Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

The Cat wrote:I, and the Koraners such as AB and iffo, are much more a threat to nowadays 'Islam' than you can even conceive.
For the sake of blind hatred, the only thing you will achieve is uniting ALL kinds of Muslims/humanists against you.

But we're doing it within the Koran, siding with God (Allah) on this crucial topic that is the future. And it's workable !
Simply stated, we're anti-clerical (no priests, no rabbis, no imams)! Something like the 'sola scriptura' is bound to happen !
But this 'Sola Scriptura' must excludes the hadiths, as a fabrication from the Islamic clergy to detour rightful thoughts (Ijtihad).

In a soon-to-come thread I'll explain why it doesn't matter if the Koran is man-made or not. It'll be named: Allah is Law. Period.

For I found out that many posters (like you), being clueless when attacking the Koran, are like whipping the river.
Enjoyed reading your post. Your last line sums it up all. I am really impressed.

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

piscohot wrote:
The Cat wrote:
But we're doing it within the Koran, siding with God (Allah) on this crucial topic that is the future. And it's workable !
you are dreaming if you think that 99% of the muslim population can understand what AB or you posted here.

i am not sure if there is even 1% who can be bothered with or comprehend what AB writes.
Muslims will easily understand what the two posters are talking about. Give it a try and I am sure you will not fail to understand.
I am sorry to say that I am not impressed with your posts.

As the poster said, you are just wasting time and energy on whipping a river. Islam is what Quran says. Hadith is a man-made stuff and Muslims do not even read it as the folks do it here.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
piscohot wrote:
The Cat wrote:
But we're doing it within the Koran, siding with God (Allah) on this crucial topic that is the future. And it's workable !
you are dreaming if you think that 99% of the muslim population can understand what AB or you posted here.

i am not sure if there is even 1% who can be bothered with or comprehend what AB writes.
Muslims will easily understand what the two posters are talking about. Give it a try and I am sure you will not fail to understand.
I am sorry to say that I am not impressed with your posts.

As the poster said, you are just wasting time and energy on whipping a river. Islam is what Quran says. Hadith is a man-made stuff and Muslims do not even read it as the folks do it here.
:lol: another dreamer

your opinion to me is as important as two goats locking horns
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
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muslims will easily understand what the two posters are talking about. Give it a try and I am sure you will not fail to understand.
I am sorry to say that I am not impressed with your posts.

As the poster said, you are just wasting time and energy on whipping a river. Islam is what Quran says. Hadith is a man-made stuff and Muslims do not even read it as the folks do it here.
Please answer the questions put up here instead of trolling here and acting as a cheer leader. Your inability to participate and merely act as a cheer leader clearly shows you are here to troll.Show us how we are wrong here . Btw I would like to tell you about a poster called BMZ who trolls and acts as a cheer leader.DOnt get upset I am just telling you about similarities :lol:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

another great law of Allah

004.034
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Image Image
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."

Wootah
Posts: 2056
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:41 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Wootah »

The Cat wrote:I, and the Koraners such as AB and iffo, are much more a threat to nowadays 'Islam' than you can even conceive.
For the sake of blind hatred, the only thing you will achieve is uniting ALL kinds of Muslims/humanists against you.

But we're doing it within the Koran, siding with God (Allah) on this crucial topic that is the future. And it's workable !
Simply stated, we're anti-clerical (no priests, no rabbis, no imams)! Something like the 'sola scriptura' is bound to happen !
But this 'Sola Scriptura' must excludes the hadiths, as a fabrication from the Islamic clergy to detour rightful thoughts (Ijtihad).

In a soon-to-come thread I'll explain why it doesn't matter if the Koran is man-made or not. It'll be named: Allah is Law. Period.

For I found out that many posters (like you), being clueless when attacking the Koran, are like whipping the river.
Any plain and simple reading of the Koran by you must conclude with the knowledge that a man constructed a system to control his tribe. I give you too much credit to believe you really think otherwise.

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: See how nul you truly are. You -constantly- mix up things from misreading and then construct your answer (like darth) from this misreading.
Now, where did I mention the companions or contemporary people you came up with? WHERE?

The date I've given is 8-3-0, which is about the time when the first 'sahih' hadiths appeared. Now the FOUR sunnite's schools of law
came in BEFORE that. It means in plain English logic: Were they then, that is before the Sahih hadiths became authoritative, un-Islamic?

This lack of logic, reflecting your own fantasy world, has been going throughout our debate. Still like your darth-chihuahua...
YOu ignore the fact that hadiths were present before 750 AD.

I have already shown it to you that early hadiths did exist and that was before 750 AD. Those hadiths were authoritative.Many of Bukhari;s collection includes those hadiths.

.You brought answering islam's article to tell me that early hadiths werent authoritative .The article states that shafi's criteria was that if muhammad said anything then it was to be considered the final authority over any other hadith . This was the criteria used by Imam Shafi.

Obviously muhammad never spoke with Shafi but shafi considered those hadiths as authoritative over any other hadith where we have muhammad saying something through chain of narrations so the hadith I brought fulfills shafi's criteria and hence the muslims till 780 AD become the best of muslims and hence reliable as per the hadith that I brought and So the hadiths narrated by them become authoritative .Common sense also tells us that the likelihood of them being true is more because they had experienced islam first hand.

There was no need of hadiths atleast for a century because that century consisted of sahabas of muhammad who had gained knowledge from muhammad first hand.

Atleast do you get it now? The need for recording hadiths became a necessary because men with religious knowledge started dying. Thats why the hadiths started coming into the first half of the 7th century.

The CAT wrote: You can't disprove that we have no manuscript evidence of ANY early hadiths, and this silence is deafening for about two centuries,
which disprove the possibility that the prophet may have abrogated his asking NOT to write down any hadith.
For in that case we would have religiously preserved hadiths from the companions. We don't. Go figure...


I think you are simply fit for nothing. How can you say that there were no hadiths for 2 centuries? Havent I shown you that there existed hadiths in the first half of 7th century?

Well there was also no quran for around 20-25 years . If these people could go without quran for a period of 20 -25 years then the case for they going without hadiths for 70-80 years isnt too bad.

Btw you ignore the fact that the early muslims in the first half of 7th century wrote hadiths and also Ibn Abbas could write a tafsir when he was with the muslims who received guidance first hand from muhammad. Not a single sahaba or a single caliph objected to he writing tafsir. That speaks for itself. Please dont bring stupid arguments like Shaytan corrupted them . Islamic scriptures never say that and as a non muslim please dont insult people's intelligence here.

The Cat wrote: You can't disprove that we actually have not a single hadith from Muhammad himself and that the looong ahad chain of transmission
(6 to10 narrators) is proving so. The so-called 'Sahih' hadiths aren't even, for at least 95% of them, of the mutawatir type (many
times corroborated). Some top Islamic scholars evaluated that there are no more than 110 hadiths of the mutawatir type. +/- 110 !


You obviously arent educated enough on this subject as you portray yourself to be! I obviously dont claim that I am educated as I think I learned a lot of things about hadiths because of this debate but I learned nothing from you because all the way your arguments were very poor! Not once I had any problem debunking you..Anyway lets see the criteria used by Bukhari.

Spoiler! :
Isnad

The isnad is the chain of narrators. Since the narrations were passed orally from person to person, it is important to know who heard the narration from whom before themselves. So if Bukhari collects from Person D, he wants to know who person C, B & A were (of course the isnads are longer).
[edit] 'adl

This refers to the reputation of each Muslim sub narrator in the isnad. Each 'link' in the chain must be established first, then the reputation/character of each 'link' must be evaluated. If they were known as a pious, honest Muslim, then the narration passes this criteria; however if one (or more) of the 'links' was a known liar, or had doubtful character, then the narration did not pass and was rejected.
[edit] mat'n

The contents of the narration must not be in contradiction with the Qu'ran. For example, there are narrations that state that Muhammad performed miracles; but the Qu'ran makes clear that he did not - so even though some of these 'miracle' ahadith can be found in the Sahih collections, we know that they fail this criteria, so they can be discarded as 'sahih.' The exception to this rule are of course, the narrations regarded by scholars to be Qudsi. These narrations may contradict the Quran, but this does not mean they are not Sahih.


http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Sahih" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway something doesnt become unreliable just because its not mutawatir. The sahih hadiths too had rigorous criterias. Read above. Btw you yourself agree that we have around 100 odd mutawatir hadiths then doesnt that mean quran alone is insufficient? See how you shoot your foot? You are absolutely pathetic at debate. You are slightly better than BMZ and that too because of your previous works otherwise I see no difference between him and you. Thats all I can say.

The Cat wrote: Neither can you disprove that the Koran interdicts any authoritative hadith for they aren't divine revelation. You relied on the
biased translation of verses (7.185, 12.111, 31.6; 45.6; 77.50) which avoided to transliterate the Arabic Ĥadīthin correctly.


Even if you include the word hadith it hardly makes any difference. Dude you have some serious comprehension problems.You ignore the verses that myself and Piscohot brought . They hint at following hadiths . Remember we brought quranic verses so when quran says quran alone should be followed it also means following verses which hint at receiving guidance from the hadiths because they are also a part of guidance of Allah so as per quran itself muslims are directed towards hadiths.GET IT?????

The Cat wrote: More so, you won't find a single verse in the Koran stating that the previous scriptures were corrupted.
We are arguing from muslim perspective here and thats why I asked you how can quran confirm previous scriptures when muslims claim it to be corrupted? As a muslim one cant use that argument.

Also the only reason I accept quranic verses in preference to hadith is because we are arguing from muslim perspective and thats why within the light of quran;s testimony we judge things otherwise I may as well ask you to prove authenticity of quran first before using them against hadiths.

Btw if quran really confirms previous scriptures then why does it say Jesus christ wasnt crucified? There are so many things where quran contradicts previous scriptures.
The Cat wrote: If you don't even properly understand the meaning of the words you use, you're are unfit to any logical construction.
Like a kid building his logo airplane without caring to read properly the instructions, that ends up with a total mess.
You are such waste! Now just like a muslim you are tap dancing around the meaning of simple words.
The Cat wrote: Now, you used the word AUTHENTICITY, didn't you?
That doesnt even slightly change the meaning .Its pathetic to know that I as a non english speaker has to tell you this.
The cat wrote: I'll quote some more from the same link. Now pay attention...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authenticity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Genuineness, legitimacy, believability, credibility, credibleness
- the quality of being believable or trustworthy.

1. genuineness, purity, realness, veritableness. Some factors have cast doubt on the statue's authenticity.
2. accuracy, truth, certainty, validity, reliability, legitimacy, verity, actuality, faithfulness, truthfulness, dependability, trustworthiness, authoritativeness, factualness The film's authenticity of detail has impressed critics.
DO you understand that something can be legitimate but yet disgusting? I am saying hadiths are authentic and I mean they are real .Something can be real but yet disgusting. If something is disgusting that doesnt mean we deny that its real. ITs not that if something is disgusting then it cant be real!

Going by your foolish logic even you can be held responsible for considering quran as a authentic scripture representing islam. Now dont tell me that you dont consider quran as a authentic book of islam. Time and again you bring verses from quran to nullify hadiths which means you hold quran as more authentic than hadiths.Piscohot has brought pictures to show you what you support .
Last edited by skynightblaze on Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

@CAt and Bahgat

I will answer the article that you both consider as something that refutes us. That will be done tomorrow.
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
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 »

The Cat wrote:
But we're doing it within the Koran, siding with God (Allah) on this crucial topic that is the future. And it's workable.
Sure it is. All you have to do is to reinvent the religion to make it more palatable for yourself, and then blatantly ignore all of the errors such as 63:4. Sure, it's doable if you want to lie to yourself. :lol:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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 »

The Cat wrote:
In a soon-to-come thread I'll explain why it doesn't matter if the Koran is man-made or not. It'll be named: Allah is Law. Period.
:lol: I would loooovveee to hear the lie you invent for yourself on this one. Please do start that thread.
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 »

skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:See how nul you truly are. You -constantly- mix up things from misreading and then construct your answer (like darth) from this misreading.
Now, where did I mention the companions or contemporary people you came up with? WHERE?

The date I've given is 8-3-0, which is about the time when the first 'sahih' hadiths appeared. Now the FOUR sunnite's schools of law
came in BEFORE that. It means in plain English logic: Were they then, that is before the Sahih hadiths became authoritative, un-Islamic?

This lack of logic, reflecting your own fantasy world, has been going throughout our debate. Still like your darth-chihuahua...
I have already shown it to you that early hadiths did exist and that was before 750 AD. Those hadiths were authoritative.
Delusion: there was no authoritative hadith by 750. You're barking at the moon. In fact the only collection of hadiths we have from about that time is that of Munnabih, 138 hadiths, of which we have no manuscript evidence. They never were considered authoritative not even by Abu Hanifa.
if muhammad said anything then it was to be considered the final authority over any other hadith . This was the criteria used by Imam Shafi.
1. Muhammad interdicted all written hadiths. That's the final authority, that is... apart from the Koran. Period.
2. Thus, Shafi'i criteria were a startling INNOVATION, and bid'aa (ie. heresiarch) for that!

A Revaluation of Islamic Traditions, by Joseph Schacht
http://www.answering-islam.net/Books/Sc ... uation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and So the hadiths narrated by them become authoritative
See how you're proving my point: there was no authoritative hadith before Shafi'i made them so. Yet he came shortly before ibn Hanbal and his Musnad, which aren't even considered Sahih that is authoritative from so-called authoricity. That's where your wording of authenticity originates from: 200 years of corroborating silence over their unauthenticity. The very act of having to construct a chain of narrators is proving this without a doubt.
There was no need of hadiths atleast for a century because that century consisted of sahabas of muhammad who had gained knowledge from muhammad first hand. Atleast do you get it now? The need for recording hadiths became a necessary because men with religious knowledge started dying. Thats why the hadiths started coming into the first half of the 7th century.
Then, nonetheless, we would have recognized authoritative hadiths directly from Muhammad. We don't.
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:You can't disprove that we have no manuscript evidence of ANY early hadiths, and this silence is deafening for about two centuries,
which disprove the possibility that the prophet may have abrogated his asking NOT to write down any hadith.
For in that case we would have religiously preserved hadiths from the companions. We don't. Go figure...
How can you say that there were no hadiths for 2 centuries? Havent I shown you that there existed hadiths in the first half of 7th century?
We only have the Sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabbih, which contains 138 hadiths of Abu Hurairah (not over 5,000 as per Bukhari). If one thing it proves that the interdiction of writing down hadiths was respected even by Abu Hurairah for we have NO first hand hadiths directly from him.
"Ulum Al-Hadith" by Ibn Al-Salah, reports a hadith by Abu Hurayra in which Abu Hurayra said the messenger of God came out to us while we were writing his hadiths and said; "What are you writing?" We said, "Hadiths that we hear from you, messenger of God." He said, "A book other than the book of God?" We said, "Should we talk about you?" He said, Talk about me, that would be fine, but those who will lie will go to Hell. Abu Hurayra said, we collected what we wrote of Hadiths and burned them in fire.
Yet, you're delusion says you have proven something. That's delusive alright... :prop:
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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, why are you arguing about the Quran and hadiths when both were man made? Still waiting for that thread that's going to explain why it's OK for the Quran to be man made. At least the hadiths might have been eye witness accounts sometimes, whereas the Quran is someone's invention while claiming it is the letter for letter dictation of Allah as per it's first person form.
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 »

skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:You can't disprove that we actually have not a single hadith from Muhammad himself and that the looong ahad chain of transmission
(6 to10 narrators) is proving so. The so-called 'Sahih' hadiths aren't even, for at least 95% of them, of the mutawatir type (many
times corroborated). Some top Islamic scholars evaluated that there are no more than 110 hadiths of the mutawatir type. +/- 110 !
you yourself agree that we have around 100 odd mutawatir hadiths then doesnt that mean quran alone is insufficient? See how you shoot your foot?
Anyway something doesnt become unreliable just because its not mutawatir. The sahih hadiths too had rigorous criterias.
Rigorous criterias? Like admitting any kid's statements and anyone who had only meet or seen the prophet for a minute? Equalling all testimonies as worthy: That's what you call rigorous? How can anyone be as blinded as Muhammadans which shirk you shamelessly endorse?

Clearly the Koran states that many contemporaries of the prophet were hypocrites, why should we trust any of them as Bukhari does?

9:58 And of them is he who defameth thee in the matter of the alms. If they are given thereof they are content,
and if they are not given thereof, behold! they are enraged.

9:74 They swear by Allah that they said nothing (wrong), yet they did say the word of disbelief, and did disbelieve after their Surrender....


The first reliability of the companions is if they fought along the messenger, others are to be dismissed:

9:90 And those among the wandering Arabs who had an excuse came in order that permission might be granted them.
And those who lied to Allah and His messenger sat at home.

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.


The very act of naming some hadiths 'sahih' is hypocrite if they aren't of the Mutawatir type.

The very fact that the Mutazilites and the Kharijites (former Koraners) rejected their authority is proof enough that they weren't authoritative until the Abbasid reversed the motion through Shafi'i and Hanbal. It took them a lot of time, a century or so (750-850) to establish their perversion. Abu Hanifa was jailed and tortured until he died (767), his school to toe the line it is said ''from traditions unavailable to him''. How's that! Then the Mutazilites disappearing with the drowning of the Ijtihad tradition (independent scholarship), with the Kharijites duly exterminated.

The very first other school of law to emerge was that of 'Imam' Malik who authored the Muwatta, not yet a hadith collection in what became the 'traditional acceptance' of the meaning. He was raised in the court of Abbasid caliph al-Mansour, the very same one who imprisoned Abu Hanifa !

Yet he stated: "He who establishes an innovation in Islam regarding it as something good, has claimed that Muhammad
has betrayed his trust to deliver the message as God says, 'this day have I perfected for you your religion' (5.3). And
whatsoever was not part of the religion then, is not part of the religion today
" (al-I'tisaam).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muwatta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is considered to be from the earliest extant collections of hadith that form the basis of Islamic jurisprudence alongside the Qur'an. Nonetheless, is not merely a collection of hadith; many of the legal precepts it contains are based not on hadith at all. The book covers rituals, rites, customs, traditions, norms and laws of the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.... The Muslim Jurist, Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i famously said, "There is not on the face of the earth a book – after the Book of Allah – which is more authentic than the book of Malik."

How come it isn't even Sahih? So the basic felony, ie. heresy, came even later... with the trinity of Shafi'i/Hanbal/Bukhari.

Bukhari 2.26.671:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
When Allah’s Apostle came to Mecca, he refused to enter the Ka'ba with idols in it.

To prove Ibn Abbas' & Bukhari's reliability and accuracy (thus legitimacy), you 1st must prove that there was
a major pilgrimage center named Mecca in the 6th century. Ta'if was known, Yathrib too but... not Mecca !
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:Neither can you disprove that the Koran interdicts any authoritative hadith for they aren't divine revelation. You relied on the
biased translation of verses (7.185, 12.111, 31.6; 45.6; 77.50) which avoided to transliterate the Arabic Ĥadīthin correctly.
Even if you include the word hadith it hardly makes any difference. Dude you have some serious comprehension problems.You ignore the verses that myself and Piscohot brought . They hint at following hadiths .
Who needs 'hints' (of wishful desires) when we've got clear Koranic stipulation:

7:185 Have they not considered the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and what things Allah hath created,
and that it may be that their own term draweth nigh ? In what fact (Hadithin) after this will they believe ?

45:6 These are the portents of Allah which We recite unto thee (Muhammad) with truth.
Then in what fact (Hadithin), after Allah and His portents, will they believe ?


Here the only sunna to be followed is Allah's portents. Hadiths are dismissed from the first:
7.185: In what hadith (human stories) AFTER THIS will they believe?
45.6: In what hadith, after Allah and His PORTENTS, will they believe?


I'll ask you a very though question, only top Islamic scholars could answer:
Who does the Koran recognized as IMAMS? And is Mhmd duly included?
For if he ain't an Imam as per the Koran, those who entitled themselves with such a title are in plain felony: the whole Islamic clergy!
If he ain't even an imam (trustworthy guiding soul) as per the Koran, who should follow the example set forth by such a person?
Last edited by The Cat on Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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:
The Cat wrote:Now, you used the word AUTHENTICITY, didn't you?
That doesnt even slightly change the meaning .....
DO you understand that something can be legitimate but yet disgusting?
If you acknowledge Mein kampf as a legitimate book you do SANCTION its validity: ex. Jews are under-humans.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legitimate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards
: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.

To make legitimate, as:
a. To give legal force or status to; make lawful.
b. To establish (a child born out of wedlock) as legitimate by legal means.
c. To sanction formally or officially; authorize.
d. To demonstrate or declare to be justified.


legitimate
adj [lɪˈdʒɪtɪmɪt]
3. based on correct or acceptable principles of reasoning
4. reasonable, sensible, or valid a legitimate question
5. (Law) authorized, sanctioned by, or in accordance with law
So it's the very legitimacy you give to the hadiths which makes YOU disgusting.

Most fortunately though, you've been debunked on this matter too. Thank God !
skynightblaze wrote:Time and again you bring verses from quran to nullify hadiths which means you hold quran as more authentic than hadiths.
I recognized it as the sacred book of Islam, which sacredness I can't extend to the corrupted hadiths. As I will explain in the thread I'm creating, the Koran is the Islamic Constitution. Yet, Abraham was considered the perfect Muslim without the Torah, the Gospel or even the Koran (3.65-67) and the Christians too (5.111). For they were at Peace with God (Islama), like the stars (57.1-3) without ever reciting the perfid Muhammadan's Shahadah!

That's enough as a commitment:
25.30-31: And the messenger saith: O my Lord! Lo! mine own folk make this Qur'an of no account.
Even so have We appointed unto every prophet an opponent from among the guilty;
but Allah sufficeth for a Guide and Helper.


I'm sure you can't figure out (in-like Muhammadans) what it means. My thread is almost ready...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

The Cat wrote:If you acknowledge Mein kampf as a legitimate book you do SANCTION its validity: ex. Jews are under-humans.
What?!? Noooooooo, what they're saying is that Mein Kampf is a legitimate book because it represents the beliefs and actions of the National Socialists. It does NOT mean that those who accept that it is legitimate believe in what the book says.

They believe only that the National Socialists believed in the arguments of that book.

Wow. Just.... wow. How can you misread something so horribly? I really do want to know.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

crazymonkie_ wrote:
The Cat wrote:If you acknowledge Mein kampf as a legitimate book you do SANCTION its validity: ex. Jews are under-humans.
What?!? Noooooooo, what they're saying is that Mein Kampf is a legitimate book because it represents the beliefs and actions of the National Socialists. It does NOT mean that those who accept that it is legitimate believe in what the book says.

They believe only that the National Socialists believed in the arguments of that book.

Wow. Just.... wow. How can you misread something so horribly? I really do want to know.
That sums up the debate! His arguments are really sad!
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 »

Hello All,

I am going to reply now to CAT and his lover Bahgat's favourite article.
The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
So are these verses telling us to obey what Allah says and obey what the prophet independently (independent of the revelation) says?

Muhammad has no power from himself to guide correctly:
“When the servant of Allah stands calling on Him, they almost swarm all over him. Say: 'I call only upon my Lord and do not associate anyone else with Him.' Say: 'I possess no power to do you harm or to guide you right.' Say: 'No one can protect me from Allah and I will never find any refuge apart from Him –only in transmitting from Allah and His Messages. As for him who disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he will have the Fire of Hell, remaining in it timelessly, for ever and ever.' So that when they see what they were promised, they will know who has less support and smaller numbers. Say: 'I do not know whether what you are promised is close or whether my Lord will appoint a longer time before it.'” (72:19-25)

“Surely you cannot guide whom you like/love, but Allah guides whom He pleases, and He knows best the followers of the right way.
And they (Muhammad‟s contemporaries) say: If we follow the guidance (Qur‟an) with you, we shall be carried off from our country. What ! have We not settled them in a safe, sacred territory to which fruits of every kind shall be drawn?-- a sustenance from Us; but most of them do not know.” (28:56-57)
This not only tells us that Muhammad cannot guide whom he likes, but it also clearly indicates that his contemporaries recognised that the guidance they were being called to was the guidance with him (the Qur’an) and not his guidance Muhammad follows only the Qur‟an.

“Say: I am nothing new among the Messengers. I have no idea what will be done with me or you.
I only follow what has been revealed to me. I am only a clear warner.‟” (46:9)

Muhammad warns by the Qur‟an, not by his own wisdom: -
“Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me; and this Qur’an has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches. Do you really bear witness that there are other gods with Allah? Say: I do not bear witness. Say: He is only one Allah, and surely I am clear of that which you set up (with Him).” (6:19)

Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, with elaboration: -
“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” (5:92)
The author of this article selectively tries to pick up verses from the quran and hence naturally ends up with wrong conclusions.He misses a very important point that hadiths are sanctioned by quran.If hadiths are sanctioned by quran then Muhammad would be guiding the muslims via the hadiths through a divine will and not just his own and hence these verses cant be used against the hadiths.

More ever If muslims(as the author of this article) really believe that actions and sayings of Muhammad i.e the hadiths are muhammads own words without any connection to Allah then it would mean Muhammad was attributing lies to Allah and leading people astray from the real guidance and thereby fooling them but then we cant have a ludicrous scenario than this! One one hand they believe that Muhammad brought revelations from God and on the other hand they don’t trust him with whatever he said in the hadiths.

More ever if we are to consider the article of the author as genuine then following are its implications.

1) Quran alone is sufficient
2) Quran doesn’t sanction the hadiths


I will answer this article in 2 parts . Part 1 will demonstrate quran alone is insufficient.The 2nd part of my response will demonstrate that muslims are instructed to follow Muhammad in matters other than quran thereby proving that hadiths are sanctioned by quran.
Before I begin I must thank Piscohot for his significant contribution in refuting this article of CAt and bahgat..SO here we start.

I will post now a series of questions which actually have no answers in the quran and hence it will prove that quran alone isn’t a sufficient book .IF anyone thinks quran alone is sufficient then please answer the following questions using quran alone

1) Where is the practice of praying 5 times mentioned in the quran?
2) What postures are to be adopted during praying?
3) Where is circumcision mentioned in the quran?
4) Explain the significance of battle of Badr
5) Explain the significance of night journey in the quran
6) Who is Abu Labab in the quran and why is he hated so much?
7) What is the punishment for a major crime like rape against a woman ?
8) Explain the significance of chapter 66 (Muhammad –maria incident)
9) What are few verses of chapter 24 talking about? Please explain the situation .
10) What are the punishments for gambling and drinking liquor especially when they are prohibited?


Not a single question can be answered without the hadiths.These are just a sample as nothing of quran can be understood without reference to hadiths.The claim that quran alone is sufficient when quran only muslims here can prove to us that quran indeed covers every single aspect of life.

TO BE CONTINUED
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 »

CONTINUED

Now the question arises if quran cannot be understood by its own merit then does quran ask
muslims to refer to other sources? The answer is YES..


Now lets see those verses…Please click on the spoiler to see them..
Spoiler! :
Chapter 62 verse 2

It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to
rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and
Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error;-


Why does this verse tell us that Muhammad is supposed to sanctify the quranic verses and
instruct accordingly if muhamamad cant guide us? Further where are we supposed to find
those sanctified verses and lucid instructions that Muhammad was commanded to give muslims
during his time? Certainly Allah feels them they are needed otherwise why would there be a verse for telling the same? The answer is again hadiths to all the questions..

Lets go ahead ..

16:44
With clear signs and Books (We sent the Messengers). And We have also sent down unto
you (O Muhammad SAW) the reminder and the advice (the Quran),that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought.


Well Muhammad was asked to explain the quran to the early muslims so if quran alone was
sufficient why is the verse telling Muhammad to explain quran CLEARLY TO MEN?? The next question where are those CLEAR EXPLANATIONS unless we look up the hadiths?


2 :129
Verily, it is the mercy of God that He has raised amongst them a Prophet who recites
the verses before them, purifies them and teaches them the Book and wisdom
.


This verse tells us that Muhammad recites verses of quran and PURIFIES THEM AND TEACHES
THEM TO HIS DISICIPLES? So where are we supposed to find purification of the quranic verses? if

The answer is again hadiths..!!!



[004:064]
We sent not an apostle, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of God. If they
had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked God's
forgiveness, and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found God indeed
Oft-returning, Most Merciful. [/color]

[004:065]
But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.

So now again how come Muhammad is asked to be a judge between the disputes of people? Where are those disputes? Certainly they aren’t in the quran .We have to resort to hadiths to find out those disputes. Now since quran is for all the time then so should this verse be and hence its essential to muslims of today to find out those disputes especially when they are concerned with matters of faith.

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


If we believe that muhammad cant guide people then how can 4 caliphs guide anyone?

Also they were the men of authority when the verse was revealed so how is anyone supposed to obey the caliphs using quran alone?

[033:021]
Ye have indeed in the Apostle of God a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose
hope is in God and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of God.


How is anyone supposed to emulate Muhammad using quran alone? The argument made by AB is
that quran asks us to follow muhamamad via quran. If that was the case then why would quran
ask muslims to follow the men of authority?

The verses quoted above expected muslims to follow matters other than the quran so how in the world can anyone claim that Muhammad has to be followed only via the quran?

33:36
And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any
choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.


IF Muhammad is to be followed only via quran then why is it said that messenger of Allah also decides about a matter.?? It would have just said when Allah has decided a matter if only quran was to be followed.


In the light of the above verses it becomes clear that quran cannot be complete without the
hadiths and quranic verses hint at following the hadiths.!
Last edited by skynightblaze on Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

Apart from my responses whoever is interested should go through these articles .

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an_only ... t_possible" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.answering-christianity.com/b ... uslims.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refut ... ept_qur_an__" 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.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:Hello All,

I am going to reply now to CAT and his lover Bahgat's favourite article.

.......................

The author of this article selectively tries to pick up verses from the quran and hence naturally ends up with wrong conclusions. ..........
Spoiler! :
More ever If muslims(as the author of this article) really believe that actions and sayings of Muhammad i.e the hadiths are muhammads own words without any connection to Allah then it would mean Muhammad was attributing lies to Allah and leading people astray from the real guidance and thereby fooling them but then we cant have a ludicrous scenario than this! One one hand they believe that Muhammad brought revelations from God and on the other hand they don’t trust him with whatever he said in the hadiths.

More ever if we are to consider the article of the author as genuine then following are its implications.

1) Quran alone is sufficient
2) Quran doesn’t sanction the hadiths


I will answer this article in 2 parts . Part 1 will demonstrate quran alone is insufficient.The 2nd part of my response will demonstrate that muslims are instructed to follow Muhammad in matters other than quran thereby proving that hadiths are sanctioned by quran.
Before I begin I must thank Piscohot for his significant contribution in refuting this article of CAt and bahgat..SO here we start.

I will post now a series of questions which actually have no answers in the quran and hence it will prove that quran alone isn’t a sufficient book .IF anyone thinks quran alone is sufficient then please answer the following questions using quran alone

1) Where is the practice of praying 5 times mentioned in the quran?
2) What postures are to be adopted during praying?
3) Where is circumcision mentioned in the quran?
4) Explain the significance of battle of Badr
5) Explain the significance of night journey in the quran
6) Who is Abu Labab in the quran and why is he hated so much?
7) What is the punishment for a major crime like rape against a woman ?
8) Explain the significance of chapter 66 (Muhammad –maria incident)
9) What are few verses of chapter 24 talking about? Please explain the situation .
10) What are the punishments for gambling and drinking liquor especially when they are prohibited?


Not a single question can be answered without the hadiths.These are just a sample as nothing of quran can be understood without reference to hadiths.The claim that quran alone is sufficient when quran only muslims here can prove to us that quran indeed covers every single aspect of life.
TO BE CONTINUED
Dear SKB, being a Muslim he(the Author) or other Muslim folk does have the right to selectively pick up verses from Quran and use it in his/their life ., What is wrong with that? It doesn't matter many verses of Quran are old stories or bull shitt or rubbish., But still Muslims folks have the right to selectively Quote and use verses of Quran in their life. The only condition should be Those verses that they use should be personal and SHOULD NOT impose on the society around them including on their own kith and kin. If some Muslim folks fulfill such condition what do you think will be the problem dear SKB??

Post Reply