Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

[The Cat]

According to this verse (33.21) quran endorses the example of mo as a guidance. That allows muslims to study the actions of mo to be guided.

Wrong and disproven by many other verses already quoted. This one is the proof-sum of them all:

9:80
Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness for them;
though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them.
That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger,
and Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

Its plain to see how Muhammad (-the person-) is differentiated from the messenger.
The former has no intercession power as wrongly portrayed in the fallacious hadiths.
But as a messenger like ALL others, through Gabriel, he and Allah are indivisible.

[The Cat]

The outcome of debate rests on the question whether quran references the hadiths or not?
If yes then all your arguments automatically become invalid

It does but certainly not the way you would like it...

4.87: Whose hadith (Ĥadīthāan) can be truer than Allah's?

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

9.31: They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks (ie. Hanbal/Bukhari; imams and sheiks) and the
Messiah son of Mary (or Muhammad turned into such an Islamic Messiah), when they were bidden to worship only One God.

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.

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

Now in the Koran even the SHARIA is solely that sent to Abraham, then inspired to Muhammad. The man-made shariah is BID'aa

45:18 And now have We set thee (O Muhammad) on a clear road of (Our) commandment (Alá Sharī`atin);
so follow it, and follow not the whims of those who know not.

45.16 And verily we gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood (Al-Ĥukma Wa An-Nubūwata),
and provided them with good things and favoured them above (all) peoples...

42.13: He hath ordained for you that religion (Shara`a Lakum Mina Ad-Dīni) which He commended unto Noah,
and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus,
saying: Establish the religion, and be not divided therein.

http://www.theholybook.org/content/view/4285/94/

The verse uses the word, will, for the Laws ordained for Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, but it uses the verb, reveal, for the Last Messenger. Will implies strong advice and giving special importance to certain things.... The verse first mentions Prophet Noah, and continues to talk about the Last Messenger, and then the other great Messengers. This is because Prophet Noah, is the first Messenger to whom a comprehensive Law to govern life was willed (see: 33.7)

Preserving and obeying the Law is indispensable for establishing the Religion and preserving it from distortions, changes, and corruptions. The Law has the same meaning for the Religion as the skin has for the human body. The main reason why the Religion lost its originality and purity after the Prophets Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, upon them all be peace, is that people either ignored or neglected the Law, or changed it, or disobeyed it. Negligence of, or disobedience to, the Law is also one of the basic reasons for the internal divisions among the communities of the Messengers after them, and for the deviations witnessed concerning the essentials of faith.

[The Cat]

He is repeating the same arguments again and again so I wont bother replying to him. I will now answer AB's pending posts.

viewtopic.php?p=129722#p129722

Translation: I can't disprove that we actually have not a single hadith from Muhammad himself and that the loooong ahad chain of transmission (6 to10 narrators) is proving so. The so-called 'Sahih' hadiths aren't even, for at least 95% of them, of the mutawatir type (many times corroborated).

Neither can I disprove that the Koran strictly interdicts any authoritative hadith for they aren't divine revelation. I relied on the biaised translation of verses (like 7.185, 12.111, 31.6; 45.6; 77.50) which avoided to transliterate the Arabic Ĥadīthin correctly.

More so, I can't find a single verse in the Koran stating that the previous scriptures were corrupted.

Most of all I can't deal with the obvious felony of giving the hadiths legitimacy


which comes down to endorse their outcome, past, present and future,


for it indeed exposes me as a most disgusting fellow, obsessed and deluded...


So, just like Muhammadans do when cornered, I must run away while crying 'victory' !

[The Cat]

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.

Thanks and welcome into FFI

[skynightblaze]

These verses do not invalidate the hadiths because following example of mo is also a guidance from allah.

Ditto! since Allah wants these muslims to follow muhammad then its obvious that Allah wanted humans to know hadiths.So the hadiths too become divine revelations because they are sanctioned by Allah .Now this simple thing cant be comprehended by CAt. I explained it in my previous posts too. Now he bringing quranic verses is useless .If quran says that only guidance of Allah needs to be followed then it doesnt mean hadiths are excluded because the guidance of Allah includes hadiths and they arent seperate from religion of islam. Look at the deluded fellow celebrating his win . He doesnt even understand that his arguments have been refuted . Ignorance is bliss I guess!

[skynightblaze]

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

Again how confused and abused you are!
Writing becomes a mere formality if sunna was to be followed because future generations cant follow sunna unless its written.So if sunna was commanded to be followed then writing of hadith becomes mandatory. They are interlinked .

