Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Would you please stop trolling? There is no other word other than trolling to describe your posts.You lack comprehension terribly. I will repeat myself .. Since muhammad is the only point of contact between Allah and humans he has to be obeyed in whatever he says . Even Ahmed Bahgat understood it and agreed with me.
Wow, quoting the Koran plainly refuting your delusion is now trolling! :worthy: :censored:

And you're wrong and deluded again (thanks for proving this point all over again), Muhammad is just another messenger:
41:43 Naught is said unto thee (Muhammad) save what was said unto the messengers before thee.

And the point of contact is the Arabic Koran, yet also the other KORANS: Torah, Gospel and Zabur (Psalms).

24.54: Say: Obey Allah and obey the messenger. But if ye turn away, then (it is) for him (to do) only that wherewith he hath been charged,
and for you (to do) only that wherewith ye have been charged
. If ye obey him, ye will go aright. But the messenger hath no other charge
than to convey (the message) plainly.


And NO, AB didn't ever agreed with you. ANOTHER delusion, impressive!
viewtopic.php?p=129384#p129384" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=129420#p129420" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=129421#p129421" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Why dont you refute the pdf file the Cat posted?
http://www.detailedquran.com/quran_data ... senger.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you scared so that you are running around like a clown seeking the help of Mushriks like Mushrik Boy and the help of the kafirs like filthy piss?

Well if you dont refute it, which slams your repeated crap, then I will copy it and format it my style and shove it in your pinhead for you to refute, most of it is what I said anyway, but the author added more very strong points, so later today I will let that author slams a kafir and ex Mushrik hindu...
I sure hope AB just do that...

Read what I wrote To Bahgat..

The outcome of debate rests on the question whether quran references the hadiths or not? If yes then all your arguments automatically become invalid so reply to Piscohot and me regarding the arguments..
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.

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by darth »

crazymonkie_ wrote: or don't post at all- because if you post it as is, in the LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG format you seem to prefer, it doesn't matter how brilliant your argument may be. It's not going to be read.
It ain't brilliant. Certainly long winded. Stopped reading his nonsense long ago. Fellow beats round and round the bush for pages on end but is unable to prove that
a)quran is complete without hadiths
b) it is possible to make sense of the quran without external references
c) Obeying the messenger means only obeying what is in the quran especially when it makes no sense without external texts and when quran itself claims that mo is an excellent pattern for anyone

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 »

If the Quran needs no external texts, then what are we to make of all of the verses on their own that call for fighting non Muslims??
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:I never knew the CAT converted or even reconverted to Islam, but that does seem to be apparent now. :lol:
Just look at one of his posts. In one of his posts he tells me that Shaytan(satan) made the early muslims leak some secret that muhammad asked not to tell anyone. A non muslim would never put such arguments . Since when did he start believing in shaytan? :lol:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:I will reply to you again after replying to CAt first..
Yawn

viewtopic.php?p=129243#p129243" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote: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 .
Yawn

viewtopic.php?p=129371#p129371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Cat wrote:And don't skip, as usual, AB's exegesis once again... Restricting Shirk... (links inside)
Or are you gonna cry 'victory' and run away from ANY proper answer... just like the Muhammadans?

viewtopic.php?p=129371#p129371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:As far as AB is concerned none is going to bother to read pages and pages of his long never ending responses. I will look into the links and answer the ones which are within reach of anyone;s patience.
Yawn

Adding to patience is now: :sleeping:
viewtopic.php?p=129594#p129594" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=129596#p129596" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Page 29
skynightblaze wrote:Btw I am not at all defeated. I would refute you and your lover CAt. Your arguments are not a big deal.
To which AB answered: ''You stupid low IQer... , how can I listen to him and he was dead 1400 years before I was born? Dismiss yourself, dumby.''
Later: ''This debate is finished, it is what Allah has revealed to him, i.e. the Quran alone. Game Over''

Back to the circular first post displayed. If this is not being deluded... what is it? :wacko:
Last edited by The Cat on Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:Please prove that the early muslims were haunted by shaytans and that’s why they behaved that way.
Deluded again from a wrong premise.

