Attacks are no use Mr. SKB., your posts will have far more impact without attacks but proper questions which you are indeed raising.. Give enough time to The Cat and Cat likes to think over "whether it is a good idea to make Quran as the book of Laws that CAN NOT be questioned" ., I would like to remind The Cat and Cat knows Muslims will not agree Questioning Quran unlike the constitution of any country (including US of A) that can be questioned if needed amended with its public support.skynightblaze wrote:I am sorry for diversion but you see Cat isnt even showing up here to reply and almost everyone has attacked his arguments in this thread .
Any ways I still would like to see from The Cat.. "What Laws Does he like extract from Quran" ? and are those Laws questionable or unquestionable?? ., I know he is struggling with this concept of Quran being a Law book of Muslims.,
skynightblaze wrote:@Zamie
That is precisely my point .The issue gets more complicated when this man says that quran is similar to American Constitution and this comes from a person who is writing at FFI for 5 years .This adds more to my confusion. This is a sensitive issue and we must be careful not to hurt anyone because I see many people here are attached to CAt than myself because he is an old timer.
Don't worry about 40 odd pages of crap., people have done 100s 1000s of pages on questioning Islam., 40 pages is nothing.,skynightblaze to yeezevee wrote:
I quoted even G.f haddad. HE too says the same thing. Read my previous post.
.................The point here is that there existed early hadiths against what CAT claims. For 40 odd pages he is repeating same crap again and again.
I understand that., and that is the reason I question Quran and I say all of it which is there in Quran is NOT from Muhammad (or Muhammad like Character IF HE WAS INDEED A LIVE CHARACTER not imaginary character of Quran writers) of Mecca & Madina., But some one(not one many) put together that book way after the death of Muhammad, again if he was real..If there is no guarantee that those hadiths came from mouth of muhammad then there is also no guarantee that quran has the exact content that muhammad wanted because the same companions also collected Quran. So either you have quran + hadiths or else its none.
yeezevee wrote:Any ways, As you or that guy Gabriel haddad claims "That there were Hadiths floating during Muhammad's time" . Would you happen to read them? are they in Bhukari books or are they written by some one else and are NOT there in Bhukari books??
Modern Religion wrote: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
Before Bukhari had started to collect ahaadeeth there had actually been quite a few published books of ahadith in which Bukhari found ahadith of both weak and strong testimonials, which gave him the idea to compile such a book containing ahadith of only strong testimonials. Ishaaq Ibn Rahway agreed to this idea which strengthened Bukhari’s decision.
Bukhari states, "There was once a time during one of our sessions when my teacher Ishaaq Ibn Rahway remarked it would be appreciated if someone could collect ahadith which held strong and reliable testimonials and write them in the form of a book.
Wikipedia wrote:Al-Bukhari traveled widely throughout the Abbasid empire since he was sixteen years, collecting those traditions he thought trustworthy. It is said that al-Bukhari collected over 300,000 hadith and included only 2,602 traditions in his Sahih.[5] At the time when Bukhari saw [the earlier] works and conveyed them, he found them, in their presentation, combining between what would be considered sahih and hasan and that many of them included da’if hadith.
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).
Who?? what site?? I don't care what they write in that stupid site., but who?? Dr. Mustafa Azami?? That old fuckker is from India/Indian subcontinent and he gets silly stuff from Dar al-Ulum Deoband, India + that Al-Azhar University, Cairo.,skynightblaze wrote:
This question was asked by MBL too and I havent given a proper reply to him because I didnt answer what was specifically asked but here is my chance to make up for it.
The site modern religion claims they became a part of bukhari;s hadith .Modern Religion wrote: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."
.............................
yeezevee wrote:Who?? what site?? I don't care what they write in that stupid site., but who?? Dr. Mustafa Azami?? That old fudger is from India/Indian subcontinent and he gets silly stuff from Dar al-Ulum Deoband, India + that Al-Azhar University, Cairo.,skynightblaze wrote:
This question was asked by MBL too and I havent given a proper reply to him because I didnt answer what was specifically asked but here is my chance to make up for it.
The site modern religion claims they became a part of bukhari;s hadith .Modern Religion wrote: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."
.............................
Sorry., It is like reading the leader of Muslim Brotherhood., but I don't trust any Muslim Scholar or Muslim on the history of Islam that come either of those places ., Reading Bhukari and dissecting his hadith yourself is better than reading these fools..., Any ways did that old fool come up with any thing that says "Here are Hadith that are collated during Muhammad's time??"
with best
yeezevee
Oh I see., that is all right., But by now you have read through the hadith from Bhukari may be selectively that incriminates Islam/ early Muslim/Muhammad as criminal characters ., Now question to you is., Can you pick out from Bhukari books which you may think were said by Muhammad or very close to Muhammad's time.??skynightblaze wrote:
Thats why I quoted other sites too.As far as your last question is concerned No he didnt say anything of that sort or it could be that I didnt read anything of that sort.
The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.....
Straw Man arguments often attack a political party or movement at its extremes, where it is weakest. For example, it is a straw man to portray the anti-abortion position as the claim that all abortions, with no exceptions, are wrong. It is also a straw man to attack abortion rights as the position that no abortions should ever be restricted, bar none. Such straw men are often part of the process of "demonization", and we might well call the subfallacy of the straw man which attacks an extreme position instead of the more moderate position held by the opponent, the "Straw Demon".
You can give any number of links on fallacyfiles dear The Cat., But it doesn't help.,The Cat wrote:I've been asking the following four questions, to test some members knowledge about the Koran:
1) What is the Koranic DEEN, usually (but quite imperfectly) translated 'religion'?
2) What is the Koranic 'Islam'? What does it mean within the Koranic context? Is it written that often?
3) Who are the Koranic 'Muslims'? Are they called to follow hadiths or the previous scriptures?
4) What is the Koranic 'Shariah'? For it is mentioned 4 times...
Until you can answer those four questions properly, you're only proving that the Islam you're attacking is nothing else than a gigantic STRAW MAN FALLACY.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
Since all I had to these most pertinent questions were elusions, then you're complete ignorance about the basic Koranic meanings is for everyone to see,
a Straw man logical fallacy.
If this is all you've got, you have brilliantly defeated yourself.
As they say: nice charge, wrong hill.
yeezevee wrote: But some one(not one many) put together that book way after the death of Muhammad, again if he was real..
with best
yeezevee
The Cat wrote:I've been asking the following four questions, to test some members knowledge about the Koran:
Since all I had to these most pertinent questions were elusions, then you're complete ignorance about the basic Koranic meanings is for everyone to see,
a Straw man logical fallacy.
As they say: nice charge, wrong hill.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Make a solid case for your "Quran as legal document,"
crazymonkie_ wrote:The Cat wrote:crazymonkie_ wrote: YOUR argument, not SNB's, not MBL's, is fallacious.
So the Koran isn't a legal document? It's the Saudi Arabia Constitution!
It can't be the Saudi consitution, because it lacks definitive declarations of many legal situations. Hence Islamic jurisprudence.
The Cat wrote:Easy. See how you've made a fool of yourself...
Next, per Article 8, "justice, consultation, and equality" shall be in accordance with Shari'ah.
Article 45 affirm that religious rulings must be in accordance with the " Holy Qur'an and the Prophet's Sunnah." To this end, a panel of Islamic clergy and research group shall be established.
Return to The Quran and Hadith
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests