Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
WittyBoy
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:45 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by WittyBoy »

iffo wrote:they just have sex in their mind, and wanted to fuke others wives right away after war. And Allah said be patient kids
Let's see what happened with the Hawazin tribe, one of tribes participated in the battle of Hunain when the incident above took place:
Narrated Marwan bin Al-Hakam and Al-Miswar bin Makhrama: When the delegates of the tribe of hawazin after embracing Islam, came to Allah's Apostle, he got up. They appealed to him to return their properties and their captives. Allah's Apostle said to them, "The most beloved statement to me is the true one. So, you have the option of restoring your properties or your captives, for I have delayed distributing them." The narrator added, Allah's Apostle had been waiting for them for more than ten days on his return from Taif.....

[al-Bukhari 38:503]


It's obvious that distributing captives is delayed, and the narrator added that the Prophet(pbuh) was waiting for them, to give a chance to any exchange. After the distribution, there is a waiting period too. Then, what if no one wanted to return them back, should they be killed or imprisoned forever? or they have houses and who is responsible for them.

You brought the text of hadith and i answered you according to it, keep your own view of the text for yourself, those women were distributed in Muslim houses, so some companions didn't know whether those women are lawful for them or not as they were married, they disliked/refrained/afraid/..etc to have sex with them, till the verse explained the issue showing that their marriages with pagans was obligated as soon as they fall in capture, and they became lawful after the waiting period.

Why didn't you read this hadith i showed you, it's about Hunain; the same battle,

[al-Bukhari 53:372]
"....Umar gained two lady captives from the war prisoners of Hunain and he left them in some of the houses at Mecca...."

so it doesn't a matter for him and he was one of the companions you talked about.

"When Allah's Apostle freed the captives of Hunain without ransom, they came out walking in the streets."
Walking in the streets?!! they were a part from the army came to fight against Muslims. However, they became free and moving as like other Muslims without ransom or anything.

"Umar said (to his son), "O Abdullah! See what is the matter." 'Abdullah replied, "Allah's Apostle has freed the captives without ransom." He said (to him), "Go and set free those two slave girls."

iffo wrote:Do the women have any say in that, based on these hadiths ..NO,
and they aren't forced on sex, based on these hadiths too.
iffo wrote:And if they are not married then its ok to fuke them right away, after they lost the war and lost their loved ones.
This claim has been refuted.
iffo wrote:Who you think you are fooling here. My problem is I don't like girls getting rapped, which probably you don't. You would be ok if USA do the same thing in Iraq?? Start taking females prisoners there and start fuking muslim women. You can not blame them can you??
Yes i can, because the situation is extremely different. Here's some differences:

1-
Hunain: Women went out with the pagans army fight Muslims,
Iraq: Iraqi women didn't went out in their way to USA!! Americans take them from their homes not from battlefield.

2-
Hunain: the remaing captive women, no one of their tribes came and requested to return them back for a ransom.
Iraq: Americans kill and imprison as they wish, of course there aren't war captives.

3-
Hunain: the female captive became in the care of a man, live in his house as his free wive, and he is responsible for her.
Iraq: Americans entered houses, rape women, burn them alive some times.
Mr WittyBoy wait for my next hadith, you are making great progress in destroying your religion with your own hands.
Tell me, since when was Islam affected by this crap? and of course, my beliefs aren't affected by your nonsense. Copy and paste more claims, I'm waiting.
Problems #1 , #2
Wootah
Posts: 2056
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:41 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Wootah »

Tell me, since when was Islam affected by this crap? and of course, my beliefs aren't affected by your nonsense. Copy and paste more claims, I'm waiting.
that is the scary part. You embrace this stuff.
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
WittyBoy wrote:2-
I still waiting for the legitimate marriage in Quran.
Keep waiting, it is going to happen when I want it to happen, not when you want it to happen
WittyBoy wrote:I'm not waiting, I'm sure you will find nothing.
What the hell was that confused Muhsrik boy?

First you say: I still waiting

Then you say: I'm not waiting

Hahahahah, how confused

It is not like you Mushrik we need your rubbish book of hadith so we know how we can legally marry, how the first people married then?

Forget marriage you confused boy, let’s see if how to pray is explained in your rubbish man made books of your associates?