But which sunnah are you talking about, sharmooot? The sunnah I shoved in your pinhead about Ibrahim lying three times? you call that sunnah, sharmooot? Where is the prophet sunnah in it, punk? What did the prophet say exactly in these two rubbish stories in Bukhari Springer and Muslim Winfery talk (hadith) shows?

Whether the hadiths make sense or not is not my concern. I aint going to defend that.The only point I want to make throughout this debate is hadiths are a part of islam .Without hadiths you cant have islam. So punk there is no reason as to why I should defend the content of the hadith and answer your question here. I am defending their authenticity and not the content.Even I agree that hadiths are gibberish and criminal but the point I am making is that they are real/authentic and hence you should leave islam.Now as far as this hadith is concerned these are the words of your own prophet and not myself so if you find it insensible then yes your prophet was insensible.

[AhmedBahgat]

Now as far as this hadith is concerned these are the words of your own prophet and not myself so if you find it insensible then yes your prophet was insensible.

It is as far as you are deluding yourself not as far as you are concerned. But the fact remains intact, neither you nor myself nor anyone living now or lived for the last 1200 years in this world heard anything from the prophet himself.

Keep deluding yourself, boy. Delusion is bless

[skynightblaze]

Now as far as this hadith is concerned these are the words of your own prophet and not myself so if you find it insensible then yes your prophet was insensible.

It is as far as you are deluding yourself not as far as you are concerned. But the fact remains intact, neither you nor myself nor anyone living now or lived for the last 1200 years in this world heard anything from the prophet himself.

Keep deluding yourself, boy. Delusion is bless

Neither did prophet himself tell you to follow quran but yet like a bum you offer your arse 5 times a day in the name of Allah thinking you will reach houris and heavens. Doesnt this sound delusion too?

[darth]

According to this verse (33.21) quran endorses the example of mo as a guidance. That allows muslims to study the actions of mo to be guided.

Wrong and disproven by many other verses already quoted. This one is the proof-sum of them all:

9:80
Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness for them;
though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them.
That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger,
and Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

Its plain to see how Muhammad (-the person-) is differentiated from the messenger.
The former has no intercession power as wrongly portrayed in the fallacious hadiths.
But as a messenger like ALL others, through Gabriel, he and Allah are indivisible.

There us nothing in the verse 9.80 to disprove endorsement of mo's example in 33.21
Here see it together -
a) 33.21 - people, in mo there is an example to follow to get to heaven
b) 9.80 - people, even if mo asks for forgiveness, allah will not forgive those that disbelieve allah and his messenger.

Whether you differentiate mo from the "messenger" is immaterial. Whether mo has power to intercede or not is immaterial. Bottom line, mo is still the perfect example to follow. In what do you follow mo? In everything since quran is not specific. And where do you find mo's habits and actions? Wherever it is recorded (oral or written)

[AhmedBahgat]

Now as far as this hadith is concerned these are the words of your own prophet and not myself so if you find it insensible then yes your prophet was insensible.

It is as far as you are deluding yourself not as far as you are concerned. But the fact remains intact, neither you nor myself nor anyone living now or lived for the last 1200 years in this world heard anything from the prophet himself.

Keep deluding yourself, boy. Delusion is bless

Neither did prophet himself tell you to follow quran but yet like a bum you offer your arse 5 times a day in the name of Allah thinking you will reach houris and heavens. Doesnt this sound delusion too?

Deluded boy, I dont need the prophet to tell me directly follow Quran:

اتَّبِعُواْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُم مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاء قَلِيلاً مَّا تَذَكَّرُونَ (3)
Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord and do not follow other than Him any guardians. Little do you remember.
[Al Quran ; 7:3]

-> See: Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord. Last time I checked the man made books of bukhari, muslim and all books of tafsir were not part of what Allah sent down.

Dismiss yourself, dumby

[darth]

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.

Most translations avoided the word hadith (saying) which is in the ARABIC version.

Irrelevant. Even if you were to use the word "hadith(saying)", the verses do not condemn hadiths as you claim.

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..

16.63: By Allah, We verily sent messengers unto the nations before thee, but the devil made their deeds fairseeming unto them.
So he is their patron this day, and theirs will be a painful doom.

The Koran is replete with admonition to people as to what happened to them when they discarded Allah for man-made beliefs, such as the hadiths. So I've written: ''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.'' The devil made their deeds fairseeming = whatever isn't from Allah like the hadiths, the Mishna or Paul/Augustine, name it.

So you cannot prove what is meant, here. Thus it is merely your own speculation what it means and as such is irrelevant (or as relevant as our argument that it refers to modern day quran as well)

I believe that the early Muslims were much better than nowadays Muhammadans. The former fought idolatry, the later fabricated idols such as Muhammad through the hadiths.

