Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

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

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:I am asking you for an islamic source..... An unreliable source can never agree with a reliable so in this case either BUkhari is wrong or the following sources are wrong so again no definite conclusion can be drawn.The argument goes in favour of Bukhari because he is considered more reliable than any of the sources given below.... Even if we assume that Bukhari was unreliable it doesnt discredit his entire work.
See how null you are. Wikipedia says Umar II was born circa 682, your reference says between 683-85. Whatever, Umar II wasn't born when Huraira died (681) so he couldn't have possibly written the hadith ascribed to him (Bukhari 1.3.98). Your fancies do not change an iota to this.

Narrated by Abu Huraira
And 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr bin Hazm, "Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish and the religious learned men will pass away (die). Do not accept anything save the Hadiths of the Prophet. Circulate knowledge and teach the ignorant, for knowledge does not vanish except when it is kept secretly (to oneself)."

The argument goes in favor of history against Bukhari/Huraira/Munabbih and prove yourself to be disingenuous... at best.

This hadith proves many things:
1. Munabbih can't be trusted, nor his Huraira, for he fabricated a false testimony.
2. He also put a blasphemy in the mouth of Abdul-Aziz to introduce the hadiths: "Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish and the religious learned men will pass away (die). Do not accept anything save the Hadiths of the Prophet. Circulate knowledge and teach the ignorant, for knowledge does not vanish except when it is kept secretly (to oneself)."

That is blasphemous on the ground of Muhammad who interdicted the writing down of his sunna, Ibn Saeed Al-Khudry: "Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it." In the time of Muawiya, according to Ibn Hanbal, Zayd Ibn Thabit (some 30 years after the Prophet's death), told him a story about the Prophet. Muawiya liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said: "The messenger of God ordered us NEVER to write anything of his hadith."

Again, history demonstrates that this order was respected up to Ibn Hanbal as he reacted against the prohibition of hadiths still maintained by the Mutazilites. It is him who declared them as sanctified as the Koran, which until then was also considered a -created- book. What Hanbal has done is to create another religion, Muhammadanism, instead and contrary to the Koranic Islam and the orders not to write down anything from Muhammad.
skynightblaze wrote:Common sense tells us that grandsons of Umar wouldn’t narrate hadiths from Abu Huraira if their grandfather and all the people before them considered Abu Huraira as a liar and obviously Pussy Cat the grandsons of Umar knew better than you who is born in 21st century.They were muslims and no muslim would dare to refer to a known liar to understand their prophet. Show me a single case today. I will accept your argument.
That has been done! I have proven the complete falsification of B.1.3.98. :flush: :thumbdown:
skynightblaze wrote:Your argument regarding birth of muhammad is self defeating.
Not at all since the Koran is -completely silent- about his year of birth, of his father or mother. It's solely in the hadiths and sira.

Muhammad -Myth vs Reality
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5518" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=98720#p98720" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you have been defeated twice....

Game over for you. Period.
Last edited by The Cat on Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:42 am, edited 3 times 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 the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:Quran is a book which is livable and its well within reach???.... Yeez did you see what this guy is saying?????
What I wrote is:
Islam, without the hadiths, would become much more livable for ALL... It's well within reach.
Maybe that's why people like skynightblaze -and imams-- are SO committed to their defense!
Those who reject the hadiths are considered apostates by your favored Sunnites and worthy of dead penalty! For that alone koraners-only deserve much more respect than you're showing. They put their lives on the line, yet you hit on them with all you got. Shame on you! I recognize the Koran for what it is: the sacred book of Islam, like I recognize the Vedas for Hindus or the Bible for Judeo-Christianity. It doesn't mean that I endorse them, silly you.

Let's have a look at Islam without the hadiths, from the Malaysian scholar Kassim Ahmad:
http://kassimahmad.blogspot.com/2005/06 ... lence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A number of our leaders and intellectuals leapt up to protest. “Anti-Hadith group! Anti-Hadith group!” they screamed in accusation. What? Bringing the Quran to the people so that they would understand is anti-hadith? On the other hand, is letting the people remain illiterate of the Quran (as is the state of affairs for the past five hundred years in Malaysia) acceptable? In 1986, I published a book, Hadis - Satu Penilaian Semula (Prophetic Traditions - A Re-Evaluation) with the above stated intention, that is, to let the people know more of about the Quran.

Many of the hadith compiled by Bukhari, Muslim and others that we use today, according to my study, are in conflict with the teachings of the Quran. I will cite three examples. One is the adulation or unquestioning acceptance of the teachings of a leader. Since this principle was instilled, Muslims have feared others besides God; that is, we have been afraid to question our leaders. We became essentially slaves of our leaders. The Quran exhorts us to free ourselves of all forms of subservience, except that to God.

Two is the prohibition on the use of the rational mind. Generally, Muslims have been taught not to use their minds in religious matters. This teaching is spread through some false hadith..... The minds of Muslims have been dead for a thousand years, killed by these false hadith. On the contrary, the teachings of the Quran give the mind a noble place. God deems human beings who do not use their minds worse than animals! (Quran, 7:179) God bars those who do not use their minds from the fold of the faithful. (Quran,10:100).

Three is the suppression of creativity. It has been evident for a long time that Muslims have not been creative. Since the 13th century when the Islamic civilization began to decline, modern scientific discoveries and technological inventions have been made by others, particularly those who hold to the belief that human beings are responsible for creating knowledge and progress.... Since Muslims have turned to the teachings of the hadith, their creativity has declined, for these false hadith teach resignation to taqdir (divine pre-destination) or fatalism.