Let’s see if you are going to find it in your shirk man made books
WittyBoy wrote:3-
You said that the order to obey Allah and His Messenger was when the prophet(pbuh) alive, and after his death, we have to obey Allah only, so in your opinion, these verses have been abrogated after the prophet death !!!!!
you should bloody have read that all that Muhammed said as commanded by Allah is documented in Quran, over 300 times Say, ay, Say, Say. Therefore by obeying the Quran that Muhammed delieverd, we should be obeying Allah and His messenger.
WittyBoy wrote: {27} Allah will establish in strength those who believe, with the Word that stands firm, in this world and in the Hereafter; but Allah will leave, to stray, those who do wrong: Allah doeth what He willeth.[Ibraheem]

- You have said that this order to obey The Prophet(pbuh) was when he was alive
That is how you obey someone, mister confused Mushrik

You obey an alive human, not a dead man

How can you obey a dead man, can you tell us?
WittyBoy wrote:- Now, you said that obeying the prophet(pbuh) means following Quran which includes Allah's commands to him.
Following Quran and anything he said to explain Quran.

Now how killing the apostates explains the Quran?

How sleeping with 11 wives one after the other without having a bath in between explains the Quran?

How torturing the criminals explains Quran?

But let me concentrate about salat which mentioned in Quran, now show us you hardcore Mushrik bound to hell, WHERE IN THE FUKIN BOOKS OF MAN MDE HADITH THE SALAT IS DETAILED?
WittyBoy wrote:The first opinion is completely wrong. About the second point, obeying the prophet(pbuh) by following Quran is wrong too because Allah already ordered us to follow Quran.

- Do you think that means "Follow Quran, and follow what Muhammad delivered"?!
Of course, there was no books of hadith back then, in fact for the first 200 years after the prophet death, the Muslims were obeying him not to write anything he says but Quran, read this from the book of your associates Ahmed Ibn Hanbal:

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... &Rec=10713" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Image
The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... &Rec=10715" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Image
The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything, it should be deleted

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... &Rec=10781" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Image
The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... &Rec=10966" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Image
The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything, it should be deleted

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... &Rec=11160" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Image
The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

For Ahmed Ibn Hanbal (who was a good friend to Bukhari) to inform us 5 times in his book Musnad Ahmed that the prophet said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran should delete it, means that he convicted himself and his friend Bukhari as charged of violating what the prophet ordered all the sahaba to do, this also means that Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and their likes were not really obeying the prophet as we are ordered to do by Allah:

And obey Allah and obey the messenger and be cautious; but if you turn back, then know that only a clear deliverance of the message is (incumbent) on Our messenger.

[The Quran ; 5:92]

وَأَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ الرَّسُولَ وَاحْذَرُواْ فَإِن تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّمَا عَلَى رَسُولِنَا الْبَلاَغُ الْمُبِينُ (92)

-> See, obey Allah and obey the messenger and be cautious , but Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmed and their likes didn’t do that they BLATANTLY AND BOLDLY disobeyed the prophet when they alleged that he said: do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran should delete it

Now who is obeying the prophet, you confused Mushrik? See, to rectify this problem that caused the division of Islam and made them questionable regarding Shirk, all these books must be deleted according to their own hearsay books of rubbish.
WittyBoy wrote:- Using word "Obey" two times, means there are two obeyed things, we knew Quran is one of them, so what's the other thing? Quran too?
Again you Mushrik, the prophet hadith is documented in Quran, i.e. as I said, obeying the Quran means obeying Muhammed

How the Muslims did in the first 200 years when your man made books of your associates were not invented yet?

Your argument about using the word 'Obey' two times is funny and only indicates your lack of Arabic, in fact I doubt that you know Arabic

The Quran used the word 'Obey' in the same sentence one time to command obeying Allah and His messenger 6 times in Quran

It also used it two times in one sentence to command us to obey three entities, therefore the verb does not have to match the ‘Mafool Bihi’, it is all part of the balaghah of Quran that certainly you lack

Stop tap dancing, Mushrik, what you are only proving is your shirk, again all prophets asked their people to obey them, Muhammed is not unique in here, but we know that you idol worshippers want to make him unique to satisfy your sick desires of shirk. Here most of the prophets asking their people to obey them:

