Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:If there were early hadiths written then it goes on to confirm the fact that indeed muhammad abrogated his order of prohibition of writing of hadith.
Still parroting sunni sources without a glimpse of historical and critical overlook. Let me do it for you. We've got (if true):

The Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih: According to the book Arabic Literature at the end of Ummayad period (750). 138 hadiths of Abu Hurairah.

+ --Musannaf of Ibn Jurayj (d.782): (?) + --Musannaf of Ma`mar bin Rashid (d.785): (?)

+ The Muwatta' of Malik bin Anas: Malik bin Anas (d.795) was compiled in mid-second century AH. It is not a corpus of hadith in a true sense but a collection of practices of people of Madinah. 500 hadiths.

Only one of those so-called 'early' hadiths (which were non-authoritatives) appeared at the end of the Umayyad dynasty, all the others at the beginning of the Abbasid usurpers who were in need to justify their coup. Their very sparsity, and the fact they they weren't authoritatives, is like the exception that confirms the rule. Again, if allowed by Muhammad we should have had a deluge of sahih hadiths. That's NOT the case at all!

We do not have hadiths nearly contemporary to the prophet, like from the time of the four righteous caliphs or soon after. If Muhammad had actually permitted them they should have flocked the market by the thousands to become authoritative almost on the spot. This is not the picture we have from history. Right until after the Mutazilites, they were interdicted 'apocryphals'. They really started to flow in from ibn Hanbal.

These few books contain no more than 2000 hadiths, yet not authoritative. That's about all we got. How come then that Ibn Hanbal and Bukhari collected respectively 700,000 & 600,000 hadiths? Where and from whom did they find them? Only gullible people such as Muhammadans and our shameless snb can't see a tidal discrepancy here. The very fact that a loooonng chain of narrators was needed to qualify them as 'Sahih' indicates that they did not possess ANY first hand hadiths. This chain is -always- a one to one (ahad) chain and NEVER of the mutawatir type (corroborated by multiple sources).

This is the equivalent of reporting a saying of Jesus like this: we got it from X, who was told by T, who heard it from B, that W did witness the testimony of Matthew stating that Jesus have said ''this and that'', AND a changing line of narrators for almost everyone of his sayings!

Who would buy that? Well, Muhammadans & snb DO... :prop:
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 »

skynightblaze wrote:IF Bukhari considered opinions of children then we can safely reject those people but why should anyone reject Bukhari completely when he also borrowed hadiths from elderly people? (...) Finally if Bukhari is to be rejected merely on the basis of his few inconsistencies then why the hell are we supposed to listen to FREE MINDS (the source of your arguments) who translated quran 4:34 to "TO SEND AWAY" rather than "BEAT THEM"?? Going by your own logic you should simply stop pasting crap from FREE MINDS.
Ibn Abbas was born around 619 and was only 12 years old when Muhammad died. And you dare to call it 'few inconsistencies'?

The article also name other kids that Bukhari hold as valuable shahaba: Al-Nuaman Ibn Basheer (8 years old), Mahmoud Ibn Al-Rabee (5 years), Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubeer (9 years), Al-Hussein Ibn Ali (7 years), Al-Hassan Ibn Ali ( 8 years), Omar Ibn Aby Muslima ( 9 years).

Do you know how Santa Claus are the kids at these tender ages? Sahih hadiths ? Reliable?... please stop insulting plain common sense.

Then you conclude over yet another one of your usual, far twisted, logical fallacy. They're like part of your signature. :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:there is a possibility that majority could be wrong and your point may be valid
Yep. And the other way around too. The whole thing is an exercise in puerility.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

piscohot
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Ahmed chose to reply to inmate piss

Another example is how Allah made your parents not circumcise you so all women you meet know that you are nothing but a filthy retarded half man.

Back to your cell, inmate.
precisely. How many times i got to tell you, you idiot.
Allah planned ahead and nothing can change what he planned for you.

Just like he planned for the devil to make you chop off part of your penis.

Show me where in the quran did Allah tell you to go get circumcised... Quran-only-muslim Bahgat.

dumb

half man...? :lol:

I'm not the one without part of my penis. :lol:
Quran miracle (16:69) : Bees eat ALL fruits
Quran miracle (27:18) : an ant SAID, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."

iffo
Posts: 4687
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by iffo »

WittyBoy can I say officially that you ran away and surrendered. That's how your hadith based islam was, could not defend it, could you?
Like I said if you can not defend what you believe in that means it is false. Its never too late to correct Witty, don't be stubborn.

Here few more for you.
Women has discharges during wet dreams, that is why the son resembles the mother...(Sahih Bukhari, 1.3.132)
:*)
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." (Sahih Bukhari, 1.6.301)
How degrading
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: concerning the dream of the Prophet in Medina: The Prophet said, "I saw (in a dream) a black woman with unkempt hair going out of Medina and settling at Mahai'a. I interpreted that as (a symbol of) the epidemic of Medina being transferred to Mahai'a, namely, Al-Juhfa. (Sahih Bukhari)

How degrading
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: ... So I came (to my house) and Allah's Apostle too, came, proceeding before the people. When I came to my wife, she said, "May Allah do so-and-so to you." I said, "I have told the Prophet of what you said." Then she brought out to him (i.e. the Prophet) the dough, and he spat in it and invoked for Allah's Blessings in it. Then he proceeded towards our earthenware meat-pot and spat in it and invoked for Allah's Blessings in it. (Sahih al-Bukhari: volume 5, book 59, number 428)

You have only 2 choices. Either these hadits are false, or the prophet you always respected was a mental case. Choice is yours.

piscohot
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

mental case

definitely
Quran miracle (16:69) : Bees eat ALL fruits
Quran miracle (27:18) : an ant SAID, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."

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:
skynightblaze wrote:You copy paste things from here and there and try to pass them as if you have written.You did that when you copy pasted Shia arguments on the other thread. You also copy pasted some muslim called Aymans arguments on FFI.... AS far as BAhgat accusing you of copying I dont think he would take free minds name immediately when he saw your arguments.
Here's the post (check it good):

viewtopic.php?p=128079#p128079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The personal opinion is related to Salman the Persian, different from the warring Medina one.

Everything else is confirmed by HISTORY, nothing to do with free-minds.
-- We have testimonies that he was alive and feared at least still by 640.
-- We have no inscription mentioning this Mhmd before around Marwan.
-- Mada'in Saleh was then rather known as Hegra or Hijir (where Salman has a shrine).
-- 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.
My question was: ''Where did he exposed me (of copying freemind)?'' Do not dance around again. WHERE in that post ?

You're so deluded that I don't know how pathetic or funny you truly are.
The other answer will follow. I'm out for a wonderful diner.
I did not accuse you of copying, rather I said you can copy and paste the free minders crap and be my guest to refute my refutation to their allegation about Mecca which is based on that book you mentioned. However I dont think that they admitted copying from that book, and as I said to you, I have the book, and even host it on my web site since 4 years ago.

And as i said to you, I am not interested that much to get into a battle with the kafirs or the free minders, I already spent about 2 years with the free minders and really gave them a had time until they permenantly banned me, which did not upset me at all. And btw I never even visit their site for the last 2 years. Not even once.

What I am currently concentrating on, is how to destroy al Mushrikoon for good and reclaim the religion of Allah back, at least to myself.

Finally, if you copy from FM or not, it makes absoutely no difference to me, please be my guest to copy their work, many of their work supports my cause

Salam

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:IF Bukhari considered opinions of children then we can safely reject those people but why should anyone reject Bukhari completely when he also borrowed hadiths from elderly people? (...) Finally if Bukhari is to be rejected merely on the basis of his few inconsistencies then why the hell are we supposed to listen to FREE MINDS (the source of your arguments) who translated quran 4:34 to "TO SEND AWAY" rather than "BEAT THEM"?? Going by your own logic you should simply stop pasting crap from FREE MINDS.
Ibn Abbas was born around 619 and was only 12 years old when Muhammad died. And you dare to call it 'few inconsistencies'?

The article also name other kids that Bukhari hold as valuable shahaba: Al-Nuaman Ibn Basheer (8 years old), Mahmoud Ibn Al-Rabee (5 years), Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubeer (9 years), Al-Hussein Ibn Ali (7 years), Al-Hassan Ibn Ali ( 8 years), Omar Ibn Aby Muslima ( 9 years).

Do you know how Santa Claus are the kids at these tender ages? Sahih hadiths ? Reliable?... please stop insulting plain common sense.

Then you conclude over yet another one of your usual, far twisted, logical fallacy. They're like part of your signature. :wacko:
You pathetic fool cant you grasp simple concepts? Ibn Abbas didnt learn from Muhammad alone . When Ibn Abbas grew up he used to consult the sahabas of muhammad and its said that he used to consult 20-30 people so Ibn Abbas wasnt narrating only the things that he learnt at the age of 12 from muhammad.He later learnt a lot from the sahabas of muhammad i.e first hand knowledge from Sahabas and thats why he is considered to be reliable and not because he learned from prophet at the age of 12.Same can be said about others however I am not interested in defending these people. Bukhari's collection isnt just about these men . There are others too .

To clarify my point so that you can understand let me give an example. I was only 5 years old in 1990 but does that mean that when I narrate an incident that occured in 1990 today in 2010 is unreliable because I was only 5 at that time? Ofcourse not ! At the age of 5 I didnt understand anything however as I grew up I came to know about it from the reliable sources so me telling the incident of 1990 doesnt make my testimony unreliable just because I was 5 years old at the time when the incident happened.
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 »

@ Cat

I will reply to your other argument soon.
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:
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:
Spoiler! :
IF Bukhari considered opinions of children then we can safely reject those people but why should anyone reject Bukhari completely when he also borrowed hadiths from elderly people? (...) Finally if Bukhari is to be rejected merely on the basis of his few inconsistencies then why the hell are we supposed to listen to FREE MINDS (the source of your arguments) who translated quran 4:34 to "TO SEND AWAY" rather than "BEAT THEM"?? Going by your own logic you should simply stop pasting crap from FREE MINDS.
[
The Cat: Ibn Abbas was born around 619 and was only 12 years old when Muhammad died. And you dare to call it 'few inconsistencies'?
The article also name other kids that Bukhari hold as valuable shahaba: Al-Nuaman Ibn Basheer (8 years old), Mahmoud Ibn Al-Rabee (5 years), Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubeer (9 years), Al-Hussein Ibn Ali (7 years), Al-Hassan Ibn Ali ( 8 years), Omar Ibn Aby Muslima ( 9 years).

Do you know how Santa Claus are the kids at these tender ages? Sahih hadiths ? Reliable?... please stop insulting plain common sense.

Then you conclude over yet another one of your usual, far twisted, logical fallacy. They're like part of your signature. :wacko:
You pathetic fool cant you grasp simple concepts? Ibn Abbas didnt learn from Muhammad alone . When Ibn Abbas grew up he used to consult the sahabas of muhammad and its said that he used to consult 20-30 people so Ibn Abbas wasnt narrating only the things that he learnt at the age of 12 from muhammad.He later learnt a lot from the sahabas of muhammad i.e first hand knowledge from Sahabas and thats why he is considered to be reliable and not because he learned from prophet at the age of 12.Same can be said about others however I am not interested in defending these people. Bukhari's collection isnt just about these men . There are others too .

To clarify my point so that you can understand let me give an example. I was only 5 years old in 1990 but does that mean that when I narrate an incident that occured in 1990 today in 2010 is unreliable because I was only 5 at that time? Ofcourse not ! At the age of 5 I didnt understand anything however as I grew up I came to know about it from the reliable sources so me telling the incident of 1990 doesnt make my testimony unreliable just because I was 5 years old at the time when the incident happened.
May I give a suggestion to you dear Mr. 5 year old KID?? your post will have far more impact on the readers without those highlighted words dear SKB., so cut down that stuff a bit., rest of your points are quite valid. Indeed that is the difference between evolved animals "the human beings" and rest of the living stuff., we are capable of going in to the past not just 1400 years but to 4 billion years with our intelligence and rational exploration.

So you are right, it makes no difference what the age of Ibn Abbas was. what is important is how he was connected to Muhammad's preachings/utterings/mutterings .. whatever..

Now I am curious., When the person "Muhammad" existence itself is under the question and The Cat is exploring that subject., his words
Ibn Abbas was born around 619 and was only 12 years old when Muhammad died. And you dare to call it 'few inconsistencies'?
doesn't make sense to me., May be he has not thought about it..

I can tell you this 12 year old is NOT a little kid, we know the age of Aisha., You see I was a 10/11 year old boy when My grand father and Grand mother died.. in fact they killed themselves with some events that are connected to Muhammad's Islam. So i rememeber many things my grand father told at that age...

any ways ..please.. again...So stop insulting each other..

with best regards
yeezevee
Last edited by yeezevee on Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

So stop insulting each other..
Ok..
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 »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I am going to embarass you here. I have decided to create a poll
1. You should check your typo when you want to embarrass someone. It doesn't exactly help your point... :whistling:

2. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy that is rather embarrassing for -you- . :oops:

3. Next in the poll....
I dont focus on minor details. The ones who dont have arguments are required to find these petty mistakes.They are least important.

Secondly majority is not always wrong. Whenever we are to judge the outcome of a debate then the public has to be the judge. If we are to follow your logic then we can never have an outcome of a debate and hence we can never judge anything. EVery single debator can just say that his opponent is resorting to a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.So if we are to follow your line of thinking then tell me how is anyone supposed to know the outcome of a debate? There has to be a judge.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

yeezevee wrote:Now I am curious., When the person "Muhammad" existence itself is under the question and The Cat is exploring that subject., his words
Ibn Abbas was born around 619 and was only 12 years old when Muhammad died. And you dare to call it 'few inconsistencies'?
doesn't make sense to me., May be he has not thought about it.
You are perfectly right here. I've indulged into arguing from the Islamic traditional point of view, because I'm learning from it.

But the external picture is simply devastating the hadiths' reliability. The main thing to remember here is that since Mecca wasn't in existence in the 6th century, that alone disprove the authenticity of the Hadiths, more so since the Year of the Elephant now ascertained by 552AD (NOT the traditional 570) the whole edifice of the hadiths crumbles down. We have evidences that the earliest Qibla (until 705) weren't even facing Mecca.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Crone" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In her book Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Crone argues that the importance of the pre-Islamic Meccan trade has been grossly exaggerated. She also suggests that while Muhammad never traveled much beyond the Hijaz, internal evidence in the Qur'an such as its description of Muhammad's polytheist opponents as olive growers, might indicate that the events surrounding the prophet took place near to the Mediterranean milieu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccan_Tra ... e_of_Islam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The book provides evidence that Islam did not originate in Mecca, located in the Hejaz region of what is modern day Saudi Arabia. In traditional Islamic accounts, it is portrayed as a wealthy trading center, full of merchants trading goods by caravan from Yemen in the south and Syria and the Byzantine Empire in the north. The book shows that Mecca was in fact way off the incense route from Yemen to Syria, which bypassed where Mecca is today by more than 100 miles. Furthermore, there is no mention of Mecca in any Non-Islamic sources of that period. (...)

An exhaustive examination of all available evidence and sources leads Crone to conclude that Mohammed's career took place not in Mecca and Medina or in southwest Arabia at all, but in northwest Arabia.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/FredericDecat50722.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (none but myself, way back)

My debate with snb is to find out if the Hadiths are -internally- consistent. And I don't think they are.
So it should be understood as if in brackets. For the external evidences are blowing them all away...

If my sympathy goes to the koraner-only, I certainly don't believe the Koran to have been written by a god.
Basically, I'm a historian and history totally debunks Islam. We're all working for its implosion, isn't it?
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 »

AhmedBahgat wrote: I did not accuse you of copying...

Salam
That Mecca wasn't in existence before around 710 is NOT a free-mind original argument at all.
See above, I've argued so... way before I've even discovered their site, something like a year ago.

I'm only on the koraner-only side when it comes to internally debunk the hadiths.
My position is that Muhammad interdicted them because of their authoritative absence for a loooong time.
and, as stated by iffo, either they are false or the prophet is a mental case... which I've argued too!

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5159" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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 »

skynightblaze wrote:Ibn Abbas didnt learn from Muhammad alone . When Ibn Abbas grew up he used to consult the sahabas of muhammad
Another circular argument from the hadiths trying to justify their felony. The fact that he had to consult many others is prove enough that he considered himself unreliable. He's shaking his own credibility! Bukhari hold reliable ANYONE who had only seen Muhammad for a minute, not questioning their motives as if they were all a priori unfailing saints and not the hypocrites described in 9.101:

And among those around you of the wandering Arabs there are hypocrites, and among the townspeople
of Al-Madinah (there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou (O Muhammad) knowest not.


Still taking for authentic the testimonies of Santa Claus aged kids (not only Ibn Abbas) pinpoint that Bukhari's criteria of so-called sahih hadiths & companions aren't trustable. We've got no first hand testimony, but through a one-to-one chain of narrators retelling -from memory-.

A demonstration on the unreliability of -any- ahad chain of narrators: The Chinese Whispers
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/chi ... 55%29.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Spoiler! :
The documentation of Hadith

"Chinese Whispers"
The prophet prohibited the writing of his hadith, and as a result, all the four Khalifas who succeeded the prophet also prohibited the writing of any hadith about the prphet. The prophet Muhammed himself when he died had no idea about any Hadiths books. We have more than one hadith in which the Prophet ordered the true believers not to write ANYTHING but the Quran. For more details please sea the section about the history of the compilation of hadith.

The process of corruption of any piece of information through the verbal transmition of that information through a number of people is what is called "Chinese Whispers". The following is an example:

The lecturer in a college course was talking about the verbal transfer of information, demonstrating the effect of verbal transfer of information on altering an original message. What he did was ask 10 people to come forward from his audience. He then asked 9 of them to leave the hall, and then gave the one in the hall a small piece of paper to read out to the audience .....

The man read the following extract from the Bible :
"After this Jesus went down to Capernaun in company with his mother and followers and his disciples, but they did not stay there long. As it was near the time of the jewish passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. There he found in the temple the dealers in cattle, sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers seated at their tables. Jesus made a whip of cords and drove them out of the temple, sheep, cattle, and all."

After that, the lecturer took the piece of paper from the first man and put it in his pocket. He then called the 2nd man in, and asked the first man to repeat to the 2nd man the words that he had just read out from the paper.

The man said the following:

"After this Jesus went down to Capernaun in company with his mother and his disciples, and they stayed a long time. After that Jesus went back to Jerusalem. Beside the temple he saw people who were buying cattle and pigeons, he also saw money-changers. Jesus kicked them all out."

Now the lecturer asked the third man to come in and asked the second man to repeat what he had just heard from the 1st man. He in turn said:

"After this Jesus went down to Jerusalem with his mother and some of his disciples and stayed for a couple of days .... After that Jesus went back to the temple. Beside the temple he saw people who were buying cattle and pigs, he also saw money-changers. Jesus shouted at them and told them they were wicked."

Once again the next man came in , and the message was repeated as follows:

"One day Jesus was in Jerusalem with his mother where he was was for many years .... but one day Jesus left Jerusalem and went to a far away. Beside the temple he saw people who were buying horses and pigs, he shouted at them for having so much money and told them that money was wicked."

By the time the next man narrated the same story it became:

"Jesus was born in Jerusalem and lived with his mother for many years there .... one day Jesus went to the market place in Jerusalem and in the market he saw people who were riding horses and selling pigs, he shouted at them for having so much animals and money asked them to give their money to charity for it is wicked."

In turn, the next man said the following:

"Jesus was born in Jerusalem and lived with his mother all his life .... one day Jesus went to the market place in Jerusalem and in the market he saw people who were riding horses and selling pigs, he shouted at them for their cruelty to the animals and asked them to give up all their money or to make sure their animals are well fed."

In turn, the next man said the following:

"Jesus was born in Jerusalem and lived near a market place where there were lots of people mistreating the poor pigs and whipping their horses ......... one day Jesus went to the market place and saw those wicked people who were only interested in selling their pigs, they were very loud and rude to him, so he did not reply back but cursed their money and left ..."

The reader is now invited to go back and read the first account of this story and then once again read this last one which was only the 6th new narration!

What is also important to note is that this incident took place in a period of 10 minutes in a lecture. What would be the case of thousands of hadith, most of them many pages long that were transmitted through many people and over a period of 200 years?

We must also note that the ten men in the lecture were all honestly trying to repeat the story as best as they can remember. We cannot accuse any of them of deliberately trying to corrupt the story they were narrating.

What this indicates is that the corruption in transmission is not due to bad character or the dishonesty of the narrator, but rather due to the altering of the facts through a sequence of verbal transmissions. These transmissions were from humans who cannot be expected to have tight proof memories.

Sadly, the scholars have assessed the authenticity of any hadith through a character reference of the narrators! If the narrator was of good character then they would label the hadith as authentic! how naive is this?

A story narrated across 200 years and by 6 to 10 different men in a chain, cannot in any way be authentic.

We should not be surprised to see God clearly telling us in the Quran to follow NO OTHER HADITH but the Quran.

"Which Hadith, other than this (Quran), do they uphold?" 77:50

"These are God"s revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?" 45:6

"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." 31:6

"God has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent, and points out both ways." 39:23

"Let them produce a hadith like this, if they are truthful." 52:34

"Therefore, let Me deal with those who reject this Hadith; we will lead them on whence they never perceive." 68:44

For a detailed historical account of the compilation of hadith please check the article:
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 48%29.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It concludes, as I do: A story narrated across 200 years and by 6 to 10 different men in a chain, cannot in any way be authentic.
Last edited by The Cat on Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

WittyBoy
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:45 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by WittyBoy »

@ all

Sorry for this absence, i couldn't log in all this time because i have the military training these days. I'll read all posts addressed to me and I'll answer it as soon as possible isA.
Problems #1 , #2

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 »

WittyBoy wrote:@ all

Sorry for this absence, i couldn't log in all this time because i have the military training these days.
I'll read all posts addressed to me and I'll answer it as soon as possible isA.
What country do you serve for in the military?
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

yeezevee":Now I am curious., When the person "Muhammad" existence itself is under the question and The Cat is exploring that subject., his words
Ibn Abbas was born around 619 and was only 12 years old when Muhammad died. And you dare to call it 'few inconsistencies'?
doesn't make sense to me., May be he has not thought about it.
The Cat: ........ The main thing to remember here is that since Mecca wasn't in existence in the 6th century, that alone disprove the authenticity of the Hadiths, more so since the Year of the Elephant now ascertained by 552AD (NOT the traditional 570) the whole edifice of the hadiths crumbles down. We have evidences that the earliest Qibla (until 705) weren't even facing Mecca.

The Cat: That Mecca wasn't in existence before around 710 is NOT a free-mind original argument at all.,
Let us explore that subject of " That Mecca wasn't in existence before around 710 bit more detail dear The Cat., When do you think Mecca started appearing in Islamic literature? could it have slightly different Arabic name such as Becca Or bacca instead of Mecca??

how about publication like these from peer reviewed history Journals?

http://faculty.washington.edu/brownj9/L ... 0Osman.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.jstor.org/pss/163677" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/content/XVI/1/35.extract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with best
yeezevee
Last edited by yeezevee on Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:48 pm, edited 1 time 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 »

The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote: I did not accuse you of copying...

Salam
That Mecca wasn't in existence before around 710 is NOT a free-mind original argument at all.
See above, I've argued so... way before I've even discovered their site, something like a year ago.

I'm only on the koraner-only side when it comes to internally debunk the hadiths.
My position is that Muhammad interdicted them because of their authoritative absence for a loooong time.
and, as stated by iffo, either they are false or the prophet is a mental case... which I've argued too!

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5159" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well, being by that author of your book or by the free minders, it makes no difference to me as both allegations sound exactly the same, now if you want to argue that Mecca did not exist at that time, you are welcome, but dont bring to me stories from your grandmother bed stories chest. See, to ingage seriously with me in a debate concerning such argument, then all evidences that will be used, have to be from Quran only

If you manage to do that, then let's get the ball rolling and start this possibly very intense debate, but I won't start until I finish the 30 pages document I started 3 days ago, I have already finished 27 pages, almost there

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 »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote: I did not accuse you of copying...

Salam
That Mecca wasn't in existence before around 710 is NOT a free-mind original argument at all.
See above, I've argued so... way before I've even discovered their site, something like a year ago.

I'm only on the koraner-only side when it comes to internally debunk the hadiths.
My position is that Muhammad interdicted them because of their authoritative absence for a loooong time.
and, as stated by iffo, either they are false or the prophet is a mental case... which I've argued too!

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5159" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well, being by that author of your book or by the free minders, it makes no difference to me as both allegations sound exactly the same, now if you want to argue that Mecca did not exist at that time, you are welcome, but dont bring to me stories from your grandmother bed stories chest. See, to ingage seriously with me in a debate concerning such argument, then all evidences that will be used, have to be from Quran only
And that's the little fairy tale you have set up for yourself in order to preserve your beliefs in Islam, because if Islam included the hadiths, which it does, then you would have to defend all sorts of absurdities, and yet, at the same time, without them, you would have no marriage laws, as WittyBoy has pointed out and you still haven't answered. So you're not only blatantly dishonest to non Muslims, you're dishonest to your fellow Muslims as well, but even more importantly, you are ultimately dishonest to yourself, first and foremost.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

Post Reply