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 »

yeezevee wrote: Dear SKB, being a Muslim he(the Author) or other Muslim folk does have the right to selectively pick up verses from Quran and use it in his/their life ., What is wrong with that? It doesn't matter many verses of Quran are old stories or bull shitt or rubbish., But still Muslims folks have the right to selectively Quote and use verses of Quran in their life. The only condition should be Those verses that they use should be personal and SHOULD NOT impose on the society around them including on their own kith and kin. If some Muslim folks fulfill such condition what do you think will be the problem dear SKB??
If the author wants to selectively pick then he better declare that he wants to selectively pick verses and isnt bothered about other verses . He should then accept that it doesnt matter to him if quran prescribes hadiths .I see nothing of that. If the author is out here to debate then he better make valid arguments and avoid logical fallacies or else simply say he isnt interested in the truth but wants to cherry pick . The article was written to refute the sunni claim that Obey the messenger means obey Muhammad so in such a case I can assume that the intention of the author was debate and finding truth .
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 »

piscohot wrote: are you morally responsible too for the outcome of upholding the Laws of Allah? Are the above pictures much less morbid and cruel than the ones you posted such that the Laws of Allah appealed better to you than what's in the hadith? maybe i'm just' whipping the river'.
How many times do I have to repeat this:
I acknowledge the Koran for what it is: the sacred book of Islam, which is a plain fact to see.

I never did endorse its authenticity nor its legitimacy. That's where I part with the Koraners.

So I deal with it as -their- sacred code of laws in which the hadiths are portrayed as heretical.
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:
crazymonkie_ wrote:what they're saying is that Mein Kampf is a legitimate book because it represents the beliefs and actions of the National Socialists. It does NOT mean that those who accept that it is legitimate believe in what the book says. They believe only that the National Socialists believed in the arguments of that book.
That sums up the debate! His arguments are really sad!
Sorry but Mein Kampf didn't belong solely to the NS party, except at the beginning, but was hold as legitimate by the whole of Germany until after the war. It is for this reason, its flagrant illegitimacy, that the book is now banned. Legitimacy means endorsing the authority of the content.

And no it doesn't sum up the debate, you're simply mixing themes to suit your delusion.

For when you can't face your delusions, you elude them... or bring in your darth-chihuahua. But here they are to haunt you still:
viewtopic.php?p=130325#p130325" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There was no authoritative hadith by 750. You're barking at the moon. In fact the only collection of hadiths we have from about that time is that of Munnabih, 138 hadiths, of which we have no manuscript evidence. They never were considered authoritative not even by Abu Hanifa.

1. Muhammad interdicted all written hadiths. That's the final authority, that is... apart from the Koran. Period.
2. Thus, Shafi'i criteria were a startling INNOVATION, and bid'aa (ie. heresiarch) for that!

There was no authoritative hadith before Shafi'i made them so. Yet he came shortly before ibn Hanbal and his Musnad, which aren't even considered Sahih that is authoritative from so-called authoricity. That's where your wording of authenticity originates from: 200 years of corroborating silence over their unauthenticity. The very act of having to construct a chain of narrators is proving this without a doubt.... We would have recognized authoritative hadiths directly from Muhammad. We don't.

We only have the Sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabbih, which contains 138 hadiths of Abu Hurairah (not over 5,000 as per Bukhari). If one thing it proves that the interdiction of writing down hadiths was respected even by Abu Hurairah for we have NO first hand hadiths directly from him.
viewtopic.php?p=130327#p130327" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Bukhari's) Rigorous criterias? Like admitting any kid's statements and anyone who had only meet or seen the prophet for a minute? Equaling all testimonies as worthy: That's what you call rigorous? How can anyone be as blinded as Muhammadans which shirk you shamelessly endorse?

Clearly the Koran states that many contemporaries of the prophet were hypocrites, why should we trust any of them as Bukhari does? (9.58; 9.74). The first reliability of the companions is if they fought along the messenger, others are to be dismissed (9.90; 9.101).

The very act of naming some hadiths 'sahih' is hypocrite if they aren't of the Mutawatir type.

The very fact that the Mutazilites and the Kharijites (former Koraners) rejected their authority is proof enough that they weren't authoritative until the Abbasid reversed the motion through Shafi'i and Hanbal. It took them a lot of time, a century or so (750-850) to establish their perversion. Abu Hanifa was jailed and tortured until he died (767), his school to toe the line it is said ''from traditions unavailable to him''. How's that! Then the Mutazilites disappearing with the drowning of the Ijtihad tradition (independent scholarship), with the Kharijites duly exterminated.

The very first other school of law to emerge was that of 'Imam' Malik who authored the Muwatta, not yet a hadith collection in what became the 'traditional acceptance' of the meaning. He was raised in the court of Abbasid caliph al-Mansour, the very same one who imprisoned Abu Hanifa !

Yet he stated: "He who establishes an innovation in Islam regarding it as something good, has claimed that Muhammad
has betrayed his trust to deliver the message as God says, 'this day have I perfected for you your religion' (5.3). And
whatsoever was not part of the religion then, is not part of the religion today" (al-I'tisaam).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muwatta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How come it (Malik's Muwatta) isn't even Sahih? So the basic felony, ie. heresy, came even later... with the trinity of Shafi'i/Hanbal/Bukhari.

