The Cat. Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

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

Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

I have decided to start this thread after having a lot of debate on this topic. Now, here in the resource center I plan to collect all the arguments debunking the case for quran alone. I intend to correct a few mistakes that I made in the other threads and put the best arguments in this thread for the benefit for everyone but this necessarily means I may be required to revise my posts since this topic is a difficult topic to debate and requires extensive knowledge of islamic scriptures so if anyone finds a mistake in my post please feel free to contact me and correct me where i go wrong and I would be grateful to you.

ARGUMENT 1: Muhammad himself forbid writing down of hadiths and there were no ahadith for first 2 centuries

Basically muslims quote hadiths which show us that muhammad forbid writing down of hadiths to make their case like the following hadith..

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Quran, he should erase that and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire (Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Chapter 17, Number 7147).[4]

Here is one of the so called kafir parroting out the same claim.Now the reason for bringing such quotes from hadiths is to whitewash the sins of muhammad. These dishonest people want to rewrite history and glorify muhammad and hence they argue for a quran alone case because quran doesnt talk too much about muhammad.
Phildidge wrote:Historical evidence, if there is any, appears to be that the Prophet himself was against the reporting of his own sayings and practices, and his four close companions who became Caliphs after him upheld the same position.
Here is the way to answer such dishonest people...

The first problem is the same sources which these muslims accuse of being lies become true only when they want to make a case otherwise they are false! This is hypocrisy and is called fallacy of selective picking.

Secondly there are plenty of hadiths which tell us about muhammad asking hadiths to be written down. There is a seperate chapter in Bukhari about Holding Fast to sunnah and the quran . One can access the link below to see the chapter..

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

Below in the spoiler, there are some ahadith which show us that muhammad himself allowed something other than quran to be written down..

In the first hadith in spoiler muhammad himself asked people to hand him something so that he would write down a piece of paper . This means that muhammad wanted people to follow something other than the quran... The other further confirm that fact that muhammad allowed writing down of material other than the quran.
Spoiler! :
Sahih Bukhari, Book 3, Number 114:
Thursday! And how great that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah's Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray." The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, "What is wrong with him? (Do you think ) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him ( to understand his state)." So they went to the Prophet and asked him again. The Prophet said, "Leave me, for my present state is better than what you call me for." Then he ordered them to do three things. He said, "Turn the pagans out of the Arabian Peninsula; respect and give gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them." (Said bin Jubair, the sub-narrator said that Ibn Abbas kept quiet as rewards the third order, or he said, "I forgot it.") (See Hadith No. 116 Vol. 1)
bout forbidding writing hadiths,

Abu Dawood , Book 25, Number 3639:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As:
I used to write everything which I heard from the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). I intended (by it) to memorise it. The Quraysh prohibited me saying: Do you write everything that you hear from him while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) is a human being: he speaks in anger and pleasure? So I stopped writing, and mentioned it to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). He signalled with his finger to him mouth and said: Write, by Him in Whose hand my soul lies, only right comes out from it.


Abu Dawood, Book 25, Number 3652:

Narrated Zayd ibn Thabit:
I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: May Allah brighten a man who hears a tradition from us, gets it by heart and passes it on to others. Many a bearer of knowledge conveys it to one who is more versed than he is; and many a bearer of knowledge is not versed in it.
Now the question to be pondered upon is , did muhammad really allowed writing of hadiths when we have a mixed evidence (i.e hadiths should be written as well as they shouldnt be) ?? The answer to this is yes i.e. muhammad allowed writing down of hadiths later and he abrogated the previous command to not write hadiths. Now how do we know this? IT can be seen that there were plenty of early hadiths in the first century hijra . Here is the list...

Spoiler! :
Among the manuscripted hadith collections of the first Hijri century are:

1. `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As (d. 63), 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 - and transmitted to us by his great-grandson `Amr ibn Shu`ayb (d. 118);

2. Hammam ibn Munabbih's (d. 101 or 131) al-Sahifa al- Sahiha which has reached us complete in two manuscripts containing 138 hadiths narrated by Hammam from Abu Hurayra (d. 60), from the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace;

3. The lost folios of Aban ibn `Uthman (d. 105) the son of `Uthman ibn `Affan (d. 35), from whom Muhammad ibn Ishaq (80-150/152) narrated;

4. The accomplished works of `Urwa (d. ~92-95) - the son of al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam and grandson of Asma' and `A'isha the learned daughters of Abu Bakr the Truthful. `Urwa ordered them burnt, after a lifetime of teaching from them, during the sack of Madina by the armies of Syro-Palestine under Yazid ibn Mu`awiya in 63;

5. Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri's (d. 120) Sira, from which Ibn Ishaq also borrowed much;

6. `Asim ibn `Umar ibn Qatada ibn al-Nu`man al-Ansari's (d. 120 or 129) Maghazi and Manaqib al-Sahaba, another principal thiqa source for Ibn Ishaq and others;

7. `Abd Allah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn `Amr ibn Hazm al-Ansari's (d. 135) tome, another main source for Ibn Ishaq Ibn Sa`d, and others;

8. The most reliable Sira of the Madinan Musa ibn `Uqba al-Asadi (d. 141), praised by Imam Malik and used by Ibn Sa`d and others.
http://www.livingislam.org/n/vih_e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This refutes the common muslim argument that there were no ahadith 2 centuries after muhammad's death.

We also have tafsir of Ibn Abbas in the 7th century. Now if hadiths were not permitted to be written down then the early generation of muslims wouldn't write any tafsir or hadith unless one claims these people were corrupt and they violated muhammads command! If one does dare to make such claims then there is reason as to why anyone should trust quran because quran was compiled by the very same people after muhammad so one refutes both quran as well as hadith if this approach is followed.

In such a case there cant be a case of quran alone as both of these scriptures i,e quran and the hadiths become likely to be fabricated and hence we cant trust either of the book.
In other words we cant have a case for quran alone!



EDITED TO ADD A FEW MORE POINTS


================
There are a couple of more points :
1) Quran alone muslims claim that Muhammad is not supposed to be obeyed and yet in this case they want people to obey Muhammad but yet these people are not bothered about NOT listening to Muhammad when he asked to burn the ahadith. The point is these people merely want to reject ahadith because they expose islam otherwise they are quick to jump on those ahadith which support their case.

2)Secondly even if we assume that Muhammad indeed forbid the ahadith it does not mean it blows away their accuracy. It only means they disobeyed him. Often people tend to write about their beloved character so its no real shocker that these people choose to wrote their prophet's biography.
===============
Last edited by skynightblaze on Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

@continued from above...

Some muslims as well as non muslims make a point that we dont have the manuscripts of early hadiths that existed in the 1st century hijra and thats why we can discard those early hadiths.Let us refute first the non muslims and then the muslims.

Question to be asked to the non muslim

Existence of non existence of manuscripts doesnt prove or disprove anything .We have manuscripts of quran so does that mean quran is a true book?


Question to be asked to the muslim

Quran doesnt have manuscript for each and every verse so are muslims ready to reject those verses of the quran for which we dont have any manuscripts???

If muslims claim that existence of manuscripts is a proof of truthfulness or is a proof that a book isnt corrupted then they should have no problem in accepting Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham biography because we have early manuscripts of Ibn Ishaq/Hisham's book. This would obviously mean trouble because biographies of muhammad are full of crimes.

See the link below for the manuscripts of Ibn Ishaq's book.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/PERF665.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Lastly some non muslims(CAT) would say that I am shifting the goal posts. Basically the problem is such people dont understand what shifting the goal posts mean. The posts of quran alone muslims or supposed non muslims like CAT are directed to debunk ahadith and so the goal post is the ahadith . Now I would be committing a fallacy of moving the goal post if I divert attention to quran without considering the corruption of ahadith . Now what I claim is ahadith as well as quran become false so I aint moving the original goal i.e ahadith being corrupt. I am only adding to the goal that quran too becomes corrupt along with hadiths. Essentially I am not denying the original goal so I cant be accused of moving the goal post.
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: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

Argument 2 : Backward composition of hadiths
The Cat wrote:See how null you are. Wikipedia says Umar II was born circa 682, your reference says between 683-85. Whatever, Umar II wasn't born when Huraira died (681) so he couldn't have possibly written the hadith ascribed to him (Bukhari 1.3.98). Your fancies do not change an iota to this.

Narrated by Abu Huraira
And 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr bin Hazm, "Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish and the religious learned men will pass away (die). Do not accept anything save the Hadiths of the Prophet. Circulate knowledge and teach the ignorant, for knowledge does not vanish except when it is kept secretly (to oneself)."

The argument goes in favor of history against Bukhari/Huraira/Munabbih and prove yourself to be disingenuous... at best.