Noah asking his people to obey him:
فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ (108)
So fear Allah and obey me.
[Al Quran ; 26:108]

Hud asking his people to obey him:
فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ (126)
So fear Allah and obey me.
[Al Quran ; 26:126]

Salih asking his people to obey him:
فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ (144)
So fear Allah and obey me.
[Al Quran ; 26:144]

Lut asking his people to obey him:
فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ (163)
So fear Allah and obey me.
[Al Quran ; 26:163]

Shauib asking his people to obey him:
فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ (179)
So fear Allah and obey me.
[Al Quran ; 26:179]

Jesus asking his people to obey him:
وَلَمَّا جَاءَ عِيسَىٰ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالَ قَدْ جِئْتُكُمْ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَلِأُبَيِّنَ لَكُمْ بَعْضَ الَّذِي تَخْتَلِفُونَ فِيهِ ۖ فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ (63)
And when Isa came with clear proofs, he said: I have certainly come to you with wisdom and to explain to you some of that about which you disagreed; so fear Allah and obey me.
[Al Quran ; 43:63]

See how all those prophets never asked their people to obey Allah, that is bcuase obeying them is like obeying Allah, in fact that was clearly mentioned in Quran, that if we obey Muhammed is exactly as we obey Allah:

مَّنْ يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللّهَ وَمَن تَوَلَّى فَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَفِيظًا (80)
Whoever obeys the messenger, then he has certainly obeyed Allah; and whoever turns away, then We have not sent you over them as a keeper.
[Al Quran ; 4:80]

-> See: Whoever obeys the messenger, then he has certainly obeyed Allah , i.e. it is ONE OBEYING, not two obeying as the Mushrikoon lie while tap dancing to justify their crime of shirk.

All the above verses are summed in one single verse, that no messenger was sent BUT TO BE OBEYED:

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلاَّ لِيُطَاعَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ جَآؤُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُواْ اللّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُواْ اللّهَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا (64)
And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by the permission of Allah. And if they, when they did injustice to themselves, come to you and seek forgiveness of Allah, and the messenger seek forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 4:64]

-> See: And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by the permission of Allah


Here you have it, Mushrik Muslim.
WittyBoy wrote:but Allah told them " No, come to Quran and to the Messenger", do you think what's meant is to resort for judgment to the oral Sunnah like how to pray and fast?
Well, it ca apply to anything related to explaining Quran
WittyBoy wrote:Quran is for people in all times, so how we can get this explanation now?
Allah is the one who explains the Quran, in fact the prophet never explained the whole Quran, if you read you man made rubbish books of crap, you should see that about 50 verses only were explained from sura 2, so what the Ummah do with the rest of 286 verses that were not explained?

The prophet only explained things in which they disagreed at their times, not things after his death (certainly later people may differ in things that different to the things back then):

بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالزُّبُرِ ۗ وَأَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ (44)
(We have sent them) with clear proofs and sacred writings; and We have sent down to you the reminder that you may explain to the people what has been sent down to them and that they will give thoughts.
[Al Quran ; 16:44]

-> See: and We have sent down to you the reminder that you may explain to the people what has been sent down to them and that they will give thoughts.

And in the same sura:

وَمَا أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ إِلَّا لِتُبَيِّنَ لَهُمُ الَّذِي اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ ۙ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ (64)
And We have not sent down to you the book except that you may explain to them that about which they disagreed and as guidance and mercy for a people who believe.
[Al Quran ; 16:64]

-> See: And We have not sent down to you the book except that you may explain to them that about which they disagreed
The problem that is hard for the Mushrikoon to understand while a child should understand it is the fact that you cannot obey two opposite commands, i.e. in no way the prophet commanded the people to do something that is opposite to what his teacher Allah taught him.
WittyBoy wrote:I don't know what you excatly mean, Do you mean oral Sunnah, or Quran? If you mean oral Sunnah, people can't resort for judgment to the oral Sunnah , if you mean Quran, it's impossible to say "Come to what Allah has revealed, and Quran" !!!
Again, anything that is Quran related, this is what Allah told us in Quran, the prophet should explain to us what was sent down to us, i.e. the Quran
WittyBoy wrote:So the meaning of the verse is "Come to what Allah has revealed and Quran" OR "Come to what Allah has revealed and Explanation of Quran which - according to you- we know nothing about it"
Well, as I said, you severely lack solid Arabic, this ‘AND’/’OR’ argument is only by children

In Arabic we can use the ‘WAW’ to referring to two things that are indeed one thing, for example:

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَاكَ سَبْعًا مِنَ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنَ الْعَظِيمَ (87)
And We have certainly given you seven verses and the great Quran.
[Al Quran ; 15:87]

-> See: And We have certainly given you seven verses AND the great Quran. , while the seven verses are part of the great Quran, yet Allah used the WAW in between while referring to one thing, THE QURAN
Allah told us about Zul Qarnain because it's unknown for us, but didn't tell us about Abu lahab, because he is already known for us.
But you did not reply to the argument showing how confused your associates who wrote the man made books of tafsir

They told us that he is Alexander the great Fag, do you believe that or not?
WittyBoy wrote:We aren't talking about tafsir now.
But the rubbish books of tafsir are based on the rubbish books of hadith, this is called the chain of shirk you confused and Mushrik Muslims are hooked to, but be aware Mushrikkoon, Satan is at the other end of your chain of shirk.
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:51 am, edited 4 times in total.
Wootah
Posts: 2056
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:41 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Wootah »

Go AB! Destroy Islam.
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

The polytheists were caught red handed

Salam all

As we have seen clearly that the prophet commanded his sahabah not to write his hadith other than Quran. for the first 200 years the sahabah did their best to obey such command, that is why there was no books of hadith during that time, but we should also know that Iblis is always around the corner from the believers, he enticed them with passion to disobey the prophet command and write these man made books of rubbish hadith, the seed that should confuse and divide the whole believers after it grows and establish itself, exactly as Iblis wants. See in this hadith from one of the associates of Al-Mushrikoon (Sunan Abi Dawoud):

Source


حدثنا نصر بن علي أخبرنا أبو أحمد حدثنا كثير بن زيد عن المطلب بن عبد الله بن حنطب قال
دخل زيد بن ثابت على معاوية فسأله عن حديث فأمر إنسانا يكتبه فقال له زيد إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أمرنا أن لا نكتب شيئا من حديثه فمحاه



Zaid Ibn Thabit entered upon Muawiah, so Muawiah asked him about a hadith and commanded another man to write it; so Zaid said to Muawiah:

The messenger of Allah commanded us not to write anything from his hadith.

So Muawiah deleted it


-> See how Muawiah the corrupt khalifah had tendency for shirk and disobeying the porphet, he ordered a guy to write the hadith, then Zaid told him that this is not allowed as the prophet commanded, so Muawiah deleted it

This means that all these man made books of crap hadith must be deleted and burnt, otherwise those hadith worshippers cannot be obeying the prophet.

Another slam against the hadith worshippers and Mushrik Muslims from their own man made books that they worship

Salam
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Wootah wrote:Go AB! Destroy Islam.
I am destroying al msuhrikoon, you kafir bound to hell

Islam will never be destroyed, it is preserved in Quran along with the prophet sahih hadith, you fool
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Salam all

Abu Hurairah, the male lover of skynightblaze was a very dishonest man who concealed a great part of the religion of al mushrikoon in their man made books of hadith. Let me explain by proving the dishonesty of Abu Hurairah from their own man made books. The following is a hadith listed in Sahih Bukhari:

Source

In which Abu Hurairah said: كُنْتُ أَلْزَمُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِشِبَعِ بَطْنِي , i.e. I accompanied the prophet to fill my stomach

The reason Abu Hurairah said the above was due to the fact mentioned above that the people accused him of talking too much hadith about the prophet.: أن الناس كانوا يقولون أكثر أبو هريرة , i.e. The people were saying that Abu Hurairah talks too much hadith, so Abu Hurairah had to defend himself, his explanation was indeed silly, he said that he accompanied the prophet all the time, yet he never said that he accompanied him to learn from him hadith, rather to fill his stomach, HOW RIDICULOUS AND STUPID BY HIM.

