Page 38 of 60

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:13 pm
by yeezevee
So what do we have here?? we have Ghalibkhastahaal reply and we have MesMorial supporting Ghalib and answering all question of that Blazing Skynight

Welcome to FFI dear MesMorial
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
yeezevee wrote:Well The Cat is trying to invent some antibiotic to Viral Islam using Quran itself by juggling some surahs around dear Ghalibkhastahaal. During that exploratory process he appears to make some mistakes and he appears to be playing in to wrong hands. You see above he says contradictory statements.
" I never did endorse its authenticity nor its legitimacy" and I deal with it as -their- sacred code of laws .
You see once you make a book as sacred code of laws and IMPOSE ON OTHERS then you have a clash and you will have a problem. And in the History of "Muhammad's Islam" That is what Islam did and Quran has verses in support of that.


I do understand you concern but one must accept what the poster has declared.
And I too understand what The Cat would like to do with Islam but I have the right to doubt and question The Cat's intentions and the out come in the real world dear Ghalib. On the similar basis of authenticity of some words in Quran and other Islamic manuals, Islam already split in to many sects including that Bahá'u'lláh sect of nineteenth-century Persia. So at best The Cat and cat likes is going to make another sect of Islam and that is O.K. with me. ., The condition is simple and I highlighted here at viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8268&p=130520#p130520
yeezevee wrote: "That book, Quran is NOT a law", at least not a law for human beings to enforce. Assuming, it being the word of Allah/god whatever, only Allah/god or messengers/prophets of Allah should deal with those who don't follow the rules/laws that are there in Quran. In the present times all messengers being DEAD and no more messengers from allah/god are going to come, the followers of the messengers should NOT have any role in enforcing the laws of Quran


That doesn't mean Quran/Muhammad "the prophet of Islam" escapes criticism from those whose cultures were uprooted by Muhammad following Muslims. Even for an intellectual discussion on religions, Quran has enough nonsense and exposes criminal activities of Muhammad (real or Imaginary) in its verses. So critics will continue to high light that . Muslims must learn to EAT IT AND LIVE WITH IT, unless a Muslims ruler like Caliph stumps at freedom of expression and freedom to inquire the so-called religious scriptures 'Quran", the critics will continue to highlight problems in the Past and present Islam & criticize 'Quran"/Muhammad....

Thanks for your concern.
You are welcome dear Ghalib., Off course I am concerned about Muslims as well as Non-Muslims. You do belong to one of those two groups ..don't you.. lol..

with best wishes
yeezevee

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:22 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote: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.

To put a final nail in your coffin I found out that there were hadiths even during muhammads time .Read
Spoiler! :
The very existence of a huge library of hadith -- the only one of its kind among the religions of the world -- answers the question in the affirmative. To dismiss all that as later day fabrication (#1A, #2) requires lots of guts -- and equal parts ignorance. Were ahadith written down for the first time in the third century of Hijra? Not at all. Actually hadith recording and collection started at the time of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Abd-Allah ibn Amr ibn al-'As, Radi-Allahu unhu, sought and was given the permission to write everything he heard from the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa Sallam, who said: "By the One in Whose Hands is my life! Whatever proceeds from here [pointing to his mouth] is the truth." He produced Sahifa Sadiqa, which contained more than six thousand ahadith. Anas ibn Malik, Radi-Allahu unhu, who spent ten years in Prophet's household, not only recorded the ahadith but also presented them to the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and got corrections. Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu, had many volumes of his collections and even produced smaller compilations for his students. Prominent Hadith scholar Dr. Mustafa Azami has shown in his doctoral thesis that in the first century of Hijra many hundred booklets of hadith were in circulation. By the end of the second century, "by the most conservative estimate there were many thousands."
Of course most of these books do not exist today. They were simply absorbed into the encyclopedic collections that emerged in the third century. One manuscript from the first century was discovered in this century and published by Dr. Hamidullah. It is Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbah, who was a disciple of Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu. It contains 138 ahadith. Muhaddithin knew that the ahadith of this Sahifa had been absorbed into Musnad Ahmed and Muslim collections, which have been published continuously since their third century debut. After the discovery of the original manuscript it was naturally compared with the ahadith in Muslim and Musnad Ahmed that were thought to have come from that Sahifa. And what did they find? There was not an iota of difference between the two. Similarly Mussanaf of Abd al-Razzaq is extant and has been published. As has been Mu'ammar ibn Rashid's al-Jami. These recently discovered original manuscripts bear out the Sihah Sitta. The recent appearance of these original manuscripts should bring the most skeptical into the fold of believers.

where did you get that which is there in spoiler dear SKB? is it from modernreligion.com???

http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/c ... ctors.html

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:43 pm
by skynightblaze
yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote: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.

To put a final nail in your coffin I found out that there were hadiths even during muhammads time .Read
Spoiler! :
The very existence of a huge library of hadith -- the only one of its kind among the religions of the world -- answers the question in the affirmative. To dismiss all that as later day fabrication (#1A, #2) requires lots of guts -- and equal parts ignorance. Were ahadith written down for the first time in the third century of Hijra? Not at all. Actually hadith recording and collection started at the time of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Abd-Allah ibn Amr ibn al-'As, Radi-Allahu unhu, sought and was given the permission to write everything he heard from the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa Sallam, who said: "By the One in Whose Hands is my life! Whatever proceeds from here [pointing to his mouth] is the truth." He produced Sahifa Sadiqa, which contained more than six thousand ahadith. Anas ibn Malik, Radi-Allahu unhu, who spent ten years in Prophet's household, not only recorded the ahadith but also presented them to the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and got corrections. Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu, had many volumes of his collections and even produced smaller compilations for his students. Prominent Hadith scholar Dr. Mustafa Azami has shown in his doctoral thesis that in the first century of Hijra many hundred booklets of hadith were in circulation. By the end of the second century, "by the most conservative estimate there were many thousands."
Of course most of these books do not exist today. They were simply absorbed into the encyclopedic collections that emerged in the third century. One manuscript from the first century was discovered in this century and published by Dr. Hamidullah. It is Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbah, who was a disciple of Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu. It contains 138 ahadith. Muhaddithin knew that the ahadith of this Sahifa had been absorbed into Musnad Ahmed and Muslim collections, which have been published continuously since their third century debut. After the discovery of the original manuscript it was naturally compared with the ahadith in Muslim and Musnad Ahmed that were thought to have come from that Sahifa. And what did they find? There was not an iota of difference between the two. Similarly Mussanaf of Abd al-Razzaq is extant and has been published. As has been Mu'ammar ibn Rashid's al-Jami. These recently discovered original manuscripts bear out the Sihah Sitta. The recent appearance of these original manuscripts should bring the most skeptical into the fold of believers.

where did you get that which is there in spoiler dear SKB? is it from modernreligion.com???

http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/c ... ctors.html


YEs I forgot to place the link I guess.

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:54 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
yeezevee wrote:
where did you get that which is there in spoiler dear SKB? is it from modernreligion.com???

http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/c ... ctors.html


YEs I forgot to place the link I guess.
well I tell you that SCOUNDRELS modernreligion.com copy/pasted from the Muhammad following Muslim fuckers of Land of Pure which is next to Land of Snakes. Originally it comes from these Crooks..

Image Image
Hadith: A person killed in defense of his wealth is a martyr.

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:00 pm
by MesMorial
yeezevee wrote:
Welcome to FFI dear MesMorial


Thankyou and peace to you.

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:04 pm
by yeezevee
MesMorial wrote:
yeezevee wrote:
Welcome to FFI dear MesMorial


Thankyou and peace to you.

Really MesMorial ?? .. Err you don't know me., Once you know in-depth what I write ., You will say

"I hate you" ., many Muslim said that to me on my face...

with best wishes
yeezevee

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:07 pm
by MesMorial
skynightblaze wrote:
I just read his post. I shall reply to him. He claims he has explained but sadly he hasnt . All his answers are half baked. I shall refute him too .


I did not claim to have explained anything. Those are your words; I just answered.

Peace.

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:09 pm
by MesMorial
yeezevee wrote:
MesMorial wrote:
yeezevee wrote:
Welcome to FFI dear MesMorial


Thankyou and peace to you.

Really MesMorial ?? .. Err you don't know me., Once you know in-depth what I write ., You will say

"I hate you" ., many Muslim said that to me on my face...

with best wishes
yeezevee


I have seen your name in the 19.org forum. Are you Christian?

Peace

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:11 pm
by MesMorial
Well Edip Yuksel mentioned you. No matter :whistling:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:10 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote:
Since the matter has much importance... You'll learn a thing or two therein:

Was the Bible Corrupted?
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8273


If the Bible is not corrupted, then the Quran has some real problems. Do you really want to open up that can of worms??