16.63 is all about messengers sent BEFORE and how the messages from Allah became adulterated by later writings such as the Mishna, Paul.
So it was to be FROM the hadiths and on, which appeared way AFTER early Muslims. Your answer, as always, doesn't hold any water.
skynightblaze wrote:The hadith that I quoted was from Muhammad himself
Another delusion:
We have NOT a single hadith from Muhammad himself. Otherwise the chain of transmission wouldn't be necessary.
This -long- chain of transmission is a proof by itself that his orders NOT to write down hadiths have been respected.
That's why I hold them to be the only valids one, for they can be corroborated by HISTORY.

The very fact that 95% (at least) are of the ahad type (one to one) and NOT of the mutawatir type (many times corroborated)
is proving their unauthenticity, displaying that the term 'Sahih' is forfeited thus creating... 'mischief in the land' as Bid'aa.

viewtopic.php?p=129188#p129188" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Koran is the mutawatir hadith per excellence, that is corroborated by multiple different sources.

Now the expression Sahih (sound) MUST be of the mutawatir type. Thing is that around 95% of them all aren't...

Conclusion: The so-called 'Sahih' hadiths, being almost exclusively made of ahad type, aren't sahih by definition !
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:This verse isn’t condemning the hadiths.
More delusion, what else!
12.111 condemns invented hadiths, that is unrevealed, ie. man-made. That is confirmed by many others:

7.185: In what HADITH (Ĥadīthin) after this will they believe?

16.116: And do not say (...) This is lawful and this is prohibited, in order to forge against Allah the lie...

31.6: Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith (Al-Ĥadīthi), and thus divert others from the path of GOD.
skynightblaze wrote:Are you sure you believe that quran confirms the previous scriptures?
When you're not simply deluded you become plainly pathetic from mere discursive ignorance:

3:3 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which
was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

5:44 Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light...

5:47 Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein.
Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

29:46 And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong;
and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One...

29:47 In like manner We have revealed unto thee the Scripture, and those unto whom We gave the Scripture aforetime will believe
therein; and of these (also) there are some who believe therein. And none deny Our revelations save the disbelievers.

29:50 And they say: Why are not portents sent down upon him from his Lord ?
Say: Portents are with Allah only, and I am but a plain warner.

29:52 Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Allah sufficeth for witness between me and you.
skynightblaze wrote:The first question is how can quran ask the believers to refer to previous scriptures when they are corrupt?
Delusive all over again:
Find me a verse stating that the previous scriptures were so corrupted. :tumbleweed:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... entic1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:Quran contains indirect references to hadiths which has become the topic of debate now.
Only because deluded persons stick to their delusions as if real :roflmao:

The Koran has DIRECT references interdicting authoritative hadiths as stated above. More?

45.6: In which Hadith (Ĥadīthin) other than GOD and His revelations do they believe?

48.23: It is the law of Allah (sunnata of Allah) which hath taken course aforetime.
Thou wilt not find for the law of Allah aught of power to change.

77.50: Which Hadith (Ĥadīthin), other than this, do they uphold?
skynightblaze wrote:Sunni muslims claim that hadiths were also revealed to Muhammad so none is claiming here that Muhammad is a guidance by himself alone.Quran demonstrates that muhammad is to be obeyed. Quran as in 4:64-65 demonstrates that Muhammad can be a judge in matters of faith with the grace of Allah’s will .
Delusions keep you riveted to confusion...

Muhammad can't be a judge in matters of faith, according to the same verse:
4:64 We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by Allah's leave.

And 4.65 (But nay, by thy Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make thee judge of what is in dispute between them)
emphasizes that those who do call upon him as a judge are misled. Get it? I guess not...