Now if you have the associated man made book called فتح الباري بشرح صحيح البخاري,, i.e. Fath Al-Bari in explaining Sahih Bukhari, you should read in explaining the above crap hadith that Aysha indirectly accused Abu Hurairah of lying, so for Abu Hurairah to defend himself, he mocked her by telling her:

وأخرج ابن سعد في "باب أهل العلم والفتوى من الصحابة" في طبقاته بإسناد صحيح عن سعيد بن عمرو بن سعيد بن العاص قال: "قالت عائشة لأبي هريرة: إنك لتحدث عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حديثا ما سمعته منه، قال: شغلك عنه يا أمه المرآة والمكحلة، وما كان يشغلني عنه شيء
[]

Aysha told Abu Hurairah:Indeed, you are saying hadith about the prophet that I never heard from him.

So Abu Hurairah replied: You were busy with your adornments in front of the mirror, while I was never busy away from him in anything.

See why I hate such freak of a so called Sahaba; he mocked his own mother, the mother of the believers, who is also suppose to be my mother.

In that book Fath Al-Bari, they claimed that they got this information from the following book:

From: الطبقات الكبرى , Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra
by: أبو عبد الله محمد بن سعد بن منيع, Ibn Saad

Which I have; it is 8 volumes, each one in a 250 page word document, the above is found in Volume 2 in page 229 of 242, I highlighted in yellow the following paragraph:

قالت عائشة لأبي هريرة إنك لتحدث عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حديثا ما سمعته منه فقال أبو هريرة يا أمة طلبتها وشغلك عنها المرآة والمكحلة وما كان يشغلني عنها شيء أخبرنا كثير بن هشام أخبرنا جعفر بن برقان سمعت يزيد بن الأصم يقول قال أبو هريرة يقولون أكثرت يا أبا هريرة والذي نفسي بيده لو أني حدثتكم بكل شيء سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لرميتموني بالقشع يعني المزابل ثم ما ناظرتموني أخبرنا محمد بن إسماعيل بن أبي فديك وإسماعيل بن عبد الله بن أبي أويس المدنيان وخالد بن مخلد البجلي عن محمد بن هلال عن أبيه عن أبي هريرة أنه كان يقول لو أنبأتكم بكل ما أعلم لرماني الناس بالخرق وقالوا أبو هريرة مجنون أخبرنا سليمان بن حرب أخبرنا أبو هلال أخبرنا الحسن قال قال أبو هريرة لو حدثتكم بكل ما في جوفي لرميتموني بالبعر قال الحسن صدق والله لو أخبرنا أن بيت الله يهدم ويحرق ما صدقه الناس أخبرنا محمد بن مصعب القرقساني أخبرنا الأوزاعي عن أبي كثير الغبري قال سمعت أبا هريرة يقول إن أبا هريرة لا يكتم ولا يكتب

In which Abu Hurairah admitted that he was concealing a great part of hadith, this is how he said it above:

-والذي نفسي بيده لو أني حدثتكم بكل شيء سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لرميتموني بالقشع يعني المزابل ثم ما ناظرتموني

- عن أبي هريرة أنه كان يقول لو أنبأتكم بكل ما أعلم لرماني الناس بالخرق وقالوا أبو هريرة مجنون

- قال أبو هريرة لو حدثتكم بكل ما في جوفي لرميتموني بالبعر


i.e.

- I swear that if I tell you all the hadith that I heard from the messenger of Allah, you would have pelted me with rubbish then never give me a respite

- If I tell you all what I know, the people would have pelted me with dirt and said: Abu Hurairah is madman

- If I tell all that inside me, you would have pelted me with faeces of animals


Then we read above that Abu Hurairah was not concealing any hadith:

عن أبي كثير الغبري قال سمعت أبا هريرة يقول إن أبا هريرة لا يكتم,

Abi Kathir Alghabri said: I heard Abu Hurairah saying: Indeed, Aba Hurairah does not conceal (hadith)

In effect, Abu Hurairah contradicted himself and proved to us that he was a clear cut liar who mocked our mother Aysha when she accused him of lying about the prophet.

Now, you kafirs of FFI should know well that, the religion that Al-Musrkioon from among the Muslims follow is mostely based on what Abu Hurairah the clear cut liar (according to their own man made books, not according to me) alleged.