The Cat wrote:As for the rest, as usual, it doesn't worth a response. Better check if there's too much pampers in between your ears... :crazy:


Not worth it means you can't answer. Thank you for admitting that. :*) That's about as good as BagHat's stupid dismissals and his little fantasy jail.

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:43 pm
by iffo
Witty, where did you go my WittyBoy, ran away?

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:08 pm
by WittyBoy
@ iffo

I don't know why when you answer late, i don't claim that you ran away. Another thing, do you think i can pause my life to answer you? or even i answer you now for you? i illustrate things for who really seeks the truth.

Are you so out of touch that you don't know why child resembles father or mother, you want me to teach like a little boy? something you should know on your own. Is you half functioning brain tells you that resemblance depends on who ejaculates first?

I asked you to bring the true fact and then show how this one is wrong, you can't refuse a fact without proving it wrong, depending on what you refused it, depending on a scientific research? or just because it's a hadith?

So what if they called him god, still don't deserved to be burned. So Ali was a criminal here. Does it bother you at all Ali one of the greatest figure of your religion did this inhumane act? Or you are just inhumane as he was, that's why don't care ..
I threatened you to stop lying. Otherwise, I'll punish you a specific punishment you knew, but you insisted to keep lying, so you chose to be punished. Yes, Ali used a tough punishment, but as i said he can do wrong things as any human being, what completely refuted this lame claim is that the prophet(pbuh) himself forbade this act, i don't know why i answered you, the prophet of Islam forbade this act, stupid. what more do you need?

prophet in that hadit thinks that most of the women do that, that's why there will be more women in hell. So men who are not in straight path in most cases its women fault.

No, it's not the only reason why women entered the Hell, deceiver. Add to your stupidity, whatever the reasons behind leading men astray, whatever women is the most common reason or not, Hadith didn't say that, but it only shows why a lot of women entered Hell. You can't decieve me to turn the matter on your side, you are the loser anyway.

Not sure what nonsense you wrote. Either you are dumb or acting dumb, or on drugs when you wrote this, to avoid what I said which was quite simple, don't have to rocket scientist to understand.

here's what you had said:
Yes its their bad luck they are not free so you can do fornication with them and its ok..... your Allah is ok with that as well .... and its not wrong and immoral.
so if they were free, we Muslims would be allowed to do fornication with them, this is still nonsense. :*) :*)

Mentioned what? that they treated her real nice, , she forgot all about her previous life, and jumped on Ali the moment booty was given........... you are hopless
again we are talking about an incident which can include many possibilities, and you don't know what's her previous life, why didn't Muslims offer her a better life? Good Luck!

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:55 am
by skynightblaze
MesMorial wrote:
Spoiler! :
QUESTION 1
“And keep up prayer in the two parts of the day and in the first hours of the night; surely good deeds take away evil deeds this is a reminder to the mindful.”
Qur’an 11:114
Personally I can see only 3 salaat in the Qur’an although to justify 5 people interpret 17:78 to mean noon and not sunset:
“Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night and the morning recitation; surely the morning recitation is witnessed.”
Qur’an 17:78
To get the fifth:
“Attend constantly to prayers and to the middle prayer and stand up truly obedient to Allah.”
Qur’an 2:238
(The middle prayer should be Asr because the sun is half-way down and in between the other prayers).
however since Islam itself is unchanged from Abraham we may or may not consider this:
One day Peter and John (two of Jesus' apostles) were going up to the temple at the time of prayer at three in the afternoon (Acts 3:1).

About noon the following day as they are approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray (Acts 10:9)


First of all bringing bible into the equation wont help your case as I suppose that you muslims believe that its corrupted .
Read my 2 posts to Ahmed Bahgat where I have refuted these arguments of quran prescribing 5 prayers so we need hadiths for 5 prayers.
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7991&p=129042&hilit=noon#p129042


MesMorial wrote:
Spoiler! :
QUESTION 2
All positions of Salat are found in the Qur’an:
Standing position:
Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a Word from Allah, and honorable and chaste and a prophet from among the good ones.
Qur’an 3:39
What! he who is obedient during hours of the night, prostrating himself and standing, takes care of the hereafter and hopes for the mercy of his Lord! Say: Are those who know and those who do not know alike? Only the men of understanding are mindful.
Qur'an 39:9
Bowing and prostration positions (Rukoo' and Sajood):
And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those who bow down.
Qur’an 2:43
O Marium! keep to obedience to your Lord and humble yourself, and bow down with those who bow.
Qur’an 3:43
They who turn (to Allah), who serve (Him), who praise (Him), who fast, who bow down, who prostrate themselves, who enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, and who keep the limits of Allah; and give good news to the believers.
Qur’an 9:112


So do you pray merely by standing and prostration? How does one prostrate exactly? This is not given in the quran.Muslims bend on their knees bow down completely with their forehead touched to the ground. They also have a special position of hands. Where does quran explain all this? Well merely saying standing or bowing down doesn’t do the job. How does bow down? That needs explanation.