Bukhari 2.26.671:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
When Allah’s Apostle came to Mecca, he refused to enter the Ka'ba with idols in it.

To prove Ibn Abbas' & Bukhari's reliability and accuracy (thus legitimacy), you 1st must prove that there was
a major pilgrimage center named Mecca in the 6th century. Ta'if was known, Yathrib too but... not Mecca !
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who needs 'hints' (of wishful desires) when we've got clear Koranic stipulation:

7:185 Have they not considered the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and what things Allah hath created,
and that it may be that their own term draweth nigh ? In what fact (Hadithin) after this will they believe ?

45:6 These are the portents of Allah which We recite unto thee (Muhammad) with truth.
Then in what fact (Hadithin), after Allah and His portents, will they believe ?


Here the only sunna to be followed is Allah's portents. Hadiths are dismissed from the first:
7.185: In what hadith (human stories) AFTER THIS will they believe?
45.6: In what hadith, after Allah and His PORTENTS, will they believe?


I'll ask you a very tough question, only top Islamic scholars could answer:
Who does the Koran recognized as IMAMS? And is Mhmd duly included?
For if he ain't an Imam as per the Koran, those who entitled themselves with such a title are in plain felony: the whole Islamic clergy!
If he ain't even an imam (trustworthy guiding soul) as per the Koran, who should follow the example set forth by such a person?
Eluding the questions is what delusive persons make when cornered... :???:
Last edited by The Cat on Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 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:if we are to consider the article of the author as genuine then following are its implications.

1) Quran alone is sufficient
2) Quran doesn’t sanction the hadiths
Point 1)
WRONG. Allah alone is sufficient as a Guide and a Helper (25.30-31). When something isn't clear in the Koran, believers are asked to rely on the previous scriptures (Torah, Gospel, Zabur/Psalms), just like Mhmd himself has been ordered to. Clearly he ain't no guide by himself...

10.94: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

Allah's sunna is sufficient (17.77; 48.23) so Abraham is set to be the perfect example to be follow, the perfected Muslim,
although he never received any sacred book, let alone the fantasmagoric Hadiths.

3:65 O People of the Scripture! Why will ye argue about Abraham, when the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till after him ?
Have ye then no sense ?


3:67 Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.

Koran 5.3 states that the DIN of al-Islam is perfected AND completed...
This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam.

Even 'Imam' Malik agreed:
"He who establishes an innovation in Islam regarding it as something good, has claimed that Muhammad has betrayed
his trust to deliver the message as God says, 'this day have I perfected for you your religion' (5.3). And whatsoever
was not part of the religion then, is not part of the religion today" (al-I'tisaam).


Point 2)
Not only the Koran doesn't sanction the hadiths, it repels -whatever- isn't directly from Him.

3.62-63: Lo! This verily is the true narrative. There is no God save Allah, and lo! Allah, He verily is, is the Mighty, the Wise.
---And if they turn away, then lo! Allah is Aware of (who are) the corrupters.


3:69 A party of the People of the Scripture long to make you go astray;
and they make none to go astray except themselves, but they perceive not.


3:73 And believe not save in one who followeth your religion - Say (O Muhammad): Lo! the guidance is Allah's Guidance
- that anyone is given the like of that which was given unto you or that they may argue with you in the presence of their Lord...
.

3:78 And lo! there is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture,
when it is not from the Scripture. And they say: It is from Allah, when it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly.


3:79 It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and the prophethood that he should afterwards
have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah; but (what he said was): Be ye faithful servants of the Lord by virtue of your constant
teaching of the Scripture and of your constant study thereof.

skynightblaze wrote:In the light of the above verses (62.2; 16.44; 2.129; 4.64) it becomes clear that quran cannot be complete without the hadiths and quranic verses hint at following the hadiths.
Deluded. The Koran states that all messengers should be obeyed alike, but still they aren't responsible on how their people behave.

3:128 It is no concern at all of thee (Muhammad) whether He relent toward them or punish them; for they are evil-doers.

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.


46:23 He said: The knowledge is with Allah only. I convey unto you that wherewith I have been sent, but I see you are a folk that know not.

88.20-21: Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, Thou art not at all a warder over them.

Clearly, the Koran makes you with all those shirking Muhammadans among the losers.

Now tell me again how the former Muslims (Abraham, Christians 5.111) were less Muslims before the Sahih hadiths came in... :roflmao:
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:if we are to consider the article of the author as genuine then following are its implications.

1) Quran alone is sufficient
2) Quran doesn’t sanction the hadiths
Point 1)
WRONG. Allah alone is sufficient as a Guide and a Helper (25.30-31). When something isn't clear in the Koran, believers are asked to rely on the previous scriptures (Torah, Gospel, Zabur/Psalms), just like Mhmd himself has been ordered to. Clearly he ain't no guide by himself...
And how do they know which of these scriptures to rely on as they are called "corrupted"??
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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 »

I think that Cat is going through so much "cognitive dissonance" right now that he 's not even sure what he is saying at this point, and is slowly degenerating into a desperate logical mess.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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 »

The Cat wrote:
piscohot wrote: are you morally responsible too for the outcome of upholding the Laws of Allah? Are the above pictures much less morbid and cruel than the ones you posted such that the Laws of Allah appealed better to you than what's in the hadith? maybe i'm just' whipping the river'.
How many times do I have to repeat this:
I acknowledge the Koran for what it is: the sacred book of Islam, which is a plain fact to see.

I never did endorse its authenticity nor its legitimacy. That's where I part with the Koraners.
When you call it "sacred", you endorse it. What part don't you understand?? What is the matter with your head??
The Cat wrote: So I deal with it as -their- sacred code of laws in which the hadiths are portrayed as heretical.
Who cares whether it's "their" sacred code of laws or not?? If it's not from the creator of the universe than it has no legitimacy, except it's own logic itself, which it fails at miserably. The ONLY reason why anybody would be stupid enough to enact Muslim law is because they think it truly comes from God. Without that, there's no reason to even entertain it, as it's logic is extremely lacking and there are more sophisticated legal systems that have been invented. Honestly, what is so difficult for you to understand??? What is ailing your mind to make you make these clear logical mistakes?? You don't seem to be stupid, so something else is bothering you greatly for you to make these logical errors.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
zamie
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by zamie »

Muhammad is right... and all you have to do is look at history to realise why

All law exept sharia has changed over time. Look at england in the middle ages, and then look at it now in 2010. See anything different cat???

Now let's look at sharia. It's the same crap that was in arabia pre islam, nothing has changed. How it is now is how it was 1400 hundred years ago. NOw ask yourself a quesion cat. WHy has this law not changed?? The answer is becaeu people are dumb enough to belive it's from god, and therefore perfect. Now, you have admitted yourself that you ignore its legitimacy, so why on earth would you endorse the law, that's only exists only because people are dumb enough to believe it's from god???? A logical person would look at sharia and reform the whole damn thing..
The muslim challenge. If you cannot answer it, your religion is refuted.
(viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8341)

"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:if we are to consider the article of the author as genuine then following are its implications.

1) Quran alone is sufficient
2) Quran doesn’t sanction the hadiths
Point 1)
WRONG. Allah alone is sufficient as a Guide and a Helper (25.30-31). When something isn't clear in the Koran, believers are asked to rely on the previous scriptures (Torah, Gospel, Zabur/Psalms), just like Mhmd himself has been ordered to. Clearly he ain't no guide by himself...
And how do they know which of these scriptures to rely on as they are called "corrupted"??
Since the matter has much importance... You'll learn a thing or two therein:

Was the Bible Corrupted?
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8273" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for the rest, as usual, it doesn't worth a response. Better check if there's too much pampers in between your ears... :crazy:
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

The Cat wrote:
piscohot wrote: are you morally responsible too for the outcome of upholding the Laws of Allah? Are the above pictures much less morbid and cruel than the ones you posted such that the Laws of Allah appealed better to you than what's in the hadith? maybe i'm just' whipping the river'.
How many times do I have to repeat this:
I acknowledge the Koran for what it is: the sacred book of Islam, which is a plain fact to see.

I never did endorse its authenticity nor its legitimacy. That's where I part with the Koraners.

So I deal with it as -their- sacred code of laws in which the hadiths are portrayed as heretical.
just pointing out to you how silly it is to hold SNB responsible for hadiths just because he believed it to be authentic, afterall he's not the one who set the rules.

as soon as you or any other muslims can show that the quran holds laws/rules for everything mentioned in the hadiths, i'lll agree with you that hadiths are unncessary or 'heretical'.
The Cat wrote: WRONG. Allah alone is sufficient as a Guide and a Helper (25.30-31). When something isn't clear in the Koran, believers are asked to rely on the previous scriptures (Torah, Gospel, Zabur/Psalms), just like Mhmd himself has been ordered to. Clearly he ain't no guide by himself.
Did Allah too point out to muslims which are the ones that are corrupted and should not be followed? If not, how do the muslims know what to follow and what not to follow?

None of what you mentioned (collectively) contain guides to EVERYTHING.

What then when you are faced with situations requiring judgement but cannot find them in the books mentioned?
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:
piscohot wrote: are you morally responsible too for the outcome of upholding the Laws of Allah? Are the above pictures much less morbid and cruel than the ones you posted such that the Laws of Allah appealed better to you than what's in the hadith? maybe i'm just' whipping the river'.
How many times do I have to repeat this:
I acknowledge the Koran for what it is: the sacred book of Islam, which is a plain fact to see.

I never did endorse its authenticity nor its legitimacy. That's where I part with the Koraners.

So I deal with it as -their- sacred code of laws in which the hadiths are portrayed as heretical.
You will have to keep on repeating that, because most of the posters appear not to understand you well.

Perhaps you should embolden, use color and space out your crisp note and present as follows:
I acknowledge the Koran for what it is: the sacred book of Islam, which is a plain fact to see.


I never did endorse its authenticity nor its legitimacy. That's where I part with the Koraners.


