Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

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

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:
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.
Yes I am sorry Cat. I didn’t read the following verses properly.Ya where is it mentioned that muhmmad should be obeyed? It isn’t!

[003:032]
Say: "Obey God and His Apostle": But if they turn back, God loveth not those who reject Faith.
[004:080]
The one who obeys the messenger has in fact obeyed Allah. We have not sent you as a warden over anyone who turns away.
The Cat wrote: 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) ?
Who said by following Muhammad you are taking him as your lord? Ask any muhammedian whether he thinks by following Muhammad he is taking Muhammad as his lord? They consider Muhammad as a link between Allah and muslims .

By following muhammad we arent taking muhammad as a lord but we are only taking him as an interface.In short command is Allahs and muhammad is a messenger.
The Cat wrote: 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...
Already debunked previously!
Following Muhammad would mean following Allahs sunnah and previous prophets sunnah via Muhammad. Now unless Muhammad is a fabricator it should be no problem for muslims to believe what he narrates on behalf of Allah and previous prophets.

Now you raise a point that Muhammad could sin as evident in quran .AS far Muhammad sinning or going wrong is concerned Allah corrected him when he went wrong in the quran.

Now if muslims cant even trust their prophet for the majority of times when he explains something on behalf of Allah then their belief is ludicrous.

The Cat wrote:
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...
Read above! Following Muhammad would mean following previous prophets as well as sunnah set by Allah . If following Muhammad is deviating from Allahs path then its accepting the fact that Muhammad violated Allahs path so by following what Muhammad says on behalf of Allah you are following Allah unless Muslims believe that muhammad is a fraud! So its proved that sunna of Allah is not violated..
The Cat wrote:

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 ?
Hey Bullsh!tter please stop this crap ! Your pathetic argument has been refuted above.
The Cat wrote:
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:
Oh you idiot read your quote carefully! The quote you brought was in response to debunking sunni argument where they assert that 17:77 is talking about following Sunna of Muhammad through hadith.
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.
And hence I was right when I said that I didn’t bring that verse into discussion to prove that muhammads sunnah should be followed through hadiths .As far as following Sunna of Allah is concerned its already refuted above.Btw again it’s the same argument from the site you copy pasted which you have been doing throughout this debate!

The Cat wrote:
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:
I am not interested in reply to same things again and again.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Will go through it when I have time.

http://www.free-minds.org/obey" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/obeygod2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/conflict" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/obeygod" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I sure hope so, you'd stop parroting sunnites and discrediting yourself furthermore.
Oh so I am an idiot here. Right? How about we take a poll ? IF you are not a coward please go ahead and conduct a poll and place the link here in this thread for the people who are following this debate to vote . I leave it to the audience to decide .

Oh yes I will be going through Free minds too and will post my responses to them if I can but it will take time and I dont plan to do it now.Btw I haven’t read them yet.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

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

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:
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).
Muhammad erred and quran corrected him so following sunna of Muhammad would mean following Allah! IF Muhammad kept erring and if Allah didn’t correct him then doesn’t that mean that Muhammad himself is violating the quran? How can muslims believe such a man?

As far as following example of Muhammad is concerned its right there in the quran. Look up for 33:21.
The Cat wrote:
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.
Its proven beyond doubt thousands of times.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/qu ... edophilia/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Quran" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both these links exhaustively give proofs of paedophilia in the quran and in addition they refer to tafsir scholars so come like a crying baby that they have referred to sources other than quran.The point is that they have proved first from quran and other sources are used as a support.
If you want to debunk them start a thread in the quran and the hadith folder.I or others would reply to you.
The Cat wrote:
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.
Who said when hadiths speak about good stuff they aren’t correct? A few good things done by Muhammad don’t invalidate the bad things that he did.

IF you commit just one murder but you were nice all your life you will be hanged! This is how law works.In case of Muhammad we see that he did very little good and much more nasty things so why respect Muhammad?
The Cat wrote:
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.
That’s correct but Allah corrects his messenger so we see Muhammad cant be wrong because Allah watches his activities all the time and corrects him if required.
The Cat wrote:
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hadiths, its history says it all... (***)
blah blah....
Your history holds no good when I have shown that some hadiths confirm quran.If the hadiths are still wrong then quran also becomes wrong because quran confirms many hadiths so there is no choice for a muslim but to accept both hadith and quran or else the other choice is to leave islam.A muslim cant be quran only in that case.

As far as proving your history is concerned I have already refuted most of its arguments.Muhammad saying no to hadiths doesn’t mean what the hadith narrators are complete lies.It only means that hadith cant be taken as soure of guidance.They can still be taken as source of information because authenticity of many hadiths can be proven inspite of Muhammad saying no to hadiths!

I don’t have to refute your history because quran confirms many hadith so the game is over for you .What good is history when we have quran confirming something?
The Cat wrote:
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On and on a new religion came out: Muhammadanism. It became distantly related to Koran since the Hadiths were 'able' to explain it!
You think this is a tough argument? Your shooting yourself in foot.If hadiths are unreliable then so is quran because quran confirms hadiths on many counts so if we are take this quote of your seriously it would also mean that you cant be quran only muslim too .

The logic is A is corrupted,B confirms A and hence B too is corrupted and hence in our case both quran and hadith become unreliable! GAME OVER PUSSY CAT!!

So its proved beyond a doubt that you cant be a quran only muslim which is why you are arguing here.



The Cat wrote:
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?
How do you know Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz lived from 682-720? I mean what is your source?
Does Bukhari or sahih muslim mention it ? If not then let me point out a gross blunder here.
Most probably this isn’t mentioned in Sahih collections.Sahih hadiths were considered reliable by muslims during those times and yet we find so many mistakes in it . Now imagine how erroneous non sahih sources would be when even those muslims (sahih followers) found them unreliable? You want me to take them as source ?
This refutes your argument but lets assume that your argument is true and bukhari indeed got this as wrong.Well Bukhari got 1 hadith wrong out of some 10,000 hadiths which is 0.01 % .Bukhari was a human after all and not any God so he is bound to make mistakes.

SO here is it folks! THE CAT wants us to reject all the bukhari hadiths because 0.01 % of his work is unreliable? Don’t you see the wisdom behind this? :lol:
The Cat wrote:
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.
16:44 asked Muhammad to explain quran so naturally Allah feels that his quran needs an explanation and hence collecting religious knowledge is necessary and that’s have a chapter called as tafsir of the prophet in Bukhari . This refutes one more of your stupid argument.

Oh about mental capacity people can already see how intelligent you are !

Btw can we have a poll about this debate so that people declare you as a winner further confirming your point? :lol: I am in a mood to give you more laughs as you seem to laugh on every argument I make. :lol:
The Cat wrote:
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."
Quran confirms some hadiths and game is over for you! IT means that some hadiths are reliable inspite of Muhammad saying no to hadiths!

The Cat wrote:
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?
Its obvious that you are selectively picking . History makes statement A but it also makes the statement B but you insisted that I don’t bring up statement B because I would be defending hadiths using hadiths. So what does that mean? It means you want to draw conclusion merely on statement A .You don’t want to look at the other part of the history and hence you are accused for selective picking.GET IT????

The Cat wrote:
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:
Are you sure your laughter is not artificial ? I mean especially knowing how badly you are performing here.. :*)
The Cat wrote:
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!
You are asking me to see above when all that you have written hardly makes any sense.Was this reply of yours a substitute for an answer?


The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
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.
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
[/quote]

I aint interested in repeating the same arguments again and again.I can understand why you would feel doing that because you have no other argument .Only the verses are new but the content is the same.Again the response to it is same about obeying muhammad that I put before.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

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

Post by skynightblaze »

I am going to skip your mockery and reply only to those arguments which have some merit.
The Cat wrote:
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:
You seem to have difficulty understanding simple things.When we have hadiths confirming quran does really your history count?
The Cat wrote:
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
Are you a muslim? You show all the traits of a muslim. A lot many scholarly people have also claimed that islam is true but does that mean its really true? A scholar is not necessarily always right.
The Cat wrote:
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.
How come the righteous caliphs didn’t follow this quranic directive in that case? Abu huraira obeyed Muhammad during his tenure but then he cut loose after Muhammad died. How come not a single muslim or any of the caliph raise this point that Abu Huraira is causing mischief in the land and needs to be executed?
The Cat wrote:
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?
So you mean that only the quotes that you tell us were the ultimate truth while rest of what the hadiths narrated were forgeries? How do you know in that case that you own quotes aren’t forgeries?
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:4.59.

Read the context, in 4.58. It's all about restoring deposits to the owners. :turban:
[004:058]
God doth command you to render back your Trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice: Verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For God is He Who heareth and seeth all things.

[004:059]
O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you.If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.

So according to you 4:59 is asking us to obey men of authority with respect to restoring deposits to owners? Really?
Read the underlined part in 4:58 . Allah is issuing a COMMAND to the muslims about restoring deposits to the owners so are you trying to tell us that inspite of Allah issuing a command we are still supposed to consult men of authority? What is the point in issuing a command when the final matter is to be left to the men of authority ?

The morale is that 4:58 has got nothing to do with 4:59. In 4:59 quran asks people to obey men of authority with regards to religion as it places men of authority along with Muhammad and Allah.The men of authority were Umar ,Abu Bakhr,Ali and Uthman.They were believed to be religious by Muhammad.

Btw you told me a different story other day regarding this verse…
The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
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.....
skynightblaze wrote:IF only Allah and his messenger are reliable as per later part which you reddened then why ask us to obey *men of authority*? They too must be reliable...
1. Obey Allah.
2. Obey the Messenger
3. Those charged with authority -among you-.
4. If you differ in -anything- among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger.

This authority was among some of Muhammad's contemporaries like Abu Bakr, Uthman, Umar and Ali. Since the Prophet left no clear
succession, that mentioned authority ceased except that of the Koran. The clear proof that all hadiths are shirk is that Uthman ordered
them all to be -destroyed-.
That's what the authority from Muhammad's contemporaries has done. We shall also notice that Muhammad
in 4.59 isn't mentioned by name but solely as a Revelation carrier. The individual is willingly erased which means that no one by himself
can be an authority beside Allah and the Koran, not even Muhammad as a person but solely as a messenger.
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6206&hilit=men+of+ ... y&start=60" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So what is it exactly the pussy cat? How do you bridge your explanations at 2 different places??
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

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

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:.....

Are you a muslim? You show all the traits of a muslim. A lot many scholarly people have also claimed that islam is true but does that mean its really true? A scholar is not necessarily always right.
Well it makes no difference whether The Cat is/was a Muslim or not., what is important to find out from The Cat is., whether or not he considers Muhammad(PBUH) was a Prophet of Allah/God and whether or not he considers Quran that came out of Muhammad's Mouth is word of Allah/God ?

That is indeed important to know as The CAt is /was a prolific writer in FFI, often exploring complex subjects such as whether the Muhammad that is described in Quran existed or Not..

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

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

Post by skynightblaze »

yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:.....

Are you a muslim? You show all the traits of a muslim. A lot many scholarly people have also claimed that islam is true but does that mean its really true? A scholar is not necessarily always right.
Well it makes no difference whether The Cat is/was a Muslim or not., what is important to find out from The Cat is., whether or not he considers Muhammad(PBUH) was a Prophet of Allah/God and whether or not he considers Quran that came out of Muhammad's Mouth is word of Allah/God ?

That is indeed important to know as The CAt is /was a prolific writer in FFI, often exploring complex subjects such as whether the Muhammad that is described in Quran existed or Not..

The fact that you have begun to doubt this fellow says it all Yeeke. :lol:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

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

Post by The Cat »

The bulk of the matter is that history debunks the hadiths' authenticity, thus its reliability. Which is what this thread wants to illustrate.
skynightblaze wrote:How do you know Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz lived from 682-720? I mean what is your source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_AbdulAziz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (c. 682 - February, 720) was an Umayyad caliph who ruled from 717 to 720....
Does Bukhari or sahih muslim mention it ? If not then let me point out a gross blunder here. Most probably this isn’t mentioned in Sahih collections.Sahih hadiths were considered reliable by muslims during those times and yet we find so many mistakes in it . Now imagine how erroneous non sahih sources would be when even those muslims (sahih followers) found them unreliable? You want me to take them as source ?
It's there for everyone to check, Bukhari 1.3.98:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc ... 3.sbt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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. Circulate knowledge and teach the ignorant, for knowledge does not vanish except when it is kept secretly (to oneself)."
Thing is that Huraira (603-681) was dead before Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz (682-720) was even born. He couldn't possibly have mentioned this. So it was invented later, probably by ibn Munabbih (d.750) or grandsons. That such a forgery past through Bukhari's scrutiny completely annihilate his credential and that of Munabbih (one of the earliest known hadith collector). Now, then and forever... GET IT NOW?

1. This hadith is a clear forgery enacted by later narrators who passed it falsely 'on the authority' of a 'shahaba' (Huraira).
2. It seriously cast a shadow over Bukhari's authenticity and hence any chain of narrators must be reconsidered.
3. It dodge away that the recording of hadiths began in earnest under Abdul-Aziz. We have to trace them back to Hanbal at the earliest.

--Are There Any Early Hadiths? A Muslim perspective (displaying Munabbih as the oldest one)...
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Its refutal...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... hadith.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Where is the manuscript evidence concerning the earliest Hadith? How can we be sure that stories were not erroneously inserted into the traditions, or that existing stories did not undergo editing? After all, if someone can "create" a tradition, what would prevent them from "creating" a chain of narration?

It is interesting to note that Bukhari wrote a book about the narrators (Zuafa-us-sagher). What is even more interesting is that Bukhari's book condemns several narrators including: Ata bin abi Maimoona, Ayyub bin Aiz, Ismail bin Aban, Zubair bin Muhammad, At-Tayyimi, Saeed bin Urwa, Abdullah bin Abi Labeed, Abdul Malik bin Ameen, Abdul waris bin Saeed, Ata bin As-Saib bin Yazeed, and Khamsan bin Minhal as unreliable.

However, the Hadith-collection of Bukhari in the its modern form actually includes many traditions narrated by these very individuals!
But according to skynightblaze, lost in his own groundless chain of arguments, his sahih hadiths are reliable. :tease:

So like I've said:
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. Yet, ''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 genuine hadiths about the prophet.
this one was chosen from among 50 `versions' of the Muwatta, and only 16 were considered "best transmitted" So Dr. Saifullah, which of these 16 "best transmitted" editions of the Muwatta of Malik represents your authentic "early Hadith"?
This deafening historical silence is only broken by ibn Hanbal's collection of hadiths, the Musnad of Ahmad. But he's not even a 'sahih' guy.
Checking those sahih hadiths we come down to Bukhari, whose wholesome reliability is shattered down in B.1.3.98.
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.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.
Done. :hi:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... dith_2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kassim Ahmad:
If, on the average, a hadith consists of three simple sentences (in truth many hadiths run into paragraphs), then Bukhari would have had to collect, read, investigate, evaluate and record over 1.8 million sentences over a period of 40 years. This is the equivalent of researching (which include the long camel journeys to and fro across the desert) and attesting to the authenticity of over 300 books, each equivalent to the thickness and complexity of a Quran!
:wacko: I personally think that 'Bukhari' is a code name for a group of scribes from Bukhara...

On the accuracy of the Year of the Elephant, ie.570.
skynightblaze wrote: If hadiths are unreliable then so is quran because quran confirms hadiths on many counts so if we are take this quote of your seriously it would also mean that you cant be quran only muslim too . The logic is A is corrupted,B confirms A and hence B too is corrupted and hence in our case both quran and hadith become unreliable! GAME OVER PUSSY CAT!! So its proved beyond a doubt that you cant be a quran only muslim which is why you are arguing here.
The game is over for YOU: the hadiths are demonstratively unreliable. And B doesn't confirm A at all. Quite the opposite.
That's why koraners-only are at the front line against the hadiths... The Koran is -alone- the sacred book of Islam, that's the bottom line.
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithhistory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithmyth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithcon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/aisha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/bukhari" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/testimony" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/seven" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.quranic.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (a plethora of articles too)
(etc, etc).

It does destroy the reliability of ANY chain of narrators, and thus your argument that the hadiths are reliable lies groundless.

When was Muhammad born? In the Year of the Elephant, right?
Now... when was that: 552 or 570? It's now certified 552!
viewtopic.php?p=90797#p90797" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Muhammad ibn al-Sa'ib (died 726 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 15 years before the "Year of the Elephant". Ja'far ibn Abi 'l-Mughira (died early 8th century A.D.) dates Muhammad's birth 10 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Al-Kalbi tells us that Shu'ayb ibn Ishaq (died 805 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 23 years after this event. Al-Zuhri (died 742 A.D.) believed that Muhammad was born 30 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Musa ibn 'Uqba (died 758) believed that Muhammad was born 70 years later! If we assume that the "Year of the Elephant" was 570 A.D. (? rather 552), then Muhammad could have been born anytime between 555 A.D. and 640 A.D. and could have died anytime between 615 A.D. and 700 A.D.!

How can we trust any of the hadiths? The "transmitters" cited by the hadith may not have been alive during Muhammad's lifetime, to witness the events which they are believed to have "transmitted".....
That's about how 'reliable' the sahih hadiths are... :prop:

So all your arguments in favor of the hadiths' authenticity lay broken, groundless... right there. :flush: :bye:

Islam, without the hadiths, would become much more livable for ALL... It's well within reach.
Maybe that's why people like skynightblaze -and imams-- are SO committed to their defense!
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

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

Post by AhmedBahgat »

The Cat wrote:The bulk of the matter is that history debunks the hadiths' authenticity, thus its reliability. Which is what this thread wants to illustrate.
skynightblaze wrote:How do you know Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz lived from 682-720? I mean what is your source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_AbdulAziz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (c. 682 - February, 720) was an Umayyad caliph who ruled from 717 to 720....
Does Bukhari or sahih muslim mention it ? If not then let me point out a gross blunder here. Most probably this isn’t mentioned in Sahih collections.Sahih hadiths were considered reliable by muslims during those times and yet we find so many mistakes in it . Now imagine how erroneous non sahih sources would be when even those muslims (sahih followers) found them unreliable? You want me to take them as source ?
It's there for everyone to check, Bukhari 1.3.98:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc ... 3.sbt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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. Circulate knowledge and teach the ignorant, for knowledge does not vanish except when it is kept secretly (to oneself)."
Thing is that Huraira (603-681) was dead before Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz (682-720) was even born. He couldn't possibly have mentioned this. So it was invented later, probably by ibn Munabbih (d.750) or grandsons. That such a forgery past through Bukhari's scrutiny completely annihilate his credential and that of Munabbih (one of the earliest known hadith collector). Now, then and forever... GET IT NOW?

1. This hadith is a clear forgery enacted by later narrators who passed it falsely 'on the authority' of a 'shahaba' (Huraira).
2. It seriously cast a shadow over Bukhari's authenticity and hence any chain of narrators must be reconsidered.
3. It dodge away that the recording of hadiths began in earnest under Abdul-Aziz. We have to trace them back to Hanbal at the earliest.

--Are There Any Early Hadiths? A Muslim perspective (displaying Munabbih as the oldest one)...
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Its refutal...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... hadith.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Where is the manuscript evidence concerning the earliest Hadith? How can we be sure that stories were not erroneously inserted into the traditions, or that existing stories did not undergo editing? After all, if someone can "create" a tradition, what would prevent them from "creating" a chain of narration?

It is interesting to note that Bukhari wrote a book about the narrators (Zuafa-us-sagher). What is even more interesting is that Bukhari's book condemns several narrators including: Ata bin abi Maimoona, Ayyub bin Aiz, Ismail bin Aban, Zubair bin Muhammad, At-Tayyimi, Saeed bin Urwa, Abdullah bin Abi Labeed, Abdul Malik bin Ameen, Abdul waris bin Saeed, Ata bin As-Saib bin Yazeed, and Khamsan bin Minhal as unreliable.

However, the Hadith-collection of Bukhari in the its modern form actually includes many traditions narrated by these very individuals!
But according to skynightblaze, lost in his own groundless chain of arguments, his sahih hadiths are reliable. :tease:

So like I've said:
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. Yet, ''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 genuine hadiths about the prophet.
this one was chosen from among 50 `versions' of the Muwatta, and only 16 were considered "best transmitted" So Dr. Saifullah, which of these 16 "best transmitted" editions of the Muwatta of Malik represents your authentic "early Hadith"?
This deafening historical silence is only broken by ibn Hanbal's collection of hadiths, the Musnad of Ahmad. But he's not even a 'sahih' guy.
Checking those sahih hadiths we come down to Bukhari, whose wholesome reliability is shattered down in B.1.3.98.
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.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.
Done. :hi:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... dith_2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kassim Ahmad:
If, on the average, a hadith consists of three simple sentences (in truth many hadiths run into paragraphs), then Bukhari would have had to collect, read, investigate, evaluate and record over 1.8 million sentences over a period of 40 years. This is the equivalent of researching (which include the long camel journeys to and fro across the desert) and attesting to the authenticity of over 300 books, each equivalent to the thickness and complexity of a Quran!
:wacko: I personally think that 'Bukhari' is a code name for a group of scribes from Bukhara...

On the accuracy of the Year of the Elephant, ie.570.
skynightblaze wrote: If hadiths are unreliable then so is quran because quran confirms hadiths on many counts so if we are take this quote of your seriously it would also mean that you cant be quran only muslim too . The logic is A is corrupted,B confirms A and hence B too is corrupted and hence in our case both quran and hadith become unreliable! GAME OVER PUSSY CAT!! So its proved beyond a doubt that you cant be a quran only muslim which is why you are arguing here.
The game is over for YOU: the hadiths are demonstratively unreliable. And B doesn't confirm A at all. Quite the opposite.
That's why koraners-only are at the front line against the hadiths... The Koran is -alone- the sacred book of Islam, that's the bottom line.
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithhistory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithmyth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithcon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/aisha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/bukhari" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/testimony" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/seven" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.quranic.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (a plethora of articles too)
(etc, etc).

It does destroy the reliability of ANY chain of narrators, and thus your argument that the hadiths are reliable lies groundless.

When was Muhammad born? In the Year of the Elephant, right?
Now... when was that: 552 or 570? It's now certified 552!
viewtopic.php?p=90797#p90797" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Muhammad ibn al-Sa'ib (died 726 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 15 years before the "Year of the Elephant". Ja'far ibn Abi 'l-Mughira (died early 8th century A.D.) dates Muhammad's birth 10 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Al-Kalbi tells us that Shu'ayb ibn Ishaq (died 805 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 23 years after this event. Al-Zuhri (died 742 A.D.) believed that Muhammad was born 30 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Musa ibn 'Uqba (died 758) believed that Muhammad was born 70 years later! If we assume that the "Year of the Elephant" was 570 A.D. (? rather 552), then Muhammad could have been born anytime between 555 A.D. and 640 A.D. and could have died anytime between 615 A.D. and 700 A.D.!

How can we trust any of the hadiths? The "transmitters" cited by the hadith may not have been alive during Muhammad's lifetime, to witness the events which they are believed to have "transmitted".....
That's about how 'reliable' the sahih hadiths are... :prop:

So all your arguments in favor of the hadiths' authenticity lay broken, groundless... right there. :flush: :bye:

Islam, without the hadiths, would become much more livable for ALL... It's well within reach.
Maybe that's why people like skynightblaze -and imams-- are SO committed to their defense!

Well said, The Cat

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11549
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

eid mubarak, Ahmed... :)
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

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

Post by AhmedBahgat »

manfred wrote:eid mubarak, Ahmed... :)
thanks manfred

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

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

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:How do you know Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz lived from 682-720? I mean what is your source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_AbdulAziz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (c. 682 - February, 720) was an Umayyad caliph who ruled from 717 to 720....
I am asking you for an islamic source . WIkipedia isnt an islamic source.I have mentioned the references for that wikipedia article which are mentioned at the bottom of the page. None of them are considered reliable so again you are using unreliable sources to debunk sources that are considered reliable. An unreliable source can never agree with a reliable so in this case either BUkhari is wrong or the following sources are wrong so again no definite conclusion can be drawn.The argument goes in favour of Bukhari because he is considered more reliable than any of the sources given below.

1. ^ Umar II - Britannica Online Encyclopedia
2. ^ http://darulfatwa.org.au/content/view/1227/326/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
3. ^ http://people.uncw.edu/bergh/par246/L21 ... ticism.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
4. ^ Izalat al-Khafa p. 77 part 7

Even if we assume that Bukhari was unreliable it doesnt discredit his entire work. One wrong hadith cant be used to draw a conclusion that all his work is unreliable.Even if you show me 2000 such hadith it would only amount to 20 %. That is still very less percentage to draw a conclusion that Bukhari is completely unreliable.
The Cat wrote:
Does Bukhari or sahih muslim mention it ? If not then let me point out a gross blunder here. Most probably this isn’t mentioned in Sahih collections.Sahih hadiths were considered reliable by muslims during those times and yet we find so many mistakes in it . Now imagine how erroneous non sahih sources would be when even those muslims (sahih followers) found them unreliable? You want me to take them as source ?
It's there for everyone to check, Bukhari 1.3.98:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc ... 3.sbt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I asked you whether sahih sources mention the life span of UMAR Aziz as 682--720. They dont .

Secondly your argument regarding birth of muhammad is ludicrous. You dont realize that by using that argument you nullify the chances of one being a quran only muslim.I think you are arguing here that quran only muslim is the only valid muslim.

Let me explain it again. There are some things common between quran and the hadiths and hence proving hadiths as unreliable would also mean that quran is unreliable.

So you see the hadiths and quran come as a single package. They cannot be reliable in isolation i.e quran is reliable but not hadiths because of the common things in quran and hadiths. IF quran is true then so are the hadiths that confirm quran true.Authenticity of quran implies authenticity of the some of the hadiths that confirm the quran so how can quran alone be true and at the same time hadiths that confirm quran be false?


So the conclusion is Quran and hadiths both are reliable or else both are not reliable so how can a case of koran only muslim exist? You can either be quran + selective hadith following muslim or you cant be a muslim at all. Your argument regarding birth of muhammad is self defeating.


Thirdly you bring nonsense from free minds. According to your own logic that you use to discredit Bukhari ,we shouldnt be trusting those fellows.The free minds fellows translated 4:34 in the quran as SEPERATE FROM THEM rather than BEAT THEM. So how can anyone trust the arguments of these unreliable fellows? Wikiislam debunks their arguments regarding 4:34 in the following link. (Thanks to Gabriel for providing me this vital information about Free minds)

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Beat_your ... them%22%3F" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fourthly I asked you to show me a muslim who would knowingly trust a liar i.e it should be proved beyond a doubt that Mr X is a liar and he lies about Muhammad to defame him.Show me a single muslim who will readily trust such a fellow .What you brought in defense is absolutely no way related to what I asked.

@YEEZEVEE

Here is the answer to your question Yeezevee.
The Cat wrote: Islam, without the hadiths, would become much more livable for ALL... It's well within reach.
Quran is a book which is livable and its well within reach???? :shock: like how? Beating wives,killing kafirs(9:29) , cutting hands, flogging the adulterers,hating the kafirs.

Yeez did you see what this guy is saying?????
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

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

Post by skynightblaze »

Ahmed wrote:Well said, The Cat
:lol: As usual you dumbo you dont understand what is going on. Do you realize the implications of what CAT is saying? He is debunking a case for quran only muslim(the year of elephant and birth of muhammad quote).IF we are to consider his quote seriously then you cant be a quran only muslim. Infact his quote establishes that islam as a whole is unreliable and you congratulated him for that :lol:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

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

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:.

@YEEZEVEE

Here is the answer to your question Yeezevee.
The Cat wrote: Islam, without the hadiths, would become much more livable for ALL... It's well within reach.
Quran is a book which is livable and its well within reach???? :shock: like how? Beating wives,killing kafirs(9:29) , cutting hands, flogging the adulterers,hating the kafirs.

Yeez did you see what this guy is saying?????
That is all right., may be the The Cat didn't read Quran. Or may be The Cat didn't understand Quran. The Cat should read more from that website on Quran such as this one.

http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/35 ... _quran.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some where I read in his posts that The Cat also thinks "there was a White Muhammad and a Black Muhammad." Anyways I am just curious about that that site., Dear The Cat do you have any idea who is behind that site http://www.quranic.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ??

with best regards
yeezevee

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

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

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:So like I've said:
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.
My oh My this is your brainy argument???.Indeed the hadith is correct ! So this argument was your spearhead to show that my mental capacity is same as muhammedians???? :lol:

How many times does quran mention the context in which the verses are revealed? Hardly anytime! A few examples are chapter 66 which doesnt describe any event rendering it meaningless drivel and mention of Abu Lahab(who is he and why would he go in the fire..) ,the night journey which again becomes meaningless without the hadiths etc etc. Quran merely made a mention about these incidents without going into the context or details because people were already familiar with the incidents but todays muslims cant understand these verses unless properly explained within context.

If the context in which these verses are revealed are not given then how can anyone understand quran? Do you atleast now see how religious knowledge will vanish if the context to understand quran is not supplied?

16:44 also says that muhammad should explain Allahs quran so if Allah wants quran to be explained by muhammad inspite of delivering a copy of quran how are present generation muslims going to understand quran unless what muhammad said is recorded? Wouldnt that mean religious knowledge would vanish if explanation of muhammad isnt recorded?
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

sum
Posts: 6520
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

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

Post by sum »

Hello The Cat

Please do not overlook my question -
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?

I look forward to your reply.

sum

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

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

Post by AhmedBahgat »

A message from BMZ to the kid:

The kid skynightblaze asked for it and you gave him a good one, mate.

You titled it soooo well:

The New Slam Dunk Show - Starring Abu Hurairah and sky FFI

If you have the chance, ask these FFI hadith lovers to shove Abu Hurairah, up their arses.

Here are some interesting quotes about Abu Hurairah, one of the most prominent Hadith Fabricators: :3roll2:

When Aisha said to Abu Hurayra ”You are reporting false hadiths you never heard from the Prophet,” he had retorted impudently:

“I see that mirror and kohl have kept you aloof from the Prophet.”
Zahabi, Siyeru Alemin Nubela

Ali said: “The person who ascribed the greatest number of lies to God’s Messenger is Abu Hurayra.” :3roll2:

Ibn Abul Hadid, Sherhu Nahjul Belagha

When Ali heard him say, alluding to the Prophet: “My dear friend said that...” He asked: “Since when has the Prophet become your dear friend?” :3roll2:

Salaams
BMZ

sum
Posts: 6520
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

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

Post by sum »

Hello my misguided muslim friend, AhmedBahgat

Are you still using ahadith to refute the authenticity of ahadith?

sum

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

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

Post by AhmedBahgat »

sum wrote:Hello my misguided muslim friend, AhmedBahgat

Are you still using ahadith to refute the authenticity of ahadith?

sum
Hello hell bound sum

Against the hadith worshippers like you, yes

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

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

Post by skynightblaze »

AhmedBahgat wrote:A message from BMZ to the kid:

The kid skynightblaze asked for it and you gave him a good one, mate.

You titled it soooo well:

The New Slam Dunk Show - Starring Abu Hurairah and sky FFI

If you have the chance, ask these FFI hadith lovers to shove Abu Hurairah, up their arses.

Here are some interesting quotes about Abu Hurairah, one of the most prominent Hadith Fabricators: :3roll2:

When Aisha said to Abu Hurayra ”You are reporting false hadiths you never heard from the Prophet,” he had retorted impudently:

“I see that mirror and kohl have kept you aloof from the Prophet.”
Zahabi, Siyeru Alemin Nubela

Ali said: “The person who ascribed the greatest number of lies to God’s Messenger is Abu Hurayra.” :3roll2:

Ibn Abul Hadid, Sherhu Nahjul Belagha

When Ali heard him say, alluding to the Prophet: “My dear friend said that...” He asked: “Since when has the Prophet become your dear friend?” :3roll2:

Salaams
BMZ

Hahaha so finally after a long time the troll has showed up again.! IF that idiot had read and understood what I have written here he wouldnt be repeating the same arguments that CAT had brought.That has already been brought up by THE CAT and I have refuted them .

Let me ask your foolish friend a few questions...

1) Why didnt the 4 righteous caliphs kill Abu Huraira as per quranic directive 5:33 if Abu Huraira was such a fabricator?

2) Why did 3 grandsons of Umar narrate hadiths from ABu Huraira knowing fully well that Abu Huraira was such a fabricator whom their grandfather completely hated?

3) Why did Aisha, Umar and other muslims allow Abu Huraira to lead the funeral prayers? The funeral prayers are lead by best of muslims so how come Abu Huraira was allowed ?

4) If you troll friend BMZ accepts Aisha and Ali ;s views on Abu Huraira how about accepting the hadith wherein Aisha narrates her age to be 9 when prophet of islam deflowered her???. How about accepting other hadiths from Ali ?


If your friend could answer even a single question out of this coherently I will call it as a miracle.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

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

Post by skynightblaze »

sum wrote:Hello my misguided muslim friend, AhmedBahgat

Are you still using ahadith to refute the authenticity of ahadith?

sum
Hello Sum they are eligible to bring the hadiths to show how unauthentic they are but they also need to accept hadiths that I bring up to explain the authenticity of hadiths.I explained this to CAT. We need to consider all the quotes in the hadiths to determine what they say about themselves and not just quotes that CAT selectively wanted to bring up here.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

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

Post by skynightblaze »

@Bahgat

To make matters simple for your friend I have decided to give him some concession. Tell him he is supposed to answer any 1 out of 4 and I will give him credit as if he has answered all the 4. I am giving him a choice considering how weak he is at rational thinking.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Post Reply