Page 1 of 6

Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:16 pm
by The Cat
While following the man-made 'religion of Bukhari' aren't Muslims departing from the Koran to become Muhammadans instead? The Koranic notion of disbelievers includes transgressors and hypocrites. The Koran states many time about those transgressors and hypocrites like Abu Huraira, Bukhari and Muslim, and all who became 'law givers' (Radi Allahu Anhu) beside the Koran. Let's have a look on how this happened...

63.1-2: ''When the hypocrites come unto thee (O Muhammad), they say: We bear witness that thou art indeed Allah's messenger. And Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the hypocrites indeed are speaking falsely. ---They make their faith a pretext so that they may turn (men) from the way of Allah. Verily evil is that which they are wont to do.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hadith
According to Ibn Hajar, “During the Prophet’s lifetime and into the time of the Companions and older Followers, the narrations of the Prophet were not transcribed in a systematic manner. This was due to two reasons. The first, was that early on they had been prohibited from doing so, as has been established in Sahih Muslim, lest the hadith become confused with the Quran. The second was due to expansive capability of their ability to memorize and because the majority of them were unable to write.” Despite this, there are few examples of written hadith from that period. A critical part of understanding this issue is the hadith of Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree, who said, that the Prophet said, “Do not write what I say; whoever has written what I have said other the Quran, then he must erase it.''

http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/4/ ... _sunna.htm
The objections, raised by Al-Mu’tazila, and the Kharidjites, members of the earliest of the religious orders of Islam, to the copying of hadiths and their acceptance as a religious source, the announcement of some theologians (Kelamc‎lar) that the hadiths are but suppositions, the controversies of Shafi in Basra because of his recourse to sources other than the Quran, and the quotations of the responses of Al- Murdjia, extreme opponent of Kharidjites, in books on hadiths are examples for the objections raised against the compilation of the hadiths.


Are There Any Early Hadiths?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... hadith.htm
How do we know that the "chain" of transmission is authentic? In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak! For example, Bukhari collected over 600,000 reports, but kept only 7,397 as true (without stating why, like rejecting most Hanafi former Hadiths)! To make matters even more confusing, there are contradictions among the "accepted" Hadiths (ikhtilaf al-hadith). There are many hadiths which record conflicting accounts of the same event! ....

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, (etc) and Khamsan bin Minhal as unreliable. However, the Hadith-collection of Bukhari in its modern form actually includes many traditions narrated by these very individuals! Obviously, these traditions, which Bukhari rejected, were inserted in his book following his death.

The case of... 'On The Authority of Abu Huraira' (or of Bukhari's authority).

In the Sahih Hadiths we only find 142 ahadiths from Abu Bakr, 146 from Uthman, 537 from Umar, 536 from Ali, who were with Muhammad from the first BUT... 2210 ahadiths from Aischa's twelve years, AND... 5374 from Huraira (who lived less than two years with him, not even three as per B.4.789), whom Umar punished for stealing in Bahrain (645), saying: ''You are an enemy of Allah and an enemy of his book! Have you stolen Allah's property?'' After that, Umar forbade him to ever narrate a hadith of the Prophet ''Because you are fit only for attributing lies to him.''

Ali said: ''Beware of the greatest liar among people, Abu Huraira.'' And Aischa: ''Huraira is the greatest liar who fabricates ahadiths and attributes them to the Holy prophet.'' Yet, after Umar died he was made a governor of Medina by Muawiya and his treacherous collision with Busr ibn Atat led to the killing of 30,000 Muslims. ''The messenger of God never ordered us to write anything of his hadith'' (Ibn Hanbal). About one sixth (15.56%) from Bukhari's hadiths comes from this Abu Huraira (or 5 hadiths per day with Muhammad). In speeches and lectures, in Friday khutbahs and seminars, in the books of hadith and sirah, fiqh and ibadah, the name Abu Hurayrah is mentioned in this fashion: "On the authority of Abu Hurayrah....'' Bukhari not only rejected all former Hanafi hadiths, he only kept 45 hadiths from ibn Masud and 10 from Abu Sufyan.

Well who the hell is he to have ANY authority, beside Allah and the Koran? Huraira is the sole witness of his testimonies, an aahad. B.7.343: '' I used to accompany Allah's Apostle to fill my stomach...'' Yet he published his ahadiths allegedly in the time of Muawiya. In fact it's even later, from his pupil Ibn Munabbih who died in 750. Not only is Huraira the sole witness of his testimonies (aahad), to be recognized as a law-giver on par with Allah (as in he Shahadah), all we have from him rather comes from his 'pupil' ibn Munabbih (d.750)! Anything religiously binding based 'On the Authority of Huraira' (really ibn Munabbih, of whom we know next to nothing) or of any such transmitter, is blasphemous and so Muhammadans are but shirk collectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammam_ibn_Munabbih
Abu Hurairah used to narrate the hadith he heard from the Prophet to his 9 students. Out of all 9 students, only Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih's book has survived in manuscript form.


B.7.268: The people said, "O Abu Huraira! Did you hear that from Allah's Apostle?" He said, "No, it is from my own self." :D

B.7.343: ''I used to accompany Allah's Apostle to fill my stomach...'' (i.e. I'm an opportunist).

Umar, after depossessing Hurairah from the governance of Bahrain (for stealing) in 645: ''You are an enemy of Allah, and an enemy of His book! Have you stolen Allah's property?'' After imposing a fine of 10,000 dinars he forbade Hurairah from narrating hadith of the Prophet stating: ''because you are only fit for attributing lies to him.'' Such a liar and stealer can't possibly have any credibility whatsoever, then to became governor of Medina under Muawiyah, why? In fact, much of sura Repentance seems to be addressing people like him (9.97-9.101)!

Yet, we have nothing from Abu Hurairah (603-681?) but from one of his alleged 'pupil', Hammam ibn Munabbih (d.750) so stating 'On the Authority of Abu Hurairah' became a sunni landmark (radiallahu anhu), nothing but shirk (46.16-17; 63.1-2): On the so-called authority of Munabbih, who heard it from the 'authority' of Hurairah, who heard it from the (uncorroborated) 'authority' of 'Muhammad', whom stated not to record any hadith! Thanks to him, we know that Adam was sixty cubits long by seven cubits wide and that human began to grow less gradually until nowadays (B.4.55.543).

Like him or not, AB came out with some magisterial threads on Bukhari:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45657
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38763
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=52727
viewtopic.php?p=14787#p14787
viewtopic.php?p=14788#p14788

31.6: "Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless HADITH, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution."

So are the Sahih Hadiths reliable? Are the hadiths' followers truly Muslims or rather sectarian Muhammadans?

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:14 am
by iffo
Hadiths are garbage. I say that on muslims face whether they like it or not.... If they get pissed even better I enjoy that. Its give me the opportunity to quote some ugly hadiths that they never heard before and they get shocked and seeing me destroying their religion right in front of their eyes unless the listen to me and reject what I tell them to.

I am not going to follow them, and God can not blame me as he never said we need to follow them.

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:30 am
by Yohan
iffo wrote:Hadiths are garbage.

Ditto for Koran too, if that's the case.

What else would have been in Koran, if goats hadn't eaten what were scribed on edible materials. Allah's eternal words eaten by goats!!! :roflmao: Doesn't that qualify Koran as garbage?

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:33 am
by iffo
@Yohan

I like seeing you laughing, laughter is good for health, even if there is no reason to laugh.

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:46 am
by AhmedBahgat
The Cat wrote:While following the man-made 'religion of Bukhari' aren't Muslims departing from the Koran to become Muhammadans instead? The Koranic notion of disbelievers includes transgressors and hypocrites. The Koran states many time about those transgressors and hypocrites like Abu Huraira, Bukhari and Muslim, and all who became 'law givers' (Radi Allahu Anhu) beside the Koran. Let's have a look on how this happened...

63.1-2: ''When the hypocrites come unto thee (O Muhammad), they say: We bear witness that thou art indeed Allah's messenger. And Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the hypocrites indeed are speaking falsely. ---They make their faith a pretext so that they may turn (men) from the way of Allah. Verily evil is that which they are wont to do.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hadith
According to Ibn Hajar, “During the Prophet’s lifetime and into the time of the Companions and older Followers, the narrations of the Prophet were not transcribed in a systematic manner. This was due to two reasons. The first, was that early on they had been prohibited from doing so, as has been established in Sahih Muslim, lest the hadith become confused with the Quran. The second was due to expansive capability of their ability to memorize and because the majority of them were unable to write.” Despite this, there are few examples of written hadith from that period. A critical part of understanding this issue is the hadith of Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree, who said, that the Prophet said, “Do not write what I say; whoever has written what I have said other the Quran, then he must erase it.''

http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/4/ ... _sunna.htm
The objections, raised by Al-Mu’tazila, and the Kharidjites, members of the earliest of the religious orders of Islam, to the copying of hadiths and their acceptance as a religious source, the announcement of some theologians (Kelamc‎lar) that the hadiths are but suppositions, the controversies of Shafi in Basra because of his recourse to sources other than the Quran, and the quotations of the responses of Al- Murdjia, extreme opponent of Kharidjites, in books on hadiths are examples for the objections raised against the compilation of the hadiths.


Are There Any Early Hadiths?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... hadith.htm
How do we know that the "chain" of transmission is authentic? In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak! For example, Bukhari collected over 600,000 reports, but kept only 7,397 as true (without stating why, like rejecting most Hanafi former Hadiths)! To make matters even more confusing, there are contradictions among the "accepted" Hadiths (ikhtilaf al-hadith). There are many hadiths which record conflicting accounts of the same event! ....