You can download Volume 2 of Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra by Ibn Saad from the following link:

Download الطبقات الكبرى ,vol2 - 208kb

Salam
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
fakknows
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:55 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by fakknows »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Wootah wrote:Go AB! Destroy Islam.
I am destroying al msuhrikoon, you kafir bound to hell

Islam will never be destroyed, it is preserved in Quran along with the prophet sahih hadith, you fool
To faghat, you make some good arguments against the hadith. Just on the basis of shirk. I really dont understand why 'mainstream' muslim sects will not behave more amicably with people like your selves who are quran only muslims.

However dont you think calling 'mainstream' muslims mushrikoon you are no different to them when they accuse you of apostacy. Its tit for tat.

It would make sense for islam to drop the hadiths so that islam doesnt look as bad as it does now. Would that be enough? I dont really know.
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Hey, it's liar verses liar. Ya' just gotta' love it. :lol:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

@Bahgat

Your both arguments have been answered by me. The Cat your brother in religion was determined to disprove Abu Huraira and he brought the same arguments. BOy it seems that you both copy from the same website :lol: . You can see his performance live here .If you think you can reply to my arguments please do reply .I will be waiting for you reply.

viewtopic.php?p=122205#p122205" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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 these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

@Faghat
Skynightblaze wrote: 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.

One might still argue here that Abu Huraira was kind of selfish i,e he sometimes used to be with prophet to get food but again none is perfect in this world. Every single person has some drawback.Also Abu Huraira contradicting himself doesnt prove that he was a complete liar . Tell me honestly Bagrat you filthy swine , have you never contradicted yourself in your life?

I have contradicted myself many times not just once filthy Bahgat but that doesnt mean I am a complete liar.I will ask you the same questions which I asked your troll friend BMZ .

1)Now If Abu Huraira was really a liar then how come the 4 righteous caliphs didnt kill abu Huraira as per 5:33 ??? Anyone who spreads mischief is to be killed as per 5:33 and muslims have been doing that throughout the islamic history.

2) If Abu Huraira was a complete liar then how come he was allowed to lead the funeral prayer after Aisha and Hafsa's death? Aisha died at the age of 66 and Abu Huraira had almost approached his death at that time but yet that fellow was allowed to lead the funeral prayer. I hope you know that only best of the muslims is allowed to lead the funeral prayer.

3) How come grandsons of Umar narrate hadiths from him if he was such blatant liar? I mean they would have known that Abu Huraira was a liar and hence wouldnt have narrated the hadiths from him.


The above 3 questions confirm that Abu Huraira wasnt a complete liar and most of the stuff he told must be true. In general Abu Huraira seems to be a reliable person.One cant draw conclusions out of 1-2 incidents that show a particular person in negative light.In that case its safe to assume that whatever you brought to debunk Abu Huraira are exceptions . If they were a norm we wouldnt be seeing the companions of muhammad including the 4 righteous caliphs putting so much of trust in such a blatant liar so the moral is a person doesnt become unreliable just because 1 or 2 incidents show him negative light.
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 these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

@Bahgat

I defend the hadiths because they tell us the naked truth about islam.The hadiths provide us an insight into the personality of muhammad. I am not going to let guys like you and that Cat to whitewash the sins of muhammad.The real islam needs to be shown to the public.
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 these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:I am not going to let guys like you and that Cat to whitewash the sins of muhammad.The real islam needs to be shown to the public.
Suppose all 1.5 billion Muslims agree that all hadith are fabricated and even the life of Muhammad was fabricated., in other words there was NO MUHAMMAD character that you see in hadith stories of Islam.

Then what do you do and how do you blaze around that dear dear skynightblaze??
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I am not going to let guys like you and that Cat to whitewash the sins of muhammad.The real islam needs to be shown to the public.
Suppose all 1.5 billion Muslims agree that all hadith are fabricated and even the life of Muhammad was fabricated., in other words there was NO MUHAMMAD character that you see in hadith stories of Islam.

Then what do you do and how do you blaze around that dear dear skynightblaze??
Yeekee if people dont believe in character muhammad then the game is over because then quran also becomes invalid. I dont need those hadiths in that case. I use hadiths only to expose islam so the goal is really demise of islam and not the use of hadiths or believing that they are divine revelations or something.

If people believe that muhammad didnt exist then they also give up quran and islam together.I have no issues in that case because if the goal i.e demise of islam is achieved then why should I bother about the hadiths? Hadiths are only the means to an end i,e demise of islam but if its happening without using hadiths I have no issues.