So I deal with it as -their- sacred code of laws in which the hadiths are portrayed as heretical.
That would surely help.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
The Cat wrote:s
I acknowledge the Koran for what it is: the sacred book of Islam, which is a plain fact to see.


I never did endorse its authenticity nor its legitimacy. That's where I part with the Koraners.


So I deal with it as -their- sacred code of laws in which the hadiths are portrayed as heretical.
That would surely help.
Well The Cat is trying to invent some antibiotic to Viral Islam using Quran itself by juggling some surahs around dear Ghalibkhastahaal. During that exploratory process he appears to make some mistakes and he appears to be playing in to wrong hands. You see above he says contradictory statements.
" I never did endorse its authenticity nor its legitimacy" and I deal with it as -their- sacred code of laws .
You see once you make a book as sacred code of laws and IMPOSE ON OTHERS then you have a clash and you will have a problem. And in the History of "Muhammad's Islam" That is what Islam did and Quran has verses in support of that.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

yeezevee wrote:Well The Cat is trying to invent some antibiotic to Viral Islam using Quran itself by juggling some surahs around dear Ghalibkhastahaal. During that exploratory process he appears to make some mistakes and he appears to be playing in to wrong hands. You see above he says contradictory statements.
" I never did endorse its authenticity nor its legitimacy" and I deal with it as -their- sacred code of laws .
You see once you make a book as sacred code of laws and IMPOSE ON OTHERS then you have a clash and you will have a problem. And in the History of "Muhammad's Islam" That is what Islam did and Quran has verses in support of that.
I do understand you concern but one must accept what the poster has declared.

The Cat has clearly declared that he has never endorsed the authenticity or the legitimacy of Quran and has assured everyone here that he parts away from the Koraners at that point. So, he is not playing in any wrong hands.

The Cat has come to the right conclusion that Quran is the Muslims' sacred book on which Islam stands. Islam does not need Hadith to stand upon as the Hadith itself does not have a leg to stand upon. In other words, he is also saying that Hadith is not the scripture of Islam.

Thanks for your concern.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by skynightblaze »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: The Cat has come to the right conclusion that Quran is the Muslims' sacred book on which Islam stands. Islam does not need Hadith to stand upon as the Hadith itself does not have a leg to stand upon. In other words, he is also saying that Hadith is not the scripture of Islam.

Thanks for your concern.
Heard enough of gibberish from you ! If quran doesnt require hadiths to stand then please answer the 9-10 questions that I have put up or else STFU and you will labelled as a troll.
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
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by MesMorial »

Salaam Skynightblaze.

1) Where is the practice of praying 5 times mentioned in the quran?
2) What postures are to be adopted during praying?
3) Where is circumcision mentioned in the quran?
4) Explain the significance of battle of Badr
5) Explain the significance of night journey in the quran
6) Who is Abu Labab in the quran and why is he hated so much?
7) What is the punishment for a major crime like rape against a woman ?
8) Explain the significance of chapter 66 (Muhammad –maria incident)
9) What are few verses of chapter 24 talking about? Please explain the situation .
10) What are the punishments for gambling and drinking liquor especially when they are prohibited?


QUESTION 1


“And keep up prayer in the two parts of the day and in the first hours of the night; surely good deeds take away evil deeds this is a reminder to the mindful.”

Qur’an 11:114


Personally I can see only 3 salaat in the Qur’an although to justify 5 people interpret 17:78 to mean noon and not sunset:


“Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night and the morning recitation; surely the morning recitation is witnessed.”

Qur’an 17:78


To get the fifth:


“Attend constantly to prayers and to the middle prayer and stand up truly obedient to Allah.”

Qur’an 2:238


(The middle prayer should be Asr because the sun is half-way down and in between the other prayers).


However since Islam itself is unchanged from Abraham we may or may not consider this:

One day Peter and John (two of Jesus' apostles) were going up to the temple at the time of prayer at three in the afternoon (Acts 3:1).
About noon the following day as they are approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray (Acts 10:9)



QUESTION 2


All positions of Salat are found in the Qur’an:


Standing position:

Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a Word from Allah, and honorable and chaste and a prophet from among the good ones.

Qur’an 3:39


What! he who is obedient during hours of the night, prostrating himself and standing, takes care of the hereafter and hopes for the mercy of his Lord! Say: Are those who know and those who do not know alike? Only the men of understanding are mindful.

Qur'an 39:9


Bowing and prostration positions (Rukoo' and Sajood):

And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those who bow down.

Qur’an 2:43


O Marium! keep to obedience to your Lord and humble yourself, and bow down with those who bow.

Qur’an 3:43


They who turn (to Allah), who serve (Him), who praise (Him), who fast, who bow down, who prostrate themselves, who enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, and who keep the limits of Allah; and give good news to the believers.

Qur’an 9:112



QUESTION 3

Circumcision is not in the Qur’an. It is not a matter of divine decree and hence its decision is not to be made in the name of religion. It is like personal matters such as how long a man and wife spend in bed each night…



QUESTION 4

“Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude.Remember thou saidst to the Faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three thousand angels (Specially) sent down?"Yea, - if ye remain firm, and act aright, even if the enemy should rush here on you in hot haste, your Lord would help you with five thousand angels Making a terrific onslaught.”