This hadith proves many things:
1. Munabbih can't be trusted, nor his Huraira, for he fabricated a false testimony.
2. He also put a blasphemy in the mouth of Abdul-Aziz to introduce the hadiths: "Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish and the religious learned men will pass away (die). Do not accept anything save the Hadiths of the Prophet. Circulate knowledge and teach the ignorant, for knowledge does not vanish except when it is kept secretly (to oneself)."
The above things would only be proven if the answers to my following questions are met otherwise they really hold no value..
The first problem with this argument is that these non muslims or free minders are using islamic sources for their case which they discard otherwise. That's called selective picking. Suddenly these islamic sources which are discarded otherwise become reliable when they make a mention of death date of ABu Huraira and birth date of Umar 2.

One can at the max say that see islamic sources mention of a character narrating hadiths from Abu huraira when the character was born after Abu Huraira was born so you see how stupid they are. This is the only argument that one can make however even this argument can be debunked. The first problem is how do does one know that sources which make a mention of birth dates of Huraira and the character UMAR 2 are reliable?

Its just like proving Aisha being of 20 years old by quoting some unauthentic sources and claiming that Sahih hadiths are unreliable. One needs to prove that the islamic sources used to find out birth dates and death dates of concerned people here are more authentic than sahih hadiths and hence Sahih hadiths are proved to be a product of backward composition.

More ever even if assume that the birth dates and death dates are correct how can anyone make a case for backward composition of hadith depending upon a single hadith? It could also be a honest mistake from Bukhari .Anyone can make such a mistake when he/she is dealing with thousands of hadiths.How can surely say that it was a case for backward composition??

TO make such a case one needs to bring decent amount of evidence. One needs to show atleast 5-10 such cases for anyone to give it a thought.
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.

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

Re: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by yeezevee »

I wonder what you are discussing in the thread represents the question you are asking in the heading of the thread?? It appears the thread is about Early Islamic History., to that question

Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Off course anything is possible., there are 100s of splinter groups in Islam and this "Quran only Muslims" is another group., More over there is enough nonsense, enough garbage and enough war mongering verses in Quran which quickly tells the reader Quran was( and is) nothing but a political manual of Islam.

Now if you ask a question,
Whether ALL 1.5 billion MUSLIMS could be converted in to Quran only Muslims?
You can do that through internet in these modern times by high lighting "HOW STUPID & INSANE" are Muslims to believe in hadith .,

if you ask such questions, the answer is NO., with that let me add some links..
1). Combat Kit To Use Against the "Quran Only" Muslims By Bassam Zawadi
http://www.answering-christianity.com/b ... uslims.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2). The Quranyon: A Sign of Islamic Decline by Mumin Salih
http://www.islam-watch.org/MuminSalih/Q ... ecline.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3). The Quran: Sufficient as a Source of Islamic Legislation Dr. Ahmed Subhi Mansour
http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show ... in_id=6001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4_ Quran alone Islam
http://quranaloneislam.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by yeezevee on Fri May 13, 2011 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

@Yeezevee

This is the resource center and no discussion is allowed here. You can open a new thread somewhere else may be in the lounge or anywhere you feel appropriate for the discussion.Anyway I didnt understand what you are trying to say here.
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: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

Argument 3 : Historic evidence of Abraha's inscription used to debunk the ahadith and biographers of Muhammad
The Cat wrote: But the Abraha Inscription stands as such an indisputable evidence, disproving the Ishaq/Tabari fabled accounts for ALL time!
Spoiler! :
Image
http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-i ... abaean.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Since the Abraha inscription is by now ascertained 552AD, we can confidently state that, contrary to the Islamic fables of Ishaq/Tabari
-- Abraha won.
-- There was no Mecca on his way...
-- No mention of elephants (needing a ton of water supply).
-- No mention of al-Muttalib nor of the Quraysh tribe.
-- Dated 552AD, it destroys the whole hadiths fabrication on Muhammad (?-?).

http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... man_av.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A far greater problem for the Islamic traditions is that the Sabean date on this inscription is 552 A.D.1 According to the most recent scholarship, Abraha died in 553 A.D. or shortly thereafter2 – but, according to the Muslims, Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. So, if we want to believe the Muslim traditions concerning Abraha, we have to push Muhammad's birth back 15, 16 or even 18 years. This has enormous consequences for much of early Islamic history. If Muhammad was born 18 years earlier, when did Muhammad begin to receive revelations? When did the Hijrah occur? When did Muhammad die? When did various battles take place, and when did the first four Caliphs reign? This is potentially messing up everything that Muslims believe about their early history. Moreover, this may cast doubt on much of the Islamic Traditions. The accuracy of their so-called "Sahih" Hadiths cannot be trusted because the "chains of transmission" may now be broken - most events in the life of Muhammad has been pushed back 18 years and gaps are bound to open up somewhere in the chains between Muhammad and the time of Bukhari, Muslim, and the other collectors.

According to islamic beliefs or history, Muhammad was born the same year when Abraha attacked mecca i.e 570 AD. The muslims cant deny their own history while we as a non believers can easily question this. There is equal probability that the story of attack by Abraha on mecca in the same year as birth of muhammad is false because this isn't a historic fact but it's a muslim belief which muslims have nurtured because of what islamic scriptures say. The historical evidence of Abraha's scripture only talks about the attack but it doesnt mention the place of attack i.e mecca nor does it mention the birth of muhammad during the same year. Quran talks about the same event and it describes as to how Allah preserved the mecca so its very much possible that these muslims could have crafted this story to make muhammad's claims in the quran to be legitimate.

Answering islam even claimed that some person called SIMA said that story told by Islamic scriptures of Abraha attacking Mecca in the year of Muhammad's birth is a semi- myth.We as a non muslims don't believe in the Islamic scriptures so we can easily ask how can we be sure that the story of Abraha attacking mecca in the year of Muhammad's birth is true? At the same time we cannot deny what the islamic scripture says completely or else we will be accused for selectively picking up things which is a fallacy .In such a case we can assign a probability of 0.5 for the story reported by islamic scriptures as false and a probability of 0.5 for the story being true.

I am not here suggesting that the story reported by islamic scriptures is is 100 % false and hence I am assigning the probability of 0.5 to the claim of dishonest quran alone muslims about the story being true but In such a case the tradition of hadiths and quran doesn’t tumble because there is no adequate proof. All we have is probability of 0.5 for the story being true(unless someone comes and proves that the story was indeed true) which isn't sufficient to make a concrete case and hence there is no question of pushing events in Muhammad's life 15-20 years from 570 AD back until someones comes and proves to us that the story was indeed true. All we can say is islamic scriptures may or may not be reliable.

Now finally lets consider the other case i.e what happens if the story of Abraha attacking mecca in the year when Muhammad was born itself is true??? Well then it creates more problems for quran alone muslims because the evidence of Abraha also creates a problem for the quran with regards to its compilation and collection and hence not only ahadith and sira become unreliable quran also goes down the drain .

Conclusion : I have considered both the possibilities namely:

1)Story concerning attack by Abraha on Mecca in the year of Muhammad's birth as true
2) The story concerning the attack by Abraha on Mecca in the year of Muhammad's birth as false

In the first case this story creates a problem for all islamic scriptures including quran so again all the scriptures of islam need to be thrown out and hence we can't have a case for quran alone. In the second case islamic scriptures stand as they are. No scripture becomes unauthentic and hence again we cant have a case for quran alone being reliable.

So the question stands tall. How can there be a case for quran alone??
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: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

Argument 4: Ahadith are of the ahaad type i.e a single narrator . There should be atleast 2 witnesses to consider them as reliable as per verses 65:2,5:106, 2:282


The following is the exact argument made for quran alone case.
The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
1. The Koran, stemming right from Muhammad (and written down by scribes, thus witnesses) doesn't need a chain of narrators.
That's its strength, while being the very weakness of the 'Chinese Whispers' ahaad isnads.

2. It's not only 2.282 that is asking for two witnesses, so to guarantee a testimony against doubts, but 5.106 and 65.2.
It's still prevailing in ALL Islamic court cases, so a religious/moral Bukhari should have comply to this basic requirement.

3. This, from Bukhari, really comes down to concealing evidences. A crime committed against the Koran & scholarship.

4. He did act, out of trivial picking, without due certifications. Thus he's not reliable, let alone having any Koranic authority...
Except to hardcore Sunnites and, of course... skynightblaze!

Now we shall see how gibberish this claim is because it horribly backfires against quran alone muslims as these claims prove that quran alone is unreliable and not the ahadith.

Now the argument raised by quran alone muslims is that since there are no 2 narrators in the Bukhari ahadith they cannot be taken as reliable as per verses 2:282,5:106 and 65:2 . I have quoted the verses below in the spoiler.Now anyone with common sense can see concerned verses are no way related to what is being discussed. They have a different context however lets consider this argument as genuine and see how horrible it turns out for quran alone muslims.
Spoiler! :
[005:106]
Oh you who believe! If you find death close at hand, and you want to make out your last will, appoint as witnesses, two just men among you _ or among other people, should the calamity strike while you happen to be traveling. If you are in doubt (about the witnesses) detain them after ‘salat’ and let them swear by Allah saying, “We will not trade our testimony for worldly gain, nor will we hide the testimony of Allah. Else we would be the sinners.”

[065:002]
Thus when they fulfil their term appointed, either take them back on equitable terms or part with them on equitable terms; and take for witness two persons from among you, endued with justice, and establish the evidence (as) before God. Such is the admonition given to him who believes in God and the Last Day. And for those who fear God, He (ever) prepares a way out,


[002:282]
O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as God Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord God, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of God, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear God; For it is Good that teaches you. And God is well acquainted with all things. If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him Fear his Lord conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it, - his heart is tainted with sin. And God knoweth all that ye do.
Secondly the claim that ALL the ahadith are of ahaad type is false. Not ALL are of Ahaad type i.e single narrator.

Now if we are accusing Bukhari of some serious offense we need to see what he wrote in his defense. Even a criminal in a court is allowed to defend himself so one should see what Bukhari wrote before drawing any conclusion.Lets see what bukhari wrote regarding his work...
Bukhari wrote: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic for fear of [excessive] length.(Footnote 2)"

Footnote 2 says:

He [al-Bukhari] meant that he did not mention all the turuq [parallel chains of transmission] for each and every hadith.[7]
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This establishes that a lot of ahadith in the bukhari were confirmed by multiple narrators and hence even if we assume that the criteria for determining whether a work is reliable is 2 witnesses then most of the Bukhari's work passes the test and hence he cant be unreliable as per the logic of quran alone muslims .

Now let's take a look at the quran.

Now the message of quran was transmitted via the following link..

Allah-> Gabriel-> Muhammad->Scribes and companions

Now where are 2 witnesses for Allah transmitting message to Gabriel? Where are the 2 witnesses for Gabriel transmitting messages to Muhammad?? We have no witnesses for Allah transmitting messages to Muhammad via Gabriel other than Muhammad's self made claims. If the logic of having 2 witnesses is mandatory for something to reliable then we have to apply this logic consistently throughout the chain through which the message traveled otherwise its hypocrisy on our part to use logic selectively.

Now since Quran doesn't have witnesses for itself for the messages transmitted via Allah to Gabriel and Gabriel to muhammad then using logic of quran alone muslims quran cannot be taken as a reliable source.Now Bukhari's ahadith didnt come via Allah and Gabriel and hence they are safe .They came via Muhammad - > companions and so on except for a few prophecies which we can ignore so if we are to use logic of having 2 witnesses then quran alone becomes unreliable and not the ahadith. At the max some part of ahadith will be unreliable but the whole quran becomes unreliable.
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: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

Now one may claim that all we have is Bukhari's own testimony that he didn't include multiple narrators even when they existed for the sake of avoiding repetition or length.So what happens if Bukhari lied here? The answer is it makes no difference to quran and quran remains unreliable even in that case but the only question that arises is what happens to ahadith if Bukhari lied?Let's see...

Many of the ahadith become unreliable however within the book of Bukhari or Sahih muslim itself we find multiple narrations from different narrators for e.g the ahadith that deal with killing of apostates are narrated by different authors in the Bukhari and Sahih muslim's book as well so we can safely assume that these ahadith are true.Similarly other examples would be ahadith that deal with stoning,looting and raping and hence even if the rest of the ahadith are false it doesnt matter to us because these few handful of ahadith amongst many such ahadith which are repeated multiple times are sufficient to prove that muhammad was a criminal plus quran stays unreliable even if bukhari was lying.What else can a kafir want? :D
Last edited by skynightblaze on Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

ARGUMENT 5: Koran itself forbids following ahadith
The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
1) Because the Koran states so:
a) No hadiths can be authoritative
4.87: Whose hadith (Ĥadīthāan) can be truer than Allah's?
6.57: The decision is for Allah only.
6.70: It hath beside Allah no protecting ally nor intercessor.
6.114: Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah?
7.185: In what HADITH (Ĥadīthin) after this will they believe?
9.31: They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks (Hanbal/Bukhari; imams and sheiks) and the
Messiah son of Mary (or Muhammad made into such an Islamic Messiah), when they were bidden to worship only One God.
12.111: It is no invented hadith (Ĥadīthāan) but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture)
and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe.

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

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

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

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

77.50: Which Hadith (Ĥadīthin), other than this, do they uphold?

There can be NO hadith confirming the Koran, since the Koran infirms them all at first!

b. The only Sunna is that of Allah (17.77; 33.62 35.43; 48.23).
48.23: It is the law of Allah (sunnata allahi) which hath taken course aforetime.
Thou wilt not find for the law of Allah aught of power to change.

ImageImage

3.19: The only religion approved by Allah is Islaam. Those who received the scripture dispute this fact, knowingly.
This is due to jealousy on their part. For those who reject Allah's revelations, Allah is most strict in reckoning.

3.85: Anyone who accepts other than Islaam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him...

Now go back and examine Qur'aan 17:77 and you will see that the "SUNNA" is in past tense, so therefore the "SUNNA" that is spoken of in the Qur'aan has nothing to do with the books called hadiyth (written by BUKHARI, TIRMIDHI, MUSLIM etc. which Sunni Muslims say is the sunna of Muhammad) that were again written in the future (AFTER) the revelation of Islaam (Al Qur'aan) and not BEFORE.... "Sunna Allah" is found in Qur'aan 48:23 and you will clearly see that it has nothing to do with hadiyth books written by BUKHARI, TIRMIDHI, MUSLIM etc. Please examine the verse below because we are dealing with the facts in the Qur'aan and not OPINIONS/STATEMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS/EMOTIONS by men: Again the "Sunna Allah" in that verse is in past tense http://tawhiyd.webs.com/sunnainquraan.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also a link to Sam Shamoun over this question...

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... _quran.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NOTE: there will be many more posts, each one dealing with a different aspect of this topic.

I will make 2 arguments against this ...

Firstly there are plenty of the verses from the quran in the video below which make it clear that muhammad has to be obeyed. Following sunnah of muhammad would also mean following sunnah of Allah because sunnah of Allah contains a command to follow the sunnah of Muhammad so when people follow the sunnah of muhammad they are infact following the sunnah of Allah.

Anyway here is the link to video that tells us that Muhammad has to be obeyed (Thanks to Piscohot for the link)




To further clarify let's consider an example. Suppose I am writing an article say "Is islam a religion of peace" and in my article I refer say answering islam's article for some information. Now when I claim only my article alone should be referenced or followed , does that mean that answering islam's article should never be followed? Obviously not! My article contains a link to answering islam's article and hence when I say follow my article alone it would also mean following answering islam's article. Similarly in this case following sunnah of Allah would mean following sunnah of muhammad because Sunnah of Allah contains a link to Sunnah of Muhammad.

Now one might argue that Muhammad sometimes sinned but the problem with this argument is that quran always corrected him when he sinned so if Muhammad had acted against quran anytime Allah would have definitely corrected him. 33:21 of quran says that there is an excellent example in muhammad which is a further confirmation that according to quran Muhammad 's sunnah is faultless.

Secondly a question needs to be asked to quran alone muslims here if they refuse to follow the sunnah of muhammmad. Was Muhammad acting against the sunnah of Allah for which we need to condemn his sunnah? Was Muhammad a fraud who himself violated Allah's sunnah? If the quran alone muslims cant even trust their own prophet for following Allah's sunnah correctly then how can they trust him when he claimed that he received revelations from Allah?
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: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

ARGUMENT 6: Quran says obey the messenger and not obey muhammad



One can examine the argument made by the koranites in the link below.

viewtopic.php?p=129119#p129119" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically koranites claim that Muhammad was a Rasul( a messenger) and not Nabi( a prophet) and Rasul's job is to merely deliver the message i.e quran in case of muhammad and not bring anything new like ahadith.

Koranites also make arguments like the following..

See the quote below..
The Cat wrote: According to the definition of a messenger, to obey him means to obey equally -all the previous scriptures- brought by other prophets!
Muhammad is solely to be obey in that he's a messenger, i.e. to be reckoned with on par with other messengers in a time when many doubted
his mission (8,31; 21.5; 34.43; 36.69; 43.7, 43.23; 52.29-33; 69.40-46), yet no more no less then the others(3.144). He is a plain warner
(15.89, innama is negating everything else), bringing in nothing new (46.9), yet not a warder (39.41), nor able of intercession (2.48
Now In short basically these arguments tell us that Quranists believe that muhammad was a mere warner and his duty was to only show the message of quran and he had nothing doing with bringing some new message.


Following arguments of mine will refute the claims made above..

[033:040]
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things.


One can check more translations at the following link and all of them use the word prophet for muhammad.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/c ... &B1=Search" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So going by the definitions provided by quran alone muslim Muhammad can bring a new message since he has been called a prophet by the quran and not just the messenger.

