Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

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

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

The message necessarily implies Jibril. Without him, no divine message.

Exactly dear the Cat

What you just said is written in Quran, see:

وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَنْ يُكَلِّمَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَّا وَحْيًا أَوْ مِنْ وَرَاءِ حِجَابٍ أَوْ يُرْسِلَ رَسُولًا فَيُوحِيَ بِإِذْنِهِ مَا يَشَاءُ ۚ إِنَّهُ عَلِيٌّ حَكِيمٌ (51)
And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a shield or He sends a messenger to reveal with His permission what He wills. Indeed, He is High, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 42:51]

-> See, or He sends a messenger to reveal with His permission what He wills. The messenger in here is Jibril, therefore it would have never happened unless Allah sent Jibril to Muhammed, consequently Muhammed too must obey Jibril in whatever he told him from Allah

For us, we have to obey Muhammed in anything sent with him from Allah, i.e. the Quran, not their man made rubbish crap books of hearsay hadith which defame Allah, Muhammed, Musa, other prophets and the Quran:

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلاَّ لِيُطَاعَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ جَآؤُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُواْ اللّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُواْ اللّهَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا (64)
And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by the permission of Allah. And if they, when they did injustice to themselves, come to you and seek forgiveness of Allah, and the messenger seek forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 4:64]

Cheers

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

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

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

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

No one is to 'obey the messenger of a king'. He is to obey the message he's carrying. For the messenger ain't the king
and to follow such a messenger would avail to high treason. Such are the Muhammadans worshiping the hadiths...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by WittyBoy »

The Cat wrote:No one is to 'obey the messenger of a king'. He is to obey the message he's carrying.
You are completely right, no one obey the messenger of a king, we actually obey the king who sent the message, so why did Allah(Almighty) say: "Obey The Messenger"? because The Messenger(pbuh) has something else other than Quran, if what's meant here is Quran, you already showed that no one to obey the messenger of a king because he only carries the king's message.
For the messenger ain't the king
and to follow such a messenger would avail to high treason. Such are the Muhammadans worshiping the hadiths...
But Allah said "Obey the messenger", how you can solve this problem?
Problems #1 , #2

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

WittyBoy wrote:
The Cat wrote:No one is to 'obey the messenger of a king'. He is to obey the message he's carrying.
You are completely right, no one obey the messenger of a king, we actually obey the king who sent the message, so why did Allah(Almighty) say: "Obey The Messenger"? because The Messenger(pbuh) has something else other than Quran, if what's meant here is Quran, you already showed that no one to obey the messenger of a king because he only carries the king's message.
For the messenger ain't the king
and to follow such a messenger would avail to high treason. Such are the Muhammadans worshiping the hadiths...
But Allah said "Obey the messenger", how you can solve this problem?
If the king would be Allah...
The message would be the Quran, only certified (revelation AFTER revelation) through... JIBRIL
The messenger is solely the rightful carrier of the message, his person is without much importance.
The divine part of the message MUST be assured by JIBRIL, not Muhammad. The angel IS the divine messenger, not Muhammad.
Jibril in human terms is acting like the royal seal on the message. Without the seal, the messenger himself is but a lunatic...

So 'Obey allah and His messenger' means: you'll obey Allah while following the -sealed- message (NOT the messenger as a person).

No hadith has this royal seal that ONLY Jibril can represents. Thus following the messenger as a person is TREASON, in this case to God.