5:48 And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it.
So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee.

5:50 Who is better than Allah for judgment to a people who have certainty (in their belief) ?

42:10 And in whatsoever ye differ, the verdict therein belongeth to Allah. Such is my Lord....
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:So you see without atleast the points 1 and 2 (praying) we cant have the basic religion.!
How deluded were then the former Muslims, like the righteous caliphs, without the hadiths! They didn't know how to pray! :lotpot:

2:177 It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day
and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the
wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their
treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere....

skynightblaze wrote:I am defending the authenticity of hadiths and not the content of hadiths and there is a difference between the 2 so your accusation is an epitome of massive stupidity. Going by your logic even I can accuse of defending a fake scripture(quran) that contains the following....
Delusive AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!
I've NEVER stated the Koran to be authentic, another figment of your compulsive delusion,
I've said it was the sacred book of Islam, which is a plain, recognized, most obvious fact.

If I did recognized it as authentically from God I would indeed endorse its content.
That's what you're doing by endorsing their authenticity and no Pilatus explanation can wash you away from such a guilt.
By endorsing the hadiths' legitimacy you become morally responsible of their outcome, so you have now abdicated all
moral ground and humanistic considerations for your narcissist's thrill
as noted by yeezevee:
yeezevee wrote:Why don't you just say this dear SKB?? ., "I love to win the argument and love to insult any one
and every one who don't agree with me., But Muslims and Islam have special place for my insults"
Only a narcissist could indulge into giving up all sense of morality to his arguing addiction, like a gambling fool. Last time I debated with another one like you was AbdulRahman. He had also this propension for rebashing his delusions through a litany of logical fallacies, running from ad hominem, to non sequitur, equivocation, false dilemma, begging the question, etc. Exactly like you do.

You've reached a point where this compulsion is taking over your possibility to react, being deluded by your own elucubrations. Get treated!

You're as disgusting as the hadiths you uphold 'authentic', thus endorsing!
Image

Image

Not only have you lost this debate (as the other one, twice) you have proven yourself
(1) a manufacturer of logical fallacies on industrial level, unfit for any proper debate and
(2) a most disgusting fellow endorsing the very sacredness of those perfid hadiths.

As I've said: I wouldn't be your conscience, not for a minute.
I stand proud and tall AGAINST the hadiths.
Last edited by The Cat on Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by darth »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Please prove that the early muslims were haunted by shaytans and that’s why they behaved that way.
Deluded again from a wrong premise.

16.63 is all about messengers sent BEFORE and how the messages from Allah became adulterated by later writings such as the Mishna, Paul.
So it was to be FROM the hadiths and on, which appeared way AFTER early Muslims. Your answer, as always, doesn't hold any water.
Can you prove that 16.63 is referring to Mishna, Paul or to the hadiths that came later? If it refers to later day hadiths it could equally likely refer to the current day quran...
More delusion, what else!
12.111 condemns invented hadiths, that is unrevealed, ie. man-made. That is confirmed by many others:

7.185: In what HADITH (Hadithin) after this will they believe?
Are you kidding us? 12.111 does not condemn invented hadiths. 7.185, only tries to defend the quran which could be also have been a made up tale.

"12.111 - There is, in their stories, instruction for men endued with understanding. It (quran) is not a tale invented, but a confirmation of what went before it,- a detailed exposition of all things, and a guide and a mercy to any such as believe."

Read it again. Please and do not cherry pick part of 7.158 which says -

"7.185 Do they see nothing in the government of the heavens and the earth and all that Allah hath created? (Do they not see) that it may well be that their terms is nigh drawing to an end? In what message after this will they then believe?"

There is no condemnaton of hadiths here.

I will not even look at the others. Possibly they have also been twisted to try to fit your conjectures.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

AhmedBahgat wrote: OK
:shock:

K. I totally don't feel insulted.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

AhmedBahgat wrote:As I said, I need not any oral hadith now, the oral hadith was inherited PRACTICALLY, like how to pray, since the days the prophet was alive, after that, no hadith is required being oral or written
So how do you know it's accurate?

It could just be something that one person or a group of people wanted another group of people to do. Centuries later, the latter group's descendents are still doing it. Not because it was what a god wanted, but because it was what certain men wanted.

How do you know?
Finally, you are not allowed to ask me this question again, I have replied to it zillion times
Don't you tell us what we're allowed and not allowed to do. We can ask you a "zillion" times because you've replied to it POORLY a "zillion" times. The simple question of "How do you know that it's not a completely man-made set of practices" remains unanswered, and probably always will because it's an unanswerable question.

Yet when it comes to the written ahadith, you're more than willing to say "I can't follow this to what Muhammad wanted humans to do, so I'll ignore it or assume it's man-made." It's a massive double standard, and one which, while in the case of "how to pray" is not harmful (well, sleep schedule, but... anyway), is a huge waste of time and energy for you.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

darth wrote:
crazymonkie_ wrote: or don't post at all- because if you post it as is, in the LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG format you seem to prefer, it doesn't matter how brilliant your argument may be. It's not going to be read.
It ain't brilliant. Certainly long winded. Stopped reading his nonsense long ago. Fellow beats round and round the bush for pages on end but is unable to prove that
a)quran is complete without hadiths
b) it is possible to make sense of the quran without external references
c) Obeying the messenger means only obeying what is in the quran especially when it makes no sense without external texts and when quran itself claims that mo is an excellent pattern for anyone
Well, it MIGHT be true that it's all rubbish... but I can't tell because it's unreadable.

As to (a): Quran is NOT complete without ahadith. Just looking at the Quran alone- what's the Battle of Badr? Who's Ibrahim? Who's Nuh? Who's Lut? Who's this Musa guy? This also connects to (b). Without some knowledge of the Bible and Talmud, the characters in the Quran are total mysteries.
(c) Is actually somewhat inaccurate. Muhammad is mentioned by name- if that is a name, and not an honorific- three times in the Quran. That's it. The implication is that "the messenger" that is talked about is Muhammad. But who knows? Even so, yeah, the Quran makes very little sense without recourse to other texts.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

Darth wrote:an you prove that 16.63 is referring to Mishna, Paul or to the hadiths that came later? If it refers to later day hadiths it could equally likely refer to the current day quran...
Dont bother wasting your time.. He is incapable of debating . :troll: .
He is repeating the same arguments again and again so I wont bother replying to him.

I will now answer AB's pending posts.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:And don't skip, as usual, AB's exegesis once again... Restricting Shirk... (links inside)
Or are you gonna cry 'victory' and run away from ANY proper answer... just like the Muhammadans?
I wont reply you now again as I have realized arguing with a kid would be a better option than you. Now watch your friend go down the drain..

@AB

Your arguments have already been refuted when I addressed CAT.All I have to do is repeat myself.

I didnt read your never ending post but I just had a glimpse .All it does it bring hadiths that forbid narration of hadiths..
Well you brought only 15-20 hadiths..Well thats too less a figure. There is a separate chapter in bukhari regarding holding fast onto quran and sunnah. It contains around 100 hadiths approximately. Witty Boy also brought some hadiths from sunan abu dawud so we have more hadiths that allow narrating sunna than forbiding them. This is a point that you must note.You ignore this fact that we have more hadiths which ask us to stick fast to sunnah. Thats called selective picking i.e picking what suits you..


http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/sunnah ... 2.sbt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SO we have hadiths forbidding hadiths and hadiths that tell us to follow the sunna too. In such a case there can be 2 possibilities..

1) Either they are contradictory and hence no solid conclusion can be drawn and hence you need to try some other argument

2) Hadiths forbidding writing down of hadiths were abrogated later.

Either of the possibility refutes your arguments..

The possibility is 2. Lets see how...

I brought in a hadith which tells us that best of muslims were 2-3 generations after him.If we assume each generation of 50 years after muhammad we still reach around 732- 782 AD(632 AD = Death of muhammad + 100 to 150 years). This includes early muslims including the caliphs. Now if writing down of hadiths wasnt allowed then we would be seeing a single work in these 100 -150 years after muhammads death but we have 3 examples of written down works.They are as follows:

1)Tafsir of ibn Abbas
2) Ibn Ishaq's- biography of muhammad after 120 years
3) Early hadiths till 750 Ad

Tafsir of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Ishaq are not hadiths but they are still books other than quran . If writing down of hadiths was prohibited then so should writing down of tafsir of Ibn Abbas and biography of muhammad by ibn ishaq.Well if the early muslims and caliphs
could allow writing down of hadiths then what makes you think hadiths are forbidden? Were the early muslims and caliphs corrupt and unreliable? If yes then we have a huge problem for you because quran was compiled by these same people. Remember carefully and answer.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

iffo
Posts: 4695
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by iffo »

WittyBoy
I just proved that it wasn't directly after war. that's all
You proved nothing, few days even week or 2 is still after the war.
WittyBoy
What if the good treatment of her removed this enemity? what if this woman didn't feel this enemity towards Muslims at all? what if she found the life with Muslims better that her previous life? what if she liked Ali? We are talking about a single incident, so the situation can include many possibilities.
O yes treatment was great they gave her so many shawarmas and lamb meat to eat in few days or couple of weeks, that she forgot all about her previous life, her family, her friends, relatives, husband, brother or father who died or wounded in the war or became slaves themselves and jumped on Ali, knowing these are the same people responsible for all that. Who you think you are fooling, only those who want to be fooled, because they are already idiots like you are. See that's how your islamic scholars fooled you.

I said
BTW attarction/desire and then having sex, we call it lust and fornication, and you flog people with 80 lashes for that.
wittyBoy
Attraction/Desire and then having sex results to a legitimate child belongs to a man who is responsible for him and his mother, and can't sell her, is a lawful relationship and it's a marriage but with a female captive not a free woman.
Yes its their bad luck they are not free so you can do fornication with them and its ok..... your Allah is ok with that as well .... and its not wrong and immoral. But if two free woman/man have pure sex on the bases of physical attraction & Attraction/Desire then its fornication...and you give them 80 lashes..... You realize you proving how stupid you & your religion is. The creator of this universe who designed your heart got to be much more smarter than that

WittyBoy
No i won't let you think, because when you think you come up with stupid results. :*) :*) Who said "all men"?? i told you one of some reasons. Money can lead one astray, a high position can lead one astray, ... etc.

Here you showing again and again how dishonest you are, by not giving a straight answer and dodging the subject. That's Mullahanas especial quality its in their blood. I asked you many time what is your defination of astray, you have any?
WittyBoy
In certain situations, one won't say " i don't have money", he will go into all possible ways to get money, especially in that case, It would be very easy to get this money. Imagine that Israel took a Lebanon captive and asked for a ransom, if you asked any Lebanon to pay this ransom, he wouldn't save any money to pay it despite he doesn't know the captive.
NO it does not work like that...You were not there to say if they had money or not... you being dumb here ....... just repeating same thing again and again proves you are a time waster and will not take you any where.

when Ali was informed regarding a people who considered him to be god, he called them and asked them to refrain from such blasphemy. They refused to comply. This went on for three days. Till, finally, Ali ordered to dig a deep pit and burn a huge fire in it. The criminals were brought to the fire. Ali told them that if they do not agree to refrain from their blasphemy, they would be thrown in the fire. They persisted in their refusal and were, subsequently, thrown in the fire.


There is nothing here that one should burn them alive. I don't know what's your point writting it again. You are proving you are not worthy of debate and start to bore me and others who left you and started debating among themselves.