Some religious leaders label as apostates those who adhere to the Quran, accusing them of being anti-hadith! According to certain hadith, apostates are punished by being put to death. Are they not aware that leaders of the Christian Church during the Middle Ages in Europe also put to death apostates from Christianity? Thus this is not punishment under God’s law, but one from the age of ignorance that entered the hadith through the tampering of the Torah (Old Testament) (Refer to Deut. 13:5-10).... Do our people know that according to the teachings of the Quran, one is given full freedom to choose one’s religion? Thus killing someone for giving up his or her religion is totally forbidden by God.

We need to review what we mean by sahih hadith. Does it mean confirmed as genuine only on the basis of isnad (chain of narrators) or also on the basis of matan (textual meaning)? Between isnad and matan, which is more important? As we are referring to the sayings and traditions of the Prophet, the term sahih must be based on matan, that is, in line with the Quran.... Many false teachings have been incorporated into the hadith by the foes of Islam in those early days (by Jews, Christians, and Persians) to undermine Islam. If Muslims wish to be great again – and surely we do wish it! – re-evaluating the hadith on the basis of the Quran, and understanding and practicing the teachings of the Quran are mandatory.

First, we must reject adulation of our leaders. We must bow only to God. All human beings are equal - none higher or lower than the other. This will rekindle the spirit of jihad (struggling in God’s cause) among Muslims. Second, we must reject taqlid (unquestioning acceptance of human authority). We must use our minds to gain knowledge..... Third, we must reject fatalism. Our fate as individuals and as a nation is shaped by ourselves, not by taqdir (divine predestination). The teaching is that those who strive will attain; those who do not, will not. Man cannot know his capacity until he tries. The Omniscient God knows everything from beginning to end, but man does not know what God knows.
That's a wonderful call from the heart!! And I hear it with mine, not with a closed fist such as yours or that of the Mullahs.
(His book has been interdicted in Malaysia for years...) Kassim Ahmad's book:
http://www.submission.org/HADITH2.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yep, Islam without the hadiths would become much more livable for ALL... It's well within reach.
Maybe that's why people like skynightblaze -and imams-- are SOOO committed to their defense!
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
Centaur
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by Centaur »

Yep, Islam without the hadiths would become much more livable for ALL... It's well within reach.
absolute nonsense.Koran is enough violent in itself to deserve a ban.Hadiths are more reliable souce than koran.
Click to win $50,0000 :rock:

only 2% of KKK are radical, the rest are peaceful law abiding moderates
Islamic Football Team: Striker:Extremist; Defender: Moderate One; Goallie :Leftist

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

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote: Maybe that's why people like skynightblaze -and imams-- are SOOO committed to their defense!
Had quran been a book full of peace then your approach would make 100 % sense and I Would support you. I dont defend the hadiths because I want muslims to follow them but I defend them so that I can take the muslims away from islam by showing them what an evil man muhammad was .Most of the apostates claim that they found paedophilia of muhammad and other crimes of muhammad as something that bothered them which led them eventually to leave islam.

As far as I know majority of muslims have the ability to recognize evil . They understand that murdering ,looting etc etc are undesirable so If we can show them the hadiths it totally demolishes their faith . They wont even think of quran .In your approach getting away muslims from those hadiths is desirable but still they cling to the quran which is still a dangerous book though slightly less than hadiths so your approach isnt what we wish to do.We want islam gone. Islam has to be destroyed and for it to go both the hadiths and the quran have to be trashed .
The Cat wrote: So you have been defeated twice....

Game over for you. Period.
Hmmm.... As far as I am concerned I am interested in knowing truth . If you really want to know the truth then its best that we both let the audience judge(thats why I suggested a poll but it depends on you.) and take a corrective stance and improve ourself.We dont have to let our egos come in between as I see both and you and me want islam to be destroyed(Thanks for clarifying that you are not defending quran because you think its genuine) so we really are on the same side but have a few disagreements.WE can sort them out.
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
Centaur
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by Centaur »

I disagree skb, Koran is a unique religious text in the sense that it contains no history at all. Koran has numerous verses which incite violence and thats it.To know the outcome of this verses one need to read the hadith.Hadith is the deed or fruit of Koran and muslims, while Koran is the patranizing text. Koran sanctions evrything which you can probably find in hadith.one example is Mohammeds paedophilia and incest with daughter in law, yet to know the details one need to read the hadith.
Click to win $50,0000 :rock:

only 2% of KKK are radical, the rest are peaceful law abiding moderates
Islamic Football Team: Striker:Extremist; Defender: Moderate One; Goallie :Leftist

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

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by skynightblaze »

Centaur wrote:I disagree skb, Koran is a unique religious text in the sense that it contains no history at all. Koran has numerous verses which incite violence and thats it.To know the outcome of this verses one need to read the hadith.Hadith is the deed or fruit of Koran and muslims, while Koran is the patranizing text. Koran sanctions evrything which you can probably find in hadith.one example is Mohammeds paedophilia and incest with daughter in law, yet to know the details one need to read the hadith.
Actually you are right but the problem is the other party would bring plenty of hadiths to show how unreliable hadiths are.Basically they contradict the quran and hence we need to accept that hadiths cant be taken as source of guidance.

I argued specifically for hadiths that confirm quran and show muhammad in criminal light.Thats all we want! Whether other hadiths are reliable is none of our concern as far as disproving islam is concerned but you certainly have a valid point in there which I cant deny .Yes hadiths are required to understand quran because no context is mentioned in the quran and thats actually the reason why hadith collectors said religious knowledge would be lost if not collected but muhammad being not so smart didnt feel the need to collect them.He didnt even realize that some of the quranic verses he uttered warrant hadith collection .

Now the hadith collector were humans so there are bound to have some errors but this short coming is exploited by quran only muslims and hence we are faced with dilemma here and we have to accept that hadiths cant be take as a source of guidance so I decided to give up on the part that explains quran .Actually its a compromise but if you ask me I will say most of the hadiths that explain quran must be true . In addition to these hadiths , the hadiths which neither confirm nor contradict quran also must be true.
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 the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by yeezevee »

Now the hadith collector were humans so there are bound to have some errors but this short coming is exploited by quran only muslims and hence we are faced with dilemma here and we have to accept that hadiths cant be take as a source of guidance so I decided to give up on the part that explains quran .Actually its a compromise but if you ask me I will say most of the hadiths that explain quran must be true . In addition to these hadiths , the hadiths which neither confirm nor contradict quran also must be true.
Well., Quran collectors were also human and Quran is also from human being What Quran doesn't have is all the explanations and examples to propagate Muhammad's Islam.

User avatar
Centaur
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by Centaur »

We would expect some errors in Hadith as we would with any other historic recordings, like there might be some discrepancies in reporting an event or stoey etc. , that is not enough to consider all hadith collection to be falsehood.Infact vast majority of sahi hadiths are reliable and collected with utmost care.On the otherhand a single error in Koran will invalidate it because muslims claim its the verbatim word of allah compared to a historical document such as hadith. And thats where hypocrisy of koran only muslims (0.009% of all muslims ) manifest.
Click to win $50,0000 :rock:

only 2% of KKK are radical, the rest are peaceful law abiding moderates
Islamic Football Team: Striker:Extremist; Defender: Moderate One; Goallie :Leftist

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

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by The Cat »

centaur wrote:Hadiths are more reliable souce than koran.
First the hadiths are bid’ahs, expressly forbidden by Muhammad and the four rashidun caliphs. Since their absence is historically demonstrated, I hold this interdiction to be reliable. As I've showed they only started to be compiled in earnest from Ibn Hanbal, that is 150 years after Muhammad's death. It is also Ibn Hanbal who declared them as sanctified as the Koran, of which he was among the first to declare -uncreated-, without human errors.

http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/11 ... adiths.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Although the said Four Caliphs are an object of praise today, they ignored their attitude toward the hadiths: -Abu Bakr gathered the public after the death of the Prophet and addressed them thus: “You are transmitting conflicting hadiths that clash with the sayings of the Prophet. The persons to come after you will be in a worse predicament. Transmit no hadiths from God’s messenger. Speak to those who would like you to transmit hadiths in the following way: “Behold! God’s book is with us, abide by what has been made lawful for you therein and avoid what has been prohibited.-”
Zahabi, Tezkiratul Huffaz, Bukhari

The attitude of Omar was no different. He was even more rigid in his approach. -''There was a remarkable increase in the number of hadiths during the caliphate of Omar. Omar desired that all the pages on which were written the hadiths that were in the hands of the public be brought to him. Then he ordered that they be destroyed, saying: “These are like the Mishnah of the Jewish people.-” Ibn Sa'ad- Tabakat

If the hadiths were to be a source of Islam, they should have been preserved; but the fact proved to be different. (...) Those who oppose the prohibition of copying the hadiths, whose reaction runs counter to the approach of the companions, have created a mechanism that puts a forced construction on the hadiths. Yet, this outcry cannot obliterate the fact that not even a single page of hadiths has come down to us from the Four Caliphs’ period.

Although a koraner-only AB, for example, still holds that the Koran is uncreated, a timeless miracle (that's why he thinks that 'ummi' means illiterate). This belief is most obviously as wrong as it is ludicrous. History, along with common sense, do easily debunk it. A written book can NOT be timeless and co-eternal with Allah without implying that matter itself is timeless, thus uncreated, too. Exit Allah as The Creator... let alone His uniqueness (!!!)

Can the Koran be... uncreated?
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6500" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Islam as we know it, wasn't that of the first caliphs at all, nor of the Umayyads. It's all an Abbasid's Bida'a heresy!
The former brought Averroès as their epistemological summit, the later al-Ghazali, -ie. blind faith over reason.

Now the isnad, or chain of narrators, is in 99% of cases an ahad one running backward (one transmitter to another single one), more so rarely from a master but from a single pupil of his, as if he had none other worthy (ex. Munabbih for Huraira). This ahad chain changes with every different school of laws (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbalites, Maliki), so to sanctify divergences too. It assumes a blind faith over the Companions' integrity.

It's this constant yet spider-web -ahad chain- that must raise the higher skepticism, for none of them can attain the status of mutawatir (many times agreed upon or well-trodden path) necessary to establish formal testimonies of legal authenticity. This ahad chain can thus only exist within the spectrum of about 50/50 probability, never as certainty like they were elevated. So the science of statistics disprove the 'science of hadiths'.

Let us see more from this dissertation by Wael Hallaq, professor and expert of Islamic law at McGill University, Canada.
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/st ... adith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Spoiler! :
Excerpts...
In most instances involving the study of individual hadiths (the total numbering in the tens of thousands) it is frequently difficult to establish that a particular hadith represents a later fabrication. But if we are able to cast serious, or even some, doubt about a hadith's authenticity, then, as careful historians - which I hope we are - we should either dismiss it entirely or, if it is only mildly problematic, use it in a circumscribed manner with the full knowledge and awareness that it cannot constitute a reliable source. In either case, it is not to be trusted. We trust only a historical narrative that we believe with assurance to have originated with the event itself, and even then we must guard against "ideological" biases as well as a variety of other potential problems.

In terms of the Probability Theory, any narrative that we think to be equal to 0.51 or less is to be immediately dismissed. Compare this, for instance, with the case of a human birth, where the probability of the infant being a girl is 0.5, since the remaining 0.5 is assigned to the probability of its being a boy. If the probability of a hadith being true (=authentic) is only marginally higher (by 0.01 or even moderately more) than the probability of a certain new born being a girl (or for that matter a boy), then surely we have little reason, if any, to trust such a hadith as a credible historical datum.

In this context, both the ahad and the tawatur al-ma'nawi fail to survive beyond the test of probability. The ahad is admittedly zanni, meaning that it engenders in the intellect a probability in the order of 0.51 or higher, but never, even in the most optimistic of circumstances, certainty. It is with this in mind that the Muslim jurists and traditionists readily acknowledged that the ahad is subject to mendacity and error, for probability itself is, by definition, liable to falsification. If the ahad is not to be trusted as a historical source, then al-tawatur al-ma'nawi is to be treated precisely in the same manner, for this type of tawatur is nothing more than a collection of hadiths of the ahad type.

In fact, it is precisely on these grounds that a number of scholars denied the mutawatir Iafzi the status of certainty, although this tawatur was universally acknowledged as being epistemically superior to the ma'nawi type (39). For our purposes then - and not those of medieval Muslim scholars who associated this concept of tawatur with metaphysical and theological postulates - if the particulars are dubious, then the whole is equally so. In due course, we shall see that. in any event, no ahadith of the ma'nawi type, except for one, can be said to have survived, assuming that there was more than one in existence. .....

The higher the probability that a particular hadith (on which a ruling is based) was authentic, the closer the jurist came to the Higher Truth of the Law as it pertained to that particular ruling. It was precisely in this epistemic evaluation that the interest of the legal theoretician lay. (And it is precisely here that the interest of the theoreticians coincides with that of modern scholars. Both groups are interested in the authenticity and veracity of hadith from an epistemological perspective, despite the differing approaches they adopt in their assessments).

The interest of the traditionists (Bida reformists), on the other hand, lay elsewhere. True, they were interested in the veracity of the hadith but from an entirely different vantage point. They studied hadith insofar as it leads to what they called 'amal, that which is based on probability but which is also necessary to constitute the foundations of pious religious practice. .... This is why their first and foremost category of hadith, the "sahih" (sound), consisted of various types, not the least of which are those hadiths which engender mere probability.

If the mutawatir was not part of the traditionists' repertoire of hadith, then what they handled were hadiths of the ahad type, or those even of a weaker sort. The sources, as is well-known. make it quite clear that the traditionists set forth a classical taxonomy which distinguishes between three main types: the sahih (sound), the hasan (good), and the da'if (weak).... The sahih is defined as having been transmitted in an uninterrupted manner by persons all of whom, from the first tier to the last, are known for their just character ('udul) and excellent memory (dabt).

It is important to observe here that certainty for Ibn al-Salah does not stem from the modalities by which the sahih is transmitted, but is deduced from the extraneous fact that a consensus was concluded on the authoritative choices of Muslim and Bukhari. The implications of ignoring lines of transmission and the character of transmitters as the established criteria of proof in favour of an extraneous method of evaluation are grave. For Ibn al-Salah's position amounts in effect to arguing that the Muslim community, in and by itself, is empowered to legislate, by elevating, for instance, the status of a source of law from a level of probability to certainty. More importantly, his argument, once taken to its logical conclusion, destroys the very foundations of consensus as a source of law, since, as I have shown elsewhere, it traps it in the insoluble quandary of a petitio principii..........

Finally, we turn to the problem of the mutawatir which engenders certainty. We recall that Ibn ai-Salah himself acknowledged that the traditionists' repertoire of hadith does not include this category. But Ibn al-Salah said more. He argued in categorical terms that the mutawatir is a rarity. "He who is asked to produce an example of a hadith that is transmitted in a mutawatir [fashion] will be exhausted by his search". In his own search for such hadiths, he could cite only one, presumably narrated by more than a hundred Companions: "He who intentionally lies concerning something I [viz., the Prophet] have said will gain a seat in Hellfire". The other hadith which he could find that seemingly met the standards of the mutawatir was: "Acts are Judged by intentions". However, he acknowledges that although this hadith was reportedly narrated by a mutawatir number of transmitters, its apodictic manner of transmission occurred in the middle tiers of transmission, not from the outset. .... Thus, a thorough search by a number of the most eminent traditionists and jurists of Islam could yield no more than eight or nine hadiths of the mutawatir type.

The legal theoreticians' classification of the hadith into mutawatir and ahad leaves us with a colossal number of the latter, merely probable type, and less than a dozen of the former, reportedly apodictic, variety. The ahad, including the hasan, were universally acknowledged to have constituted the bulk of hadfth with which the traditionists dealt, and on the basis of which the Jurists derived the law. The apodictic type was simply inconsiderable. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the mutawatir hadiths are more than a dozen, say a score, or even many more, the problem of authenticity nevertheless turns out to be a minor one, involving a minuscule body of Prophetic material that can easily lend itself to our critical apparatus.

Ibn al-Salah's claim that the sahih type - on which Bukhari and Muslim agreed - engenders certainty cannot be taken seriously by modern scholars, and this for two reasons: First, the claim was highly controversial among traditional Muslim scholars themselves, having been rejected, for logical and epistemological reasons, by a significant majority. If consensus, which is alleged to elevate the sahih to an apodictic level, sanctions the authority of hadith, then hadith cannot sanction the authority of consensus; for this would entail a circularity of which Muslim scholars were acutely aware. But hadith does in reality sanction consensus, especially in light of the widely acknowledged fact that it is the only authoritative text which can. Thus, consensus cannot sanction hadith, also a widely accepted conclusion among traditional Muslim intellectuals.

Second, and more importantly, the claim is theological in nature, fundamentally departing from the criteria of hadith evaluation established by the Muslim traditionists themselves. The certainty which the sahih yields is not established by means of the modalities of transmission or the quality of rectitude attributed to the transmitters. For instance, it never was the case that the authenticity of an individual hadith of the sahih category was declared ab initio and a priori certain just because it belonged to that group of traditions agreed upon by Bukhari and Muslim.

A positive affirmation of authenticity always required an investigation of individual hadiths insofar as their particular mode of transmission was concerned. When these formal methods of enquiry were applied, Ibn al-salah himself found that the mutawtatir is virtually non-existent. Rather, what was said to guarantee Ibn al-Salah's apodictic sahih was the divine grace metaphysically bestowed upon the Muslim community as a collectivity, not any "scientific" enquiry into the concrete historical and socio-moral context ('ilm al-rijal) in which these hadiths were transmitted.

It is quite possible that some hadiths of the sahih type were considered to belong to the mutawatir category. What matters, in the final analysis, is the fact that this last category is quantitatively insignificant.... If both the traditionists and the jurists -the two most important groups in the Study of hadiths- have acknowledged the precarious epistemological status of the literature, then we need not squander our energies in arguing about the matter of authenticity. We have been told that except for a score of hadiths, the rest engenders probability, and probability, as we know - and as we have also been unambiguously told by our sources - allows for mendacity and error. What more do we want?
Of which I'll only display its conclusion:
The certainty which the sahih yields is not established by means of the modalities of transmission or the quality of rectitude attributed to the transmitters. For instance, it never was the case that the authenticity of an individual hadith of the sahih category was declared ab initio and a priori certain just because it belonged to that group of traditions agreed upon by Bukhari and Muslim. A positive affirmation of authenticity always required an investigation of individual hadiths insofar as their particular mode of transmission was concerned. When these formal methods of enquiry were applied, Ibn al-salah himself found that the mutawatir is virtually non-existent........

It is quite possible that some hadiths of the sahih type were considered to belong to the mutawatir category. What matters, in the final analysis, is the fact that this last category is quantitatively insignificant.... If both the traditionists and the jurists -the two most important groups in the Study of hadiths- have acknowledged the precarious epistemological status of the literature, then we need not squander our energies in arguing about the matter of authenticity. We have been told that except for a score of hadiths, the rest engenders probability, and probability, as we know - and as we have also been unambiguously told by our sources - allows for mendacity and error. What more do we want?
On and on, I find that the wholesome rejection of Islam and of the Koran can only trigger a wholesome rejection under the spell of HATRED, which is by now well established about us in the Internet sphere. I thus find that many posters at FFI are in fact counter-effective by building a deaf dialogue under which they WILL be dismissed as 'haters'. It's like flogging the water... It will only splash mud back to you.

This is NOT my position at all. I'm more than happy to side with AB on some grounds like this one about the hadiths. They do crumble down by the more than shaky assumptions of Muhammad's birth, effectively undermining the whole ahad chain of narrators. So, this once again, history is among our best and formidable weapon, which cannot be discounted on the basis of hatred.

Without the proven corrupted hadiths, 90% of all Islamic laws falls down like the Berlin Wall... This ain't bad for something reachable!
Last edited by The Cat on Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

sum
Posts: 6563
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by sum »

Hello The Cat

You keep overlooking my question. Would you please answer it?

I am uncertain regarding your position on the ahadith. Do you accept any of them as giving us a true picture of the words and deeds of Muhammad?

sum

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

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by The Cat »

sum wrote:Do you accept any of them as giving us a true picture of the words and deeds of Muhammad?
Read above:--I only recognize his prohibition of hadiths, because it was historically respected for... a long while.
That is until the Abbasids.

Again, when was Muhammad's birth? It ain't mentioned in the Koran... but in sira and hadiths.

The Abraha inscription
Image

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9389.0;wap2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As one can clearly see, the Abraha expedition is described in detail and contrary to the fairy tales that we heard from Ibn Ishaq and traditionalists there is absolutely no mention of anything related to Kaaba or Makka. The inscription doesn't mention elephants. Given the fact is that it would have been highly impractical to bring elephants into the desert and carry their weight in water, I would say that Abraha did not use elephants. (...)

As you may have noticed, the story of Abraha as told in the inscription is kind of dull and with no happy ending for the Arabs. On the other hand, the hearsay tales from the likes of Ibn Ishaq are filled with amazing details, suspense, and drama. They capture people's imagination with the amazing detail of the character of an old frail man (the fictitious Abd Al-Mutilib) standing in the path of the Army of Abraha. The stories have special effects of amazing creatures (the elephants) and gore (the flesh and blood flowed like water and the skin of Abraha and his soldiers falling off and exposing the bones, etc.). These hearsay stories that the Arabs concocted two hundred years after the fact have very high entertainment value and appeal to the masses much as Hollywood flicks often do. However, they have no value for those interested in the truth. (...)

As a side note, the date on the inscription converts to 552AD. According to traditionalists accounts of the sira/story of the prophet, he was born in the year of Abraha's expedition and they say that he was born in 570AD. So this pushes back the date of birth of the prophet by about 20 years. This creates a big problem for traditionalists. They now either have to revise the entire Sira/story of the prophet or they have to give up all their Hadiths. This is for the simple reason that all the chains of transmission of their "Sahih" Hadiths will now be broken as a result of pushing back the dates by 20 years.
There goes the sira/hadiths respectability... down the drain! :xmas:
Last edited by The Cat on Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

The Cat actually believes one can have honest, meaningful dialog with Muslims. That you can coax them through appeasement of their lunacy by offering a fake sense of respect to an ideology that simply deserves no respect whatsoever. Respect is not a right, it is something that is earned, and their ideology does anything BUT earn that, especially given their clear "us verse them" ethos aside from the numerous absurdities. Ali Sina is 100% correct. No appeasement and fight them with the truth of their own scriptures themselves. Who cares how many Muslims come here on the forum?? It's the articles that I think Ali wants everybody to read. I am convinced that Muslims truly do think differently than others. And appeasement appears to only encourage them.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
Centaur
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by Centaur »

cat thinks a single exagerated story in sira or hadith make the whole of it invalid.What about koran going down the drain because it says sperm is from between ribs? Or what about historical error in koran when it mentioning the non existent mosque in Jerusalem? surely going down the drain.Doesnt the same hadith says Mo split moon? but it does not invalidate hadiths.
Click to win $50,0000 :rock:

only 2% of KKK are radical, the rest are peaceful law abiding moderates
Islamic Football Team: Striker:Extremist; Defender: Moderate One; Goallie :Leftist

sum
Posts: 6563
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by sum »