. I am against quran only muslims who try to portray false image of islam to make it compatible with society and thats why I say its either quran + hadiths or there is no islam.Its not that the quran is compatible with the society but hadiths are worse than quran and we can easily use them against islam.
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 these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:
yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I am not going to let guys like you and that Cat to whitewash the sins of muhammad.The real islam needs to be shown to the public.
Suppose all 1.5 billion Muslims agree that all hadith are fabricated and even the life of Muhammad was fabricated., in other words there was NO MUHAMMAD character that you see in hadith stories of Islam.

Then what do you do and how do you blaze around that dear dear skynightblaze??

Yeekee if people dont believe in character muhammad then the game is over because then quran also becomes invalid.
I dont need those hadiths in that case. I use hadiths only to expose islam so the goal is really demise of islam and not the use of hadiths or believing that they are divine revelations or something..............
You know well those hadiths are stories and were written 100s of years after Muhammad., So again, let us say all Muslims get educated and reject All hadiths..Shai / unshai., authentic/non authentic and they become peaceful Muslims like millions of Indian subcontinent Muslims similar to your sufis., Then would it be O.K with you that Muslim believe ONLY IN QURAN and nothing else ? But keep in mind that will be short of demise of Islam..
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

yeezevee wrote:You know well those hadiths are stories and were written 100s of years after Muhammad., So again, let us say all Muslims get educated and reject All hadiths..Shai / unshai., authentic/non authentic and they become peaceful Muslims like millions of Indian subcontinent Muslims similar to your sufis., Then would it be O.K with you that Muslim believe ONLY IN QURAN and nothing else ? But keep in mind that will be short of demise of Islam..
This is call 'The Art of the Possible'. Now I ask would you rather deal with Muslims such as iffo or with Muhammadans such as WittyBoy?
Remember that through the Hadiths the later can beat infidels off much more than you can dismiss them through their fabrications...

I'm a very busy man and cannot answer very often here, since I like to ponder my replies. I'll do that pretty soon, likely in a row...

In the meantime two things to ponder:

---If Muhammadans should emulate their prophet thoroughly then they all should be illiterate as Muhammad. That's silly as it can get!


---Members like snb defending the hadiths are self-contradicting, stating: All Muslims are incorrigible liars but hadiths are genuine! :wacko:
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I am not going to let guys like you and that Cat to whitewash the sins of muhammad.The real islam needs to be shown to the public.
Suppose all 1.5 billion Muslims agree that all hadith are fabricated and even the life of Muhammad was fabricated., in other words there was NO MUHAMMAD character that you see in hadith stories of Islam.
The historical picture that comes out is that there was no Mecca in the 6th century, certainly not as an important pilgrimage center run by those enigmatic 'Quraysh'. We shall also note that the very name of Mhmd is totally absent from all the so-called 'Meccan' suras (except in added brackets). This expression could have been a title and only appears 4 times (5 if including 61.6), all in late Medina suras.

This doesn't invalidate the Koran though. The only place where Mecca is mentioned appears in 48.24 and it's more likely referring to the Classical Arabic Mkk for destruction. Yusuf Ali simply left it untranslated thus becoming a proper name. All proper names in the Koran must so be double checked by translators. This leave Bakka (3.96-97), most likely North of Arabia near the earthquake fault (11.100; 25.38-41; 37.133-138).

My personal opinion is that the former prophet lived in the al-Ula (thalmudic Dedan)/Mada'in Saleh region and that he was Salman The Persian, whom has a shrine over there. But he's most probably not the same as the warring Medina one. We have testimonies that he was alive and feared at least still by 640. It's noteworthy that we have no inscription mentioning this Mhmd before around Marwan, just to spread like wildfire right after.

Mada'in Saleh was then rather known as Hegra or Hijir, names strangely recalling that of the Hegira (departing, splitting).

It looks like the Medina Charter, dated 622, is the true beginning of what we now call Islam. Mecca is nowhere in sight until 710.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
iffo
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by iffo »

WittyBoy
[al-Bukhari 53:372]
"....Umar gained two lady captives from the war prisoners of Hunain and he left them in some of the houses at Mecca...."
so it doesn't a matter for him and he was one of the companions you talked about.

"When Allah's Apostle freed the captives of Hunain without ransom, they came out walking in the streets."
Walking in the streets?!! they were a part from the army came to fight against Muslims. However, they became free and moving as like other Muslims without ransom or anything.

"Umar said (to his son), "O Abdullah! See what is the matter." 'Abdullah replied, "Allah's Apostle has freed the captives without ransom." He said (to him), "Go and set free those two slave girls."

This is irrelevant, perhaps those were ugly duckly that's why they were let go.
I was not talking about Umar I meant Sahabas.

And off course you have no answer for this
FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3371

Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born".
War has just ended, muslims away from wives not home yet, asking prophet not that they can fuke or not. Their question is can we take the dick out, and prophet said it does not matter, its better you don't take it out. Which women be willingly like to have sex with the guys who were their enemies yesterday or last week in which their loved ones died. Use them as meat, fuke them, then sell to someone else, and they do the same. This is your Islam according to hadiths.
WittyBoy
and they aren't forced on sex, based on these hadiths too.
Off course there is no video tape, even if there was you would say it is a scam. Based on the hadith 10/10 partial individuals from any nationality will conclude its a rape. Does not look like women had any say in that.


Another case of rape, this time buddy Ali. Muhammad has just asked to get the booty, and Ali just fuked one from the botty. Girl was so crazy about Ali she just wanted Ali to fuke her after war ended. And prophet said he deserves it, let him fuke.
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637:

Narrated Buraida:

The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus."

Book 019, Number 4345:

It has been narrated on the authority of Salama (b. al-Akwa') who said: We fought against the Fazara and Abu Bakr was the commander over us. He had been appointed by the Messenger oi Allah (may peace be upon him). When we were onlv at an hour's distance from the water of the enemy, Abu Bakr ordered us to attack. We made a halt during the last part of the night tor rest and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children. I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain. When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along. Among them was a woman from Banu Fazara. She was wearing a leather coat. With her was her daughter who was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia. I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salama. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ag;tin met me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said: She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah. I have not yet disrobed her. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent her to the people of Mecca, and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Mecca.


Looks like this guy can take her clothes off anytime he wants, its his decision since she is his property now.


WittyBoy you can fool people who are your alike wanted to be fooled saying "subhanAllah "subhanAllah" and shaking their heads, over here its a tough crowd.
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

The Cat wrote:My personal opinion is that the former prophet lived in the al-Ula (thalmudic Dedan)/Mada'in Saleh region and that he was Salman The Persian, whom has a shrine over there. But he's most probably not the same as the warring Medina one. We have testimonies that he was alive and feared at least still by 640. It's noteworthy that we have no inscription mentioning this Mhmd before around Marwan, just to spread like wildfire right after.

Mada'in Saleh was then rather known as Hegra or Hijir, names strangely recalling that of the Hegira (departing, splitting).

It looks like the Medina Charter, dated 622, is the true beginning of what we now call Islam. Mecca is nowhere in sight until 710.
That is not a personal opinion, confused kafir

You are parrotting what you read on the Kuffar web site free-minds.org

I have slammed their lies over 4 year ago and ready to slam you too if you start disputing with ignorance
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

skynightblaze wrote:@Bahgat

From your replies I can see that you reject the hadiths only because they are embarrassing and not because there are incorrect.
You have gone to a stage where you think only you are right and are unable to see the point that people make here. YOu have been proven wrong here every single time. Mark my words when I say every single time. Its only that you are unwilling to give it a thought because in your mind there can be no doubt that muhammad was a prophet of God. When you start with such an assumption ,you manipulate your arguments to somehow reach the conclusion that muhammad was a prophet. The current example is a classic case. Just because the hadiths show muhammad in bad light they must be rejected because the initial assumption made i.e muhammad was a prophet of God has to be valid so the hadiths have to be false.
Listen Sky Ibn Abu Hurairah, you stupid punk kafir bound to hell do the same thing, you start with the preconcieved assumption that Muhammed was not a prophet of God

Likewise you jerk, you are not willing to give it a thought, possibly you save your arse the blaze

And before I go, shove your hadith and your god father Abu Hurairah up your arse and up WB arse

you are dismissed
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply