and that too when you and bahgat came with the accusation that hadiths themselves tell us that anything other than the quran should be deleted. .

L-I-A-R !!! viewtopic.php?p=108550#p108550

[/quote]

Ok fine. I was asking you in reference to this thread. Eventhough I used hadith to defend the ha dith the logic is still the same as explained above.

The Cat wrote:
Abu Huraira was carrying out the wishes of his prophet. I am using hadith to defend the position of the hadith.

LIAR! You wrote: ''The link I gave provides evidence that Abu Huraira was even trusted by grandsons of Umar so it can be established that whatever accusations Umar made against Huraira were unproven.'' That's from hadith. Or, in another thread, you've quoted to me B.1.4.161 to state that ''Uthman wasn't against the -narration- of reliable hadiths. That's a hadith too.


We need to see all the hadiths regarding this topic and unless we see them we cant draw any conclusion and in this sense one hadith can be used to defend the other just as quran can be used to defend quran on a particular topic.Btw the had ith where it says that grandsons of umar narrated hadiths from Abu Huraira can be verified by actually checking the hadiths so its verifiable and hence a fact so there goes your argument in drain.Even if it wasn’t a fact we can still take it as a source of information to draw a conclusion as explained above in the post which speaks about using hadiths to defend hadiths.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I already refuted that by saying that muhammad telling no to hadiths doesnt mean they are lies. It only means that muhammad didnt want anyone to take them as guidance. Many of the things from the hadiths can be proven as true and many hadiths help us in explaining the quran

Apart from the blasphemy of trying to explain the Koran, the hadiths introduced many things like Muhammad's intercession. They became more than guidance but a major source of laws, many of them from Huraira and other 'qudsi hadiths' (sacred). All this being sacrilegious, shirk.

See how you're merely parroting the Sunnites that the hadiths are reliable... because they say so. And Muhammad interdicted the writing of his sunna and hadiths, interdiction well followed by the four righteous caliphs and historically demonstrated.


I have used quran to defend hadiths to prove authenticity of hadiths .Inspite of your efforts we still see some hadiths confirming to quran so what does this tell anyone? It tells us that some hadiths are still reliable if not all so do I need to look at the history that you presented? One more thing you never gave the source of the history that you presented and you never told us as to why we are supposed to trust them .

The Cat wrote:Joseph Schacht: ''in general we can say: the more perfect the isnad, the later the tradition. Whenever traditions claim an additional guarantee by presenting themselves as transmitted amongst members of one family, e.g., from father to son and grandson, from aunt to nephew, or from master to freedman, it can be positively shown that these family isnads are not a primary indication of authenticity, but only a device for securing its appearance. In other words: the existence of a family isnad, contrary to what it pretends, is a positive indication that the tradition in question is not authentic....''

Patricia Crone: ''One of the biggest problems with the method of authentication by isnads is early traditionists were still developing the conventions of the isnad. They either gave no isnads, or gave isnads that were sketchy or deficient by later standards. Scholars who adhered strictly to the latest standards might find themselves rejecting or deprecating what was in fact the very earliest historical material, while accepting later, fabricated traditions that clothed themselves with impeccable isnads".


These are opinions and not facts.I have already proved above that some hadiths are authentic and that too using the quran .

The Cat wrote:Now -carefully- read again my post, it debunks WHATEVER you may come with on the hadiths' reliability.
Hadiths: Its history says it all
viewtopic.php?p=122489#p122489

Again .I have already proved above that some hadiths are authentic and that too using the quran so I don’t have to look up at that history.

The Cat wrote:So let me rephrase my laughing matter, so that -even you- may understand....
Still the hadiths are reliable because... the scholars of hadiths say so... as per skynightblaze! :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:


If only you realized how stupid your logic was in the first place, you wouldn’t laugh.

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:34 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:As far as I could get it, the five prayers are mentioned in the Koran, like so:

http://www.submission.org/salat-where.html
(1) The Dawn Prayer (Fajr in Arabic) given in 11:114, 24:58
(2) The Noon Prayer (Zuher in Arabic) , given in 17:78 and 30:18
(3) The Afternoon Prayer (Asr in Arabic), given in 2:238
(4) The sunset Prayer (Maghrib in Arabic), given in 11:114
(5) The Night Prayer (Isha in Arabic), given in 24:58

But the very notion of what is the koranic meaning of Salat (Arabic Sol-la'a) is much troubling. According to a koraner-only site:
http://mentalbondageinthenameofgod.wordpress.com/ (its chapter four and five are loaded with arguments...)

In the link given above, the author ends up (Part V) asking the Islamic clergy some pertinent questions:
How did the Prophet lead the ritual prayers for the non-believers according to (your reading of) 4:101-102?

Likewise, how does the word yuSollee in 3:39 turn into ritual prayer while in 33:43 it is said to mean honour?

How do the birds in the sky and everything between the heavens and the earth (including frogs, termites and trees, for example)
perform their ritual prayer? (24:41)

How could the ritual prayer (Sol-laa-tuka) of Shuaib in 11:87 have changed the economic system of the people?

It is inappropriate for the word Sol-laa or any of the derivatives (generated from the same root word) to be rendered as a ritual act
by people toward God. Its meanings relate to the commitments which link a human being to God through their deliberate deeds.
Sol-laa is the commitment to observe the prescribed covenants.


There is no mention of 5 prayers in the quran. Bahgat tried doing that .. See the following link..

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7592&start=200

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:40 pm
by skynightblaze
@CAT

I am yet to answer your last post. I will take some time.

Now let me put the questions here that you avoided to answer here.

1) If Abu Huraira was unreliable and a complete fabricator why didnt muhammad kill him as per 5:33 directive? Do quran only muslims accept that Muhammad violated the quran by not following 5:33?

2) If Abu Huraira is reliable because Umar,Uthman,Ali,Aisha tell us in the hadiths then its obvious that you consider these sources as reliable . If that is the case then you should also accept the hadiths narrated by these very people in the Bukhari. The count of hadiths that these people narrated is around 3000 .

3)

4.59.

O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.

How is anyone supposed to obey the men of authority if only quran is to be taken as a source of guidance?

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:03 pm
by skynightblaze
sum wrote:Hello my most erudite friend, AhmedBahgat

Does what you present mean that the ahadith created by Abu Hurairah were incorrect?

Do you really think that people would stop talking about Muhammad? They had to talk about what he said and did in order to follow the correct Islamic way. They would need to keep each other informed.

Quote -
Under the above hadith in the same book, Abu Hurairah himself admitted that he was concealing hadith while Omar Ibn Al-Khattab was alive, fearing for his life. HOW COWARD AND DISHONEST ABU HURAIRAH WAS.

He might have been a coward but do not forget that he was frightened of the only argument that Islam has - killing. Concealing the ahadith does not mean that they are untrue. Are you using ahadith to discredit other ahadith? Something a bit fishy here.

sum


:lol: you spoiled the fun for him. I have come to the conclusion that not all the hadith are reliable but The Cat and Bahgat want to get rid of the hadiths because they dont like seeing Muhammad in bad light. I can understand bahgat feeling the need to dismiss them but I dont understand why THE CAt - a non muslim would want to dismiss them!

One thing I can conclude is islam is not reliable. Neither can anyone prove authenticity of quran or the hadiths. For the sake of debate we need to assume quran is authentic and hence other things should be judged by it but how can quran be proven to be authentic? It cant be and hence I think religion of islam is complete crap and should be discarded.

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:56 am
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:If it was about obeying Allah alone then quran would have stopped at saying Obey Allah but it goes further and says obey Muhammad too.

Where does it say 'obey Muhammad' or his sunna? If you can't even read properly... that's how foolish you end up.
3:80 And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords. Would he command you to disbelieve after ye had surrendered (to Allah) ?
3:84 Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them...

skynightblaze wrote:You are forcing a conclusion that obeying Allah and obeying the messenger must be meaning obey only Muhammad overlooking or ignoring the fact this is an internal contradiction.

You're deluded... so to state: ''Why are you bringing useless stuff into the debate? Did I ever mention 17:77 being a proof or a command for muslims to follow hadith?''

It's -a proof- that the only sunna recognized in Koran is that of Allah. Refute this or stand corrected...
Image
Examine Qur'aan 17:77 and you will see that the "SUNNA" is in past tense, so therefore the "SUNNA" that is spoken of in the Qur'aan
has nothing to do with the books called hadiyth (written by Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Muslim etc. which Sunni Muslims say is the sunna of
Muhammad) that were again written in the future (AFTER) the revelation of Islaam (Al Qur'aan) and not BEFORE.


What is it in this that you or the mullahs don't understand: The only Sunna to follow shall be God's Sunna: -17:77; -33:62; -48:23; -6:114 ?
Or, 45.6: These are the portents of Allah which We recite unto thee (Muhammad) with truth.
Then in what fact (HADITHI), after Allah and His portents, will they believe ?


skynightblaze wrote:Again irrelevant because this is something I didn’t bring into the debate!

Arguments that I bring aren't relevant because -you- didn't bring them.... Only -yours- are relevant? :lotpot:

skynightblaze wrote:4.80.
He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah. But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds).
If you still think that muslims are deviating by following Muhammads sunnah then in order for them to not deviate from the sunnah they must follow previous prophet’s sunnah. How are they going to follow it ?What sources are to be used and what about their reliability? .... If Muhammad is not to be obeyed why is he asked to explain Allah’ quran (16.44)?

---already explained in 3.50/59/60, 10.94, 3.7 and 42.13 (where Allah's shariah is mentioned): ''He hath ordained (SHARA'A) for you that religion (DIN) which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the righteous path, and be not divided therein....''.

Take off your blinders and read properly, until then you're a laughing matter as proven right above... :stretcher:

skynightblaze wrote:Will go through it when I have time.

http://www.free-minds.org/obey
http://www.free-minds.org/obeygod2
http://www.free-minds.org/conflict
http://www.free-minds.org/obeygod

I sure hope so, you'd stop parroting sunnites and discrediting yourself furthermore.
Why are you bringing useless stuff into the debate? Did I ever mention 17:77
:sly: :stupid:

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:34 am
by The Cat
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:
viewtopic.php?p=122489#p122489
Spoiler! :
The Cat wrote:Hadiths, its history says it all... (***)

1. Under Muhammad
1. ---No contemporary hadiths from the time of Muhammad who ordered them not to be written down, but could only be transmitted orally. Ibn Saeed Al-Khudry reported that the messenger of God had said, "-Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it.-" The following historical incident happened about 30 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad and shows that the Prophet never canceled his order not to write but the Quran.

2. Under the four righteous caliphs
2. ---No hadiths up to the time of Umar who destroyed all existing hadiths on the ground that they were ''like the Mishnah of the Jewish people''. He admonished Abu Hurairah for attempting to do so and for stealing: ''You're an enemy of Allah and of His Book'', emphasized by Aischa: ''you write ahadith of the Prophet we never heard of...'' And Ali Ibn Abu Talib, "I urge all those who have writings taken from the messenger of God to go home and erase it. The people before you were annihilated because they followed the Hadiths of their scholars and left the book of their Lord." (Sunan Al-Daramy).

In "Ulum Al-Hadith" by Ibn Al-Salah, reports a hadith by Abu Huraira in which he stated that the messenger of God came out to us while we were writing his hadiths and said; "What are you writing?" We said, "Hadiths that we hear from you, messenger of God." He said, "A book other than the book of God ?!" We said, "Should we talk about you?" He said, Talk about me, that would be fine, but those who will lie will go to Hell. Abu Huraira said, we collected what we wrote of Hadiths and burned them in fire.

3. Muawiya
3. ---The hadiths allegedly start with Muawiya who was in need of corroborations against Ali and the family of the Prophet, for he wasn't. He named Huraira as governor of Medina who helped him against Ali. From then on, the hadiths were made against Ali's partisans and family members... 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."

4. Ibn Abdul-Aziz (some 80 years after Muhammad)
4. ---The hadiths received a first imprimatur from Omar ibn Adbul-Aziz (682-720) and al-Zuhri began a compilation. One of his pupil being Ibn Ishaq. A second civil war happened soon after driving Ibn Abbas and the Abbasid dynasty. He was in urge to be related with Muhammad and that came throught the hadiths around al-Muttalib in Mecca. Ibn Greeg, Malik Ibn Anas, Mohammed Ibn Is'haq. Malik Ibn Anas collected about 500 hadiths in his famous book, "Al-Muwattaa." After that they spread like wild fire from many story-tellers for political, religious or ideological motivations

5. Under the Mutazilites
5. ---The Mutazilites go back to the former interdiction over all hadiths. The Koran was created they hold, which upset many. They, the Shi'ites and Abu Hanifa never recognized Huraira as a reliable source.

6. Ibn Idrīs al-Shafiʿī (767-820)
6. ---Not a hadith collector, yet the founder of the Islamic Jurisprudence.
viewtopic.php?p=98118#p98118
According to the ancient schools, traditions from the Prophet as such do not as yet possess an overriding authority; only Shafi'i, obviously under the influence of the pressure group of traditionists, upholds consistently the doctrine that when there exists a tradition from the Prophet, no other argument is valid.... and it is clear that this doctrine was a startling innovation in his time. It is certain, too, that the great mass of legal traditions which invoke the authority of the Prophet, originated in the time of Shafi'i and later....

Even the general reference to Companions (or to Successors), a stage which preceded the technical and formal reference to individual traditions from the Prophet, date only from about the year A.H. 100. We must therefore abandon the gratuitous assumptions that there existed originally an authentic core of information going back to the time of the Prophet.... The important point is that to a much higher degree than hitherto suspected, seemingly historical information on the Prophet is only the background for legal doctrines and therefore devoid of independent value. For instance, the Medinese regarded the marriage concluded by a pilgrim as invalid, the Meccans and the Iraqians regarded it as valid. The Medinese projected their doctrine back to Ibn 'Umar and, with spurious circum­stantial details, to 'Umar himself. -Joseph Schacht.
http://www.answering-islam.net/Books/Sc ... uation.htm

7. Ibn Hanbal (786-863)
7. ---In reaction to the Mutazilites (reason over blind faith), Ibn Hanbal declared that not only the Koran is the timeless words of Allah but that the Hadiths are from the same divine inspiration. He rejected all former Hanafi's and Shia's hadiths, in order to legitimate the Abbasid dynasty. Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, collected about 40,000 hadiths, in his famous "Musnad" rejecting about 700,000 hadiths (99%). He had 3848 hadiths from Huraira!

8. Bukhari (810-870)
8. ---Bukhari collected about 600,000 hadiths and accepted 7275 hadiths and considered 592,725 hadiths to be fabrications, that is almost 99% of what he collected. He's the 1st of the six 'collectors of 'Sahih hadiths'.

9. 'Shahih' Muslim (818-875)
9. ---Sahih Muslim collected 300,000 hadiths to keep about 4,000. Many of his narrators aren't quoted by Bukhari and many of his own's aren't quoted by Bukhari, whom he taxed of plagiarism.

(***)
This historical survey entirely depends upon a Muhammad being born in 570, ie. The Year of the Elephant, that's according to the hadiths.
It's from this corner stone datation that the prophet moved to Medina in 622 (1 AH), fought his battles and died ten years later, in 632.
But the whole hadith built-up crumbles down as the Year of the Elephant is now, without the shadow of a doubt, dated 552AD... NOT 570.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5518

On and on a new religion came out: Muhammadanism. It became distantly related to Koran since the Hadiths were 'able' to explain it!

Still the hadiths are reliable because... the hadiths say so... as per skynightblaze! :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

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.
:reading: :roflmao:

skynightblaze wrote:Finally it may appear that I am trying to cover up for my previous argument but nevertheless it isn’t wrong
:roflmao: :roflmao:

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.

Image

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. :P

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:54 am
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:the hadith where it says that grandsons of umar narrated hadiths from Abu Huraira can be verified by actually checking the hadiths so its verifiable and hence a fact so there goes your argument in drain.Even if it wasn’t a fact...

Please stop. I'm crawling out of breath... :lol1: :giveup:

skynightblaze wrote:I have used quran to defend hadiths to prove authenticity of hadiths. Inspite of your efforts we still see some hadiths confirming to quran so what does this tell anyone? It tells us that some hadiths are still reliable if not all so do I need to look at the history that you presented?

Of course you didn't look at the history I've presented. After all, it wasn't one of your argument thus irrelevant, by your standard! :prop:

skynightblaze wrote:These are opinions and not facts.I have already proved above that some hadiths are authentic and that too using the quran.

All you have proven so far is your own infatuation like leveling top scholars, such as Schacht and Patricia Crone, down to -your- opinion. :D

skynightblaze wrote:If only you realized how stupid your logic was in the first place, you wouldn’t laugh.

You should stop embarrassing yourself that much... :bestwishes:

skynightblaze wrote:1) If Abu Huraira was unreliable and a complete fabricator why didnt muhammad kill him as per 5:33 directive?

You are null in the most dummy historical understanding: Huraira obeyed and never published his hadiths as they were recorded by his pupil, only to come out first from Ibn Hanbal.

In "Ulum Al-Hadith" by Ibn Al-Salah, reports a hadith by Abu Huraira in which he stated that the messenger of God came out to us while we were writing his hadiths and said; "What are you writing?" We said, "Hadiths that we hear from you, messenger of God." He said, "A book other than the book of God ?!" We said, "Should we talk about you?" He said, Talk about me, that would be fine, but those who will lie will go to Hell. Abu Huraira said, we collected what we wrote of Hadiths and burned them in fire.

skynightblaze wrote:2) If Abu Huraira is reliable because Umar,Uthman,Ali,Aisha tell us in the hadiths then its obvious that you consider these sources as reliable
.
A complete disingenuous nonsense. They tell us exactly the opposite. Don't you know how forgers work by introducing 95% fabrications melt with a spoon of truth: appearances. Ever seen a forged bank bill?

skynightblaze wrote:4.59.

Read the context, in 4.58. It's all about restoring deposits to the owners. :turban:

3.78-80: And lo! there is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture. And they say: It is from Allah, when it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly.

3.79: It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah; but (what he said was): Be ye faithful servants of the Lord by virtue of your constant teaching of the Scripture and of your constant study thereof.

3.80: And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords....

Thanks for the laughing, if there's a midnight hadith comedy hour, try your luck... :wink:

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:56 am
by sum
Hello The Cat

I am uncertain regarding your position on the ahadith. Do you accept any of them as giving us a true picture of the words and deeds of Muhammad?

sum