Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

[The Cat]

This will be my last lengthy answers to snb... But lengthy it will be.

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. 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.

IF they were permitted by Muhammad himself then they would have been religiously preserved, without any intermediate.

Your arguments:
1. They were lost with time and there was no need to preserve them
2. because they had already made their way into encyclopedia of Bukhari.
That's a miracle! Lost hadiths reappeared because they were already into Bukhari.

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.

Gratuitous assumption: your so-called refutation has been debunked

1. `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As (d. 695), al-Sahifa al- Sadiqa, originally containing about 1,000 hadiths of which 500 reached us, copied down by `Abd Allah directly from the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace - BUT transmitted to us by his great-grandson `Amr ibn Shu`ayb (d.840).

2. Hammam ibn Munabbih's (d.733 or 763) al-Sahifa al- Sahiha which has reached us complete in two manuscripts containing 138 hadiths narrated by Hammam thus not directly from Abu Hurayra (d.681, says wiki, at age 78).

Most of the other mentioned were known through Ibn Ishaq, which really means for sure Ibn Hisham (d.833)

So we have NO first hand hadiths from Hurairah. The 138 hadiths we have from his alleged pupil Hamman ibn Munabbih only appeared around 750, posthumously. This pinpoint that Hurairah himself respected Muhammad's order not to write down hadiths but transmitted them orally. The al-Sahifa al- Sadiqa of `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As was transmitted by his great-grandson `Amr ibn Shu`ayb (d.840). Again, this pinpoint to the fact that they weren't written down until late after Muhammad's death, all after the Abbasid usurped power.

We have NO hadiths from the time of Muhammad. No hadiths from the time of the former caliphs. Not a single valid hadith collection until at least 750: 138 meager hadiths from Munabbih, far from the 5000 found in Bukhari. More than 4,500 hadiths of him came down from heaven... Another miracle!

This absence is proving out loud that the interdiction of writing down the hadiths has been respected. The very fact that the hadiths of the prophet only became authoritative from Imam Shafi'i and later is proving that they weren't so before. And Bukhari 1.3.98 is a demonstration how those hadiths were later edited backward for Hurairah was dead (681) before Umar II was even born (c.682) so he couldn't possibly have said this hadith during his lifetime. This is called backward pious fraud, a very common phenomenon.

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.

Contrary to the hadiths the Koran is the mutawatir compilation by excellence, that is corroborated from many different sources. The long chain of one-to-one narrators (likely 6) multiplies the possibility of errancy by EACH one of them. Narrator 2 embellished story #1, narrator #3 changes narration #2 and so on. This fault has been demonstrated, more so when different motives (political, religious, personal interests) are in line.

The Chinese Whispers demonstration on how memory fails:
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/chi ... 55%29.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By Hael Wallaq, a world-renown scholars of Islamic laws
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/st ... adith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The certainty which the sahih yields is not established by means of the modalities of transmission or the quality of rectitude attributed to the transmitters. For instance, it never was the case that the authenticity of an individual hadith of the sahih category was declared ab initio and a priori certain just because it belonged to that group of traditions agreed upon by Bukhari and Muslim. A positive affirmation of authenticity always required an investigation of individual hadiths insofar as their particular mode of transmission was concerned. When these formal methods of enquiry were applied, Ibn al-salah himself found that the mutawatir is virtually non-existent........

We need not squander our energies in arguing about the matter of authenticity. We have been told that except for a score of hadiths, the rest engenders probability, and probability, as we know - and as we have also been unambiguously told by our sources - allows for mendacity and error.

Face it, your sunnite's delusion is a dead-end.

Even as per the latest information that I learned there were hadiths during muhammads time too.... 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 .

I don't believe in miracles. This is what your argument comes down to.
If they didn't preserve their corroborating sources, no 'sahih' is sound !

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.

So now Abu huraira becomes reliable ? Are you sure you don’t want to change your statement?

Once again, as underlined before, you can't read properly what's written and reconstruct from this:

So, the fact that we have NO first hand hadith from Hurairah becomes -in your answer- that he becomes reliable to me.

"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.

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.

---Bukhari, 3:113, Narrated Abu Huraira: There is none among the companions of the Prophet who has narrated more Hadiths than I except 'Abdallah bin Amr (bin Al-'As) who used to write them and I never did the same.

But according to Hurairah:
Abu Hurayra said, we collected what we wrote of Hadiths and burned them in fire.

---Abu Dawood, 25.3639: Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As (...):
I stopped writing, and mentioned it to the Apostle of Allah (pbuh). He signaled with his finger to him mouth and said: Write, by Him in Whose hand my soul lies, only right comes out from it.

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

Some of his hadith are not sahih, but he claimed that all hadith listed were sahih unless specifically indicated otherwise; this has been controversial among Islamic scholars, since some, such as Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani believe some of the unmarked ones to be da'if as well.

There goes another one of your sunnite hero... Apart from unreliability of the ahad transmission that is.