Ahhh, fighting idolatory by killing your neighbors is noble according to you? I, for one, do not see any difference between early muslims killing their neighbors over idols and modern day muslims killing their neighbors over mo.

See:
7:37 Who doeth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie concerning Allah or denieth Our tokens. (For such) their appointed portion of the Book (of destiny) reacheth them till, when Our messengers come to gather them, they say: Where (now) is that to which ye cried beside Allah ? They say: They have departed from us. And they testify against themselves that they were disbelievers.


7:53 Await they aught save the fulfilment thereof ? On the day when the fulfilment thereof cometh, those who were before forgetful thereof will say: The messengers of our Lord did bring the Truth! Have we any intercessors, that they may intercede for us ? Or can we be returned (to life on earth), that we may act otherwise than we used to act ? They have lost their souls, and that which they devised hath failed them.

Those are referring to messengers before Muhammad... and the corruption of Allah's revelations, later brought in by the hadiths.

Oh, please! All these verses do is condemn a lie concerning allah. Where do you arrive at the conclusion that the hadiths are a lie..
Same is true with 17.46, 17.73 which again do not prove that hadiths are a lie.


1) Hadiths are not a lie because you want them to be a lie. You need to prove it
2) Just because quran condemns a lie somewhere does not mean hadiths are lies. You need to prove the particular hadith is a lie (and not simply because you want it to be)
3) Just because human beings record something does not make it automatically corrupt (and incidently that would invalidate the quran as well as that too was recorded by humans)

[darth]

How could he guides the Muslims about buying a car or taking an airplane? Or blood transfusion, penicillin? If Muhammad was to be an all time model, all Muslims should be unlettered, traveling on camels while drinking their urine for medicine. They should be single married until fifty, etc.

In all things that are recorded. For example, can muslims marry a 9 year old - look at the example of mo.
How many stones to use - look at the example of mo.
Can enemies be tortured for their treasure - look at the example of mo.

and so on....

(But you have incorrectly quoted me in this post, but I thought I would answer anyway)

Yep the Koran makes a distinction between religious and secular matters,

No, it does not! Sky is right! Your imagination is at on on a overdrive....

[darth]

These verses do not invalidate the hadiths because following example of mo is also a guidance from allah.

Ditto! since Allah wants these muslims to follow muhammad then its obvious that Allah wanted humans to know hadiths.So the hadiths too become divine revelations because they are sanctioned by Allah .

So true!

Bottom line

a) quran was given by mo (messenger/author whatever. Gibril, ali baba are all irrelevant since their existence is not attested to by anyone else)
b) quran tells that muslims are to be guided by mo's example (without giving specific examples leaving one open to look at sources other than quran for these examples)
c) quran tells muslims to follow what has been sent down (which includes endorsement to be guided by mo's example)


Putting (b) and (c) together, recorded history of mohammad attains the sanctity of the quran..


But, you know, sky, wishful thinking these days takes the place of sound logic...

(Personally speaking, I believe 33.21 did not give specific examples of conduct for a particular reason - allah/mo knew that if it was specified to mean only in associating partners, then how could mo force the early muslims to do his bidding. After all, there was a lot of work to be done, there were caravans to raid, villages to attack, women and children to be captured etc.)

As a silent reader, I must say that you have won the debate and you were cool. That was simply marvelous.

Seems to be a case of the blind leading the blind.

Why don't you tell us, how have the hadiths been proven false? Remember you cannot use wishful thinking
or imagination. Arguments of the type

"it cannot be true because it can't be"
or
"it cannot be true because it goes against my beliefs"

are not allowed.

[The Cat]

There us nothing in the verse 9.80 to disprove endorsement of mo's example in 33.21
Here see it together -
a) 33.21 - people, in mo there is an example to follow to get to heaven
b) 9.80 - people, even if mo asks for forgiveness, allah will not forgive those that disbelieve allah and his messenger.

33:21 Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

Where and how come you read: ''Verily in Muhammad is an example to follow'' ? I don't !
The messenger is a good example to follow in that he remembered and looked at Allah.
This is what Muslims are called to follow....

33:23 Of the believers are men who are true to that which they covenanted with Allah.

33:67 And they say: Our Lord! Lo! we obeyed our princes and great men, and they misled us from the Way.

[The Cat]

The only point I want to make throughout this debate is hadiths are a part of islam . I am defending their authenticity and not the content.

Do you mean that before circa 830 no one professed Islam?
Even the Mazhabs came before that. Were they un-Islamic?

And... recognizing their legitimacy makes you morally responsible.
Same as if you'd recognized Mein Kampf's legitimacy or authority.
Although it is 'authentic'... its authenticity is a very different thing.
Recognizing its authenticity, you're truthfully endorsing the content.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authenticity

The quality or condition of being authentic, trustworthy, or genuine.

Genuineness, legitimacy, believability, credibility, credibleness
- the quality of being believable or trustworthy.

Mein Kampf is an authentic book, but its authenticity is quite disgusting.
And so are you. At best, a pity.

If quran says that only guidance of Allah needs to be followed then it doesnt mean hadiths are excluded because the guidance of Allah includes hadiths

Of course, dear. Anything you say...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Now read my long time signature...

[The Cat]

These verses do not invalidate the hadiths because following example of mo is also a guidance from allah.

Ditto! since Allah wants these muslims to follow muhammad then its obvious that Allah wanted humans to know hadiths.So the hadiths too become divine revelations because they are sanctioned by Allah .

So true!

1. Origin of hadith
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS5DXBX5_u4



2. Is hadith divine? (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtWMcAZTzvU



The other parts will be available once on you-tube at the right.

[darth]

Where and how come you read: ''Verily in Muhammad is an example to follow'' ? I don't !
The messenger is a good example to follow in that he remembered and looked at Allah.
This is what Muslims are called to follow....

I know you wish that was what was said, but it is not. The messenger is an excellent pattern/good example to follow for those who hopes for allah and the last day and who remembers allah much. It does not say "follow mo in the way he remembered allah or looked at allah (I did not even know mo was looking at allah. Where did you come up with that? )"

There are others too - 3.31

"Say, [O Muhammad], "If you should love Allah , then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

See, mo is to be followed . (And please don't come up with messenger is not mo but pied piper)

33:23 Of the believers are men who are true to that which they covenanted with Allah.

Irrelevant to discussion.

33:67 And they say: Our Lord! Lo! we obeyed our princes and great men, and they misled us from the Way.

What has this got to do with following mo's example as endorsed by quran?

[darth]

Mein Kampf is an authentic book, but its authenticity is quite disgusting.

mein kamph, mein quramph, whatever.

What is "authentic" anyway? Is quran authentic work of allah or authentic work of mo or authentic work of gibril or authentic work of billy bunter. You cannot prove it is authentic work of any of these people (although we can probably definitely rule out billy bunter)...

Oh, please! I know imitation is the best form of flattery, but you used to have some credibility in this forum before your started spouting off idiot AB's nonsensical non arguments. Please don't start now with his childish gifs.

[darth]

Seems a waste of time when people will believe whatever they want to believe

4.87: Whose hadith (Hadithaan) can be truer than Allah's?

And allah says in quran follow example of mo. Allah's words in quran are true. So recorded example of mo is to be followed

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

And allah says in quran follow example of mo. Allah's words in quran are true. So recorded example of mo is to be followed

9.31: They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks (ie. Hanbal/Bukhari; imams and sheiks) and the
Messiah son of Mary (or Muhammad turned into such an Islamic Messiah), when they were bidden to worship only One God.

Irrelevant as far as following mo's example is concerned

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

Applies to fabricated lies. Does not prove hadiths are fabricated lies (except in one's wishful thinking)

31.6: Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith (Al-Hadithi), and thus divert others from the path of GOD.

Prove that mo's recorded example are baseless hadiths.

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

And allah says in quran follow example of mo. Allah's words in quran are true. So recorded example of mo is to be followed

45:18 And now have We set thee (O Muhammad) on a clear road of (Our) commandment (Alá Shari`atin);
so follow it, and follow not the whims of those who know not.

Here in fact, allah says mo was shown the clear path. Since 33.21 says follow example of mo we must conclude that the example of mo is the clear path of allah. This in fact validates recorded information of mo since that is the only way the example of mo can be followed.

45.16 And verily we gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood (Al-Hukma Wa An-Nubuwata),
and provided them with good things and favoured them above (all) peoples...

irrelevant to discussion

42.13: He hath ordained for you that religion (Shara`a Lakum Mina Ad-Dini) which He commended unto Noah,
and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus,
saying: Establish the religion, and be not divided therein.

irrelevant to discussion on validity of hadiths that record mo's actions and habits....

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Cat, you delude yourself. If you follow the Quran only, you still follow Muhammad, because it was Muhammad speaking in the Quran

Was he? Or is it another blind assumption?

Why don't you just simply explain 63:4 then? You saw that I brought it up, so why didn't you simply explain it? That was Muhammad requesting or wishing for Allah to do something. Allah doesn't ask Allah to do things for Allah unless Allah is not Allah at all, and is actually someone's hand puppet.