The signficiance is such that it has been detailed in the Qur’an. The lesson is that Allah well help the true believers.



QUESTION 5

The Qur’an provides some images and a few details of the Night Journey, but its purpose is to reinforce that Muhammad (SAW) has indeed been endowed with a special favour/position from Allah (SWT). It is apparently in accordance with 72:28-29:

"He (alone) knows the Unseen, nor does He make any one acquainted with His Mysteries,-

Except to him whom He chooses as a messenger…”



QUESTION 6

The Qur’an is a warning and a correction of scripture (e.g. the Father of Fire’s wealth will not avail him). Furthermore it was assumed that the people would know who Muhammad’s uncle was (the same way it is assumed that people knew how long a month was or how to count to twelve…though I am not sure there is a lesson on that in the ahadith.) Abu Lahab was quite famous as an enemy of the Prophet (SAW) it seems. It is not relevant to the ultimate purpose of the Qur’an in 5:3 (to perfect Islam). The Qur’an is literally saying “Remember him!”



QUESTION 7

Most probably the punishment for adultery. The victim is not punished.

“Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them).”

Qur’an 24:33



QUESTION 8

There is a difference between direct inspiration of the Prophet (SAW) and revelation (which inspires all of humanity). Since Muhammad (SAW) is to be an example he is questioned about his conduct in not pleasing his wives. It is quite clearly stated and the rest of the incident simply describes how secrecy in the family is not welcome. The context is revealed in the first verse, and it is all we need though Allah (SWT) then describes how a secret was kept amongst his wives.



QUESTION 9

It is a mix of inspiration and revelation. The slander is given in 24:6 as falsely accusing a woman of adultery. It refers to a case of such slander known to the Prophet (SAW) at the time. It is in no way mysterious as to the purpose of these verses. Those who lie and are caught will be punished. Those who are not caught will be punished in the Hereafter. It is a personal inspiration to Muhammad (SAW) given so that he may reveal an example of such a situation to all believers (and encourage them).



QUESTION 10

Alcohol is clearly condemned as detrimental and hence should be forbidden in an Islamic society. However since it is not explicitly prohibited then certainly believers must not indulge in it nor consume it around prayer. Great care should be taken to ensure that people are (to the best of their ability) in a state to most effectively remember Allah (SWT). Likewise gambling is a detriment. Now I believe explicit punishments were not given because it is assumed that true believers will not engage in them (this is a part of faith) and that society (i.e. the responsible law-givers) would prohibit them.

The punishments for such conduct would depend on the consequences, but as I said in the sphere of Islam it has no place. Muslims would most likely shy from any place where gambling and/or drinking were allowed (or they would exclude it from society).

I have no time to expand these points but I hope that they answer your questions.


Salaam and Allah Hafiz
Last edited by MesMorial on Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

skynightblaze wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: The Cat has come to the right conclusion that Quran is the Muslims' sacred book on which Islam stands. Islam does not need Hadith to stand upon as the Hadith itself does not have a leg to stand upon. In other words, he is also saying that Hadith is not the scripture of Islam.

Thanks for your concern.
Heard enough of gibberish from you ! If quran doesnt require hadiths to stand then please answer the 9-10 questions that I have put up or else STFU and you will labelled as a troll.
Salam

You got me wrong. I said that Hadith has no leg to stand upon in front of Quran. Your questions have already been answered by another poster, who has answered without the help of any hadith. As such, it is not necessary for me to answer. You can see now that it is not necessary to have hadith to read and understand Quran.

It is the message and the moral that matters.

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: Delusion: there was no authoritative hadith by 750. You're barking at the moon. In fact the only collection of hadiths we have from about that time is that of Munnabih, 138 hadiths, of which we have no manuscript evidence. They never were considered authoritative not even by Abu Hanifa.
To put a final nail in your coffin I found out that there were hadiths even during muhammads time .Read
Spoiler! :
The very existence of a huge library of hadith -- the only one of its kind among the religions of the world -- answers the question in the affirmative. To dismiss all that as later day fabrication (#1A, #2) requires lots of guts -- and equal parts ignorance. Were ahadith written down for the first time in the third century of Hijra? Not at all. Actually hadith recording and collection started at the time of the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Abd-Allah ibn Amr ibn al-'As, Radi-Allahu unhu, sought and was given the permission to write everything he heard from the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa Sallam, who said: "By the One in Whose Hands is my life! Whatever proceeds from here [pointing to his mouth] is the truth." He produced Sahifa Sadiqa, which contained more than six thousand ahadith. Anas ibn Malik, Radi-Allahu unhu, who spent ten years in Prophet's household, not only recorded the ahadith but also presented them to the Prophet, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and got corrections. Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu, had many volumes of his collections and even produced smaller compilations for his students. Prominent Hadith scholar Dr. Mustafa Azami has shown in his doctoral thesis that in the first century of Hijra many hundred booklets of hadith were in circulation. By the end of the second century, "by the most conservative estimate there were many thousands."
Of course most of these books do not exist today. They were simply absorbed into the encyclopedic collections that emerged in the third century. One manuscript from the first century was discovered in this century and published by Dr. Hamidullah. It is Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbah, who was a disciple of Abu Hurairah, Radi-Allahu unhu. It contains 138 ahadith. Muhaddithin knew that the ahadith of this Sahifa had been absorbed into Musnad Ahmed and Muslim collections, which have been published continuously since their third century debut. After the discovery of the original manuscript it was naturally compared with the ahadith in Muslim and Musnad Ahmed that were thought to have come from that Sahifa. And what did they find? There was not an iota of difference between the two. Similarly Mussanaf of Abd al-Razzaq is extant and has been published. As has been Mu'ammar ibn Rashid's al-Jami. These recently discovered original manuscripts bear out the Sihah Sitta. The recent appearance of these original manuscripts should bring the most skeptical into the fold of believers.
Btw if we don’t have manuscripts it doesn’t mean that those hadiths never existed. They were lost with time and there was no need to preserve them because they had already made their way into encyclopedia of Bukhari.
The Cat wrote: 1. Muhammad interdicted all written hadiths. That's the final authority, that is... apart from the Koran. Period.
2. Already refuted ! Avoid bringing the same crap again and again!I brought here hadiths that show
otherwise.
The Cat wrote: Thus, Shafi'i criteria were a startling INNOVATION, and bid'aa (ie. heresiarch) for that!
Do you take tuitions from BMZ as to how to troll? The hadith I brought regarding best of muslims does satisfy shafi’s criteria. Shafi’s criteria was something you brought into the equation.If you and your author at answering islam consider Shafi’s criteria as a valid criteria then according to your own criteria the hadith I brought becomes authentic!
The Cat wrote:
A Revaluation of Islamic Traditions, by Joseph Schacht
http://www.answering-islam.net/Books/Sc ... uation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I haven’t read the article but just a question to answering islam . Why do they mislead people regarding islam by using hadiths when they themselves acknowledge that hadiths are unreliable? My guess is you are stupid to place that article here without understanding the context in which the article is written. Answering islam certainly doesn’t believe that all the hadiths are unauthentic.
The Cat wrote: See how you're proving my point: there was no authoritative hadith before Shafi'i made them so. Yet he came shortly before ibn Hanbal and his Musnad, which aren't even considered Sahih that is authoritative from so-called authoricity. That's where your wording of authenticity originates from: 200 years of corroborating silence over their unauthenticity. The very act of having to construct a chain of narrators is proving this without a doubt.
DO you realize that your point regarding SHAFI HORRIBLY BACKFIRES AGAINST YOU?? AS per shafi ‘s criteria the early hadiths become reliable.


The Cat wrote: Then, nonetheless, we would have recognized authoritative hadiths directly from Muhammad. We don't.
WE don’t have quran either.Its just that Muhammad said and so and that’s why the companions put something into quran.
The Cat wrote:You can't disprove that we have no manuscript evidence of ANY early hadiths, and this silence is deafening for about two centuries,
which disprove the possibility that the prophet may have abrogated his asking NOT to write down any hadith.
For in that case we would have religiously preserved hadiths from the companions. We don't. Go figure...
STOP STOP STOP Trolling! You have been shown not once but plenty of times that early hadiths did exist. Even as per the latest information that I learned there were hadiths during muhammads time too. Its only that we managed to have manuscript of early hadith which contains 138 hadiths but there were hadiths earlier than that but we don’t have manuscripts for them. They managed to make their way into a larger encyclopedia of Bukhari and hence their preservation wasn’t necessary . Its not that they didn’t exist so cut the crap argument that there were no hadiths for 2 centuries and hence Muhammad didn’t allow writing of hadiths!

Tafsir of ibn abbas is another proof that writing down books ot her than quran were allowed but the only criteria was not to attribute lies to Muhammad.

The Cat wrote:We only have the Sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabbih, which contains 138 hadiths of Abu Hurairah (not over 5,000 as per Bukhari). If one thing it proves that the interdiction of writing down hadiths was respected even by Abu Hurairah for we have NO first hand hadiths directly from him.
:lol: So now Abu huraira becomes reliable ? Are you sure you don’t want to change your statement?
The Cat wrote:
"Ulum Al-Hadith" by Ibn Al-Salah, reports a hadith by Abu Hurayra in which Abu Hurayra said the messenger of God came out to us while we were writing his hadiths and said; "What are you writing?" We said, "Hadiths that we hear from you, messenger of God." He said, "A book other than the book of God?" We said, "Should we talk about you?" He said, Talk about me, that would be fine, but those who will lie will go to Hell. Abu Hurayra said, we collected what we wrote of Hadiths and burned them in fire.
Yet, you're delusion says you have proven something. That's delusive alright... :prop:
That was a command not to associate anything with quran when quran was revealed. That command to not write hadiths was abrogated later after the completion of quran . We have hadiths confirming it and we have also tafsir of Ibn Abbas as a proof attesting this.Enough of your gibberish 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 »

The Cat wrote: Rigorous criterias? Like admitting any kid's statements and anyone who had only meet or seen the prophet for a minute? Equalling all testimonies as worthy: That's what you call rigorous? How can anyone be as blinded as Muhammadans which shirk you shamelessly endorse?
Prove your crap! Did Gabriel come and tell you that those who Bukhari considered authentic were liars?How do you as a person who is born in 21st century confirm this? Mate you are the great great grandfather of stupidity!
Secondly how many times does one need to explain you that one doesn’t need to see anyone to narrate or become authentic. Ibn abbas and others who were aged 12 or 5 years learned things from sahabas of Muhammad.
Let me again give an example to establish your spotless stupidity!
I was born in 1985 but today I can narrate an event that happened in 1990 . I wasn’t required to witness the event nor was I of the age who could understand that event in 1990.Does this make my narration unreliable? Ofcourse not because I can learn about the event when I grew up and hence I can narrate the same.
The Cat wrote: Clearly the Koran states that many contemporaries of the prophet were hypocrites, why should we trust any of them as Bukhari does?
Illiterate person one of the criteria of Bukhari was to study the authenticity of each person in the chain. If the contemporary of Muhammad were hypocrites Bukhari discarded them.You don’t even know how bukhari compiled the hadiths and like an illiterate desert person you are commenting on their authenticity.If you don’t know a tleast make a habit of googling a bit before proving yourself more stupid than ever here!





The Cat wrote: 9:58 And of them is he who defameth thee in the matter of the alms. If they are given thereof they are content,
and if they are not given thereof, behold! they are enraged.

9:74 They swear by Allah that they said nothing (wrong), yet they did say the word of disbelief, and did disbelieve after their Surrender....


The first reliability of the companions is if they fought along the messenger, others are to be dismissed:

9:90 And those among the wandering Arabs who had an excuse came in order that permission might be granted them.
And those who lied to Allah and His messenger sat at home.

9:101 And among those around you of the wandering Arabs there are hypocrites, and among the townspeople of Al-Madinah
(there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou (O Muhammad) knowest not.
Bukhari didn’t compile testimonies of unreliable or hypocrite companions of Muhammad! Game over!
The Cat wrote: The very act of naming some hadiths 'sahih' is hypocrite if they aren't of the Mutawatir type.
Who told you that?
The Cat wrote: The very fact that the Mutazilites and the Kharijites (former Koraners) rejected their authority is proof enough that they weren't authoritative until the Abbasid reversed the motion through Shafi'i and Hanbal. It took them a lot of time, a century or so (750-850) to establish their perversion. Abu Hanifa was jailed and tortured until he died (767), his school to toe the line it is said ''from traditions unavailable to him''. How's that! Then the Mutazilites disappearing with the drowning of the Ijtihad tradition (independent scholarship), with the Kharijites duly exterminated.
The fact that some sects emerged and opposed the tradition doesn’t mean sunni t radition was false. Today Ahmadiyya sect has popped up which don’t consider Muhammad as the final prophet so does that mean that today;s tradition of accepting Muhammad as the final prophet is wrong or corrupt?
Take another example .Rashid Khalifa considered himself as a prophet and in the real sense he didn’t accept the traditional crap that Muhammad is a prophet so does that mean people who believe Muhammad was the final prophet are on the wrong path?
I just want to ask how do you seriously manage to pluck pieces of finest baloney ?
The Cat wrote: The very first other school of law to emerge was that of 'Imam' Malik who authored the Muwatta, not yet a hadith collection in what became the 'traditional acceptance' of the meaning. He was raised in the court of Abbasid caliph al-Mansour, the very same one who imprisoned Abu Hanifa !
So? How is it relevant here?
The Cat wrote:
Yet he stated: "He who establishes an innovation in Islam regarding it as something good, has claimed that Muhammad
has betrayed his trust to deliver the message as God says, 'this day have I perfected for you your religion' (5.3). And
whatsoever was not part of the religion then, is not part of the religion today
" (al-I'tisaam).
So Imam malik was against hadith and yet he compiled the hadiths? :lol: .
The fact that he compiled hadith shows that hadiths were valid.Do you realize that most of the times whatever quotes you bring debunk your arguments?You are helping my cause :lol: See the quote below. It praises Malik’s hadith which means hadiths were allowed as well as reliable : lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muwatta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is considered to be from the earliest extant collections of hadith that form the basis of Islamic jurisprudence alongside the Qur'an. Nonetheless, is not merely a collection of hadith; many of the legal precepts it contains are based not on hadith at all. The book covers rituals, rites, customs, traditions, norms and laws of the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.... The Muslim Jurist, Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i famously said, "There is not on the face of the earth a book – after the Book of Allah – which is more authentic than the book of Malik."
The Cat wrote: How come it isn't even Sahih? So the basic felony, ie. heresy, came even later... with the trinity of Shafi'i/Hanbal/Bukhari.
Who told you it isn’t included in sahih?
Spoiler! :
There is another work, however, which should be mentioned in this context and that is the Muwatta of Imam Malik. It is a group of traditions of chiefly legal import put together by the founder of one of the four major schools of law in Islam. Because it is chiefly a corpus juris rather than a corpus traditionum, a collection of legal traditions rather than a general historical work, a veritable Hadith al-Akham (body of juristic hadith assembled as a foundation for the fiqh, the jurisprudence of Islam), it has not been as highly regarded as the two Sahihs. Its contents are also largely repeated in them and it has therefore been overlooked and is not included with the six major works.
The Muwatta may be treated as a good collection of Ahadith in the sense of the legal traditions. Some Muslim authorities like 'Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and 'Abd al-Haq of Delhi include it instead of the Sunan of Ibn Maja in the six canonical collections. Of course the majority of them do not count it as one of the six books because almost all the important traditions contained in it are included in the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p.13).
Furthermore this great jurist of Islam, the Imam Malik did not adopt the same dogmatic approach that his colleague Shafi'i took towards the Sunnah, declaring that the only true sunnah was found in the Hadith and not in the ijma of Muslim scholars, no matter how unanimous it might be, when it could not produce relevant traditions to support it. A Western writer comment's on Malik's Muwatta:
Its intention is not to sift and collect the 'healthy' elements of traditions circulating in the Islamic world but to illustrate the law, ritual and religious practice by the ijma recognised in Medinian Islam, by the sunna current in Medina, and to create a theoretical corrective, from the point of view of ijma and sunna, for things still in a state of flux. Inasmuch as the book has anything in common with a collection of traditions it lies in the sunna rather than the hadith. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.198).
He adds: "Consideration of the Medinian ijma was so much the predominating point of view for Malik that he does not even hesitate to give it preference when it is in conflict to traditions incorporated as correct in his corpus" (p.199). For Malik the value of the tradition literature lay not in supplying a foundation for the laws of Islam but rather in illustrating the application of the legal maxims obtained through the ijma of the scholars of Islam. To Shafi'i each tradition was a ratio decidendi, the root and foundation on which any question of law was to be based or decided. To Malik the illustrative use of each tradition counted more than anything else. For him each tradition took the form of an obiter dictum, a passing reference which could help to elucidate a legal principle rather than become the authority on which such principles were to be based. Nonetheless, as his Muwatta is one of the earliest collections of traditions and as most of them were approved by Bukhari and Muslim, his work has an important place in the field of Hadith literature studies even to this day.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/6b.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Cat wrote:
Bukhari 2.26.671:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
When Allah’s Apostle came to Mecca, he refused to enter the Ka'ba with idols in it.

To prove Ibn Abbas' & Bukhari's reliability and accuracy (thus legitimacy), you 1st must prove that there was
a major pilgrimage center named Mecca in the 6th century. Ta'if was known, Yathrib too but... not Mecca !
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I obviously am not going to go through your crap links because I am sure they must be faulty since you claim them to be authentic.I have understood what authentic means to you.If mecca wasn’t there so please tell me Where did Abraham build his place of worship ? Its there in the quran and obviously its referring to Kaaba in mecca.
The Cat wrote:
Who needs 'hints' (of wishful desires) when we've got clear Koranic stipulation:

7:185 Have they not considered the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and what things Allah hath created,
and that it may be that their own term draweth nigh ? In what fact (Hadithin) after this will they believe ?

45:6 These are the portents of Allah which We recite unto thee (Muhammad) with truth.
Then in what fact (Hadithin), after Allah and His portents, will they believe ?


Here the only sunna to be followed is Allah's portents. Hadiths are dismissed from the first:
7.185: In what hadith (human stories) AFTER THIS will they believe?
45.6: In what hadith, after Allah and His PORTENTS, will they believe?
Sunna of Allah also includes following hadiths because quran claims to follow hadiths. The verses which I brought prev iously convey that abundantly.So are you trying to tell me that those verses are not ALLAH ‘s SUNNAH? Quran itself suggests muslims to follow hadiths so following hadiths is also a SUNNAH FROM ALLAH! Did you get it atleast now ? If not then it’s the last time that I am explaining this to you.
The Cat wrote:
I'll ask you a very though question, only top Islamic scholars could answer:
Who does the Koran recognized as IMAMS? And is Mhmd duly included?
For if he ain't an Imam as per the Koran, those who entitled themselves with such a title are in plain felony: the whole Islamic clergy!
If he ain't even an imam (trustworthy guiding soul) as per the Koran, who should follow the example set forth by such a person?
In 4:65 Muhammad could guide and resolve some disputes between muslims so if Muhammad wasn’t an imam how could he do that? Secondly quran asks muslims to OBEY THE MEN OF AUTHORITY. IF not even Muhammad is considered an Imam then how can men of authority be IMAMS so that we can obey them? In short your understanding of the quranic verses is poor.
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 »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: Salam

You got me wrong. I said that Hadith has no leg to stand upon in front of Quran. Your questions have already been answered by another poster, who has answered without the help of any hadith. As such, it is not necessary for me to answer. You can see now that it is not necessary to have hadith to read and understand Quran.

It is the message and the moral that matters.
I just read his post. I shall reply to him. He claims he has explained but sadly he hasnt . All his answers are half baked. I shall refute him too .
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 »

[quote="The Cat']So it's the very legitimacy you give to the hadiths which makes YOU disgusting.

Most fortunately though, you've been debunked on this matter too. Thank God !
[/quote]

I have replied to you adequately from my side to you as far as this issue is concerned.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Post Reply