Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
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 »

yeezevee wrote:All principles of thought and action, spirituality and morality, private and social life in Islam are ultimately derived from the Holy Book. But the Holy Book itself was sent through the Prophet in fact, the Prophet is the guarantee of the Holy Book....
Very true. Sometimes, when you are trying to decide whether someone is telling you the truth or not, we look at the person's character who is claiming to tell the truth.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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:Obey Allah and obey the Prophet (5:92),
Whoever obeys the Prophet, he has obeyed Allah (4:80).
Those Muhammadans can't even quote their holy book properly. :lotpot:

Those verses (and all of them) do not say ''obey the prophet'' (nabi) but ''obey the messenger'' (rasoul). And there's a world of difference between the terms, for the duty of a messenger is ONLY to carry the message sent down through Jibril. The messenger is always twofold: the person & Jibril.

4:80 Whoso obeyeth the messenger hath obeyed Allah, and whoso turneth away:
We have not sent thee as a warder over them.

5:92 Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and beware! But if ye turn away, then know that
the duty of Our messenger is only plain conveyance (of the message).

Both verses emphasized that Muhammad as a messenger is not in charge of -anything-. That's even why he's an example (33.21).
When Allah states to obey Him and the messenger, it means that NO human beings can be in charge of religious matters. See?
The ONLY sunna to be rightfully followed is that of Allah and of the prophets who never got into golden calfs such as the hadiths.

That alone discredit the hadiths for they weren't revealed by Jibril.
The shirk consists in elevating them to the status of revelations.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:Obey Allah and obey the Prophet (5:92),
Whoever obeys the Prophet, he has obeyed Allah (4:80).
Those Muhammadans can't even quote their holy book properly. :lotpot:

Those verses (and all of them) do not say ''obey the prophet'' (nabi) but ''obey the messenger'' (rasoul). And there's a world of difference between the terms, for the duty of a messenger is ONLY to carry the message sent down through Jibril. The messenger is always twofold: the person & Jibril.

4:80 Whoso obeyeth the messenger hath obeyed Allah, and whoso turneth away:
We have not sent thee as a warder over them.

5:92 Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and beware! But if ye turn away, then know that
the duty of Our messenger is only plain conveyance (of the message).
You are absolutely right dear The Cat., Those two verses indeed say obey the messenger
Both verses emphasized that Muhammad as a messenger is not in charge of -anything-. That's even why he's an example (33.21).

When Allah states to obey Him and the messenger, it means that NO human beings can be in charge of religious matters. See?
I just don't get it., May be I am miss reading you., You mean to say Muhammad is NOT prophet but a messenger and he being a messenger of Allah "He is an example" for all human beings to follow?? by these words.," it means that NO human beings can be in charge of religious matters"., You mean to say Muhammad "The Messenger is NOT human being"??
Next whne you say

The ONLY sunna to be rightfully followed is that of Allah and of the prophets who never got into golden calfs such as the hadiths.

That alone discredit the hadiths for they weren't revealed by Jibril.
The shirk consists in elevating them to the status of revelations.
I see., that is a good point., very good point.. but how do we know that during the 23 years of Muhammad's messenger's Job "what went in to Quran and what went in to Hadith" and why??
Last edited by yeezevee on Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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:Allah should have known that the companions of muhammad would leak everything.
Shaytan was permitted to induced humans into errors (such as the misleading hadiths, Augustine or the Jewish Mishna).
16.63: By Allah, We verily sent messengers unto the nations before thee, but the devil made their
deeds fairseeming unto them
(like abiding to hadiths, Mishna, Paul). So he is their patron this day....
skynightblaze wrote:You brought Shafi because you trust him I suppose but then why didnt it strike you that Shafi himself wasnt against the narration of hadiths? Only his methodology differed. Btw if early hadiths werent authoritative then they contradict muhammads statement that 2-3 generations after him would be the best of muslims? So how can Shafi disregard the early hadiths on their authority?
Funny how you misread most everything. See below...
skynightblaze wrote: Both quran and the hadith are a proof that muhammad did allow hadiths to be narrated. You ignoring those proofs is not my problem.
Another bunch of logical fallacies like Muhammadans and yourself seem addicted to. Again the brilliant exegesis of AhmedBahgat is quite concluding on this matter. Before you can make such a bold statement you must first -disprove- it all. That is YOUR problem...
skynightblaze wrote:then I have won because Shafi himself collected hadiths.IT seems that you trust him too much and hence you should also have no problem with shafi
Another proof that you can't read properly. The quote that I brought from Joseph Schacht stated: ''only Shafi'i, (...) upholds consistently the doctrine that when there exists a tradition from the Prophet, no other argument is valid. (...) and it is clear that this doctrine was a startling innovation in his time. It is certain, too, that the great mass of legal traditions which invoke the authority of the Prophet, originated in the time of Shafi'i and later.''

It CONFIRMS that -until then- the hadiths were not authoritative. It also CONFIRMS that the interdiction of them made by Muhammad (thus infirming his so-called abrogation of it) was obeyed. For, if allowed, they would have been religiously observed and we would have first hand copies. WE DON'T. The authoritative hadiths are clearly a forbidden religious innovation starting with the Abbasid usurpers.

Both the Koran & History say: you've LOST.
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 »

iffo wrote:That hadith tells it all to anyone who has little intelligence that it is a pure case of forced sex as no woman will take of her clothes to his enemy so close to end of the war. I think your Egyption women will do that to Isreal, that's why you think it that way?.
We have to agree that we don't know the actual time between the end of this battle and when this incident took place. Note that Ali has traveled from Madina to Yemen, and we don't know when this incident happened after his arrival. Now, you have to know that Egyptian women completely refuse to get married to an Israeli, but in the other side, there are a 30000 Israeli women agreed to get married to Egyptian men. So why didn't that girl in hadith see Muslims as some Israeli women see the Egyptians? Not all captives see Muslims as the enemy who oppressed her folk, as not all Israeli women see Egyptian men in this picture. You can't say it's impossible for that girl to will to have sex with him, and you can't say that Ali MUST HAVE forced her, there is no even a single Islamic text allowed forcing women on sex, but the opposite is completely right.
WittyBoy
This hadith showed how these companions have known their responsibilities towards the right hand's possession (the female captive), every one of them knew well that if his female captive got pregnant, the child will belong to him and he will be responsible for him and his mother.
Based on the hadith your ancestors the companions were pathetic and interested in geting sexual pleasure and resell them in the meat market for someone else to have fun. They did not say anything about the child, you are foolish, that's your story.
When you don't have enough knowledge and sometimes stupid, this doesn't mean I'm foolish. They said "but at the same time we also desired ransom for them", this statement means that they wanted to sell them, but they knew that if these women got pregnant, they wouldn't be able to sell them, and they(the companions) would be responsible for them( the captives) and their children whould belong to them. Another narration proves that too when they answered The Prophet(pbuh): "and there is another person who has a slave-girl and he has a sexual intercourse with her, but he does not like her to have conception so that she may not become Umm Walad", so they knew that "Umm al-Walad" (the captive mother of a son from the free man) can't be sold.
WittyBoy
No, i showed you several narrations of this hadith, let's discuss them one by one:
But he(pbuh) said: "there's no harm if you don't do that", which means that it will be harm if they do that.
If it was haram/prohibited he would have said so rather people guesssing. How difficult it was for him to say. 'NO its haram'.
I read more about this issue, and i found that Azl can't be absolutely haram in all cases, if it so, we Muslims wouldn't be able to apply any of the contraceptive methods for example. At the same time the Prophet showed how it's abnormal and disapproved, so it's forbidden if there is no respectable reason for doing so, rather than dislike or resentment to have a child.
WittBoy
- cursing frequently and being ungrateful to the husband.
- leading a cautious sensible man astray.

So your most merciful and forgiving god will burn women in hell and roast their skin endlessly because they curse the husband. And you call him most merciful and forgiving. How stupid, have you asked yourself why you so dumb.
Did the Prophet mention "cursing the husband" only??
Problems #1 , #2

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:12.111: In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no invented hadith (Ĥadīthāan) but a confirmation
of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe.
In turns let me explain the verse so to clarify your confusion, equaling Allah with you and me.

1. In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding.
Refers to 12.110: When the messengers despaired and thought that they were denied, then came unto them Our help...

2. It is no invented hadith.
This sentence calls blasphemy man-made hadiths (from the Mishnah up to the so-called sahih hadiths).

3. A confirmation of the existing (Scripture).
The Arabic Koran is confirmed by, AND a confirmation of the previous -binding- korans (ie. Torah, Gospel, Psalms).