Anyway you think following it a scientific fact.
Al-Bukhari Volume 6 Number 7
'Abdullah bin Salam heard the news of the arrival of Allah's Apostle (at Medina ) while he was on a farm collecting its fruits. So he came to the Prophet and said, 'I will ask you about three things which nobody knows unless he be a prophet. Firstly, what is the first portent of the Hour? What is the first meal of the people of Paradise? And what makes a baby look like its father or mother?'. The Prophet said, 'Just now Gabriel has informed me about that.'

'Abdullah said, 'Gabriel?' The Prophet said, 'Yes.' 'Abdullah said, 'He, among the angels is the enemy of the Jews.' On that the Prophet recited this Holy Verse:-- 'Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel (let him die in his fury!) for he has brought it (i.e. Qur'an) down to your heart by Allah's permission.' (2.97) Then he added, 'As for the first portent of the Hour, it will be a fire that will collect the people from the East to West. And as for the first meal of the people of Paradise, it will be the caudite (i.e. extra) lobe of the fish liver. And if a man's discharge proceeded that of the woman, then the child resembles the father, and if the woman's discharge proceeded that of the man, then the child resembles the mother.'
Last edited by iffo on Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:09 am, edited 4 times in total.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

AhmedBahgat wrote:As I said, I need not any oral hadith now, the oral hadith was inherited PRACTICALLY, like how to pray, since the days the prophet was alive, after that, no hadith is required being oral or written
What do you mean you don't need any oral hadiths now?
If you do not need the oral hadiths now, why are you still praying according to what the oral hadiths dictate?
Aren't you following the oral hadiths each time you pray?

And how do you dismiss the hadiths when you are such a strong advocate of the hadiths on practice of circumcision?

:lol:
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."

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Allah should have known that the companions of muhammad would leak everything.
Shaytan was permitted to induced humans into errors (such as the misleading hadiths, Augustine or the Jewish Mishna
*OR MUHAMMAD).
16.63: By Allah, We verily sent messengers unto the nations before thee, but the devil made their
deeds fairseeming unto them
(like abiding to hadiths, Mishna, Paul). So he is their patron this day....
Friends its time to witness a historic reply from CAT ... Listen to his reply marked in red above and see if you can believe your eyes :lol:

:roflmao:
*Mine

Cos' Muhammad said:

I left among you two things, you will not go astray as long as you hold on to them: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah. [al-Muwatta by Imam Malik, page 899]


and

I do not [want to] find any of you reclining on his couch and upon hearing one of my commands, which includes a matter I enjoined or forbade, says: "I do not know; whatever we found in the Book of Allah, (only that) we follow". [al-Resalah by Imam al-Shafi, page 89]

The quran did not and CANNOT cover all human issues. Hence the perogative of Muhammad was needed in situations like this and recorded as a guide.
The Cat wrote:....without Jibril, he can't be such for the angel is at the divine part of the message, and messengers at its human portion. There must be a connection for the message to have any divine validity. Such a connection is totally absent from the hadiths.
I do not understand why the hadiths need to have 'divine validity'?
It had never claimed to be the word of Allah nor have it claimed to be the orders of Allah.
It merely contained the things Muhammad did, more importantly, the advice he provided for muslims to situations in which they find no answers in the quran. Afterall, Allah told them to obey the Messenger... and men of authority.

Other than the quran, do any other Holy books claimed the same on 'divine validity'? That an angel is needed?
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."

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I am defending the authenticity of hadiths and not the content of hadiths and there is a difference between the 2 so your accusation is an epitome of massive stupidity. Going by your logic even I can accuse of defending a fake scripture(quran) that contains the following....
Delusive AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!
I've NEVER stated the Koran to be authentic, another figment of your compulsive delusion,
I've said it was the sacred book of Islam, which is a plain, recognized, most obvious fact.