Just go through the following link and read from step 6.. Show me where quran tells you to follow what the step 6 onwards.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2228453_perform ... rayer.html
Also see the images at the link below.Quran absolutely doesn’t mention any of this postures.
http://www.sunna.info/prayer/TheBasicso ... Prayer.php

MesMorial wrote:QUESTION 3
Circumcision is not in the Qur’an. It is not a matter of divine decree and hence its decision is not to be made in the name of religion. It is like personal matters such as how long a man and wife spend in bed each night…


Well you guys are circumsized when you are babies so its not a personal matter decided by man and his wife as you claim.Only muslims circumsize their kids. People from other religions usually wont do such practices. This practice is associated with your religion and its because Muhammad was circumcised.Just tell me why every single muslim is circumcised if its not at all associated with the religion of islam? To justify this practice you need the hadiths.

MesMorial wrote:QUESTION 4

“Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude.Remember thou saidst to the Faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three thousand angels (Specially) sent down?"Yea, - if ye remain firm, and act aright, even if the enemy should rush here on you in hot haste, your Lord would help you with five thousand angels Making a terrific onslaught.”

The signficiance is such that it has been detailed in the Qur’an. The lesson is that Allah well help the true believers.


How can you say Battle of Badr has no significance other than you mentioned. IT does have a significance. AS a person who is reading quran and is in process of learning he needs to know why the prophet of islam had to fight this battle in the first place. What if he was fighting an offensive warfare? I mean his opponents decided to get rid of him because he had attacked them first.These questions need to be answered or else you would be blindly trusting quran.I need to know this information before I come to a conclusion that the battle was indeed essential and that the prophet of islam was indeed fighting a battle in the right sense .

Remember validity of quran depends on this character Muhammad so when some incidents are referenced its essential for us to know what exactly happened during those incidents so that we know whether Muhammad was truly righteous or not. If we come to know that he was a fraud then the whole claim of quran being from God goes down the drain and hence its essential to know details about battle of badr.This is why hadiths are essential.

Lastly you miss an important point.If some incident or an example is mentioned then it should be complete because incidents/examples are mentioned to clarify things or else they are simply useless if they are just brought without giving details.The conclusion that you drew could have been said in a single line and hence to make quran meaningful we need to look into the sources outside quran to make it meaningful.

MesMorial wrote:QUESTION 5

The Qur’an provides some images and a few details of the Night Journey, but its purpose is to reinforce that Muhammad (SAW) has indeed been endowed with a special favour/position from Allah (SWT). It is apparently in accordance with 72:28-29:
"He (alone) knows the Unseen, nor does He make any one acquainted with His Mysteries,-
Except to him whom He chooses as a messenger…”


These are some questions raised by a site called answering islam.

1. What is the Sacred Mosque? What is the far Distant Mosque? Where are they located?
2. Who was the servant whom Allah transported between these mysterious mosques?
3. If you say Muhammad, where are you getting that from the text? After all, the first eight verses from chapter 17 are not dealing with either Muhammad or the pagans, but with the Israelites and their sacred history.
4. Isn’t it more likely that, in light of the immediate context, the servant was Moses? It may even be Noah since he is also mentioned in the text. How do you know?

Well again the answers to these questions are required otherwise its just a meaningless drivel that quran is mentioning.WE cant even be sure whether its Muhammad or someone else going for the night journey.
Now unless one understands what sacred mosque or distant mosque is these verses aren’t going to make any sense.I hope you agree with me that quran has to make sense or else it simply isn’t a book from God.There seems no sense just to mention that muhamamd travelled from one point to other.TO make sense of these verses we need the hadiths.

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:56 am
by skynightblaze
MesMorial wrote:QUESTION 6

The Qur’an is a warning and a correction of scripture (e.g. the Father of Fire’s wealth will not avail him). Furthermore it was assumed that the people would know who Muhammad’s uncle was (the same way it is assumed that people knew how long a month was or how to count to twelve…though I am not sure there is a lesson on that in the ahadith.) Abu Lahab was quite famous as an enemy of the Prophet (SAW) it seems. It is not relevant to the ultimate purpose of the Qur’an in 5:3 (to perfect Islam). The Qur’an is literally saying “Remember him!”


"The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish. His wealth and gains will not exempt him. He will be plunged in flaming Fire, and his wife, the wood carrier, will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre" (111:1-5)

As a reader in 21st century how can anyone know Abu lahab is an uncle of Muhammad? How do future generations(todays ) know he was a famous enemy of islam from the quran alone? How can anyone believe in these verses without knowing whether Abu Lahab was really at fault or not?
In this case I dont even know whether Muhammad was cursing Abu Lahab out of mere grudge .How can anyone believe in Muhammad or the quran without knowing what happened between Abu Lahab and Muhammad?The answers to these questions are necessary if quran is to make sense and if muslims of today are to condemn Abu Lahab .This verse is in the quran so muslims of today also need to condemn guys like Abu Lahab because quran is for all times and not just for Muhammad.

MesMorial wrote:
QUESTION 7

Most probably the punishment for adultery. The victim is not punished.


Most probably is your answer? Well a book which claims has the final and complete guidance for mankind has no answer for a heinous crime like rape against woman? How can you believe such a book is complete? BTw hadiths do prescribe a punishment for rape.There is nothing you can do about it but accept that quran doesn’t prescribe punishment for rape . So tell me if quran doesn’t prescribe any punishment are you going to let the rapist go free ? so should we draw a conclusion that raping is allowed as per quran since no punishment has been mentioned? Do you see how incomplete quran is?
These basic things need to be included in the quran if at all you claim that it has the guidance that mankind needs.

MesMorial wrote:“Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them).”

Qur’an 24:33

This verse is talking about slaves and it also doesn’t talk about punishment after rape.


MesMorial wrote:QUESTION 8

There is a difference between direct inspiration of the Prophet (SAW) and revelation (which inspires all of humanity). Since Muhammad (SAW) is to be an example he is questioned about his conduct in not pleasing his wives. It is quite clearly stated and the rest of the incident simply describes how secrecy in the family is not welcome. The context is revealed in the first verse, and it is all we need though Allah (SWT) then describes how a secret was kept amongst his wives.


Please answer the following questions..

What was the secret that Muhammad was keeping in his mind? This is important because I need to know what secret Muhammad was keeping.IF we don’t know that it can lead all sorts of wild possibilities for e.g What if Muhammad was planning to kill one of his wife and one of the wife leaked it to the wife who was about to be killed? In that case the wife leaking secret is correct and such dirty secrets need to be exposed .Its not necessary that all the secrets be kept secrets especially when they are in worst interest of someone.

How does one know whether Muhammad was doing the right thing? Well you might say it’s a part of our belief but this cant be your answer here because then it would be blind belief. If a person is to come to a conclusion rationally then he needs to know the details. We need the context of those verses or else its plain stupidity to believe in them without questioning and knowing what happened.

IF you argue that those verses only wanted to tell us that secrets shouldn’t be disclosed then there was no need of all those 6 verses related to that incident. You claim that all we need to know is that secrecy is not welcome in a family then it would mean that the other verses are useless. Are you telling me that Allah revealed useless verses when the whole thing could have been said in a single line?

These verses if understood using hadiths don’t become useless or else they are simply wasting the readers time so the bottom line is we need hadiths to understand them and make sense out of them.

MesMorial wrote:QUESTION 9

It is a mix of inspiration and revelation. The slander is given in 24:6 as falsely accusing a woman of adultery. It refers to a case of such slander known to the Prophet (SAW) at the time. It is in no way mysterious as to the purpose of these verses. Those who lie and are caught will be punished. Those who are not caught will be punished in the Hereafter. It is a personal inspiration to Muhammad (SAW) given so that he may reveal an example of such a situation to all believers (and encourage them).


Well 24-1 to 10 verses covers all what you said but yet again the incident of slander of Aisha is brought in the verses thereafter.What is the point of the mentioning some incident to explain a simple message which could have been explained even without the mention of incident especially when the same message was already conveyed in the verse 24:1-10?

If you are to buy your argument then it would mean those verses are redundant and hence useless unless the incident serves as an example confirming what was said previously in verses 24:1-10.

I hope you agree examples,incidents are mentioned in any book so as to clarify matters because people understand clearly with examples.It absolutely makes no sense to bring some little information on the incident and run away without telling what the incident was otherwise it defeats the basic purpose of using examples as a means of clarification .

That incident becomes clear if we read the hadiths and we understand things perfectly and hence you need hadiths to understand what happened exactly or else again those verses are useless..



MesMorial wrote:QUESTION 10

Alcohol is clearly condemned as detrimental and hence should be forbidden in an Islamic society. However since it is not explicitly prohibited then certainly believers must not indulge in it nor consume it around prayer. Great care should be taken to ensure that people are (to the best of their ability) in a state to most effectively remember Allah (SWT). Likewise gambling is a detriment. Now I believe explicit punishments were not given because it is assumed that true believers will not engage in them (this is a part of faith) and that society (i.e. the responsible law-givers) would prohibit them.
The punishments for such conduct would depend on the consequences, but as I said in the sphere of Islam it has no place. Muslims would most likely shy from any place where gambling and/or drinking were allowed (or they would exclude it from society).


What if one drinks alcohol? Since there is no punishment cant a person exploit this loop hole and enjoy alcohol for the rest of his life? You have to accept that quran is incomplete in this case.Please don’t tell me that he will be punished in after life

IF that was the case then we can say the same thing for every single crime that quran considered as a sin like adultery and there would have been no need of punishment for those crimes as well.

Further you claim that Allah assumed that true believers will not engage in alcohol? If that is so then Allah an all knowing God clearly got it wrong because I myself have seen some muslims consuming alcohol. Well if something is a sin then punishment is given throughout the quran but then why is this an exception?

Btw Muhammad beat a man who drank alcohol. This is mentioned in the hadiths.

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:13 am
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:Only muslims circumsize their kids. People from other religions usually wont do such practices. This practice is associated with your religion and its because Muhammad was circumcised
where did you get that skynightblaze? I have doubt on that., Muhammad when he announced his religion Islam he was ~ 40 year old guy .. I strongly doubt he went for circumcision at that age.,

Male circumcision as a religious ritual is found in the Hebrew Bible such as Genesis .. Circumcision is most prevalent in Muslim countries and Israel, and is most prevalent in the Jewish and Muslim faiths, though also common in the United States, the Philippines, South Korea, and Ethiopia, which are predominantly Christian. It is less common in Europe, Latin America, China and India. Hodges argues that in Ancient Greece the foreskin was valued and that Greek and Roman attempts to abolish ritual circumcision were prompted by humanitarian concerns

that is from wiki...

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:09 pm
by skynightblaze
yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Only muslims circumsize their kids. People from other religions usually wont do such practices. This practice is associated with your religion and its because Muhammad was circumcised
where did you get that skynightblaze? I have doubt on that., Muhammad when he announced his religion Islam he was ~ 40 year old guy .. I strongly doubt he went for circumcision at that age.,

Male circumcision as a religious ritual is found in the Hebrew Bible such as Genesis .. Circumcision is most prevalent in Muslim countries and Israel, and is most prevalent in the Jewish and Muslim faiths, though also common in the United States, the Philippines, South Korea, and Ethiopia, which are predominantly Christian. It is less common in Europe, Latin America, China and India. Hodges argues that in Ancient Greece the foreskin was valued and that Greek and Roman attempts to abolish ritual circumcision were prompted by humanitarian concerns

that is from wiki...


I think it was a pagan custom to circumcise young boys so Muhammad must have been circumcised when he was a baby . I will try to find evidence for that but I think I read it somewhere. Anyway even if turns out that muhammad wasnt circumcised this practice comes from hadiths so he cant escape the fact this practice is religious.More ever if muhammad wasnt circumcised then doesnt it mean that he himself violated the laws?

Read here for various hadiths on circumcision.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/C/ ... ision.html

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:49 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:

I think it was a pagan custom to circumcise young boys so Muhammad must have been circumcised when he was a baby . ....
Read here for various hadiths on circumcision.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/C/ ... ision.html
Well every one is a Pagan to start with but please find a link on that which Pagans and where they come from and were they Monotheistic pagans or Multi-god pagans.. Well link to Islamic hadith is no use unless it mentions the name of Pagan tribe who started that ritual..

here is one from Egypt..

http://www.circlist.com/rites/egypt.html

Little is known about the daily life of the Ancient Egyptians, but proof of circumcision abounds in temple reliefs. Early Egyptologists assumed that all Egyptian males were circumcised, but more recently both circumcised and uncircumcised penises have been found on the unwrapped mummies of pharaohs. Modern Egyptologists have pondered about just whom among the Egyptians were circumcised and why. An early Masonic historian, Godfrey Higgins ("Anacalypsis", London 1836), writes, "Priests only of the Egyptians were circumcised." Candidates for priesthood, and for circumcision, were usually chosen from among puberty-age, virgin boys. Quoting modern Masonic historian, Manly P. Hall ("Freemasonry of the Ancient Egyptians", Los Angeles 1936), "In ancient Egypt learning was regarded as a high privilege and education was under the direction of a small number of individuals who were organized into bonds, pledges and vows of secrecy....(a candidate) having applied at Heliopolis, was referred to the Learned of the Institution at Memphis, and these sent him to Thebes (where) he was circumcised."



Here is another one., http://www.iranchamber.com/culture/arti ... cision.php but that guy locked it .. I can not import it to word file.. I wonder whether you could do that dear SKB.. Are you computer wiz/geek..whatever.. lol.

with best
yeezevee

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:04 pm
by yeezevee
That is From OT....
GEN 17:9, 14, JAM 2:23 God said to Abraham (his friend), you shall keep my covenant (command to circumcise) you and your children after you in their generations.

This is my covenant, you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it (the flesh) shall be a token of the covenant (that you obeyed) between you and me.

He that is eight days old shall be circumcised (cut) among you every man-child in your generations.

He that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money (slave) must be circumcised.

The uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off (damned) from his people; he has broken my covenant (not obeyed my order).

GEN 6:18 But with you (Noah) will I instigate my covenant; and you shall come into the ark you, your sons, your wife and your sons' wives with you.

This (ark) is the forerunner of circumcision; the covenant is (separation by faith) of Noah and his family from the masses to be drowned.

CIRCUMCISION COMES WITH PROMISE. TALMUD.

DEU 30:6 The LORD your God will circumcise your mind and the mind of your sons, to love the LORD your God with your entire mind and with all your soul that you may live (to love God man needs his help).

Talmud: The eighth day for circumcision is chosen because it is the first day of the mother’s cleanliness after her child’s birth.

Talmud: Guests to see the child are not to show joy until after the wife’s purity.

Talmud: An infant must never be circumcised before the eighth day or after the twelfth day.

Talmud: The whole eighth day is valid for circumcision.

Talmud: Circumcision heals faster when done on the eighth day.

Talmud: A woman is not qualified by God to circumcise.

Talmud: A special prayer is to be given at circumcision.

EXO 4:23, 26 It came to pass on the way to the inn that the LORD met Moses and sought to kill him because he did not circumcise him.

EXO 2:22 Then Zipporah to save the life of (Gershom) took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses feet and said, surely you are a bloody husband to me.

GAL 5:6 In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith (in the one God) which works by love (of him).

IF A RABBI DOES NOT CIRCUMCISE A MATURE MALE, THEN THE MALE MUST CIRCUMCISE HIMSELF. TALMUD

If there is no Hebrew physician in the town then a male heathen may perform the circumcision.

Talmud: But not in the name of an idol.

Talmud: A father who is circumcised may circumcise his own son.

GEN 17:24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he circumcised himself in the flesh of his foreskin.

THE FATHER IS REQUIRED TO CIRCUMCISE THE SON. TALMUD

GEN 21:4 Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old as God had commanded him.

Talmud: Before and after circumcision the infant must be washed in hot water.

Talmud: There are special ingredients for treating the circumcision wound.

Talmud: An infant who is ill is not to be circumcised until he recovers.

DEU 10:16 circumcise the foreskin of your mind and be no more stiff-necked.

Talmud: Circumcision of mind means, to be killed all the daylong for God.

Talmud: Never cover the circumcision when bathing with men.

Covering the circumcision shows you are ashamed of it and God.

Talmud: To stand circumcised (naked) before God shows him you offered to him part of the law.

Talmud: One who has two brothers that died by circumcision is not to be circumcised.

Talmud: A child can be circumcised on the Sabbath if it is his eighth day after birth.

Talmud: Do not miss a circumcision even if a relative died.

Talmud: Remembering your circumcision will make you think of God and thus help resist sex-lust.

ROM 2:25, 28 Circumcision only profits if you (Hebrew) keep the law: but if you are a breaker of the law your circumcision is made uncircumcision.

So then if the uncircumcision (Gentiles) keep the right living of the law, shall not their uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh.

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the mind, in the spirit and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

ROM 3:1, 2 What advantage then has the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way; chiefly because that unto them were committed the laws of God.

Circumcision in the flesh was to Hebrews first and then to Gentiles who are now circumcised in mind by faith.

ROM 3:30 It is one God which shall justify the circumcision (Hebrews) by faith and uncircumcision (Gentiles) through faith.

THE PIOUS OF ALL NATIONS THOUGH NOT CIRCUMCISED HAVE A PORTION IN THE WORLD TO COME. TALMUD

ROM 4:10, 12 How was it then judged? When he (Abraham) was in circumcision or in uncircumcision?

Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a start of the faith to come when he was uncircumcised.

That he might be the father of all them that believe (faith) though they be not circumcised, that right living might be imputed unto them also.

Abraham became the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Talmud: The circumcised are preferred before the uncircumcised in holy rituals.

Talmud: The Passover meal (communion) cannot be eaten by the uncircumcised (God haters).

Talmud: They are the same as unclean persons.

1CO 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised (a Hebrew following God's commands)? Let him not become uncircumcised (by not obeying Jewish laws). Is any called in uncircumcision (a Gentil)? Let him not be circumcised (become a Hebrew).

1CO 7:19 Circumcision (in the flesh) is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God.

NO ONE CAN SERVE GOD UNLESS CIRCUMCISED IN FLESH AND MIND. TALMUD

ACT 15:1, 24 Certain Pharisees taught the brethren, and troubled you with words, subverting your souls saying, except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved.

PENTECOSTALS ARE MADE NEW CREATIONS IN CHRIST JESUS

PHI 3:3 We are the circumcision which worship God in the SPIRIT (tongues) and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

COL 2:11 In whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body (sins of the flesh) by the circumcision of Jesus, (his death on the tree).

COL 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian (a rude, wild, uncivilized person), Bond nor free: but Christ Jesus is all, and in all.

GAL 6:12 Only those who desire to make a fair show in the flesh constrain you to be circumcised; because they might suffer persecution (from Orthodox Hebrews for not circumcising) for the cross of Christ Jesus.

EVEN GREAT MEN OF GOD DO DUMB THINGS.

PHI 3:5 Paul was circumcised the eighth day of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee.

ACTS 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to travel with him but first had him circumcised because of the Jews, which knew that his father was a Greek.

And please SEND YOUR TITHE AND LOVE OFFERINGS TO:

PROPHET R. M. HANDS

POB 1505

WILMINGTON, CA 90748
I like that guy PROPHET R. M. HANDS..

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:31 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
iffo wrote:Witty, where did you go my WittyBoy, ran away?


What are you guys arguing about anyway?? A lot of the hadiths might have been made up, and I'm sure there are at least some that are true as well. At least the hadiths have some truth in it because sometimes they are accurate, eyewitness accounts. They have some historical value as well. The Quran, on the other hand, has no truth in it, simply because Muhammad claim his recitals to be coming from Allah via Gabriel, but in 9:30 and 63:4, he slips up and accidentally reveals that it is him talking.

9:30. And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

63:4. And when you see them, their persons will please you, and If they speak, you will listen to their speech; (they are) as if they were big pieces of wood clad with garments; they think every cry to be against them. They are the enemy, therefore beware of them; may Allah destroy them, whence are they turned back?

So I would say that the hadiths are more useful, especially from an historical perspective and have more truth in them than the Quran which is the rantings of someone who is either delusional or a liar.

Iffo, it's funny to watch you laugh at those who would fall for the hadiths, just like we laugh at those who would fall for the Quran. It's funny to watch you behave as though you are the reasonable one and you use all sorts of logic to make your point. But when it comes to the Quran, you throw your same logic out the window and ignore plain errors and absurdities right in front of your face. So you cheat.....on yourself. :lol: I didn't know people could do that and I would have thought that to be impossible, but Muslims have shown me that they can. And you know, one error, just one, and the entire Quran becomes a very suspect lie in an instant. Remaining a Muslim requires inventing excuses for one's self or even lying to one's self. Otherwise the rational mind would see it for what it really is. This is part of why the Cat needs to say that it doesn't matter whether the Quran is man made or not. He knows the problems all too well.

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:44 pm
by The Cat
MesMorial wrote:
yeezevee wrote:
Welcome to FFI dear MesMorial


Thankyou and peace to you.


Joining yeezevee in this welcome.
Image

FFI can only gain from some knowledgeable Muslim's insights. But this ain't no 5 o'clock tea ! :argue: