Page 8 of 9

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:25 pm
by skynightblaze
MesMorial wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:^^

Get lost miserable TROLL! Take your idiotic rantings some where else.


Would you mind if I agreed with his logic, and would you mind if I said that he is right about Qur'an-Islam, and you are wrong?


I would mind it because you are clearly wrong. You have not yet completely got out of Quran alone cult. Slowly and steadily you will realize that Muhammad too had a history and a life. Remember its all about investing your entire life in a religion and hence before one decides to convert to islam , knowing character of Muhammad is extremely important. If Muhammad was a fraud the credibility of quran goes down the drain and therefore logically I am required to dig deep into the life of this man before making a decision to convert to islam. I cannot take quran as a reference to understand Muhammad because of 2 reasons:

1) It hardly contains any information on character of Muhammad .

2) More ever quran cannot be taken as a testimony for assuring Muhammad's clean character because it itself is under test . It would be like a criminal asking for believing in his innocence on his own testimony.

Mesmorial wrote:I do not care much for Hadith, because no-one can prove a single hadith and thus they are disqualified automatically.


The findings of Sanaa manuscripts matches with what is written in the ahadith. Historic evidence supports ahadith regarding compilation of the quran so how can you claim that no one can prove a single ahadith?

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:49 am
by darth
MesMorial wrote:
If that is your argument, why do you bother saying that the Qur'an mandates Hadith? If the Qur'an is false, then ahadith are not part of Islam...

That is your logic. Please revise it.

Cheers.

You are losing your mind, mes.

If Quran is false and Hadith is false, they are still part of islam. There is no islam without Q and H, although you and cat are trying to invent one with only Q and no H

When I say quran is false, I mean it is the brainchild of mo (and companions), and not the work of God. It is unauthentic in the sense that it is not believable as the word of god.
Both the quran and hadiths are work of men
However, the quran can be taken as a historical document like the hadiths. Events can be studied from both to arrive at the true picture. Taking quran and hadiths simply as historical documents, we find that quran refers to events and people that are only recorded in the hadiths. Thus the quran is incomplete without the hadith. Thus quran requires the hadiths to get the full picture.

Hope this is clear now.

skynightblaze wrote:Remember its all about investing your entire life in a religion and hence before one decides to convert to islam , knowing character of Muhammad is extremely important.

Frankly, even without knowing mo, if people were to read the quran alone they would be turned off. There is enough harsh stuff in the quran which condemns it as the work of a human (a crazy one at that).

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:12 am
by MesMorial
You are losing your mind, mes.


Are you MuslimVlogGuy?

If Quran is false and Hadith is false, they are still part of islam. There is no islam without Q and H, although you and cat are trying to invent one with only Q and no H


But the Qur’an forbids ahadith. You are making up excuses for hadith, but you resort to transparent nonsense.

However, the quran can be taken as a historical document like the hadiths. Events can be studied from both to arrive at the true picture. Taking quran and hadiths simply as historical documents, we find that quran refers to events and people that are only recorded in the hadiths. Thus the quran is incomplete without the hadith. Thus quran requires the hadiths to get the full picture.

Hope this is clear now.


This has been refuted. Would you like a one-on-one debate so I can fix your problem?
The point I am making is that the Qur’an forbids ahadith, but you claim I make no sense and then you bring nonsense to justify.

In short, you keep lying.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:13 am
by MesMorial
Someone who says that the Qur'an mandates ahadith has to make things up, and that is the tactic. If we just show the world that people have to be made up...that's good.

I will address the other point later since I have to go.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:14 am
by skynightblaze
Darth wrote:Frankly, even without knowing mo, if people were to read the quran alone they would be turned off. There is enough harsh stuff in the quran which condemns it as the work of a human (a crazy one at that).


I agree but there is very little information on Mo in the quran however teachings of quran actually hint that it is from some beast.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:15 am
by MesMorial
Firstly, what do the Sanaa manucripts prove about ahadith?

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:17 pm
by yeezevee
"skynightblaze" says
skynightblaze wrote:
Darth wrote:Frankly, even without knowing mo, if people were to read the quran alone they would be turned off. There is enough harsh stuff in the quran which condemns it as the work of a human (a crazy one at that).


I agree but there is very little information on Mo in the quran however teachings of quran actually hint that it is from some beast.
and "MesMorial" asks aquestion
MesMorial wrote:Firstly, what do the Sanaa manucripts prove about ahadith?

That is a good question to pose MesMorial., May be answer for that could as simple as "It (hadith)comes from another beast or couple of beasts" ..lol..

Anyways talking about "Posing"... This Pose of Aliya’a El-Mahdi! making every one and every Muslim thinking upside down.. Aliya unleashed the beast that is hard to tame... the beast name is "Freedom of expression" . So it is very important for Muslims of 21st century and The Cats to learn to live with the Beast . These beasts are trained sometime by yeezevees, sometime by "skynightblazes" and some times by Aliya’a El-Mahdis. Any ways what I don't like from that guy is unnecessary insults and anger words in his posts..

with best wishes
yeezevee

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:37 pm
by skynightblaze
MesMorial wrote:Firstly, what do the Sanaa manucripts prove about ahadith?


It proves that not all of them are false. According to ahadith there was no standard quran until Uthman decided to make one. This is confirmed by Sanaa manuscripts who findings indicated that quranic manuscripts found differed with current day's quran.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:44 am
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:Get lost miserable TROLL! Take your idiotic rantings some where else.

SNB reacts as a cornered Sunnite. Anyone surprised?

Our self-contradicting and self-defeating 'epitome of logic'...
skynightblaze wrote:1) If Muhammad was a fraud the credibility of quran goes down the drain
2) It hardly contains any information on character of Muhammad .
This is another fallacy called -Wishful Thinking-. You're nothing but fallacies...

skynightblaze wrote:It proves that not all of them are false.

Who said otherwise? It's your poll's question that is -twice- more logical fallacies...

Hadiths, as found in the Sharia, are illegal from a Koranic point of view.
That's how and why they are, and always were, unauthentic in Koranic Islam.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:39 am
by darth
MesMorial wrote:This has been refuted. Would you like a one-on-one debate so I can fix your problem?

What exactly has been refuted? That the quran and the hadiths are to basically historical documents (unscientifically recorded and with mistakes, but still historical documents).

MesMorial wrote:The point I am making is that the Qur’an forbids ahadith,

You need to show where hadiths (as in mo's life recordings) are forbidden. (Not that it makes any difference to me. I don't give a damn about what the quran says. I will use any and all sources of information to arrive at the true picture)
Don't bring me verses like 7.185. Those do not forbid the hadith, it just sets quran on a higher ground.

Hadiths in mo's time simply meant teachings/stories/sayings etc.,( not necessarily the life recordings of mo which were work in progress in the time of mo). Which brings us to an interesting point - quran claims it is higher than all hadiths (which means all teachings then and since). So quran is setting itself higher than modern science. So by your logic should we reject all science since quran is higher than it or would you like to claim that modern science is forbidden by quran. :whistling:

(EDIT : Sky makes a strong case in the resource center against the quran only approach and demolishes the idea that hadiths are not to be used based on other verses that require following of mo and obedience to him. I want to add that none of the verses in the quran actually forbid hadiths. The quran simply states that it is superior to hadiths. That is all. That is why the current islamic stance of accepting those hadiths that are not against the quran is quranically correct. )

MesMorial wrote:In short, you keep lying.

Show where and how.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:09 am
by MesMorial
Hello everyone.

Darth says that 1) the Qur'an allows ahadith. Then he says that 2) following ahadith WHICH DO NOT CONTRADICT the Qur'an is correct.

Darth's logic is not acceptable from Qur'anic or Sunnite views.

Debunking 1):

The Messenger was only a warner (35:23), warning of the consequences of certain behaviour compared to other behaviour. The Arabic Qur’an was revealed to the Messenger so that he could use it to warn people (6:19, 6:51, 7:2, 19:97, 20:113, 42:7). 38:70 confirms that everything revealed to the Prophet was a part of the warning.

Thus, Darth must explain how ahadith in Islam are possible.

I can give better than 7:185. 45:6-11, for example.

Sknynightblaze's arguments from the Qur'an have been addressed, and I also went to pains to address his grasping at the word "clear" in 16:35.


As for 2), Darth admits that the Qur'an is the constitution, but that hadith which do no contradict are enforced. How does Darth know which ones contradict or not? Can Darth produce a verse that tells us that any hadith is a part of Islam? This would means that 45:6 is wrong.

Darth must do much better, although his disclaimer is that he doesn't care at all what the Qur'an says. What he cares about are his personal opinions.

(Not that it makes any difference to me. I don't give a damn about what the quran says. I will use any and all sources of information to arrive at the true picture)


Cheers.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:10 am
by MesMorial
Show where and how.


The fact that your arguments get refuted every time shows us you are a liar.

Or you are ignorant, but do not admit even that truth.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:03 pm
by darth
MesMorial wrote:Hello everyone.

Darth says that 1) the Qur'an allows ahadith. Then he says that 2) following ahadith WHICH DO NOT CONTRADICT the Qur'an is correct.

Darth's logic is not acceptable from Qur'anic or Sunnite views.

It is the quranic and sunni views - According to both -
a) Hadiths are not forbidden
b) quran has a higher status than the hadiths
c) Hadiths can be used as long as they do not contradict the quran. When they contradict the quran, the quran has higher precedence

MesMorial wrote:The Messenger was only a warner (35:23), warning of the consequences of certain behaviour compared to other behaviour. The Arabic Qur’an was revealed to the Messenger so that he could use it to warn people (6:19, 6:51, 7:2, 19:97, 20:113, 42:7). 38:70 confirms that everything revealed to the Prophet was a part of the warning.

Mo is called a warner. So what? The hadiths are not forbidden. None of the verses above forbid hadiths. What is not forbidden in the quran, as per the islamic view, is not forbidden.

MesMorial wrote:I can give better than 7:185. 45:6-11, for example.

Enough of this. Let us check each verse
45.6 These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?
Allah's verses are superior according to this, but where does it forbid statements other than allah's?
45.7 Woe to every sinful liar
Where are the hadith forbidden in this statement.
45.8Who hears the verses of Allah recited to him, then persists arrogantly as if he had not heard them. So give him tidings of a painful punishment.
Where is the hadith forbidden
45.9And when he knows anything of Our verses, he takes them in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment.
Where is the hadith forbidden
45.10 Before them is Hell, and what they had earned will not avail them at all nor what they had taken besides Allah as allies. And they will have a great punishment.
Where is the hadith forbidden
45.11This [Qur'an] is guidance. And those who have disbelieved in the verses of their Lord will have a painful punishment of foul nature.
Where is the hadith forbidden
Wishful thinking does not make hadiths forbidden

MesMorial wrote:As for 2), Darth admits that the Qur'an is the constitution, but that hadith which do no contradict are enforced. How does Darth know which ones contradict or not? Can Darth produce a verse that tells us that any hadith is a part of Islam? This would means that 45:6 is wrong.

The idea of quran as "constitution" is cat's argument. As far as I am concerned quran is gibberish not constitution. But I will use your beliefs that quran is "constitution" to show the fallacies of your position.
You have not produced as single verse saying hadiths are forbidden in the quran. I think you (or cat) have stated before that the quranic position is - what is not forbidden in the quran cannot be forbidden. So my position is actually stronger.
Incidently, mes has not answered this - the arabic word hadiths simply means - 'a piece of information conveyed either in a small quantity or large' (wikipedia) or speech of a person. When quran was written, that was what hadiths meant, not the record of mo's life as that was still work in progress. If your consider that meaning then hadiths means all information from then onwards. This includes modern science. By mes's idiotic position quran forbids modern science.

MesMorial wrote:The fact that your arguments get refuted every time shows us you are a liar.

Or you are ignorant, but do not admit even that truth.

I supposed that is islamic logic. I too believe that every one of your argument is refuted. Your not accepting that makes you a liar (using your own logic) :roflmao:
Incidently, you are the one using irrelevant verses to claim that hadiths are forbidden when clearly there is no verse in the quran forbidding hadiths. Quran simply states that it is superior to all hadiths not that hadiths are forbidden. By claiming quran as saying what it is not saying I would say you are the one that is lying.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:11 pm
by MesMorial
It is the quranic and sunni views - According to both -
a) Hadiths are not forbidden
b) quran has a higher status than the hadiths
c) Hadiths can be used as long as they do not contradict the quran. When they contradict the quran, the quran has higher precedence


Simply repeating the claim does not prove it.

Mo is called a warner. So what? The hadiths are not forbidden. None of the verses above forbid hadiths. What is not forbidden in the quran, as per the islamic view, is not forbidden.


I just proved ahadith cannot be a part of Islam.

Enough of this. Let us check each verse
45.6 These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?
Allah's verses are superior according to this, but where does it forbid statements other than allah's?
45.7 Woe to every sinful liar
Where are the hadith forbidden in this statement.
45.8Who hears the verses of Allah recited to him, then persists arrogantly as if he had not heard them. So give him tidings of a painful punishment.
Where is the hadith forbidden
45.9And when he knows anything of Our verses, he takes them in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment.
Where is the hadith forbidden
45.10 Before them is Hell, and what they had earned will not avail them at all nor what they had taken besides Allah as allies. And they will have a great punishment.
Where is the hadith forbidden
45.11This [Qur'an] is guidance. And those who have disbelieved in the verses of their Lord will have a painful punishment of foul nature.
Where is the hadith forbidden
Wishful thinking does not make hadiths forbidden



They are forbidden in 45:6, explained by 45:11.

The idea of quran as "constitution" is cat's argument. As far as I am concerned quran is gibberish not constitution. But I will use your beliefs that quran is "constitution" to show the fallacies of your position.
You have not produced as single verse saying hadiths are forbidden in the quran. I think you (or cat) have stated before that the quranic position is - what is not forbidden in the quran cannot be forbidden. So my position is actually stronger.
Incidently, mes has not answered this - the arabic word hadiths simply means - 'a piece of information conveyed either in a small quantity or large' (wikipedia) or speech of a person. When quran was written, that was what hadiths meant, not the record of mo's life as that was still work in progress. If your consider that meaning then hadiths means all information from then onwards. This includes modern science. By mes's idiotic position quran forbids modern science.


I did not answer since it is not worth answering.

However, when we say “hadith” we mean “hadith of revelation from God, or hadith as religious law”.

Incidently, you are the one using irrelevant verses to claim that hadiths are forbidden when clearly there is no verse in the quran forbidding hadiths. Quran simply states that it is superior to all hadiths not that hadiths are forbidden. By claiming quran as saying what it is not saying I would say you are the one that is lying.


I have debunked your arguments, so please admit you are a liar.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:33 am
by darth
MesMorial wrote:I just proved ahadith cannot be a part of Islam.

"Cannot" is wishful thinking. Bottomline, hadiths are not forbidden in the quran, and because mo is pointed as an example the life example of mo is necessary material.

MesMorial wrote:They are forbidden in 45:6, explained by 45:11.


45.6 These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?
45.11This [Qur'an] is guidance. And those who have disbelieved in the verses of their Lord will have a painful punishment of foul nature.'

45.6 - Declares allah's verses as superior to anything else
45.11 - Declares painful punishment for people who disbelieve allah's verses.

Neither of the verses forbid hadiths. Neither help the other in forbidding hadiths.


MesMorial wrote:I did not answer since it is not worth answering.

However, when we say “hadith” we mean “hadith of revelation from God, or hadith as religious law”.


What is the meaning of hadith in arabic language? What was the meaning of hadith in the time of mo. It certainly was not the life story of mo since that was not complete and in circulation then. What you think it means today is irrelevant. Hadith in those days were simply teachings/stories/information conveyed. But, neither those teachings nor the writing of mo's life was forbidden. In other words - put up or shut up. Either show the quranic verse banning hadiths or admit that you are talking nonsense. Don't bring in your spin on why you think it is banned or ought to be banned.


MesMorial wrote:I have debunked your arguments, so please admit you are a liar.

We have debunked you multiple times. Also I have just pointed out that your base premise that hadiths are forbidden (as per the quran) is patently false. So why don't you admit that you are deceitful in addition to being illogical.

I am not going to respond any further unless you have something really useful or interesting to add.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:14 am
by MesMorial
"Cannot" is wishful thinking. Bottomline, hadiths are not forbidden in the quran, and because mo is pointed as an example the life example of mo is necessary material.


I just showed you how ahadith are not a part of islam, thus cannot be taken as Islam.

45.6 These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?
45.11This [Qur'an] is guidance. And those who have disbelieved in the verses of their Lord will have a painful punishment of foul nature.'

45.6 - Declares allah's verses as superior to anything else
45.11 - Declares painful punishment for people who disbelieve allah's verses.

Neither of the verses forbid hadiths. Neither help the other in forbidding hadiths.


Darth is illiterate.

What is the meaning of hadith in arabic language? What was the meaning of hadith in the time of mo. It certainly was not the life story of mo since that was not complete and in circulation then. What you think it means today is irrelevant. Hadith in those days were simply teachings/stories/information conveyed. But, neither those teachings nor the writing of mo's life was forbidden. In other words - put up or shut up. Either show the quranic verse banning hadiths or admit that you are talking nonsense. Don't bring in your spin on why you think it is banned or ought to be banned.


I just refuted you.

We have debunked you multiple times. Also I have just pointed out that your base premise that hadiths are forbidden (as per the quran) is patently false. So why don't you admit that you are deceitful in addition to being illogical.

I am not going to respond any further unless you have something really useful or interesting to add.


You have not addressed my refutation of you.

You are a liar. I have argued this far, and would not be debunked by slime.

Cheers.

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:54 pm
by charleslemartel
MesMorial wrote:I do not care much for Hadith, because no-one can prove a single hadith and thus they are disqualified automatically.


How I wish I could spend more time here to follow your posts to understand your points better!

But does this statement of yours imply that someone can prove Quran to be true?

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:08 am
by MesMorial
charleslemartel wrote:
MesMorial wrote:I do not care much for Hadith, because no-one can prove a single hadith and thus they are disqualified automatically.


How I wish I could spend more time here to follow your posts to understand your points better!

But does this statement of yours imply that someone can prove Quran to be true?


My point is not about whether ahadith are true or not. My point is that there is no certainty because they rely on Isnad.

The Qur'an relies on faith, thus for a Muslim it is already true.

If non-Muslims want to actually make progress rather than propaganda, they need to separate Qur'an from hadith.

Does the Qur'an say to accept hadith?

Does the Qur'an say to accept anything based on someone's reputation?

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:43 pm
by charleslemartel
MesMorial wrote:
My point is not about whether ahadith are true or not. My point is that there is no certainty because they rely on Isnad.

The Qur'an relies on faith, thus for a Muslim it is already true.

If non-Muslims want to actually make progress rather than propaganda, they need to separate Qur'an from hadith.

Does the Qur'an say to accept hadith?

Does the Qur'an say to accept anything based on someone's reputation?


I think that to make progress with Muslims, non Muslims should encourage them to think rationally and logically, and not to rely on faith. Quran itself is hadith from Muhammad. Whether Gabriel really brought the verses from Allah, or whether he really appeared in front of Muhammad is, and will always remain, a matter of mere faith.

I hope you would agree that Isnad makes ahadith more reliable as there are many different people reporting the same event. In contrast, Quran contains the words of only Muhammad no matter where they come from originally. It seems more scientific to rely on Isnad than to rely on a single person's account.

For a Muslim, faith defines the truth, and that is the whole problem. It blinds them to logic and rationality, and puts them at odds with the modern world which relies on scientific temperament more.

Quran does ask to accept things based on someone's reputation - that of Allah who is most likely an imaginary character. Matching reports of real and living people should certainly be taken as more authentic compared to someone's edicts whose very existence is doubtful. Don't you think so?

Re: DO you agree with The Cat?

PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:27 pm
by yeezevee
charleslemartel wrote:

I think that to make progress with Muslims, non Muslims should encourage them to think rationally and logically, and not to rely on faith. Quran itself is hadith from Muhammad.

I hope you would agree that Isnad makes ahadith more reliable as there are many different people reporting the same event.

So glad to hear from you charles. If we carefully go through Quran and Hadith I would say ~only 30% of them are from Muhammad or Muhammad like character., rest of hadith as well as Quran is put together way after the death of Muhammad. In that sense Quran being put together at much earlier time than hadith, it will have less chance of getting corrupted through transmission of various story tellers. But we must realize that both of then were transmitted through some one. More important is I think is, present Quran was put together by different authors at different times that too each one not reading others, Hence what have is a manuscript with repeated statements in different chapters. No religious scripture is as badly put together as Quran.. Sequences of alleged revelations is messed up and sequences of verses in those 114 chapters also messed up.. And every chapter has incoherent mumblings here and there..

Anyways who transmitted/collated Quran and when is the question that need to be answered . Well here is the chart that shows the transmission of the isnad of this hadith to the classical collections and Quran must have been put together clearly first group of people who were in touch Muhammad

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/exisnad.jpg

that J peg picture gives the transmission path of Quran and hadith.. On top of all these problems It is hard to figure out why certain statements that came out of Muhammad's mouth went in to quran and some other went in to hadith is hard to figure out.. I mean verses like this one
33:53
O you who believe, do not enter the houses of the Prophet for a meal without awaiting the proper time, unless asked, and enter when you are invited, and depart when you have eaten, and do not stay on talking. This puts the Prophet to inconvenience, and he feels embarrassed before you; but God is not embarrassed in (saying) the truth. And when you ask his wife for some thing of utility, ask for it from behind the screen.This is for the purity of your hearts and theirs. It does not behove you to annoy the prophet of God, or to ever marry his wives after him. This would indeed be serious in the sight of God.
ridiculous nonsense to put in to quran and believe that Allah/God revealed through Muhammad. That statement as well could have gone in to Hadith..


with best wishes
yeezevee