A good sum up (including the three versions of the Farewell Sermon, Hurairah, Bukhari)
http://www.submission.org/had-corruption.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now isn't strange that most hadiths compilers were Persians -and regularly from Khorasan- where the Abbasid came from. No Arabs!

[AhmedBahgat]

Now isn't strange that most hadiths compilers were Persians -and regularly from Khorasan- where the Abbasid came from. No Arabs!

Exactly, see this:

[Idesigner]

Now isn't strange that most hadiths compilers were Persians -and regularly from Khorasan- where the Abbasid came from. No Arabs!

Exactly, see this:

Thats right!!

It was those Persian fire worshippers who concoted all those goofy stories about Mo his pedophilia, 22 wives, screwing right on battle filed etc to defame noble religion of most humanistic Arabian Peninsula warriores. Persian lost their culture, religion and empire. This was their revenge . They are the onw who started that Shia b.s. Keep up good work Ahmed.

[The Cat]

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?... Bukhari didn’t compile testimonies of unreliable or hypocrite companions of Muhammad! Game over!

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.

Your position implies the total infallibility of ALL the companions although some only seen the prophet for a moment.

9:45 They alone ask leave of thee who believe not in Allah and the Last Day, and whose hearts feel doubt, so in their doubt they waver.

9:65 And if thou ask them (O Muhammad) they will say: We did but talk and jest.
Say: Was it at Allah and His revelations and His messenger that ye did scoff ?

10.41-42: And if they deny thee, say: Unto me my work, and unto you your work. Ye are innocent of what I do, and I am innocent of
what ye do. And of them are some who listen unto thee. But canst thou make the deaf to hear even though they apprehend not ?

The companions were infallibles! More miracles! Impressive...

Ibn Abbas contradicted the Koran many times (like on Mut'a marriage). How is he and/or Bukhari any reliable?

Spoiler! :

A man told him that one verse in the Qur’an mentions that the length of the day of resurrection is one thousand years and another verse says it is 50 thousand years (al-Sayda: 5 and al-Ma’arij: 4). Ibn ’Abbas said, "These are two days which God—may He be exalted—has mentioned in His book, and God knows best." This is an honest acknowledgment by ibn ’Abbas without any attempt of justification.

When ibn Musayyib, one of the great companions, was asked about these two days and why they contradict each other, he said, "Ibn ’Abbas avoided talking about them and he is more knowledgeable than me." Yet we find some contemporary scholars who endeavor to justify this contradiction and claim that they are more knowledgeable than ibn ’Abbas! !

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6a/5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ibn Abbas said the prophet allowed mut'a (temporary) marriage, which contradicts the Koran.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v7, Hadith #51
Narrated Abu Jamra: I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Mut'a with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah al-Mut'a). On that a freed slave of his said to him, "That is only when it is very badly needed and (qualified permanent) women are scarce, or similar cases." On that, Ibn Abbas said, "Yes." ......

The above tradition CLEARLY states that Ibn Abbas allowed temporary marriage under some conditions. This can be inferred without need of any interpretation. Now, my question is that do you believe what Sunnis acknowledge concerning that Ibn Abbas was a highly respected companion and the interpreter of Quran? If yes, then you should obey him in this issue also....

I bet these Sunnis do not also believe in all the traditions inside Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. If they believe in all of them then they have found many controversy on this very subject among the companions. The traditions inside these two books say that some companions continued to believe that temporary Marriage is Halaal after the demise of the Prophet and issued verdicts. Then, how can they say these books are all-authentic when they do not believe in those traditions I mentioned?

We should be naive to accept what al-Bukhari attributed to Imam Ali (AS) as genuine when other reports from Imam Ali inside Sunni books say totally the opposite.

Book 38, Number 4448: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas (radia Allahu Anhu):
If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.

http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/par ... 09%29.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There are hadith that quote the prophet declaring that one can observe Hajj on behalf of others (whether they are dead or alive)! and that one can give Zakat on behalf of them and also fast on behalf of them! In other words, these hadith cancel all the content of 53:39 and 6:164 and declares that despite what these Quranic ayat say that one can still benefit and be credited on Judgement Day from the work of another!

Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 589: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abbas:
"Al-Fadl (his brother) was riding behind Allah's Apostle and a woman from the tribe of Khath'am came and Al-Fadl started looking at her and she started looking at him. The Prophet turned Al-Fadl's face to the other side. The woman said, "O Allah's Apostle! The obligation of Hajj enjoined by Allah on His devotees has become due on my father and he is old and weak, and he cannot sit firm on the Mount; may I perform Hajj on his behalf?" The Prophet replied, "Yes, you may." That happened during the Hajj-al-Wadaa (of the Prophet )."

The obvious question here is: would the prophet of God teach what is in violation to the message of the Quran? Would God present a rule in the Quran only for it to be contradicted by His loyal prophet?

We have no direct testimonies of the companions, let alone of Muhammad. All we have is a chain of ahad narrators going like this:
''We heard from Z, who got it from S on the testimony of G, who heard it from D that the companion B heard from the prophet.''

That's the isnad problem & basic unreliability. So we've got many hadiths contradicting each others, let alone contradicting the Koran.
And in turns that brings the matn problem: the content of the hadiths, many contradicting simple common sense if not superstitious.

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

Who told you that?

Only the mutawatir type can be trusted from multi-corroborations.
How can a hadith be declared authentic (sahih) otherwise?
See above, the Chinese Whispers and Hael Walleq.

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.

There was no sunnite tradition back then ! The Ulema began in earnest under caliph Ma'moun ranking against the Mutazilites.

Mu'tazili theology was deeply influenced by Aristotelian thought and Greek rationalism, and stated that matters of belief and practice should be decided by reasoning. This opposed the traditionalist and literalist position of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others, according to which everything a believer needed to know about faith and practice was spelled out literally in the Qur'an and the Hadith. Moreover, the Mu'tazilis stated that the Qur'an was created rather than coeternal with God, a belief that was shared by the Jahmites and parts of Shi'a. wikipedia, Ma'mun.

From this we can see how the so-called 'traditionalists' were in fact revolutionaries. First they fabricated backward sunna,
then stated the sunna of Muhammad was as divinely inspired, finally to kill all oppositions (along with the Ijtihad tradition).

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 hadiths emerged within a political turmoil between the Umayyads and the Abbasids, the Mutazilites and the newly sunnites (ulema).

How come it (the muwatta of Imam Malik) 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?

Check your own source...... They weren't even hadiths in the traditionnal way

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.

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.

Where did Abraham did build his place of worship? Try Genesis... instead of the sunnite/abbasid legends !

Spoiler! :

http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm

Islam claims that Mecca is an ancient historical city which existed long before Christ, dating as far back as the time of Abraham. A powerful argument against this claim is the absence of any inscriptions found on monuments, or in any archaeological records dating back to those times. The ancient cities and kingdoms of Arabia do have rich histories which survive to this day through monuments, the inscriptions they bear, and in other archaeological documents.... Yet, even with this rich collection of historical and archaeological information, there are no inscriptions or monuments, or other archaeological findings whatsoever, that mention Mecca....

Mecca was built on a location between the documented civilizations (the Sabaeans, Dedan and Qedar), yet these civilizations do not have any known inscriptions whatsoever which mention Mecca.... So, if Mecca existed several centuries before Christ, then its inscriptions in stone and rock would have been more intact than the thousands of inscriptions remaining from the cities to the north and south of it.....

With all these trade records, it is unreasonable to suggest that Mecca had existed since the time of Abraham, and was located on an ancient trading route. No archaeological or documented testimony is found anywhere which refers to even one merchant from Mecca. Yet, each kingdom and city on the same land route has many well-documented testimonies of its trade, including in places where it used to trade, or in places the caravan used to pass through. All the historical facts we have tell us that Mecca could not have existed prior to the Christian era. We hold our Muslim friends in high regard, but it is time for them to see that they have been taught a serious mistruth.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mecca as the center of caravan trade presented in the Islamic tradition, was practically unknown by contemporaries. Whereas Arabia (a term which can include the deserts east of Al-Shams) was of political and ecclesiastical importance in the 6th century, there is no mention of the Quraysh or the trading center of Mecca in any way, in any literature from the time, even though Greek and Latin authors had written extensively about the trade which supplied them with the spices and other goods of southern Arabia, and which is assumed in Muslim tradition to have come through Mecca......

Evidence from over thirty sites in the Negev and surrounding areas give evidence to active and thriving pagan cult centers even into the reign of the Umayyad Caliph Hisham (724-743 AD)30. This suggests to us that the reaction to paganism which is so evident in Muslim polemic works, not the least of which would be the Qur'an, exists not because of interaction which the early Muslims had in the Hijaz and Mecca, but because of what they confronted in Al-Shams.

The first time we historically hear about Mecca is with Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, by 710. Until then the Qiblas didn't even faced Mecca.

Sunna of Allah also includes following hadiths because quran claims to follow hadiths.

''Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.'' Albert Einstein.

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.

Muhammad wasn't only a messenger but also a secular leader having to deal with daily worries of his people.

Spoiler! :

How the Koran separates religious and secular matters (God & Caesar)
http://www.detailedquran.com/quran_data ... s_Role.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This lesson will deal with what was the social role of Muhammad as distinct from his role as a messenger of the Message of the Qur’an, this is to answer the question often raised “Was Muhammad just a mouthpiece for the Qur’an and nothing else?”. As part of this social role, Muhammad was indeed to be obeyed as the leader of the community, but this is in a manner distinct from the obedience to word of Allah.

“O Prophet! when believing women come to you giving you a pledge that they will not associate aught with Allah, and will not steal, and will not commit fornication, and will not kill their children, and will not bring a calumny which they have forged of themselves, and will not disobey you in what is good, accept their pledge, and ask forgiveness for them from Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (60:12).

Muhammad judges by what is revealed to him, if he errs in this he is not to be obeyed as he has not the right of Allah to be absolutely obeyed. The reality is that when the Qur’an was not being revealed to him, Muhammad had to judge by it and lead his people in that regard, in this sense he was to be obeyed as the leader of the Muslims who in his capacity ruled by the Qur’an.

“We sent no Messenger except to be obeyed by Allah’s permission. If only when they wronged themselves they had come to you and asked Allah’s forgiveness and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them they would have found Allah Ever-Returning, Most Merciful.” (4:64)

Every prophet that Allah has sent was to be obeyed by Allah’s permission as part of the prophet’s mission. So this not something new. And as Muhammad is dead, we have no obligation to obey him (he is no longer the leader of the Muslims); hence we obey what he proclaimed.

“O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable in the end.” (4:59)

This verse tells us the following:

1. Recall from before that the obey Allah and his messenger means that you obey the revelation of Allah through the messenger.

2. Those who we elect by consultation (3.159) to be figures of authority should be obeyed in their capacity, which is to fulfil their roles by consultation, unless they are going against the revelation of Allah through his prophet Muhammad.

So the general message is to obey ‘Allah and his messenger’ (The Qur’an) as the primary authority in all affairs, but then in affairs of state (mediated by those charged with authority), which should be sorted by consultation: - “Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance;” (42:38).

It must be noted that Muhammad was the community leader, because as Islam regulates our actions in life, the person responsible to tell us these responsibilities and actions will also be the leader in the community. “Say: ‘I am nothing new among the Messengers. I have no idea what will be done with me or you. I only follow what has been revealed to me. I am only a clear warner.’ (46:9)

“…Judge between them by what Allah has sent down and do not follow their whims and desires. And beware of them lest they lure you away from some of what Allah has sent down to you…(5:49). So Allah instructs Muhammad and all of mankind to judge by what Allah has revealed, and that is the Qur’an. Those who do not do this are deniers of the truth and are sinners.

Therefore, when a proponent of Hadith asks you to judge the validity of Hadith from the Hadith itself, then he/she is disobeying Allah. It is time to shun the word of man as our guidance, let us bow down before the word of God and deny all partners in guidance.

Yep the Koran is separating what is secular from the religious, as per 4.58-59:
4.58-59: Lo! Allah commandeth you that ye restore deposits to their owners, and, if ye judge between mankind, that ye judge justly. Lo! comely is this which Allah admonisheth you. Lo! Allah is ever Hearer, Seer. ---O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.

More so, Muhammad is commanded to seek council, not to rule (in human affairs) as a despot.
3.159: It was by the mercy of Allah that thou wast lenient with them (O Muhammad), for if thou hadst been stern and fierce of heart
they would have dispersed from round about thee. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the
conduct of affairs. And when thou art resolved, then put thy trust in Allah. Lo! Allah loveth those who put their trust (in Him).

Now, I'll help you out with this Imam affair within the Koran. One of them three that the
Koran recognized as an Imam (guiding soul) is Abraham, justified on the base of 2.124:

''And (remember) when his Lord tried Abraham with (His) commands, and he fulfilled them, He said: Lo! I have appointed thee a leader
for mankind ('Imāmāan). (Abraham) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders) ? He said: My covenant includeth not wrong-doers.''

So here we find that the Koran acknowledges Abraham as a imam, appointed leader for mankind. The other two being Isaac and Jacob (21.73). The Koran doesn't recognize this imam status to Muhammad. So, as a person the Koran declares in abstentia, that he is unfit to be a leader of mankind on the same ground as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the three Koranic Imams ! This means that to give the title 'imam' to Muhammad, Ibn Malik, Shafi'i, Hanbal, Bukhari, or any other one, goes against the Koranic injunctions !

What is to be followed is the 'Millat of Abraham the Hanif' (the Upright):
http://www.abcarticledirectory.com/Article/Hanif/165495" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.wakeup.org/anadolu/02/3/din_quran.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Concepts such as DIN (RELIGION) have been corrupted by their contemporary usage, and moreover, this corruption has become the essence of them. By comparing the contemporary uses with the completeness and consistency of their use in the Qur'an, we can expose the illusion that has been invented to perpetuate the fraud....

See how "DIN" is hooked up to "MILLET"( and to Abraham):
4.125: Who is better in DIN than one who surrendered one's purpose to Allah while doing good and follows the MILLET of Abraham, the
upright, Allah chose Abraham for friend. (...)

22.078: He had chosen you and had not laid upon you in DIN any hardship; the MILLET of your father Abraham. He had named you muslims
of old time and in this (scripture)... (dini-min-haracin=din-with-no-hardship, millet, Abraham, muslimin) (...)

6.162: say: as for me, my Lord had guided me unto a straight path, a right DIN, the MILLET of Abraham, the upright, who was no idolater.
(hedani=guided, sratin-mustakim=straight-path, dinen-kiyemen=right- din, hanif=upright, mushrikin=idolater)

Now snb will come out with his usual trolling-in of some sunnite sources.
He has that in common with Muhammadans that mere parroting is bliss !

[MesMorial]

Joining yeezevee in this welcome.

Thankyou The Cat and peace to you.

InshaAllah I will respond to the points of interest from skynightblaze when my exams are done.


Allah Hafiz all

[yeezevee]

Joining yeezevee in this welcome.

Thankyou The Cat and peace to you.

InshaAllah I will respond to the points of interest from skynightblaze when my exams are done.


Allah Hafiz all

Khudha Hafiz MesMorial., do well in exams I am sure you will have tough time with skynightblaze.. Not easy to answer every question..

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

And again, what's the big difference in the hadiths being false and the Quran being true when one is stories invented by Muhammad and the other is stories about him? What's the big difference if they are both false? It's ridiculous. It's the old "kettle calling the teapot black" situation. There's no question that the hadiths have more truth in them than the Quran because for the most part, people probably really were trying to be sincere rather than inventing whatever met the needs of one individual who was doing the inventing..

[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 !

I have replied to you adequately from my side to you as far as this issue is concerned.

Where? Just wishful thinking evading the issue of your moral responsability

viewtopic.php?p=130492#p130492" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Now, you used the word AUTHENTICITY, didn't you? And did it AGAIN, after I came up with an online definition for 'authenticity'

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authenticity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

1. genuineness, purity, realness, veritableness.
2. accuracy, truth, certainty, validity, reliability, legitimacy, verity,

The term refers to their CONTENT, what they do talk about. The Bible, for example, is an authentic
collection of many books but its AUTHENTICITY is questionable and the subject of endless debates.

By using and repeating the word -authenticity- as opposed to content you have proven yourself unfit to any logical debate.
That is because you reconstruct EVERYTHING from your own fantasy world and holds it to be sacrosanct. That's DELUSION.

Your logic comes down to uphold its content as LEGITIMATE, accurate (see definitions).

Then, logically, you become morally responsible for its outcome, such as:
Female circumcision; Marriage of genitally mutilated childbride; Stoning...

viewtopic.php?p=130330#p130330" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legitimate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.

To make legitimate, as:
a. To give legal force or status to; make lawful.
b. To establish (a child born out of wedlock) as legitimate by legal means.
c. To sanction formally or officially; authorize.
d. To demonstrate or declare to be justified.

legitimate
adj [lɪˈdʒɪtɪmɪt]
3. based on correct or acceptable principles of reasoning
4. reasonable, sensible, or valid a legitimate question
5. (Law) authorized, sanctioned by, or in accordance with law

You may try to run out of your conscience by eluding that you endorsed the hadiths 'authenticity'.
You are an authentic person but the authenticity of your endorsing makes you a disgusting fellow.

I do not recognize the authenticity of the Koran, for example. Just that it is the sacred book of Islam.
viewtopic.php?p=130487#p130487" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This sacredness is only legitimate for the Muslims, thus they acknowledge its authenticity.
I do not recognize its legitimacy, only that it is so for them. There's a world of difference here.

Now deal with yourself...

[crazymonkie_]

Now, you used the word AUTHENTICITY, didn't you? And did it AGAIN, after I came up with an online definition for 'authenticity'

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authenticity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

1. genuineness, purity, realness, veritableness.
2. accuracy, truth, certainty, validity, reliability, legitimacy, verity,

Which backs up what we're saying, contra The Cat's (your) position. You're making it seem like saying something is authentic is the same as believing all that it says. But that's not the case. See, terms like "accuracy, truth, validity, genuineness" all refer to the accuracy of a text. In the case of the ahadith or Mein Kampf, the posters here acknowledge that they are true IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE BELIEVED. Not in the sense that the posters themselves believe in the works. And that's a critical distinction that you've missed.

You too are asking for the Quran to be authentic in the same sense: It is true for Muslims. It is not true for The Cat. Yet it is still valid.

At this point it seems to be a case of misunderstood terminology, not a difference of opinion. May we please close this "debate" as a non-issue?

I do not recognize the authenticity of the Koran, for example. Just that it is the sacred book of Islam.

Acknowledging that "fact" (an opinion of the Muslims) is in the same vein as MBL and SNB acknowledging the truth that Muslims believe that the ahadith are real. Again, it does NOT MEAN that MBL or SNB believe in it in the same sense that Muslims do. Only that they see the ahadith historical events and the beliefs of Muhammad. They believe that Muslims believe.... not WHAT Muslims believe, in other words.

[The Cat]

Acknowledging that "fact" (an opinion of the Muslims) is in the same vein as MBL and SNB acknowledging the truth that Muslims believe that the ahadith are real. Again, it does NOT MEAN that MBL or SNB believe in it in the same sense that Muslims do. Only that they see the ahadith historical events and the beliefs of Muhammad. They believe that Muslims believe.... not WHAT Muslims believe, in other words.

I wish it was the case, crazymonkie. But it's not so...

What SNB holds is the authenticity of the hadiths. Doing so he endorses their legitimacy.
He didn't say that this is because 'they are believed' but because they are genuine ! See?

I'm proudly standing against the legitimacy SNB gives by backing their (false) authenticity.

There's a question of principle at stake here, much more important than mere opinions.
He's acknowledging their authoritativeness. I'M NOT.

[skynightblaze]

IF they were permitted by Muhammad himself then they would have been religiously preserved, without any intermediate.

Your arguments:
1. They were lost with time and there was no need to preserve them
2. because they had already made their way into encyclopedia of Bukhari.
That's a miracle! Lost hadiths reappeared because they were already into Bukhari.

Here is a classic case of this idiot not at all comprehending what is written. There was no need to preserve them after Bukhari had compiled into his collection. I never said they were first lost and yet bukhari compiled them into his collection. Rest of your post is a misery . I will reply to it when I can .

[The Cat]

There was no need to preserve them after Bukhari had compiled into his collection.

This is wrongly assuming they were existing and that he did trash them away later.

And YES there is the need to preserve your source if they are reliable. I guess they weren't...

[crazymonkie_]

I wish it was the case, crazymonkie. But it's not so...

What SNB holds is the authenticity of the hadiths. Doing so he endorses their legitimacy.
He didn't say that this is because 'they are believed' but because they are genuine ! See?

Legitimacy =/= agreement. This is the one issue where you are dead wrong, without a doubt.

Mein Kampf WAS a LEGITIMATE Nazi document- and historians of the time period know this, and use it as a source document for the later practices of Nazi Germany.

The historians could be Jews, they could be Homosexuals, they could be disabled in some way- does this mean that they, by acknowledging that Mein Kampf is a legitimate Nazi document, they must agree to the premises therein? Hardly.

This is your problem: You're seeing something that's not there. You're seeing SNB and MBL saying that they believe the ahadith are morally correct, when they are saying that they are historically correct. They acknowledge the latter; they do not acknowledge the former- and in fact, they make a habit of using hadith when they want to make a point about the moral bankruptness of the works.

I'm proudly standing against the legitimacy SNB gives by backing their (false) authenticity.

Your heart's in the right place, but your head... sigh.

There's a question of principle at stake here, much more important than mere opinions.
He's acknowledging their authoritativeness. I'M NOT.

Yeah, but you're acknowledging the Quran's authoritativeness in the same way that I'm talking about here. "Muslim holy book" (something like that); sound familiar?

Do you believe that the Quran is morally correct, ethically correct? No. Do you accept that Muslims see it as true? Yes. This is exactly what MBL and SNB are doing. And you are doing the same for the Quran.

[iffo]

@WittyBoy
How children look like depends on chromosomes. Not on who ejaculates first like your stupid hadith says.

Moving right along

Book 037, Number 6668:

Abu Burda reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him)? I said: Yes.

You think that's the act of a just god? giving muslim punishment to a jew that's your crock god

Sahih Moslem and Bukhari:

Abu Hurayra said, the prophet said:

"When the call for prayer is made, Satan turns around to leave while farting very loudly so that he would not hear the Azan (call for prayer), When Azan is finished Satan returns back.

You think satan farts You prophet was a clown based on these hadiths

Sahih Moslem, Book 39, Number 6707:

Abu Hurayra said "The messenger of God took me by the hand and said, God created the soil on Saturday, the mountains on Sunday, the trees on Monday, the abominations on Tuesday,, the light on Wednesday, the animals on Thursday, and Adam on Friday afternoon."

God also have these days sunday/monday like men has with same names

[skynightblaze]

There was no need to preserve them after Bukhari had compiled into his collection.

This is wrongly assuming they were existing and that he did trash them away later.

And YES there is the need to preserve your source if they are reliable. I guess they weren't...

Bukhari didnt trash them. They were lost over a period of time.

Secondly If that is the reason for you discarding hadiths then please go ahead and discard quran too.You need to show me using manuscripts that each and every single verse of quran that we have today exists as it was previously when quran was compiled.

Do we have a manuscript which is a carbon copy of quran today? If you cant show me that then it would mean that there are some verses of quran which arent backed up by manuscripts and hence your claim that only quran is authentic also goes down the drain.Using your logic we can conclude that since there is no evidence of manuscripts backing certain quranic verses we have to reject those verses and hence the quran .

In short you need to discard both quran and hadiths as well and hence a case for quran only cant exist which is why you are arguing here.I am happy accepting that both hadiths and quran need to be rejected .

Thirdly lets for a second assume that there were no early hadith manuscripts at all. Well G.F haddad has written an article on that mentioning the names of manuscripts that were present in first century after hijra.So tell me how in the world we dont have a single evidence against the claim of those manuscripts in the entire islamic history? How come there is not a single person or a source that opposes and says that such manuscripts never existed? If there is please let me know because as far as I know there isnt any.

Evidently the Quran underwent a transformation during the 100 years following the Prophets death. Recognisable quranic writings appear on coins and on the Dome of the Rock during the reign of Abd al-Malik from 685 AD, but they differ from the official quranic text today.

http://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/q ... ology.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you see its worse with quran than hadiths. If muslims of today can believe in the quran even when we dont have a carbon copy of manuscripts of quran that we have today then why in the world cant they believe in the early hadiths which have no manuscripts? This is hypocrisy. I think they should discard both in that case.

[yeezevee]

Good post very thoughtful questions/points from you dear SKB ..let me highlight them..

Spoiler! :

There was no need to preserve them after Bukhari had compiled into his collection.

This is wrongly assuming they were existing and that he did trash them away later.

And YES there is the need to preserve your source if they are reliable. I guess they weren't...

Bukhari didnt trash them. They were lost over a period of time.

"Secondly If that is the reason for you discarding hadiths then please go ahead and discard quran too.You need to show me using manuscripts that each and every single verse of quran that we have today exists as it was previously when quran was compiled."


Do we have a manuscript which is a carbon copy of quran today? If you cant show me that then it would mean that there are some verses of quran which arent backed up by manuscripts and hence your claim that only quran is authentic also goes down the drain. Using your logic we can conclude that since there is no evidence of manuscripts backing certain quranic verses we have to reject those verses and hence the quran .

In short you need to discard both quran and hadiths as well and hence a case for quran only cant exist which is why you are arguing here. I am happy accepting that both hadiths and quran need to be rejected .

Thirdly lets for a second assume that there were no early hadith manuscripts at all. Well G.F haddad has written an article on that mentioning the names of manuscripts that were present in first century after hijra.So tell me how in the world we dont have a single evidence against the claim of those manuscripts in the entire islamic history? How come there is not a single person or a source that opposes and says that such manuscripts never existed? If there is please let me know because as far as I know there isnt any.

Evidently the Quran underwent a transformation during the 100 years following the Prophets death. Recognisable quranic writings appear on coins and on the Dome of the Rock during the reign of Abd al-Malik from 685 AD, but they differ from the official quranic text today.

http://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/q ... ology.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you see its worse with quran than hadiths. If muslims of today can believe in the quran even when we dont have a carbon copy of manuscripts of quran that we have today then why in the world cant they believe in the early hadiths which have no manuscripts? This is hypocrisy. I think they should discard both in that case.

So the bottom line is SKB is happy "accepting that both hadiths and quran need to be rejected".. To trash both of them and All Islam from Muslim minds..

Well that is big task and may not happen in your life time ., what may happen that people like you will have full freedom to criticize Islam/Muhammad /Quran openly from the present Islamic lands..

But can you see the difference in your above post and the one below ?? and tell me

IF they were permitted by Muhammad himself then they would have been religiously preserved, without any intermediate.

Your arguments:
1. They were lost with time and there was no need to preserve them
2. because they had already made their way into encyclopedia of Bukhari.
That's a miracle! Lost hadiths reappeared because they were already into Bukhari.

Here is a classic case of this idiot not at all comprehending what is written. There was no need to preserve them after Bukhari had compiled into his collection. I never said they were first lost and yet bukhari compiled them into his collection. Rest of your post is a misery . I will reply to it when I can .

what is wrong with the above one.. I know there is something wrong in it..

with best
yeezevee

[The Cat]

I wish it was the case, crazymonkie. But it's not so...

What SNB holds is the authenticity of the hadiths. Doing so he endorses their legitimacy.
He didn't say that this is because 'they are believed' but because they are genuine ! See?

Legitimacy =/= agreement. This is the one issue where you are dead wrong, without a doubt. Mein Kampf WAS a LEGITIMATE Nazi document- and historians of the time period know this, and use it as a source document for the later practices of Nazi Germany.

The historians could be Jews, they could be Homosexuals, they could be disabled in some way- does this mean that they, by acknowledging that Mein Kampf is a legitimate Nazi document, they must agree to the premises therein? Hardly.

This is your problem: You're seeing something that's not there. You're seeing SNB and MBL saying that they believe the ahadith are morally correct, when they are saying that they are historically correct. They acknowledge the latter; they do not acknowledge the former- and in fact, they make a habit of using hadith when they want to make a point about the moral bankruptness of the works.

Then he shouldn't have said: ''I am arguing for -authenticity- of hadiths in islam .''
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authenticity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

1. genuineness, purity, realness, veritableness.
2. accuracy, truth, certainty, validity, reliability, legitimacy...

There's a question of principle at stake here, much more important than mere opinions.
He's acknowledging their authoritativeness. I'M NOT.

Yeah, but you're acknowledging the Quran's authoritativeness in the same way that I'm talking about here. "Muslim holy book" (something like that); sound familiar?

Do you believe that the Quran is morally correct, ethically correct? No. Do you accept that Muslims see it as true? Yes. This is exactly what MBL and SNB are doing. And you are doing the same for the Quran.

AGAIN!: where and how did I acknowledge the Quran's authoritativeness or authenticity? WHERE?
viewtopic.php?p=130487#p130487" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So Ghalibkhastahaal was wrong: no matter how many times I repeat this you don't ever get it !
viewtopic.php?p=130601#p130601" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=130603#p130603" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

That the Koran is the sacred book of Islam is redundant for its common sense.

What SNB has done is to acknowledge the authenticity of the hadiths. I know he didn't mean endorsing their content.
Yet he did endorse their genuineness thus... the legal right for Muslims to apply them rightfully.

Mein Kampf was like the sunna of Hitler. Its legitimacy was believed for a short while.
Historians wouldn't never ever endorse such legitimacy as SNB does with the hadiths.

In your image, this is like endorsing the sunna of Hitler (M.K.) to be rightfully -prescriptive- still.
This is what he has done and is doing still.

And that is disgusting.

[The Cat]

There was no need to preserve them after Bukhari had compiled into his collection.

This is wrongly assuming they were existing and that he did trash them away later.

Bukhari didnt trash them. They were lost over a period of time.

1) Who found them precisely?
2) When and how were they identified
3) Why didn't Bukhari specify those precious details?

Are we into some time-machine, prestidigitation, magic, miracles? You're better than that crap!
It's clearly another backward pious fraud plaguing all Abrahamic faiths when it comes to history.

you need to discard both quran and hadiths as well

You can't discard something of which authenticity you've persistently acknowledged.
You've placed yourself in the middle of quicksands drowning in the more you move.

Of course, it's always time to save your hand by stating: I was plain wrong all this time.
We've all been fools and fooled at times, especially by ourselves. And I am laying you a hand...

At last... you're getting into it! History is talking loud against the Islamic hadiths' build-up (Ishmael or Muhammad in Mecca) !
http://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/q ... ology.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Koranic wording of 'Mecca' (?) is only found in 48.24, in Arabic MAKKATA. Chronologically the 111th of 114.

In all Classical Arabic dictionaries Mkk(t) means 'destruction' (source: free-minds).
viewtopic.php?p=91348#p91348" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let's compare both versions of 48.24:
And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,
in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them.

And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,
in the valley of destruction, after He had made you victors over them.

If duly translated as the name of a city, it should have been Makkata, Makkat or Mekkat.
Furthermore the Koran gives NO indication of its location, but the oldest qiblas weren't pointing toward nowadays Mecca.
Way further North. I personally think (along with another member) they were pointing at Al' Ula/Hegra (thus the Hegira!).
viewtopic.php?p=93474#p93474" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The bottom line here is the HISTORY debunks that the Koran is uncreated, anywhere down from heaven and sent in perfect Arabic.
HISTORY also disproves the legitimacy of the hadiths and, once they're out of the way, the DIN of Allah suddenly makes more sense.
In fact, the Koranic concept of DIN is strangely akin to the Hindu's Sanatana Dharma, but seen through the Vedic Prajanya (Indra).

[skynightblaze]

You can't discard something of which authenticity you've persistently acknowledged.
You've placed yourself in the middle of quicksands drowning in the more you move.

Of course, it's always time to save your hand by stating: I was plain wrong all this time.
We've all been fools and fooled at times, especially by ourselves. And I am laying you a hand...

At last... you're getting into it! History is talking loud against the Islamic hadiths' build-up (Ishmael or Muhammad in Mecca) !
http://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ology.html
The Koranic wording of 'Mecca' (?) is only found in 48.24, in Arabic MAKKATA. Chronologically the 111th of 114.

In all Classical Arabic dictionaries Mkk(t) means 'destruction' (source: free-minds).
viewtopic.php?p=91348#p91348

Let's compare both versions of 48.24:
And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,
in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them.

And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,
in the valley of destruction, after He had made you victors over them.

If duly translated as the name of a city, it should have been Makkata, Makkat or Mekkat.
Furthermore the Koran gives NO indication of its location, but the oldest qiblas weren't pointing toward nowadays Mecca.
Way further North. I personally think (along with another member) they were pointing at Al' Ula/Hegra (thus the Hegira!).
viewtopic.php?p=93474#p93474

The bottom line here is the HISTORY debunks that the Koran is uncreated, anywhere down from heaven and sent in perfect Arabic.
HISTORY also disproves the legitimacy of the hadiths and, once they're out of the way, the DIN of Allah suddenly makes more sense.
In fact, the Koranic concept of DIN is strangely akin to the Hindu's Sanatana Dharma, but seen through the Vedic Prajanya (Indra).

You could have argued against both quran and hadith in the first place. That would have avoided the complications between us. I apologize to you for being rude here with you.I agree that we dont have manuscripts to prove every single hadith existed as was narrated by people who compiled them but similarly we also dont have evidence for quran either so quran only muslims cant use this argument to claim that hadiths dont have manuscripts to back themselves because it would mean hypocrisy.If they can accept quran then should also accept the hadiths . It simply makes no sense otherwise.

My suggestion to you would be to debunk both quran and the hadiths using the history.What I think is quran only muslims are using you for their convenience.I dont think supporting their efforts is going to bear any fruits because the quran is equally dangerous as hadiths .An ideal case would be attack both using history.

[skynightblaze]

@CAT

I have a frank opinion that quran only muslims cant argue for validity of quran alone. If the quran only muslim really wish for a reform ask them to throw out every single rubbish in both the books i.e reform islam completely but we know such a thing can never happen and hence I request you to stop supporting quran only muslims .Its not going to yield anything other than strengthening their beliefs.