4. A detailed explanation of everything.
What is it that you and Muhammadans don't understand in everything? What is not found in the Arabic Koran,
even Muhammad himself is commanded to look into the other abiding korans (10.94, ie. Torah, Gospel, Zabur...)

So Muslims, as commanded to their prophet, are asked NOT to break them apart (15.89-96):
And say: Lo! I, even I, am a plain warner, Such as We send down for those who make division, Those who break the Qur'an into parts.

5. A guidance and a mercy for folk who believe...
No human can be such a guidance and mercy by himself. Not even Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. The Arabic Koran is replete with examples of what happened to the people who were doomed for indulging into human fallacies, such as those introduced by the hadiths.

What the hadiths have done is to substitute Muhammad to Jesus as the Islamic Messiah and Allah's viceroy on earth.
3.59 juxtaposed with 2.30/2.34 clearly prove this, which even Muhammad is commanded to accept unconditionally:
3:60 (This is) the truth from thy Lord (O Muhammad), so be not thou of those who waver.

All these hadiths worshipers are clearly wavering, and aren't following the timeless DIN bestowed upon Muhammad.
Btw, I found out that the Islamic concept of DIN is as close as can be... to the Hindu notion of Sanatana Dharma !
Last edited by The Cat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

yeezevee wrote: Both verses emphasized that Muhammad as a messenger is not in charge of -anything-. That's even why he's an example (33.21).

When Allah states to obey Him and the messenger, it means that NO human beings can be in charge of religious matters. See?
I just don't get it., May be I am miss reading you., You mean to say Muhammad is NOT prophet but a messenger and he being a messenger of Allah "He is an example" for all human beings to follow?? by these words.," it means that NO human beings can be in charge of religious matters"., You mean to say Muhammad "The Messenger is NOT human being"?? [/quote]

Keep solving the puzzle :lol: . I would call that gibberish at its level best. If you understand any of that incoherent response please translate into a language that I can understand. I know you have high hopes on him :lol:
Yeezevee wrote:
The Cat wrote: That alone discredit the hadiths for they weren't revealed by Jibril.
The shirk consists in elevating them to the status of revelations.
I see., that is a good point., very good point.. but how do we know that during the 23 years of Muhammad's messenger's Job "what went in to Quran and what went in to Hadith" and why??
Yeeke Muhammad is both a prophet and a messenger.Btw if hadiths werent revealed by Jibril then was Muhammad bluffing and making stories on his own letting people stray away from the path of Allah? How can the quran only muslims believe in such a man? :lol: I think Cat needs to go back to grade 1.
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:
The Cat wrote:Both verses emphasized that Muhammad as a messenger is not in charge of -anything-. That's even why he's an example (33.21).

When Allah states to obey Him and the messenger, it means that NO human beings can be in charge of religious matters. See?
I just don't get it., May be I am miss reading you., You mean to say Muhammad is NOT prophet but a messenger and he being a messenger of Allah "He is an example" for all human beings to follow?? by these words.," it means that NO human beings can be in charge of religious matters"., You mean to say Muhammad "The Messenger is NOT human being"??
Read again: a messenger is twofold, the person AND Jibril. And his sole duty is to carry the message.
Only as such was Muhammad an example as per 33.21: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example
Not as a person to be followed (like in the hadiths) but as a keeper of Allah's Sunna.

The difference between a prophet and a messenger is clearly defined in 3.81. Muhammad is recognized as both, depending on the function he carries for they aren't the same. The very fact that 'prophet' isn't used when claiming to obey the messenger, indicates an important nuance to be reckoned with.
There are times when Muhammad is referred to both as a messenger, a human and a prophet, like:

33:40 Muhammad is not the father (aba) of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets...

Let us see how the verse interdicts all the hadiths, dear yeezevee...

1. Muhammad is not the father (aba) of any man among you.
This fatherhood is not solely biological but congressional. Abba (father), just like Umma (mother), can be use for a group of adherents, a psychological belonging, so we've got the Islamic Umma. In consequence, the verse dismiss nowadays man-made Islam and its umma too! How's that?

2. But he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.
As the seal of the Prophets, NO ONE is to add any biding religious laws (the task of prophets) such as the hadiths did... Period.
but how do we know that during the 23 years of Muhammad's messenger's Job "what went in to Quran and what went in to Hadith" and why??
As I've stated because hadiths weren't revealed by Jibril.

Read -slowly- 3.79-84 (prophets and messengers are differentiated in 3.81):
3:79 It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and
the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah...

3:80 And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords....

3:81 When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter) ? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you.

ps. Dear yeezevee isn't like you snb. It takes a lot of explanations, but contrary to you... he finally gets it.

I stand proudly against the hadiths. I wouldn't want your conscience, for upholding them, not for a minute. :yuk:
Last edited by The Cat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:17 pm, edited 3 times 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 »

The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:Obey Allah and obey the Prophet (5:92),
Whoever obeys the Prophet, he has obeyed Allah (4:80).
Those verses (and all of them) do not say ''obey the prophet'' (nabi) but ''obey the messenger'' (rasoul). And there's a world of difference between the terms, for the duty of a messenger is ONLY to carry the message sent down through Jibril. The messenger is always twofold: the person & Jibril.
If there's a king sent a message to one of his men, can we say to this man: "Obey the king, and obey the messenger"?
The messenger already carried a message from the king, either we say "obey the messenger" and we mean by that the message he carried, or say: "obey the king" and we mean the message he sent, but To say "obey the king" and "obey the messenger", one of them became useless if they are exactly the same thing.
Problems #1 , #2

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

WittyBoy wrote:
The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:Obey Allah and obey the Prophet (5:92),
Whoever obeys the Prophet, he has obeyed Allah (4:80).
Those verses (and all of them) do not say ''obey the prophet'' (nabi) but ''obey the messenger'' (rasoul). And there's a world of difference between the terms, for the duty of a messenger is ONLY to carry the message sent down through Jibril. The messenger is always twofold: the person & Jibril.
If there's a king sent a message to one of his men, can we say to this man: "Obey the king, and obey the messenger"?
The messenger already carried a message from the king, either we say "obey the messenger" and we mean by that the message he carried, or say: "obey the king" and we mean the message he sent, but To say "obey the king" and "obey the messenger", one of them became useless if they are exactly the same thing.
Not on a religious ground, silly you.

The message necessarily implies Jibril. Without him, no divine message.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

The Cat says : That alone discredit the hadiths for they weren't revealed by Jibril.....
yeezevee responds: I see., that is a good point., very good point.. but how do we know that during the 23 years of Muhammad's messenger's Job "what went in to Quran and what went in to Hadith" and why??
skynightblaze writes: Yeeke Muhammad is both a prophet and a messenger.Btw if hadiths werent revealed by Jibril then was Muhammad bluffing and making stories on his own letting people stray away from the path of Allah? How can the quran only muslims believe in such a man? :lol: I think Cat needs to go back to grade 1.
The Cat's answer to the question: As I've stated because hadiths weren't revealed by Jibril.

Read -slowly- 3.79-84 (prophets and messengers are differentiated in 3.81):
3:79 It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and
the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah...

3:80 And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords....

3:81 When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter) ? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you.

That is all Good but why worry about hadiths ??., I still don't get what The Cat says on this., How these guys who put together Quran (again FORGET HADITH)knew., when Muhammad was speaking as a Man and when Muhammad was possessed by the Jibril( Gabriel whatever )??

Is there a possibility in the present day Quran what we read., that some of Muhammad's words spilled into Quran ? So the present Quran is Not just Jibril's message through Muhammad's mouth but some of Muhammad "the Man's" words dear The Cat?? Or Every word that you read Quran is indeed was spoken by Prophet of Islam when he was possessed by Jibril

skynightblaze., SNB doesn't sound good.. sounds bad.. lol..., so changing skynightblaze to Skyknightblage will help your nick ., instead of SNB ..SKB sound better ..
Last edited by yeezevee on Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:35 pm, 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 »

The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:
The Cat wrote:Both verses emphasized that Muhammad as a messenger is not in charge of -anything-. That's even why he's an example (33.21).

When Allah states to obey Him and the messenger, it means that NO human beings can be in charge of religious matters. See?
I just don't get it., May be I am miss reading you., You mean to say Muhammad is NOT prophet but a messenger and he being a messenger of Allah "He is an example" for all human beings to follow?? by these words.," it means that NO human beings can be in charge of religious matters"., You mean to say Muhammad "The Messenger is NOT human being"??
Read again: a messenger is twofold, the person AND Jibril. And his sole duty is to carry the message.
Only as such was Muhammad an example as per 33.21: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example
Not as a person to be followed (like in the hadiths) but as a keeper of Allah's Sunna.

The difference between a prophet and a messenger is clearly defined in 3.81. Muhammad is recognized as both, depending on the function he carries for they aren't the same. The very fact that 'prophet' isn't used when claiming to obey the messenger, indicates an important nuance to be reckoned with.
There are times when Muhammad is referred to both as a messenger, a human and a prophet, like:

33:40 Muhammad is not the father (aba) of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets...

Let us see how the verse interdicts all the hadiths, dear yeezevee...

1. Muhammad is not the father (aba) of any man among you.
This fatherhood is not solely biological but congressional. Abba (father), just like Umma (mother), can be use for a group of adherents, a psychological belonging, so we've got the Islamic Umma. In consequence, the verse dismiss nowadays man-made Islam and its umma too! How's that?

2. But he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.
As the seal of the Prophets, NO ONE is to add any biding religious laws (the task of prophets) such as the hadiths did... Period.
but how do we know that during the 23 years of Muhammad's messenger's Job "what went in to Quran and what went in to Hadith" and why??
As I've stated because hadiths weren't revealed by Jibril.

Read -slowly- 3.79-84 (prophets and messengers are differentiated in 3.81):
3:79 It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and
the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah...

3:80 And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords....

3:81 When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter) ? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you.

ps. Dear yeezevee isn't like you snb. It takes a lot of explanations, but contrary to you... he finally gets it.

I stand proudly against the hadiths. I wouldn't want your conscience, for upholding them, not for a minute. :yuk:
Salam the Cat

You are doing a great job mate destroying al-mushrikoon and their fellow kafirs

Yes Muhammed is a prophet and a messenger

For your knowledge

Every messenger must be a prophet, but not every porphet is a messenger

A prophet is one chosen by Allah to warn the public in general against one hell of distressful day

While the messenger does the same as the prophet, yet the messenger must have a message to deliever to certain people

So Muhammed was a prophet becuase he spoke about God in general, yet he was a messenger becuase he was required to deliever the Quran for all humans

Cheers

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

AhmedBahgat wrote:

So Muhammed was a prophet becuase he spoke about God in general, yet he was a messenger becuase he was required to deliever the Quran for all humans

Cheers
That is NOT a definition of Prophet., there are many living things including you, me and dogs speak/show the power of God (or principles of God) in general....
Last edited by yeezevee on Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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:Well if ibn abbas was corrupt or unreliable then we have a disaster for quran only muslim case! It would mean that the 4 righteous caliphs and the sahabas of muhammad were unreliable because they allowed Ibn Abbas to contradict muhammads teaching and didnt destroy his work and allowed future generations to get astray because of his work! In such a case how any a quran only muslim trust the quran? We all know quran was compiled by sahabas of muhammad under the caliphs.IF the quran only muslims cant even trust the early muslims including their caliphs then how can they trust them when they compiled the quran?
Not at all since the Koran is the mutawatir hadith per excellence, that is corroborated by multiple different sources.

Now the expression Sahih (sound) MUST be of the mutawatir type. Thing is that around 95% of them all aren't...

Conclusion: The so-called 'Sahih' hadiths, being almost exclusively made of ahad type, aren't sahih by definition !
skynightblaze wrote:So do muslims believe that Muhammad or his companions were narrating baseless hadiths and diverting muslims away from path of GOd ? Remember muslims cant blame muhammad or else their belief in muhammad as a messenger itself becomes ludicrous.
Muslims are those following the Sunna of Allah (ex. iffo). Muhammadans are the followers of Islamic mishnah (ie. hadiths), like WittyBoy.

In Christianity that would be like following Paul or Augustine rather than Jesus.
Last edited by The Cat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

WittyBoy wrote:
The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:Obey Allah and obey the Prophet (5:92),
Whoever obeys the Prophet, he has obeyed Allah (4:80).
Those verses (and all of them) do not say ''obey the prophet'' (nabi) but ''obey the messenger'' (rasoul). And there's a world of difference between the terms, for the duty of a messenger is ONLY to carry the message sent down through Jibril. The messenger is always twofold: the person & Jibril.
If there's a king sent a message to one of his men, can we say to this man: "Obey the king, and obey the messenger"?
The messenger already carried a message from the king, either we say "obey the messenger" and we mean by that the message he carried, or say: "obey the king" and we mean the message he sent, but To say "obey the king" and "obey the messenger", one of them became useless if they are exactly the same thing.
The Cat wrote:Not on a religious ground, silly you.

The message necessarily implies Jibril. Without him, no divine message.
Go the Cat, eliminate that filthy arrogant and stubborn Mushrik, who only increases the confusion of the kafirs in here, he has nothing to say but repeating his associates crap and non sense

See the Cat, that dummb buum of a Mushrik is using a metaphor making Allah as a human king who sent a message to one of his men, how stupid

The metaphor does not apply becuase you cannot make a god sending a message to all humanity over generations and generations ad even after the rpoiohet death, as a king sending a message to ONE of his men, How dumb

Well for a starter, we cannot see God, while we may see his man made king, or at least we know that that king exist

O the other hand with a messenger delievring a message from the unseen and unproven God, then people must obey him to believe that there is a god first before they take the message from him and obey it

How bloody simple to understand, but we know that those filthy Mushrikoon have been cursed with the veil over their pinheads which made it hard for them to understand the Quran:

أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِهِمْ أَنَّا أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ يُتْلَىٰ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَرَحْمَةً وَذِكْرَىٰ لِقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ (51)
And is it not sufficient for them that We have sent down upon you the book which is recited to them? Indeed, in that is a mercy and a reminder for a people who believe.
[Al Quran ; 29:51]

وَقَالَ الرَّسُولُ يَا رَبِّ إِنَّ قَوْمِي اتَّخَذُوا هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ مَهْجُورًا (30)
And the messenger will say: My Lord! Indeed, my people have taken this Quran as an abandoned.
[Al Quran ; 25:30]

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا وَهُمْ مُشْرِكُونَ (106)
And most of them do not believe in Allah except while they are polytheists.
[Al Quran ; 12:106]

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 »

Cat, when are you converting to Islam, assuming you haven't already done so?? You really give the Quran a lot of legitimacy, so why not follow it?
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by WittyBoy »

The Cat wrote:
WittyBoy wrote:If there's a king sent a message to one of his men, can we say to this man: "Obey the king, and obey the messenger"?
The messenger already carried a message from the king, either we say "obey the messenger" and we mean by that the message he carried, or say: "obey the king" and we mean the message he sent, but To say "obey the king" and "obey the messenger", one of them became useless if they are exactly the same thing.
Not on a religious ground, silly you.
How it is different?
Problems #1 , #2

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 »

yeezevee wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:

So Muhammed was a prophet becuase he spoke about God in general, yet he was a messenger becuase he was required to deliever the Quran for all humans

Cheers
That is NOT a definition of Prophet., there are many living things including you, me and dogs speak/show the power of God (or principles of God) in general....
Well if you look at the linguistic of the word Nabi, it is deriven from the root or verb Nabbaa, i.e. to inform, in fact the TVnews in Arabic is called Anbaa, i.e. information, news etc

As for showing the signs of God in general like what you said, I dont think any of these things warn the humans from one hell of a distressful day

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

WittyBoy wrote:
The Cat wrote:
WittyBoy wrote:If there's a king sent a message to one of his men, can we say to this man: "Obey the king, and obey the messenger"?
The messenger already carried a message from the king, either we say "obey the messenger" and we mean by that the message he carried, or say: "obey the king" and we mean the message he sent, but To say "obey the king" and "obey the messenger", one of them became useless if they are exactly the same thing.
Not on a religious ground, silly you.
How it is different?
Muhammadans are even sillier than I thought, or should I say: blind, deaf and full of deceptions (to their own doom) !

It's right there in the part of the answer you skipped... :whistling:

The message necessarily implies Jibril. Without him, no divine message.
Last edited by The Cat on Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:28 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 »

The Cat wrote:Muhammadans are even sillier than I thought !

It's right there in the part of the answer you skipped... :whistling:

The message necessarily implies Jibril. Without him, no divine message.
I removed it because it does nothing, we already know how the importance of the messenger who conveys the message, why don't you explain how the following is wrong:
WittyBoy wrote:The messenger already carried a message from the king, either we say "obey the messenger" and we mean by that the message he carried, or say: "obey the king" and we mean the message he sent, but To say "obey the king" and "obey the messenger", one of them became useless if they are exactly the same thing.
Problems #1 , #2

Post Reply