Get it now?
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

iffo
Posts: 4692
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by iffo »

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

So your most merciful and forgiving god will burn women in hell and roast their skin endlessly because they curse the husband. And you call him most merciful and forgiving. How stupid, have you asked yourself why you so dumb.
Did the Prophet mention "cursing the husband" only??
We have to agree that we don't know the actual time between the end of this battle and when this incident took place. Note that Ali has traveled from Madina to Yemen, and we don't know when this incident happened after his arrival. Now, you have to know that Egyptian women completely refuse to get married to an Israeli, but in the other side, there are a 30000 Israeli women agreed to get married to Egyptian men. So why didn't that girl in hadith see Muslims as some Israeli women see the Egyptians? Not all captives see Muslims as the enemy who oppressed her folk, as not all Israeli women see Egyptian men in this picture. You can't say it's impossible for that girl to will to have sex with him, and you can't say that Ali MUST HAVE forced her, there is no even a single Islamic text allowed forcing women on sex, but the opposite is completely right.
Sorry I can not allow you to say we don't know when this happened. It happened after the war when booty was not even in prophet's hand.
That woman was oppressed? that's again your story. You want to cover up Ali for what he did if this hadith is true.
Poor heart broken/scared girl basically surrendered herself and let Ali f.cked her. Its that simple. Was Ali in love with her? or just wanted to have raw sex and wanted get his dick wet? What happened to your islamic morality?

I don't know which Isreali women you talking about. Again please mention the source and details. were they jew? Did those women come with their loved ones and solders cheering them in the war and right after war took their clothes off to Egpytion solders. You comparing apples and oranges.
WittyBoy
When you don't have enough knowledge and sometimes stupid, this doesn't mean I'm foolish. They said "but at the same time we also desired ransom for them", this statement means that they wanted to sell them, but they knew that if these women got pregnant, they wouldn't be able to sell them, and they(the companions) would be responsible for them( the captives) and their children whould belong to them. Another narration proves that too when they answered The Prophet(pbuh): "and there is another person who has a slave-girl and he has a sexual intercourse with her, but he does not like her to have conception so that she may not become Umm Walad", so they knew that "Umm al-Walad" (the captive mother of a son from the free man) can't be sold.
And its same thing no matter how you put it. They just wanted to have raw sex with them, they had no feelings for those women, as they were planning on selling them after having fun and some pure sex. Again this is your Islam, where is the Islamic morality? And you think those women will be very happy that these guys just want to have little fun with us and then give us to someone else. Pathetic, your ancestors based on this hadith was nothing but bunch of criminals.
WittyBoy
Did the Prophet mention "cursing the husband" only??
You talking about women making men going astray.

Pick any news paper any where in the world, 98% of the criminal activities or wrong doings are done by men, are they doing it because of their wives?, are the women making their husband go on wrong tracks that's why 98% murdered/rape/corruption/bribe/fraud/blackmailing are done by men.. sorry to say You are hopeless




wait for my next hadith plz.
Last edited by iffo on Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

WittyBoy wrote:
The Cat wrote:
WittyBoy wrote:If there's a king sent a message to one of his men, can we say to this man: "Obey the king, and obey the messenger"?
The messenger already carried a message from the king, either we say "obey the messenger" and we mean by that the message he carried, or say: "obey the king" and we mean the message he sent, but To say "obey the king" and "obey the messenger", one of them became useless if they are exactly the same thing.
Not on a religious ground, silly you.
How it is different?
No matter how much you educate him he isnt going to understand and is going to repeat the same stupid arguments. I am fed up replying to him actually. His arguments are a piece of cake and the only reason I reply to him is he will start boasting everywhere how his arguments were left unanswered.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Exactly dear the Cat

What you just said is written in Quran, see:

وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَنْ يُكَلِّمَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَّا وَحْيًا أَوْ مِنْ وَرَاءِ حِجَابٍ أَوْ يُرْسِلَ رَسُولًا فَيُوحِيَ بِإِذْنِهِ مَا يَشَاءُ ۚ إِنَّهُ عَلِيٌّ حَكِيمٌ (51)
And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a shield or He sends a messenger to reveal with His permission what He wills. Indeed, He is High, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 42:51]

-> See, or He sends a messenger to reveal with His permission what He wills. The messenger in here is Jibril, therefore it would have never happened unless Allah sent Jibril to Muhammed, consequently Muhammed too must obey Jibril in whatever he told him from Allah

For us, we have to obey Muhammed in anything sent with him from Allah, i.e. the Quran, not their man made rubbish crap books of hearsay hadith which defame Allah, Muhammed, Musa, other prophets and the Quran:

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلاَّ لِيُطَاعَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ جَآؤُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُواْ اللّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُواْ اللّهَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا (64)
And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by the permission of Allah. And if they, when they did injustice to themselves, come to you and seek forgiveness of Allah, and the messenger seek forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 4:64]

Cheers
How do you know hadiths were not revealed to muhammad by Allah? This is what sunni muslims claim so you dont have a point but I think you make better arguments than CAt.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

Here is the new stupid argument that Obey messenger means obey jibril and not muhammad.

Jibril doesnt speak with humans .He conveys Allahs message to muhammad and muhammad conveys the same to muslims so how can anyone follow the messenger jibril without following the messenger muhammad? Without obeying muhammad one cant obey jibril or Allah Unless jibril comes and speaks to humans personally.Hold on friends! According to CAt one can follow jibril without muhammad even when he doesnt speak to humans. :lol: Thats a gem of logic and I think we are too dumb to understand such an intelligent logic. :D
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
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

skynightblaze wrote:Here is the new stupid argument that Obey messenger means obey jibril and not muhammad.

Jibril doesnt speak with humans .He conveys Allahs message to muhammad and muhammad conveys the same to muslims so how can anyone follow the messenger jibril without following the messenger muhammad? Without obeying muhammad one cant obey jibril or Allah Unless jibril comes and speaks to humans personally.Hold on friends! According to CAt one can follow jibril without muhammad even when he doesnt speak to humans. :lol: Thats a gem of logic and I think we are too dumb to understand such an intelligent logic. :D
I believe the Cat meant that without Jibril as a messenger from Allah to Muhammed, the message of Muhammed from Allah would have never existed

Jibril must obey Allah

Muhammed must obey Jibril

and finally the believers must obey Muhammed

All these 3 obeys are obeying one thing, obeying the message of Allah by Muhammed and his followers, but as for Jebril and Muhammed they had something else to do with the message, which is to deliever the message to the relevant addressee. (Jibril to Muhammed and Muhammed to the people) while the message itself lead to one entity only, Allah alone, i.e. without shirking ANYTHING with Him.

See this verse:

وَأَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ ۚ فَإِنْ تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَإِنَّمَا عَلَىٰ رَسُولِنَا الْبَلَاغُ الْمُبِينُ (12)
And obey Allah and obey the messenger, but if you turn away, then upon Our messenger is only the obvious delivery.
[Al Quran ; 64:12]

-> See, And obey Allah and obey the messenger, now, for those who dont obey him, we are told: then upon Our messenger is only the obvious delivery. this means for those who lived after Muhammed, they still can obey him in such delivery, which is well preserved by Allah Himself in the Quran, not in their man made rubbish books of hadith

Had such man made books had any importance in the belief, at least Allah would have mentioned it once in His Quran, in fact it is quite the contrary, He warns us against those who write the books with their own hands then say it is from Allah, see this:

فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَذَا مِنْ عِندِ اللّهِ لِيَشْتَرُواْ بِهِ ثَمَناً قَلِيلاً فَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَّهُمْ مِّمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ (79)
And woe to those who write the book with their hands then say: This is from Allah, in order to exchange it for a small price. So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn.
[Al Quran ; 2:79]

-> Now, while the above verse is talking about the Jews who wrote man made books and alleged that it is from Allah, i.e. what they wrote is considered by them as the book of Allah, we cannot take such warning to be explicit to the Jews, i.e. it applies to all humans who write man made books then claim to be the book of Allah. It is not like only the Jews will be cursed because they wrote man made book then claimed it to be the book from Allah, while others can freely do it without being cursed. Makes sense to you?

It certainly does, consequently let me show you (again) how Bukhari the liar called his man made book of hadith/sunnah the book of Allah:

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... 6736&doc=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Image

As you can read above, again, the hadith is an allegation by the always questionable Abu Hurairah, this hadith however is indexed under a chapter named: الاقتداء بسنن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم , i.e. Taking the sunnah of the prophet as an example

The allegation in such hadith is that, a few people were with the prophet who possibly had to judge between two persons, the hadith never told us such details, rather as explained by Fath Al Bari book as you can read under the hadith itself.

The hadith only mentioned that prophet Muhammed told them: I am going to judge between you using the book of Allah.

Obviously why the prophet said so, is unknown from the content of the hadith, all we know from it, that when the prophet had to judge between two conflicting parties, he said that HE WILL JUDGE BY USING THE BOOK OF ALLAH

Now if you ask any believer, what the words The book of Allah, suppose to mean, most of them if not all, should tell you that it should mean The Quran

Mister confused Bukhari did not see it so, he saw it as something else, let me put the exact Arabic words as stated in Fath Al Bari book, so you see it for yourself:

واقتصر البخاري هنا عليه لدخوله في غرضه من أن السنة يطلق عليها " كتاب الله " لأنها بوحيه وتقديره , لقوله تعالى ( وما ينطق عن الهوى إن هو إلا وحي يوحى )

They are saying that Bukhari position is that the Sunnah is called the Book of Allah, because it was also revealed to Muhammed as the Quran is revealed, then they stated the Quran verse that Muhammed never talked of his own desires.

Very clear, that Bukhari claimed that the Sunnah of Muhammed (that Bukhari wrote in a book) is called the book of Allah.

Therefore, according to 2:97, woe to Bukhari who wrote a book with his hands then said: This is from Allah, in order to exchange it for a small price. So woe to him for what his hands have written, and woe to him for what he earned.

Now, try to google for the full price of the Bukhari’s man made book and see how much is it.
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

How did you go from someone who DID NOT object to the hadiths as long as it do not contradict the quran, to one that totally rejects all hadiths, Bahgat?

cos' a couple of years back, you have no problem with hadiths that did not çontradict the quran.

what changed?

you have the same info now as you did back then, right?
Quran miracle (16:69) : Bees eat ALL fruits
Quran miracle (27:18) : an ant SAID, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

@The Cat

viewtopic.php?p=129184#p129184" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ??
That is all Good but why worry about hadiths ??., I still don't get what The Cat says on this., How these guys who put together Quran knew., when Muhammad was speaking as a Man and when Muhammad was speaking/uttering the words possessed by the Jibril( Gabriel whatever ) which allegedly is Quran??

Is there a possibility in the present day Quran what we read., that some of Muhammad's words spilled into Quran ? So the present Quran is Not just Jibril's message through Muhammad's mouth but some of Muhammad "the Man's" words dear The Cat?? Or Every word that you read in Quran is indeed was spoken by Prophet of Islam when he was possessed by Jibril
who are the people that put together this book Quran dear the Cat??
Last edited by yeezevee on Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

The Cat wrote:The message necessarily implies Jibril. Without him, no divine message.

Jibril in human terms is acting like the royal seal on the message. Without the seal, the messenger himself is but a lunatic...
but with him (Jibril)also many verses of Quran has no divinity., with that seal also Muhammad character you see in Quran is a lunatic character., do you want me to read Quran for you?? how do you explain that dear the Cat?

And moreover. whatever little divinity you find in Quran you will find in every religious book that was there before the birth of prophet of Islam, so why do we need Quran and Muhammad to run our lives in 21st century?? It appears whole Quran may be put in to one verse to educate Christ followers, that Christ is neither God nor Son of God but a Prophet and messenger ., Except that I don't see any thing new in Quran ., Rest of all 114 chapters are gibberish., apart from gibberish it is full of incitement for criminal activities to Muhammad and his followers after his death...

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Exactly dear the Cat

What you just said is written in Quran, see:

وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَنْ يُكَلِّمَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَّا وَحْيًا أَوْ مِنْ وَرَاءِ حِجَابٍ أَوْ يُرْسِلَ رَسُولًا فَيُوحِيَ بِإِذْنِهِ مَا يَشَاءُ ۚ إِنَّهُ عَلِيٌّ حَكِيمٌ (51)
And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a shield or He sends a messenger to reveal with His permission what He wills. Indeed, He is High, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 42:51]

-> See, or He sends a messenger to reveal with His permission what He wills. The messenger in here is Jibril, therefore it would have never happened unless Allah sent Jibril to Muhammed, consequently Muhammed too must obey Jibril in whatever he told him from Allah

For us, we have to obey Muhammed in anything sent with him from Allah, i.e. the Quran, not their man made rubbish crap books of hearsay hadith which defame Allah, Muhammed, Musa, other prophets and the Quran:

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلاَّ لِيُطَاعَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ جَآؤُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُواْ اللّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُواْ اللّهَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا (64)
And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by the permission of Allah. And if they, when they did injustice to themselves, come to you and seek forgiveness of Allah, and the messenger seek forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 4:64]

Cheers
skynightblaze wrote:How do you know hadiths were not revealed to muhammad by Allah?
Because Allah told us what He revealed to Muhammed; see these verses:

قُلْ أَيُّ شَيْءٍ أَكْبَرُ شَهَادةً قُلِ اللّهِ شَهِيدٌ بِيْنِي وَبَيْنَكُمْ وَأُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ هَذَا الْقُرْآنُ لأُنذِرَكُم بِهِ وَمَن بَلَغَ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ مَعَ اللّهِ آلِهَةً أُخْرَى قُل لاَّ أَشْهَدُ قُلْ إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَإِنَّنِي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ (19)
Say: What thing is greatest in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you; and He has revealed to me this Quran to warn you thereby and whomever it reaches. Do you testify that with Allah there are other gods? Say: I do not testify. Say: Indeed, He is only one God; and indeed, I am innocent of what you associate (with Him).
[Al Quran ; 6:19]

-> See: What thing is greatest in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you; and He has revealed to me this Quran to warn you thereby and whomever it reaches. It never said, Quran and Hadith/Sunnah were revealed to me. It is only in the polluted minds of al-Mushrikoon that Allah revealed two things.

And the verse that was used by the close sahaba against the wannabe Mushrikoon who wrOte man made rubbish books next to the book of Allah, as I have shown from their own man made book “Restricting Knowledge”:

نَحْنُ نَقُصُّ عَلَيْكَ أَحْسَنَ الْقَصَصِ بِمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ وَإِنْ كُنْتَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ لَمِنَ الْغَافِلِينَ (3)
We relate to you the best of the stories in what We have revealed to you of this Quran; and indeed, you were before it among the unaware.
[Al Quran ; 12:3]

-> See: We relate to you the best of the stories in what We have revealed to you of this Quran; Not in the man made books of hadith/sunnah.

وَاتْلُ مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ كِتَابِ رَبِّكَ ۖ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَلَنْ تَجِدَ مِنْ دُونِهِ مُلْتَحَدًا (27)
And recite what has been revealed to you from the book of your Lord, there is no changing to His words. And never will you find in other than Him a refuge.
[Al Quran ; 18:27]

-> See: And recite what has been revealed to you from the book of your Lord, certainly not what has been revealed to him in the man made book of hadith/sunnah.

Can’t those Mushrik Muslim understand that if what theY call hadith/sunnah to be revelation from Allah, then there should be no reason to even temporary stop writing them with the other revelation from Allah the Quran. Aren't both for them revelation from Allah? How come you allow to write a revelation fromAllah while refusing to write another revelation from Allah (even temporary?

See how al-MKushrikoon are nothing but a dumb filthy dumb.

فَتَعَالَى اللَّهُ الْمَلِكُ الْحَقُّ ۗ وَلَا تَعْجَلْ بِالْقُرْآنِ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ يُقْضَىٰ إِلَيْكَ وَحْيُهُ ۖ وَقُلْ رَبِّ زِدْنِي عِلْمًا (114)
So exalted is Allah, the King, the Truth. And do not hasten with the Quran before its revelation is completed to you, and say: My Lord ! Increase me in knowledge.
[Al Quran ; 20:114]

-> See: And do not hasten with the Quran before its revelation is completed to you, not the completion of the revelation of their man made books of the rubbish hadith.

اتْلُ مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَأَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ ۖ إِنَّ الصَّلَاةَ تَنْهَىٰ عَنِ الْفَحْشَاءِ وَالْمُنْكَرِ ۗ وَلَذِكْرُ اللَّهِ أَكْبَرُ ۗ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ مَا تَصْنَعُونَ (45)
Recite what has been revealed to you of the book and establish prayer; indeed, prayer prohibits indecency and evil, and the remembrance of Allah is surely greater. And Allah knows what you do.
[Al Quran ; 29:45]

-> See what Muhammed was commanded to do: Recite what has been revealed to you of the book, it cannot be the book of hadith/sunnah because they did not exist at the time.

وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ هُوَ الْحَقُّ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ بِعِبَادِهِ لَخَبِيرٌ بَصِيرٌ (31)
And that which We have revealed to you of the book is the truth, verifying that which is before it. Indeed, Allah is of His servants, Aware, Seeing.
[Al Quran ; 35:31]

-> See: And that which We have revealed to you of the book is the truth, what is described as being the truth is the revealed book of Allah, not the man man rubbish books of invented hadith

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِتُنْذِرَ أُمَّ الْقُرَىٰ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا وَتُنْذِرَ يَوْمَ الْجَمْعِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ ۚ فَرِيقٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَفَرِيقٌ فِي السَّعِيرِ (7)
And thus have We revealed to you an Arabic Quran that you may warn the mother of villages and those around it, and that you may warn of the day of gathering, about which there is no doubt. A team will be in the garden and a team will be in the blaze.
[Al Quran ; 42:7]

-> How compelling: And thus have We revealed to you an Arabic Quran that you may warn the mother of villages and those around it, and that you may warn of the day of gathering, not an Arabic hadith/sunnah. And the Quran was even the only tool to warn (by delivery it to) the people.

The evidences are compelling from Quran that what was only revealed to Muhammed that we need to follow is the Quran. I am not saying that Allah did not reveal to Muhammed other things other than Quran, in fact I believe that it might have happened, however it had to be either for him personally that we don’t need to know about it, or if we need to know about it, then he showed it to us by example and we inherited it orally since, like how to pray.
skynightblaze wrote:This is what sunni muslims claim
This is what the Mushrik Sunni Muslims allege. Now why you think that I should listen to those bunch of manipulated manipulators and I have already the truthful testimony of Allah that He revealed to Muhammed the Quran for us to follow as the only source of guidance for us.

Say: What thing is greatest in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you; and He has revealed to me this Quran to warn you thereby and whomever it reaches.
skynightblaze wrote:so you dont have a point but I think you make better arguments than CAt.
It is not that I have a point, indeed, I have all the points. My logic and evidences are going to be impossible to defeat. You either keep trying or just keep deluding yourself that I don’t have a point.
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

@Bahgat

I will get back to you. As far as your arguments are concerned they are logical so I will have to look into the details .
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

let me go backward on that copy/paste drivel at viewtopic.php?p=129240#p129240" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
AhmedBahgat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:so you dont have a point but I think you make better arguments than CAt.
It is not that I have a point, indeed, I have all the points. My logic and evidences are going to be impossible to defeat. You either keep trying or just keep deluding yourself that I don’t have a point.
That is neither logic nor evidence., it is BLIND belief of a brain washed character
AhmedBahgat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:This is what sunni muslims claim
This is what the Mushrik Sunni Muslims allege. Now why you think that I should listen to those bunch of manipulated manipulators and I have already the truthful testimony of Allah that He revealed to Muhammed the Quran for us to follow as the only source of guidance for us.

Say: What thing is greatest in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you; and He has revealed to me this Quran to warn you thereby and whomever it reaches.
without those sunni Muslims, Muhammad's Islam would have been died with his character(Whether it is real or imaginary) So don't blame them for what Islam is today. Sure Heads of cults say/said exactly same thing that you see in red colored words. Allah revealed to me and I am revealing to you. ., That doesn't mean they are unquestionable and they should never be analyzed. Unfortunately a careful analysis of Quran with common sense tells me that this book is full of of meaningless gibberish along with horrendous incitement to Islam/Muhammad followers against those who questions/questioned Mr. Muhammad's Islam, his actions that are described in Quran and his followers actions for the past 1400 years..

Rest of your copy/paste Quranic verses can be analyzed with your mumbo-Jumbo tafsir of Quranic words such as
-> How compelling........
The evidences are compelling from Quran.......
Can’t those Mushrik Muslim understand........
See how al-MKushrikoon are nothing but a dumb filthy dumb.........
they meaningless at the best ..stupid at worst..

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

AhmedBahgat wrote:

I believe the Cat meant that without Jibril as a messenger from Allah to Muhammed, the message of Muhammed from Allah would have never existed

Jibril must obey Allah

Muhammed must obey Jibril

and finally the believers must obey Muhammed


All these 3 obeys are obeying one thing, obeying the message of Allah by Muhammed and his followers, but as for Jebril and Muhammed they had something else to do with the message, which is to deliever the message to the relevant addressee. (Jibril to Muhammed and Muhammed to the people) while the message itself lead to one entity only, Allah alone, i.e. without shirking ANYTHING with Him.

See this verse:..
Forget this verses and that verses., The verses should be analyzed with reference to the event that happened during that time and how Muhammad (if he was real) reacted to the event and tried to convince his followers or warn those who question him and his methods.

But your red colored words convey something else., and that is

Jbirl is Allah's messenger and Muhammad was possessed by jibirl, so Muhammad becomes loud speaker to Jibril , So Muhammad is NO MESSENGER OF ALLAH AND NO PROPHET but a loud speaker of Jibril the unknown archangel entity of Islam.

in the modern times, Muhammad is nothing but a tape recorder, or CD player..
Last edited by yeezevee on Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by WittyBoy »

iffo wrote:
WittyBoy wrote:We have to agree that we don't know the actual time between the end of this battle and when this incident took place. Note that Ali has traveled from Madina to Yemen, and we don't know when this incident happened after his arrival. Now, you have to know that Egyptian women completely refuse to get married to an Israeli, but in the other side, there are a 30000 Israeli women agreed to get married to Egyptian men. So why didn't that girl in hadith see Muslims as some Israeli women see the Egyptians? Not all captives see Muslims as the enemy who oppressed her folk, as not all Israeli women see Egyptian men in this picture. You can't say it's impossible for that girl to will to have sex with him, and you can't say that Ali MUST HAVE forced her, there is no even a single Islamic text allowed forcing women on sex, but the opposite is completely right.
Sorry I can not allow you to say we don't know when this happened. It happened after the war when booty was not even in prophet's hand.
Yes, that's right, but after how much time? again, Note that Ali has traveled from Madina to Yemen, and we don't know when this incident happened after his arrival.
Poor heart broken/scared girl basically surrendered herself and let Ali f.cked her. Its that simple. Was Ali in love with her? or just wanted to have raw sex and wanted get his dick wet? What happened to your islamic morality?
Nothing happened, i just don't want you to build an argument based on one possibility when there are another possibilities, especially when your possibility never existed in Islam, and you want to assign it to Islam by force, Is it the morality you know? If you want to know the Islamic morality open The book of Good Manners in Sahih al-Bukhari for example, try to read by yourself even once.
I don't know which Isreali women you talking about. Again please mention the source and details.
Reference
were they jew? Did those women come with their loved ones and solders cheering them in the war and right after war took their clothes off to Egpytion solders. You comparing apples and oranges.
I didn't compare anything, it's your example. Their loved ones you talk about are who have brought them to the field of battle and exposed them for capture, and are who didn't try to return them back for a ransom, and it wasn't right after the war, idiot.
WittyBoy
When you don't have enough knowledge and sometimes stupid, this doesn't mean I'm foolish. They said "but at the same time we also desired ransom for them", this statement means that they wanted to sell them, but they knew that if these women got pregnant, they wouldn't be able to sell them, and they(the companions) would be responsible for them( the captives) and their children whould belong to them. Another narration proves that too when they answered The Prophet(pbuh): "and there is another person who has a slave-girl and he has a sexual intercourse with her, but he does not like her to have conception so that she may not become Umm Walad", so they knew that "Umm al-Walad" (the captive mother of a son from the free man) can't be sold.
And its same thing no matter how you put it.
I didn't put anything, it's a fact you can't deny.
They just wanted to have raw sex with them, they had no feelings for those women, as they were planning on selling them after having fun and some pure sex. Again this is your Islam, where is the Islamic morality? And you think those women will be very happy that these guys just want to have little fun with us and then give us to someone else. Pathetic, your ancestors based on this hadith was nothing but bunch of criminals.
They were a group of young men desired what's completely lawful for them, and they desired the ransom too, so they asked the prophet(pbuh) about that, and the prophet told them how this act is abnormal and upbraid it, and i told you how the prophet's answer was wise and balanced. I think you forget what Omar did when he freed the female captives without ransom and how the Sahabi have one of the prettiest girls in the Arabia and he didn't touch her after she became lawful for him.
WittyBoy
Did the Prophet mention "cursing the husband" only??
You talking about women making men going astray.

Pick any news paper any where in the world, 98% of the criminal activities or wrong doings are done by men, are they doing it because of their wives?, are the women making their husband go on wrong tracks that's why 98% murdered/rape/corruption/bribe/fraud/blackmailing are done by men.. sorry to say You are hopeless
The hadith doesn't talk about crimes :*) It talks about who went astray from the path of Allah.
wait for my next hadith plz.
I'm very excited to see them.
Problems #1 , #2

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

WittyBoy wrote: I think you forget what Omar did when he freed the female captives without ransom and how the Sahabi have one of the prettiest girls in the Arabia and he didn't touch her after she became lawful for him.
I wonder how one makes prettiest girls lawful to touch and have sex in Islam? what are the rules dear Witty? Think a case., A 18 year old girl without marriage living alone..Not a Muslim., everyone of her family/ relatives killed in the war by Muslims., What is her fate Witty??

Azl..Azl... .coitus interruptus...coitus interruptus..

what a word..

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

WittyBoy says to iffo., He wrote:
Poor heart broken/scared girl basically surrendered herself and let Ali f.cked her. Its that simple. Was Ali in love with her? or just wanted to have raw sex and wanted get his dick wet? What happened to your islamic morality?
Nothing happened, i just don't want you to build an argument based on one possibility when there are another possibilities, especially when your possibility never existed in Islam, and you want to assign it to Islam by force, Is it the morality you know? If you want to know the Islamic morality open The book of Good Manners in Sahih al-Bukhari for example, try to read by yourself even once.
That is a great link dear Witty_B., I think I should open a thread on that with a heading " Hadith sayings of Prophet_A better Moral and Human Rules than what you see in Quran"

Thank you witty_b...

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Hey Bag Beeotch,

You mention some verses that have "say:" at the beginning. Why did "say:" have to be added?? You know that Muhammad didn't recite the leading "say:" when he recited the Sura as that would have sounded silly. So this is a little twist added later to cover for the fact that Muhammad often forgot that Allah was supposed to be speaking and instead it clearly sounds like it's Muhammad speaking. Just like 63:4. That's clearly Muhammad as well. Why can't you see this??? It's right in front of your face.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

Post Reply