Hello The Cat

I am not sure why you only accept Muhammad`s prohibition of ahadith and why should this be the only valid hadith. It might be quite some time before the Abbasids but the tales of Muhammad`s words and deeds would become part of family folklore. I accept that some will be inaccurate and invalid but some would be a true record. It will be very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff but it is what the muslims believe that is important. I do not see how one can reach the masses with your enlightenment and convert them to Koran only muslims. The Imams will not take kindly to your revelations as they will lose some of the authority to encourage aggression towards the non-muslims and the expansion of Islamic influence. It would also create serious doubts on the validity of Islam itself, much of which is hadith dependent. Doubts will appear. At the same time, Islam will lose some "context" for the Koran with the result that it will have to be understood at face value and in a literal sense. In turn, this would remove a lot of wriggle room for the muslims as they would have to find a new approach to explaining away the aggressive and intolerant verses in the Koran.

sum

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

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by yeezevee »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:The Cat actually believes one can have honest, meaningful dialog with Muslims. That you can coax them through appeasement of their lunacy by offering a fake sense of respect to an ideology that simply deserves no respect whatsoever. Respect is not a right, it is something that is earned, and their ideology does anything BUT earn that, especially given their clear "us verse them" ethos aside from the numerous absurdities. Ali Sina is 100% correct. No appeasement and fight them with the truth of their own scriptures themselves. Who cares how many Muslims come here on the forum?? It's the articles that I think Ali wants everybody to read. I am convinced that Muslims truly do think differently than others. And appeasement appears to only encourage them.
That is all right Muhammad bin Lyin., The Cat has his ways of dealing with Islam., you have your ways and Ali has his ways. It is true appeasing certain Muslim with "ISLAM IS GOOD SLOGAN" will not help Muslims understand Islam but for certain people who are NOT that violent and may use common sense, appeasing them is not a bad thing to start with. other wise a Blanket treatment of ALL MUSLIM with one rule will send everyone in to Islamic corner. It is like cornered CAT..(not FFI CAT..lol) One need to fight Islam and its rules on Multiple level. So TheCat must have freedom to say what he wants to say..

with best regards
yeezevee

User avatar
Vesta
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:11 pm

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by Vesta »

The Sahiheyn are not considered reliable between Shiite Muslims.That's a huge problem because I'm Shiite and most of the accusations are based on Sunnis interpretation of Islam. :(
All great truths begin as blasphemies.

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

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by yeezevee »

Vesta wrote:The Sahiheyn are not considered reliable between Shiite Muslims.That's a huge problem because I'm Shiiteand most of the accusations are based on Sunnis interpretation of Islam. :(
let me add these words for that "The Sahiheyn" word of Vest's post..

Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Sahihain or Islamic exogensis work of Mustadrak al-Hakim is a five volume hadith collection written by Hakim al-Nishaburi and is collated 400 years after the death of Prophet of Islam. He wrote it in the year 393 AH (1002–1003 CE), when he was 72 years old. It contains 9045 hadith . He claimed all hadith in it were authentic according to the conditions of either Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim or both. The statement of authenticity was not accepted by a number of prominent later Sunni scholars. Al-Dhahabi, a 14th century Sunni Shafi'i Islamic scholar made an abridged version of the collection named Talkhis al-Mustadrak where he commented on its authenticity. It has become the habit of scholars today working in the field of hadîth, when compiling them and determining their authenticity .

My man Abu Abd-Allah Muhammad ibn Abd-Allah al-Hakim al-Nishaburi أبو عبدالله محمد بن عبدالله الحكيم النيسابوري died 400 years after the death of Prophet of Islam , was a Sunni scholar and the leading traditionist of his age, frequently referred to as the "Imam of the Muhaddithin" or the "Muhaddith of Khorasan." Khorasan ( of that time is a historical geographic region spanning north-eastern Iran, northern and western Afghanistan, as well as the southern parts of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Al-Hakim, who hailed from Nishapur, had vast amounts of teachers in Khurasan, Iraq, Transoxiana and elsewhere. He had scores of notable students, including Imam al-Bayhaqi who was a scholarly giant in his own right.

words like Nishapur and Khurasan fascinates me and I wish some one could help me to find out the origin of those words..



with best
yeezevee

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

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by yeezevee »

TheCat said some thing and robot says "Well said, The Cat"
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:The bulk of the matter is that history debunks the hadiths' authenticity, thus its reliability. Which is what this thread wants to illustrate.
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote:How do you know Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz lived from 682-720? I mean what is your source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_AbdulAziz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (c. 682 - February, 720) was an Umayyad caliph who ruled from 717 to 720....
Does Bukhari or sahih muslim mention it ? If not then let me point out a gross blunder here. Most probably this isn’t mentioned in Sahih collections.Sahih hadiths were considered reliable by muslims during those times and yet we find so many mistakes in it . Now imagine how erroneous non sahih sources would be when even those muslims (sahih followers) found them unreliable? You want me to take them as source ?
It's there for everyone to check, Bukhari 1.3.98:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc ... 3.sbt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Narrated by Abu Huraira
I said: "O Allah's Apostle! Who will be the luckiest person, who will gain your intercession on the Day of Resurrection?" Allah's Apostle said: O Abu Huraira! "I have thought that none will ask me about it before you as I know your longing for the (learning of) Hadiths. The luckiest person who will have my intercession on the Day of Resurrection will be the one who said sincerely from the bottom of his heart "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah."

And 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr bin Hazm, "Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish and the religious learned men will pass away (die). Do not accept anything save the Hadiths of the Prophet. Circulate knowledge and teach the ignorant, for knowledge does not vanish except when it is kept secretly (to oneself)."
Thing is that Huraira (603-681) was dead before Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz (682-720) was even born. He couldn't possibly have mentioned this. So it was invented later, probably by ibn Munabbih (d.750) or grandsons. That such a forgery past through Bukhari's scrutiny completely annihilate his credential and that of Munabbih (one of the earliest known hadith collector). Now, then and forever... GET IT NOW?

1. This hadith is a clear forgery enacted by later narrators who passed it falsely 'on the authority' of a 'shahaba' (Huraira).
2. It seriously cast a shadow over Bukhari's authenticity and hence any chain of narrators must be reconsidered.
3. It dodge away that the recording of hadiths began in earnest under Abdul-Aziz. We have to trace them back to Hanbal at the earliest.

--Are There Any Early Hadiths? A Muslim perspective (displaying Munabbih as the oldest one)...
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Its refutal...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... hadith.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Where is the manuscript evidence concerning the earliest Hadith? How can we be sure that stories were not erroneously inserted into the traditions, or that existing stories did not undergo editing? After all, if someone can "create" a tradition, what would prevent them from "creating" a chain of narration?

It is interesting to note that Bukhari wrote a book about the narrators (Zuafa-us-sagher). What is even more interesting is that Bukhari's book condemns several narrators including: Ata bin abi Maimoona, Ayyub bin Aiz, Ismail bin Aban, Zubair bin Muhammad, At-Tayyimi, Saeed bin Urwa, Abdullah bin Abi Labeed, Abdul Malik bin Ameen, Abdul waris bin Saeed, Ata bin As-Saib bin Yazeed, and Khamsan bin Minhal as unreliable.

However, the Hadith-collection of Bukhari in the its modern form actually includes many traditions narrated by these very individuals!
But according to skynightblaze, lost in his own groundless chain of arguments, his sahih hadiths are reliable. :tease:

So like I've said:
I'm not even commenting of the shirk of Muhammad's intercession, or the obvious felony towards Muhammad, the Koran, the four rashidun caliphs that this ''Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish'' mean. Anyone not admitting that this is sacrilegious (the Koran to vanish!??) has about the mental capacity of skynightblaze or of the Muhammadans.

So we're down to the 'Muwatta' of Malik bin Anas (d.795) the founder of Maliki school of jurisprudence. Yet, ''It is not a corpus of hadith in a true sense but a collection of practices of people of Madinah.'' So even this must be discarded as genuine hadiths about the prophet.
this one was chosen from among 50 `versions' of the Muwatta, and only 16 were considered "best transmitted" So Dr. Saifullah, which of these 16 "best transmitted" editions of the Muwatta of Malik represents your authentic "early Hadith"?
This deafening historical silence is only broken by ibn Hanbal's collection of hadiths, the Musnad of Ahmad. But he's not even a 'sahih' guy.
Checking those sahih hadiths we come down to Bukhari, whose wholesome reliability is shattered down in B.1.3.98.
skynightblaze wrote:Common sense tells us that grandsons of Umar wouldn’t narrate hadiths from Abu Huraira if their grandfather and all the people before them considered Abu Huraira as a liar and obviously Pussy Cat the grandsons of Umar knew better than you who is born in 21st century.They were muslims and no muslim would dare to refer to a known liar to understand their prophet. Show me a single case today. I will accept your argument.
Done. :hi:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... dith_2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kassim Ahmad:
If, on the average, a hadith consists of three simple sentences (in truth many hadiths run into paragraphs), then Bukhari would have had to collect, read, investigate, evaluate and record over 1.8 million sentences over a period of 40 years. This is the equivalent of researching (which include the long camel journeys to and fro across the desert) and attesting to the authenticity of over 300 books, each equivalent to the thickness and complexity of a Quran!
:wacko: I personally think that 'Bukhari' is a code name for a group of scribes from Bukhara...

On the accuracy of the Year of the Elephant, ie.570.
skynightblaze wrote: If hadiths are unreliable then so is quran because quran confirms hadiths on many counts so if we are take this quote of your seriously it would also mean that you cant be quran only muslim too . The logic is A is corrupted,B confirms A and hence B too is corrupted and hence in our case both quran and hadith become unreliable! GAME OVER PUSSY CAT!! So its proved beyond a doubt that you cant be a quran only muslim which is why you are arguing here.
The game is over for YOU: the hadiths are demonstratively unreliable. And B doesn't confirm A at all. Quite the opposite.
That's why koraners-only are at the front line against the hadiths... The Koran is -alone- the sacred book of Islam, that's the bottom line.
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithhistory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithmyth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/hadithcon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/aisha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/bukhari" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/testimony" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.free-minds.org/seven" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.quranic.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (a plethora of articles too)
(etc, etc).

It does destroy the reliability of ANY chain of narrators, and thus your argument that the hadiths are reliable lies groundless.

When was Muhammad born? In the Year of the Elephant, right?
Now... when was that: 552 or 570? It's now certified 552!
viewtopic.php?p=90797#p90797" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Muhammad ibn al-Sa'ib (died 726 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 15 years before the "Year of the Elephant". Ja'far ibn Abi 'l-Mughira (died early 8th century A.D.) dates Muhammad's birth 10 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Al-Kalbi tells us that Shu'ayb ibn Ishaq (died 805 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 23 years after this event. Al-Zuhri (died 742 A.D.) believed that Muhammad was born 30 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Musa ibn 'Uqba (died 758) believed that Muhammad was born 70 years later! If we assume that the "Year of the Elephant" was 570 A.D. (? rather 552), then Muhammad could have been born anytime between 555 A.D. and 640 A.D. and could have died anytime between 615 A.D. and 700 A.D.!

How can we trust any of the hadiths? The "transmitters" cited by the hadith may not have been alive during Muhammad's lifetime, to witness the events which they are believed to have "transmitted".....
That's about how 'reliable' the sahih hadiths are... :prop:

So all your arguments in favor of the hadiths' authenticity lay broken, groundless... right there. :flush: :bye:
Islam, without the hadiths, would become much more livable for ALL... It's well within reach.
Maybe that's why people like skynightblaze -and imams-- are SO committed to their defense!

Well said, The Cat
Yes TheCat says well, only problem is readers like you don't use brain or don't have brain to think on what cat says dear Robot.. You know what else TheCat said ? Here read it
Looks like our Muslims have been fooled from the first. But then what about the historical Muhammad?
Was there any? If there was one, where is he most probably coming from, if not from 'Mecca'.


From all the above and the non-Muslims testimonies over a historical Muhammad, I came to the conclusion that this prophet
must have been alive and kicking by 640 and I also think that the former prophet wasn't the same as the later Medina one.
I identify Salman the Persian as the meek and giving former prophet and Muhammad ibn Maslamah (not Musaylima) as the warring
eschatological prophet described in those testimonies. This Maslamah by the way is described as being black, tall and sturdy, a smallcommander known for his fierce character, who defied Amr, the Egyptian commander, as well as burning down the palace of Sad ibn
Abi Waqqas, the victor at Qadisiyyah (636)
.
He wasn't by far an easy dude to cope with! After he retired, he let a wooden sword
handing inside his house so to 'terrify people'. Our historical Muhammad indeed...! Neither he or Salman could become the official
prophet since they we're both of non-Arabic descent.
That is what TheCat thinks...

So Muhammad was a fictional character, Quran is home made Islamic potion 7th or 8th century and hadith is the Islamic postion of 8th and 9th century. Whole Islam is cock & bull story robot., only bums you consider it as word of Allah God dear robot..

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

Re: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?

Post by skynightblaze »

BMZ wrote:
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote: Hahaha so finally after a long time the troll has showed up again.! IF that idiot had read and understood what I have written here he wouldnt be repeating the same arguments that CAT had brought.That has already been brought up by THE CAT and I have refuted them .

Let me ask your foolish friend a few questions...

1) Why didnt the 4 righteous caliphs kill Abu Huraira as per quranic directive 5:33 if Abu Huraira was such a fabricator?

2) Why did 3 grandsons of Umar narrate hadiths from ABu Huraira knowing fully well that Abu Huraira was such a fabricator whom their grandfather completely hated?

3) Why did Aisha, Umar and other muslims allow Abu Huraira to lead the funeral prayers? The funeral prayers are lead by best of muslims so how come Abu Huraira was allowed ?

4) If you troll friend BMZ accepts Aisha and Ali ;s views on Abu Huraira how about accepting the hadith wherein Aisha narrates her age to be 9 when prophet of islam deflowered her???. How about accepting other hadiths from Ali ?


If your friend could answer even a single question out of this coherently I will call it as a miracle.
Thanks, Ahmed

I read the reply from FFI's goon kid skynightblaze and this is what the clown wrote:

Ignoring the kid's stupid questions, I wish to bring his most idiotic question no. 3 to everybody's attention:

The Ignorant Fool does not even know that nobody led the funeral prayers over Prophet. :roflmao:

See how idiotic, ignorant and hilarious is this boy sknightblaze? :lol:

Please let the kid know because we need to educate this Ignorant Fool.

And can you ask the ignorant fool to call this a miracle, now that the idiot has been answered a minimum of one question, as the fool requested? :roflmao:
http://free-islam.net/modules.php?name= ... 91&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hahaha the troll tried answering my challenge and he thinks he has performed a miracle by answering but he hardly know that he isnt capable of giving coherent and sensible replies and hence before issuing a challenge I wasnt worried about losing . A camel would pass through a needle's eye but BMZ cant write a sensible post.As usual the troll has scribbled something...

I just saw his reply on his boyfriend's site (Free islam) and decided to thrash him again.Read the quote below you fool..

Al-'Izzee (p. 110) also shows that when ‘Aa’ishah and Hafsah died Aboo Hurayrah led the funeral prayers and Ibn 'Umar was among the attendees. This is reported by al-Bukharee in his Taareekh as-Saghaar, p. 52. Al-Haakim reports in al-Mustadrak (Vol. 4, p. 6), that Ibn 'Umar was among the people and had no objections.

Al-'Izzee remarks, "We know that the Muslims choose the best among them to lead funeral prayers, how much more so when it is the wife of their Prophet - (may Peace Be Upon Him) - in this world and the next?"

One may surmize that had 'Umar considered Aboo Hurayrah to be a liar and beat him for that, how would Ibn 'Umar allow (indeed, have no objections) Aboo Hurayrah to lead the funeral prayer for his sister and Prophet's wife, Hafsaa? If ‘Aa’ishah considered Aboo Hurayrah to be a liar, would the Muslims permit Aboo Hurayrah to lead the funeral prayers over her?.
http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/def ... rayrah.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abu huraira led prayers after Aisha and Hafsa's death and muhammad was long dead at that time. I said that Aisha allowed Abu Huraira to lead the funeral prayer but it was a mistake from my side but it doesnt matter much. Abu Huraira lead the funeral prayers at Aisha and Hafsa's death.I didnt claim that Abu huraira lead the prayers when muhammad was alive.

Also look at the following hadith which again tells us that Abu Huraira used to lead the prayer..Again normal prayers were lead by reliable people and not by someone who is considered as a charlatan.


Sahih muslim Book 004, Number 0764:

Abu Salama reported: Abu Huraira led prayer for them and recited takbir when he bent and raised himself (in ruku' and sujud) and after completing (the prayer) he said: By Allah I say prayer which has the best resemblance with the prayer of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) amongst you.


SO my challenge still stands! You are supposed to answer 1 question out of the 4 questions that I asked. .
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.

Post Reply