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, (etc) and Khamsan bin Minhal as unreliable. However, the Hadith-collection of Bukhari in its modern form actually includes many traditions narrated by these very individuals! Obviously, these traditions, which Bukhari rejected, were inserted in his book following his death.

The case of... 'On The Authority of Abu Huraira' (or of Bukhari's authority).

In the Sahih Hadiths we only find 142 ahadiths from Abu Bakr, 146 from Uthman, 537 from Umar, 536 from Ali, who were with Muhammad from the first BUT... 2210 ahadiths from Aischa's twelve years, AND... 5374 from Huraira (who lived less than two years with him, not even three as per B.4.789), whom Umar punished for stealing in Bahrain (645), saying: ''You are an enemy of Allah and an enemy of his book! Have you stolen Allah's property?'' After that, Umar forbade him to ever narrate a hadith of the Prophet ''Because you are fit only for attributing lies to him.''

Ali said: ''Beware of the greatest liar among people, Abu Huraira.'' And Aischa: ''Huraira is the greatest liar who fabricates ahadiths and attributes them to the Holy prophet.'' Yet, after Umar died he was made a governor of Medina by Muawiya and his treacherous collision with Busr ibn Atat led to the killing of 30,000 Muslims. ''The messenger of God never ordered us to write anything of his hadith'' (Ibn Hanbal). About one sixth (15.56%) from Bukhari's hadiths comes from this Abu Huraira (or 5 hadiths per day with Muhammad). In speeches and lectures, in Friday khutbahs and seminars, in the books of hadith and sirah, fiqh and ibadah, the name Abu Hurayrah is mentioned in this fashion: "On the authority of Abu Hurayrah....'' Bukhari not only rejected all former Hanafi hadiths, he only kept 45 hadiths from ibn Masud and 10 from Abu Sufyan.

Well who the hell is he to have ANY authority, beside Allah and the Koran? Huraira is the sole witness of his testimonies, an aahad. B.7.343: '' I used to accompany Allah's Apostle to fill my stomach...'' Yet he published his ahadiths allegedly in the time of Muawiya. In fact it's even later, from his pupil Ibn Munabbih who died in 750. Not only is Huraira the sole witness of his testimonies (aahad), to be recognized as a law-giver on par with Allah (as in he Shahadah), all we have from him rather comes from his 'pupil' ibn Munabbih (d.750)! Anything religiously binding based 'On the Authority of Huraira' (really ibn Munabbih, of whom we know next to nothing) or of any such transmitter, is blasphemous and so Muhammadans are but shirk collectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammam_ibn_Munabbih
Abu Hurairah used to narrate the hadith he heard from the Prophet to his 9 students. Out of all 9 students, only Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih's book has survived in manuscript form.


B.7.268: The people said, "O Abu Huraira! Did you hear that from Allah's Apostle?" He said, "No, it is from my own self." :D

B.7.343: ''I used to accompany Allah's Apostle to fill my stomach...'' (i.e. I'm an opportunist).

Umar, after depossessing Hurairah from the governance of Bahrain (for stealing) in 645: ''You are an enemy of Allah, and an enemy of His book! Have you stolen Allah's property?'' After imposing a fine of 10,000 dinars he forbade Hurairah from narrating hadith of the Prophet stating: ''because you are only fit for attributing lies to him.'' Such a liar and stealer can't possibly have any credibility whatsoever, then to became governor of Medina under Muawiyah, why? In fact, much of sura Repentance seems to be addressing people like him (9.97-9.101)!

Yet, we have nothing from Abu Hurairah (603-681?) but from one of his alleged 'pupil', Hammam ibn Munabbih (d.750) so stating 'On the Authority of Abu Hurairah' became a sunni landmark (radiallahu anhu), nothing but shirk (46.16-17; 63.1-2): On the so-called authority of Munabbih, who heard it from the 'authority' of Hurairah, who heard it from the (uncorroborated) 'authority' of 'Muhammad', whom stated not to record any hadith! Thanks to him, we know that Adam was sixty cubits long by seven cubits wide and that human began to grow less gradually until nowadays (B.4.55.543).

Like him or not, AB came out with some magisterial threads on Bukhari:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45657
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38763
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=52727
viewtopic.php?p=14787#p14787
viewtopic.php?p=14788#p14788

31.6: "Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless HADITH, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution."

So are the Sahih Hadiths reliable? Are the hadiths' followers truly Muslims or rather sectarian Muhammadans?



Good post The Cat, that is what I am talking about for the last 10 years

Cheers

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:50 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
iffo wrote:Hadiths are garbage. I say that on muslims face whether they like it or not.... If they get pissed even better I enjoy that. Its give me the opportunity to quote some ugly hadiths that they never heard before and they get shocked and seeing me destroying their religion right in front of their eyes unless the listen to me and reject what I tell them to.

I am not going to follow them, and God can not blame me as he never said we need to follow them.


So Iffo, please answer the following questions. BagHat is inherently dishonest and avoids these questions like the plague. That is because he is a liar, plain and simple, and he even knows how to lie to himself and he does it all of the time.

1) Do you pray?
2) How do you know how to pray?
3) How often do you pray?
4) Why do you pray that amount of times?
5) Did Muhammad make the night journey??
6) Did Moses continually send him back to God asking that the prayer frequency be lowered as if Moses knew what the people could bear better than Allah??
7) Did Muhammad say he made the night journey on a white winged horse at all?
8) Did he claim he was the only prophet to make it to the 7th heaven where Allah is?
9) If this story is nonsense like the hadiths in general, then should Israel be allowed to rebuild their temple, being that Muhammad never launched his night journey from there as claimed and therefore the land has no special significance to Muslims?

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

PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:04 pm
by Yohan
iffo wrote:@Yohan

I like seeing you laughing, laughter is good for health, even if there is no reason to laugh.

Thanks for encouraging me to laugh at Islam.

You continue to say Hadiths are garbage, but won't say Koran is Garbage. Why?

You are half-way there by declaring Hadiths garbage. All you have to do is to step up to the plate and declare Koran garbage. Your liberation is just around the corner!

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:09 pm
by Yohan
AhmedBahgat wrote:Good post The Cat, that is what I am talking about for the last 10 years
Cheers

Desperate attempts by desperate Muslims to cleanse Islam by debunking the Hadiths are quite hilarious. Muslims have lived by Hadiths ever since the creation Islam, but now they say they had been led wrong, or duped all these centuries. Do they forget that only half the 'garbage' in Islam resides in Hadiths? The rest is in Koran itself. So what are these desperate Muslims going to do about Koran?

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:14 pm
by The Cat
The so-called 'science of the hadiths' has been proven faulty by many scholars: Ignaz Goldhizer and Joseph Schacht, among others...

http://www.rim.org/muslim/hadith.htm
Bid'a or innovation was viewed to be the opposite of sunna. Goldhizer recounts a hadith (Al-Nasa'i, I, p.143) of the Prophet which says, "Verily the most truthful communication is the Book of Allah, the best guidance is from Muhammad, and the worst of all things are innovations; every innovation is heresy, every heresy is error, and every error leads to hell." Yet, as Goldhizer soon shows, there is great evidence to show that much of the ahadith is either inauthentic, or incapable of being proven authentic, and thus to all appearances it is both innovation from a theological perspective, and lacking of any proof of authenticity from an objective historical perspective.

One example of the fabrication of hadith is that done by the Ummayad caliph 'Abd al-Malik,38 who is considered to be an important and sound scholar of the collection of hadith. Goldhizer explains, ''When the Umayyad caliph 'Abd al-Malik wished to stop the pilgrimages to Mecca because he was worried lest his rival 'Abd Allah b. Zubayr should force the Syrians journeying to the holy places in Hijaz to pay him homage, he had recourse to the expedient of the doctrine of the vicarious hajj to the Qubbat al-Sakhra in Jerusalem. He decreed that obligatory circumambulation (tawaf) could take place at the sacred place in Jerusalem with the same validity as that around the Ka'ba ordained in Islamic law. The pious theologian al-Zuhri was given the task of justifying this politically motivated reform of religious life by making up and spreading a saying traced back to the Prophet''......

Goldhizer boldly sums up the massive evidence for the "tendentious fabrications of traditions during the first century of Islam" with the statement that, ''...it is a matter for psychologists to find and analyze the motives of the soul which made such forgeries acceptable to pious minds as morally justified means of furthering a cause... The most favourable explanation which one can give of these phenomena is presumably to assume that the support of a new doctrine .. with the authority of Muhammad was the form in which it was thought good to express the high religious justification of that doctrine. The end sanctified the means.''

G.H.A. (Gautier) Juynboll
Juynboll uses an effective case study approach in his critique of the isnad. One example is the "so-called 'golden chain' (silsilat adh-dhahab): Malik - Nafi - 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar - Prophet." Juynboll also brings serious questions to bear on "the case of Anas." He states that, ''... Anas' advanced age - according to the most authoritative reports he died in 93/711 when he was allegedly one hundred and three - appeared especially convenient for those isnad forgers who were loath to go to a lot of trouble concocting complicated isnads and simply listed a rather late Successor who allegedly had it from Anas who allegedly had it from the prophet... Indeed, Anas has become such a crucial figure in isnads that he is one of the most important Companions, whose alleged activities caused other, most probably unhistorical, people with his name to into existence. The ensuing confusion, inevitable as we have learned .. makes the reliability of any isnad featuring Anas suspect under the best of circumstances.''

Clearly, the evidence to refute any notions of solid historical authenticity of hadith reports is overwhelming. Severe theological and historical problems exist, and are blatantly evident even in Bukhari's collection of hadith - which is considered to be "most reliable and [is] termed 'sahih' (correct)." The authenticity of hadith transmitted by men such as Anas b. Malik and Abu Hurayra is extremely dubious. Contradictions between the hadith and the Quran remain unsolved. The evidence is all too compelling - even without examining the enormous disparities between the traditions of the various sects of Islam. The evidence presents a shattering blow to the religion of Islam, as the shari'a, rather than being rooted in the "words and actions of the Prophet [representing] the will of Allah," is merely built on the tradition of men.

Allamah Tabataba'i, a highly respected present-day Shiite scholar...
"Careful examination of the chains of transmission of the traditions leaves one in doubt as to the extent of the deceitful additions and false testimonies. Many conflicting traditions can be traced to one companion or follower and many traditions, which are complete fabrications, may be found amongst this body of narrations. Thus reasons for the revelation of a particular verse, including the abrogating and abrogated verses [in the Quran], do not seem to accord with the actual order of the verses. No more than one or two of the traditions are found to be acceptable when submitted to such an examination.

It is for this reason that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who himself was born before this generation of narrators, said, "Three things have no sound base: military virtues, bloody battles and the traditions pertaining to Qur'anic commentary."

On one hand Islam condemns Bida' or religious innovations, on the other hand all the hadiths were such innovations! Dig it...

Also: A revaluation of Islamic Traditions, by Joseph Schacht
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Sc ... uation.htm

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

PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:45 pm
by Yohan
The Cat wrote:The so-called 'science of the hadiths' has been proven faulty by many scholars: Ignaz Goldhizer and Joseph Schacht, among others...

Ok, 'science of the hadiths' has been proven faulty! Agreed!! Now, how about the 'science of the Koran'?

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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:41 am
by The Cat
Yohan wrote:Ok, 'science of the hadiths' has been proven faulty! Agreed!! Now, how about the 'science of the Koran'?

This thread is centered around the historicity and reliability of the 'Sahih' Hadiths, which I'll further develop as I learn more...

On the Koran proper, I've already made many threads:
The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'.
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5978
Nasara (for Christians) in the Koran
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5225
What was the Criterion/Furkan? -Sura 25
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5519
Is Allah and ar-Rahman the same?
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5738
etc...

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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:15 am
by AhmedBahgat
Yohan wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:Good post The Cat, that is what I am talking about for the last 10 years
Cheers

Desperate attempts by desperate Muslims to cleanse Islam by debunking the Hadiths are quite hilarious. Muslims have lived by Hadiths ever since the creation Islam, but now they say they had been led wrong, or duped all these centuries. Do they forget that only half the 'garbage' in Islam resides in Hadiths? The rest is in Koran itself. So what are these desperate Muslims going to do about Koran?


Look who is talking

Have I not slam dunked you a couple of days ago, freak?

Well, it is not me who slam dunked you, it is your crap man made rubbish of hadith that you worship which slam dunked an ignornat dump pum like you

You are dismissed

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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:05 pm
by yeezevee
So Iffo, please answer the following questions. BagHat is inherently dishonest and avoids these questions like the plague. That is because he is a liar, plain and simple, and he even knows how to lie to himself and he does it all of the time.

Well iffo is little more honest than A_B, and the reason could be he never read Quran in Arabic and he is not an expert in Arabic language unlike robot where he moves wording around to make soft sense out of that silly book ., So I will answer few questions that will be similar to Robot's answers.
1) Do you pray?
I think he does and I have hunch that he prays the same I do .. after couple of beers., So the question should be., A_B do you drink ??

5) Did Muhammad make the night journey??
YESS... Prophet indeed do night journeys quite often., he just needs to find a good looking woman.. his night journey gets booked in day time.

017.001: Glory be to Him Who made His servant to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the remote mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs; surely He is the Hearing, the Seeing.


well I am not going to help robot for all your question unless he requests me..... So rest I will leave to him.

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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:32 pm
by AhmedBahgat
yeezevee wrote:
I think he does and I have hunch that he prays the same I do .. after couple of beers., So the question should be., A_B do you drink ??

well I am not going to help robot for all your question unless he requests me..... So rest I will leave to him.


Well, for my friend yekee, I can reply to that stupid question

No freak, I dont drink, I quit 19 years ago.

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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:45 pm
by yeezevee
AhmedBahgat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:
I think he does and I have hunch that he prays the same I do .. after couple of beers., So the question should be., A_B do you drink ??

well I am not going to help robot for all your question unless he requests me..... So rest I will leave to him.


Well, for my friend yekee, I can reply to that stupid question

No freak, I dont drink, I quit 19 years ago.
So you started Islamic rituals and stopped drinking after you moved out of Egypt.. lol.. You are a good man .. be good.,

So are you observing Ramadan fasting & festivities along with Arabian Pagan rituals in this month A_B? I say you being Quran only Muslim, you should not follow silly hadith Muslim invented pagan ramadan festival

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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:35 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:While following the man-made 'religion of Bukhari' aren't Muslims departing from the Koran to become Muhammadans instead?


I suppose you are saying here that muslims become muhammadans i,e they follow muhammad when they follow the hadiths from Bukhari.You are correct but that is what Allah wants because he clearly mentions obey Allah and obey the messenger.We have been through this before.Your explanation was that some other verse in the quran tells us that Muhammad was sent only as a messenger so ideally muhammad doesn’t have the right to tell something on his own but then quran does say Obey Muhammad . I think this is an internal contradiction. You on the other hand believe that these verses are complementary.
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.

The Cat wrote:The Koranic notion of disbelievers includes transgressors and hypocrites. The Koran states many time about those transgressors and hypocrites like Abu Huraira, Bukhari and Muslim, and all who became 'law givers' (Radi Allahu Anhu) beside the Koran. Let's have a look on how this happened...

63.1-2: ''When the hypocrites come unto thee (O Muhammad), they say: We bear witness that thou art indeed Allah's messenger. And Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the hypocrites indeed are speaking falsely. ---They make their faith a pretext so that they may turn (men) from the way of Allah. Verily evil is that which they are wont to do.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hadith

AS per 5:33 those who carry out mischief in the land should be killed. So why didn’t muhammad kill Abu Huraira ? A quran only follower has to accept that muhammad disobeyed Allah if he didn’t kill Abu Huraira since according to them Abu Huraira was causing mischief in the land.The only way out here is accept that Abu Huraira wasn’t a liar.
The Cat wrote:
According to Ibn Hajar, “During the Prophet’s lifetime and into the time of the Companions and older Followers, the narrations of the Prophet were not transcribed in a systematic manner. This was due to two reasons. The first, was that early on they had been prohibited from doing so, as has been established in Sahih Muslim, lest the hadith become confused with the Quran. The second was due to expansive capability of their ability to memorize and because the majority of them were unable to write.” Despite this, there are few examples of written hadith from that period. A critical part of understanding this issue is the hadith of Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree, who said, that the Prophet said, “Do not write what I say; whoever has written what I have said other the Quran, then he must erase it.''

http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/4/ ... _sunna.htm

The problem with this argument is that something doesn’t become a lie just because muhammad forbid everything other than quran.I have answered Bahgat in the following link regarding this.Inspite of all these problems we can confirm many hadiths as true so hadiths can be taken as source of information if not source of guidance. How do you explain the crimes of muhammad from the hadiths? You cant reject them.
I have replied to AB in the other link here …

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7592&start=140

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 .

The Cat wrote:The objections, raised by Al-Mu’tazila, and the Kharidjites, members of the earliest of the religious orders of Islam, to the copying of hadiths and their acceptance as a religious source, the announcement of some theologians (Kelamc‎lar) that the hadiths are but suppositions, the controversies of Shafi in Basra because of his recourse to sources other than the Quran, and the quotations of the responses of Al- Murdjia, extreme opponent of Kharidjites, in books on hadiths are examples for the objections raised against the compilation of the hadiths.


If someone raises some objections against some work,it doesn’t mean that the work is completely false.

Are There Any Early Hadiths?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... hadith.htm
How do we know that the "chain" of transmission is authentic? In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak! For example, Bukhari collected over 600,000 reports, but kept only 7,397 as true (without stating why, like rejecting most Hanafi former Hadiths)! To make matters even more confusing, there are contradictions among the "accepted" Hadiths (ikhtilaf al-hadith). There are many hadiths which record conflicting accounts of the same event! ....

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, (etc) and Khamsan bin Minhal as unreliable. However, the Hadith-collection of Bukhari in its modern form actually includes many traditions narrated by these very individuals! Obviously, these traditions, which Bukhari rejected, were inserted in his book following his death.

The case of... 'On The Authority of Abu Huraira' (or of Bukhari's authority).


Ok fine . I accept that the hadiths can be taken as source of guidance but inspite of all the manipulations we still can know whether certain hadiths are true or not.WE can use logic.IF the authors above are mentioning some traditions we can safely discard them.The point I want to make is you cant deny the authenticity of every single hadith especially the ones that show muhammad in bad light.I see no reason as to why people would fabricate and lie about their prophet whom they loved so much in a negative way.Also note that its not just 1 narrator but all of them repeating the same stories.
Some of the stories from the hadith are confirmed by Sira too. Isnt it too much of coincidence? Everyone attempts a lie to defame muhammad and all of them match :lol: ..

The Cat wrote:In the Sahih Hadiths we only find 142 ahadiths from Abu Bakr, 146 from Uthman, 537 from Umar, 536 from Ali, who were with Muhammad from the first BUT... 2210 ahadiths from Aischa's twelve years, AND... 5374 from Huraira (who lived less than two years with him, not even three as per B.4.789), whom Umar punished for stealing in Bahrain (645), saying: ''You are an enemy of Allah and an enemy of his book! Have you stolen Allah's property?'' After that, Umar forbade him to ever narrate a hadith of the Prophet ''Because you are fit only for attributing lies to him.''

Your accusations involving umar and aisha accusing abu Huraira are refuted here..
The link mentions that 3 grandsons of Umar narrated hadiths from Abu Huraira after 645 and none of the companions of Muhammad including Aisha had any problem with him.If Huraira was unreliable grandsons of Umar wouldn’t narrate hadiths from him .

http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/def ... rayrah.htm

I would like to add one more hadith here. Umar didnt trust Abu Huraira once . HE even beat ABu Huraira once because he thought he was attributing false hadith to muhammad but later it was confirmed by muhammad himself that he wasnt lying.
Here it is ..

Spoiler! :
Sahih muslim Book 001, Number 0050:

It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira: We were sitting around the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessings be upon him). Abu Bakr and Umar were also there among the audience. In the meanwhile the Messenger of Allah got up and left us, He delayed in coming back to us, which caused anxiety that he might be attacked by some enemy when we were not with him; so being alarmed we got up. I was the first to be alarmed. I, therefore, went out to look for the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessings be upon him) and came to a garden belonging to the Banu an-Najjar, a section of the Ansar went round it looking for a gate but failed to find one. Seeing a rabi' (i. e. streamlet) flowing into the garden from a well outside, drew myself together, like a fox, and slinked into (the place) where God's Messenger was. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Is it Abu Huraira? I (Abu Huraira) replied: Yes, Messenger of Allah. He (the Holy Prophet) said: What is the matter with you? replied: You were amongst us but got up and went away and delayed for a time, so fearing that you might be attacked by some enemy when we were not with you, we became alarmed. I was the first to be alarmed. So when I came to this garden, I drew myself together as a fox does, and these people are following me. He addressed me as Abu Huraira and gave me his sandals and said: Take away these sandals of mine, and when you meet anyone outside this garden who testifies that there is no god but Allah, being assured of it in his heart, gladden him by announcing that he shall go to Paradise. Now the first one I met was Umar. He asked: What are these sandals, Abu Huraira? I replied: These are the sandals of the Messenger of Allah with which he has sent me to gladden anyone I meet who testifies that there is no god but Allah, being assured of it in his heart, with the announcement that he would go to Paradise. Thereupon 'Umar struck me on the breast and I fell on my back. He then said: Go back, Abu Huraira, So I returned to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), and was about to break into tears. 'Umar followed me closely and there he was behind me. The Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessings be on him) said: What is the matter with you, Abu Huraira? I said: I happened to meet 'Umar and conveyed to him the message with which you sent me. He struck me on my breast which made me fall down upon my back and ordered me to go back. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: What prompted you to do this, 'Umar? He said: Messenger of Allah, my mother and father be sacrificed to thee, did you send Abu Huraira with your sandals to gladden anyone he met and who testified that there is no god but Allah, and being assured of it in his heart, with the tidings that he would go to Paradise? He said: Yes. Umar said: Please do it not, for I am afraid that people will trust in it alone; let them go on doing (good) deeds. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Well, let them.

The Cat wrote:Ali said: ''Beware of the greatest liar among people, Abu Huraira.'' And Aischa: ''Huraira is the greatest liar who fabricates ahadiths and attributes them to the Holy prophet.'' Yet, after Umar died he was made a governor of Medina by Muawiya and his treacherous collision with Busr ibn Atat led to the killing of 30,000 Muslims. ''The messenger of God never ordered us to write anything of his hadith'' (Ibn Hanbal). About one sixth (15.56%) from Bukhari's hadiths comes from this Abu Huraira (or 5 hadiths per day with Muhammad). In speeches and lectures, in Friday khutbahs and seminars, in the books of hadith and sirah, fiqh and ibadah, the name Abu Hurayrah is mentioned in this fashion: "On the authority of Abu Hurayrah....'' Bukhari not only rejected all former Hanafi hadiths, he only kept 45 hadiths from ibn Masud and 10 from Abu Sufyan.


What is the source for your comment Ali said“ Beware of the greatest liar…” ? Well if its other than Sahih collections then I ask you ,what makes you think that those sources are trustable than Sahih?

The Cat wrote:Well who the hell is he to have ANY authority, beside Allah and the Koran? Huraira is the sole witness of his testimonies, an aahad. B.7.343: '' I used to accompany Allah's Apostle to fill my stomach...'' Yet he published his ahadiths allegedly in the time of Muawiya. In fact it's even later, from his pupil Ibn Munabbih who died in 750. Not only is Huraira the sole witness of his testimonies (aahad), to be recognized as a law-giver on par with Allah (as in he Shahadah), all we have from him rather comes from his 'pupil' ibn Munabbih (d.750)! Anything religiously binding based 'On the Authority of Huraira' (really ibn Munabbih, of whom we know next to nothing) or of any such transmitter, is blasphemous and so Muhammadans are but shirk collectors.


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.
The Cat wrote:B.7.268: The people said, "O Abu Huraira! Did you hear that from Allah's Apostle?" He said, "No, it is from my own self." :D

Lets see the complete hadith…

Narrated Abu Huraira: "The Prophet said, 'The best alms is that which is given when one is rich, and a giving hand is better than a taking one, and you should start first to support your dependents.' A wife says, 'You should either provide me with food or divorce me.' A slave says, 'Give me food and enjoy my service." A son says, "Give me food; to whom do you leave me?" The people said, "O Abu Huraira! Did you hear that from Allah's Apostle ?" He said, "No, it is from my own self."


If abu Huraira was a fabricator why would he honestly accept that the quotes were from him? Secondly why would tell good things on behalf of muhammad if he wanted to defame muhammad?

Btw I think Abu Huraira tried to add his own stuff at the end but however the first quote is from muhammad. As far as I see he was trying to explain the quote from muhammad. The following hadith from Abu Huraira makes it clear that only the first quote was from muhammad while rest of the quote i,e starting from A Wife says " ...." is from Abu Huraira.The following hadith makes the same claim with only the first part.


Volume 7, Book 64, Number 269:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The best alms is that which you give when you are rich, and you should start first to support your dependants."



The Cat wrote:B.7.343: ''I used to accompany Allah's Apostle to fill my stomach...'' (i.e. I'm an opportunist).


Lets see the hadith in complete..

Volume 7. Book 65. Number 343
Narrated Abu Huraira: I used to accompany Allah's Apostle to fill my stomach; and that was when I did not eat baked bread nor wear silk. Neither a male nor a female slave used to serve me and I used to bind stones over my belly and ask somebody to recite a Quranic Verse for me though I knew it so that he might take me to his house and feed me. Ja'far bin Abi Talib was very kind to the poor and he used to take us and feed us with what ever was available in his house. (and if nothing was available) he used to give us the empty (honey or butter) skin which we would tear and lick whatever was in it.

This quote indicates that Abu Huraira didn’t do that frequently(read the underlined part, it tells us when he did that) and he used to accompany muhammad so that he could satisfy his hunger and not materialistic gains .This hadith shows that he was indecent and greedy for food so nothing about his hadith narrating skills is mentioned here.

The Cat wrote:31.6: "Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless HADITH, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution."

So are the Sahih Hadiths reliable? Are the hadiths' followers truly Muslims or rather sectarian Muhammadans?


This verse becomes applicable to Abu Huraira provided you prove that he didnt have any knowledge.Isnt it surprising that Muhammad himself never once said anything about ABu Huraira? Muhammad praises his companions but not once he talks ill about Abu Huraira.

The first person who would know whether ABu Huraira was lying or not would be muhammad because he was the witness in the act. Other persons could merely accuse him .

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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:50 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:While following the man-made 'religion of Bukhari' aren't Muslims departing from the Koran to become Muhammadans instead?


I suppose you are saying here that muslims become muhammadans i,e they follow muhammad when they follow the hadiths from Bukhari....


A very simple question to ask The Cat in the similar lines of his question is.,

"Forget Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim)., Is Quran Reliable?"

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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:58 pm
by skynightblaze
Yeezevee wrote:A very simple question to ask The Cat in the similar lines of his question is.,

"Forget Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim)., Is Quran Reliable


:lol:

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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:55 pm
by ygalg
yeezevee wrote:"Forget Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim)., Is Quran Reliable?"

of course. and how do we know that? well Koran says so :D

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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:38 pm
by yeezevee
ygalg wrote:
yeezevee wrote:"Forget Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim)., Is Quran Reliable?"

of course. and how do we know that? well Koran says so :D


yes.. yes.. Koran says so.., Allah commands and demands..

002.222: And they ask you about menstruation. Say: It is a discomfort; therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves.

Yes Allah commands ., When they have cleaned GO IN TO THEM... Go inside.. most excellent sh!t.. foolish people

39.011 & 12 Say:(Muhammad)I am commanded that I should serve Allah, being sincere to Him in obedience.
And Say:(Muhammad) I am commanded that I shall be the first of those who submit.

yes.,, say Muhammad.. say.. I command you. Allah made lawful to you lot of women so
066.001: " O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
prophet divorce stupid and not good looking wives ., we give you more
066.005: Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins.
prophet don't worry we give you submissive virgins., ... Stupid sh!t..


Allah commands Muhammad and robots think it is word of Allah..God.. errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Stupid people ...