If I did recognized it as authentically from God I would indeed endorse its content.
That's what you're doing by endorsing their authenticity and no Pilatus explanation can wash you away from such a guilt.

Only a narcissist could indulge into giving up all sense of morality to his arguing addiction, like a gambling fool. Last time I debated with another one like you was AbdulRahman. He had also this propension for rebashing his delusions through a litany of logical fallacies, running from ad hominem, to non sequitur, equivocation, false dilemma, begging the question, etc. Exactly like you do.

You've reached a point where this compulsion is taking over your possibility to react, being deluded by your own elucubrations. Get treated!

You're as disgusting as the hadiths you uphold 'authentic', thus endorsing!

Not only have you lost this debate (as the other one, twice) you have proven yourself
(1) a manufacturer of logical fallacies on industrial level, unfit for any proper debate and
(2) a most disgusting fellow endorsing the very sacredness of those perfid hadiths.

As I've said: I wouldn't be your conscience, not for a minute.
I stand proud and tall AGAINST the hadiths.
As a silent reader, I must say that you have won the debate and you were cool. That was simply marvelous.

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:@AB

Your arguments have already been refuted when I addressed CAT.All I have to do is repeat myself.
Are you still in delusion mode?
skynightblaze wrote:I didnt read your never ending post
That is because you are a clear cut confused jerk
skynightblaze wrote: but I just had a glimpse .All it does it bring hadiths that forbid narration of hadiths..
A glimpse is not enough, confused boy

In other words, you have nothing to say
skynightblaze wrote:Well you brought only 15-20 hadiths..Well thats too less a figure.
So for you, it is by numbers not by content?

I told ya, you are a clear cut jerk who is after numbers,

well, even if there are 1000 hadith saying the opposite, that does not make it right. Right, confused boy?
skynightblaze wrote: There is a separate chapter in bukhari regarding holding fast onto quran and sunnah.
Are you that dumb, confused boy?

the chapter title is "Holding fast to Quran and Sunnah"

Not "Writing Quran and Sunnah"

Consequently, you are dman confused of jerk and I have to salvage my time, this is becuase holding fast does not mean to write in a book

The rest of you rubbish must be dismissed
skynightblaze wrote: It contains around 100 hadiths approximately. Witty Boy also brought some hadiths from sunan abu dawud so we have more hadiths that allow narrating sunna than forbiding them. This is a point that you must note.You ignore this fact that we have more hadiths which ask us to stick fast to sunnah. Thats called selective picking i.e picking what suits you..


http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/sunnah ... 2.sbt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SO we have hadiths forbidding hadiths and hadiths that tell us to follow the sunna too. In such a case there can be 2 possibilities..

1) Either they are contradictory and hence no solid conclusion can be drawn and hence you need to try some other argument

2) Hadiths forbidding writing down of hadiths were abrogated later.

Either of the possibility refutes your arguments..

The possibility is 2. Lets see how...

I brought in a hadith which tells us that best of muslims were 2-3 generations after him.If we assume each generation of 50 years after muhammad we still reach around 732- 782 AD(632 AD = Death of muhammad + 100 to 150 years). This includes early muslims including the caliphs. Now if writing down of hadiths wasnt allowed then we would be seeing a single work in these 100 -150 years after muhammads death but we have 3 examples of written down works.They are as follows:

1)Tafsir of ibn Abbas
2) Ibn Ishaq's- biography of muhammad after 120 years
3) Early hadiths till 750 Ad

Tafsir of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Ishaq are not hadiths but they are still books other than quran . If writing down of hadiths was prohibited then so should writing down of tafsir of Ibn Abbas and biography of muhammad by ibn ishaq.Well if the early muslims and caliphs
could allow writing down of hadiths then what makes you think hadiths are forbidden? Were the early muslims and caliphs corrupt and unreliable? If yes then we have a huge problem for you because quran was compiled by these same people. Remember carefully and answer.
Image

Post Reply