Now let's see more proofs..

Surah 5:92

Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and beware (of evil): if ye do turn back, know ye that it is Our Apostle's duty to proclaim (the message) in the clearest manner.


If Muhammad's job was merely to warn people or merely convey/show the message of quran to the people then why did quran say that his duty was to convey the message in a clearest way? Why would it say show them "clearly" instead of just saying "show them the message"? This verse in short tells us that Muhammad was supposed to make sure people understood the message correctly and clearly which implies that he had to do some explanation. This means that muhammad was not just a warner.

Surah 16:44

(We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.


Again we see a proof of quran asking muhammad to explain people so his job cannot be merely showing the message of the quran.Now one might argue here that it means explaining the message of quran alone and nothing else but in that case where are the words of muhammad which make things clear to people ? People of today also need those words and hence the need of ahadith. Those words are essential in addition to quran because quran says that Muhammad was sent exactly explain the message.


Surah 2:129

"Our Lord! send amongst them an Apostle of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise."

Muhammad's job is to sanctify people, instruct the people in wisdom and scripture. Note that this verse says that Muhammad's job is to TEACH WISDOM in addition to the scripture itseld and hence there arises the need of sources other than quran i.e. ahadith which are sayings of muhammad..

Surah 2:151

A similar (favour have ye already received) in that We have sent among you an Apostle of your own, rehearsing to you Our Signs, and sanctifying you, and instructing you in Scripture and Wisdom, and in new knowledge.

2:151 conveys the same message as that of 2:129 however it also highlights an important thing. The job of muhammad is to TEACH PEOPLE SOMETHING NEW and not just the scripture i.e. the quran.This refutes the false argument made by koranites that Muhammad didnt bring anything new as he was merely a messenger and not a prophet.

The other verses which further back the same thing said above are...

Surah 3:164
God did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them an apostle from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of God, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error.


Surah 62:2
It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error;-

CONCLUSION:

Quran itself says that muhammad is supposed to obeyed.


My next argument will deal with an alternative approach to trap the quran alone muslims in accepting the criminal acts of muhammad from the ahadith.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

An Alternative Approach to argument 6:

Now the reason why I am mentioning an alternative approach is because quran alone muslims would keep spinning around the verses that I quoted above even when they are crystal clear about following muhammad on matters other than quran however if one wants to keep things simple and debate as to why ahadith are not to be considered for understanding islam and muhammad then this approach should be adopted. These quran alone muslims simply dismiss the ahadith by saying quran doesnt prescribe them and thereby we shouldnt consider ahadith at all because they want to whitewash the evidence against muhammad.

Now let's assume for a second that ahadith aren't required as a source of guidance but then that doesn't mean we cant take ahadith as a source of information. Now let me explain below with the help of an example below as to what I mean ...

If one is to follow Nazism then one has to take “Mein Kampf” as a source of guidance but does that mean the other historians of today who have written books on character of Hitler shouldn't be referenced to understand the personality of Hitler? So while those history books aren’t the source of guidance for Nazism they are valid documents which can be considered as source of information on Hitler and we can claim confidently that Hitler was a criminal by considering them sources of information rather than a source of guidance. Same is the case here. So why is anyone wrong if he reads ahadith and claims that Muhammad was a criminal??

Now this way these muslims come to the actual point of discussing as to why ahadith are unreliable which they try to avoid by claiming that quran doesnt ask them to believe in the ahadith . Now one must be able to counter the arguments against ahadith. Even after this the muslim is bound to try to discredit the ahadith. An example is my brief debate with Mesmorial in the following spoiler.
Spoiler! :
MesMorial wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:@mesmorial

I know why you deny ahadith. Its because they expose muhammad.Let us assume ahadith aren't required for guidance.Why is anyone who takes ahadith as a source of information and claims muhammad as a criminal wrong?

I have already asked you this question.A parallel example is of Mein Kampf. To practice Nazism one may refer Mein Kampf but to understand the character of Hitler and his deeds we can refer to sources other than Mein Kampf.There are plenty of books on Hitler and his deeds.One can read them and claim Hitler was a criminal so similarly why cant anyone claim that Muhamamad was a criminal after reading ahadith?
Because a Muslim is a Muslim because they read the Qur'an. They read the Qur'an and the ahadith contradict the Qur'an.
Muslims read both quran + ahadith. Its only a few people like you dont read ahadith. SEcondly we can discard ahadith which contradict the quran but how does that mean that all ahadith are junk? If a person contradicts himself then does that mean that the person can never speak the truth? If you consider sources outside quran(biography, ahadith etc) then all of them show muhammad as a criminal. Now all we need is one of the story out of all those collections to be true. More ever if all these people were lying then how can their lies match exactly ? IF people lie then its not possible that their stories match exactly .
Mesmorial wrote: Ahadith not necessary, so ahadith must be 1) wrong 2) irrelevant to Qur'an and therefore more wrong.
A few ahadith contradicting quran doesnt mean all of them are wrong and lies. As I said all I need is 1 story to be true out of thousands of criminal stories of muhammad.
Mesmorial wrote: 3) ahadith are people's reports, not good biography.
ARe people's reports always wrong? Are you telling me that people cannot report correct things?? Why would muslims themselves write false things about muhammads character? Let us say you are asked to write a book on muhammad. Would you write bad things about muhammad? IF NO then what makes you think that other muslims would write such things about muhammad? Now even if we assume that you would write bad things about Muhammad but then would the muslims of today promote your book for next 1200 years? In case of these people whom you accuse of being fabricators and liars their books were promoted for last 1200 years.
Mesmorial wrote: 4) Messenger is not the point of the religion.
I am not saying Messenger is the point of religion. I am saying he is the source of religion. Do you think people didnt obey muhamamd during his life time?


viewtopic.php?p=152979#p152979" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here is one more argument to use against these quran alone muslims if they try to deny authenticity of ahadith. In general one can ask these questions to those who deny ahadith.
Spoiler! :
I wrote: You might never have thought the way I am going to show you now. If you claim that ahadith are fabrications then it creates a problem for quran too. As I previously said ,to fabricate bad things about muhammad its not a 1 man's job. To fabricate a lie and to get your lies promoted one needs a huge backing without which its not possible. Just imagine the scenario of me writing a book about muhammad wherein I malign the character of muhammad . Would my book be promoted unless I have a strong backing and support from majority of muslims ? Ofcourse its impossible unless majority backs me up to do that.

Now let's assume that Muhammad was a saint. What these ahadith fabricators have done is turned a saint like person into a demon by showing him as a criminal. Now unless majority of muslims support this idea these ahadith would not be promoted as demonstrated in the para above. In such a case how can anyone trust quran when it too has passed through the same generation of muslims who were liars and fabricators? If muhammad was a saint in reality then we can see how badly these majority of muslims hated Muhammad. In such a case do you think they will be honest when it comes to quran and only fabricate ahadith? A majority of people wanting to defame muhammad would first corrupt the main book that is quran and then the ahadith. So if you are accusing the ahadith and other scripture writers of fabrications we have a problem for quran also. How can you trust quran in that case?
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: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

ARGUMENT 7: ALL THE AHADITH ARE UNAUTHENTIC

Till date I have maintained the view that both quran and ahadith are equally reliable but it just occurred to me that some of the ahadith are definitely correct and their authenticity is independent of whether quran is false or not. In short I will have to revise my stance with the incremental learning and hence I can say with surety now that some of the ahadith are indeed true irrespective of whether quran is reliable or not.

Here is how I am going to demolish the stupid claim that ALL THE AHADITH ARE FABRICATIONS...
Wikipedia wrote: Carbon-14 tests date some of the parchments to 645-690 AD.[3] This period may be quite long, especially if the parchment is re-used, a common practice in ancient times. Calligraphic datings have pointed to 710-715 AD.[4] Generally, it is accepted that "no extant manuscript has been unequivocally dated to a period before the ninth century on the basis of firm external evidence." [5]

Restoration of the manuscript has been organized and overseen by Arabic calligraphy and Koranic paleography specialist Gerd R. Puin of Saarland University, in Saarbrücken, Germany. Puin has extensively examined the parchment fragments found in this collection. It reveals unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. Some of the manuscripts are rare examples of those written in early Hijazi Arabic script. Although these pieces are from the earliest Qur'an known to exist, they are also palimpsests -- versions written over even earlier, scraped-off versions.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscripts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Now the Sanaa manuscripts clearly prove that there were variant readings of quran at any given time. They also prove that writing of quran was carried out until 8th century.

Now we have ahadith which describe the same. Lets see the spoiler to see the examples..
Spoiler! :
(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468; see also Volume 5, Book 57, Number 85)
Narrated Alqama:
I went to Sham and was offering a two-Rak'at prayer; I said, "O Allah! Bless me with a (pious) companion." Then I saw an old man coming towards me, and when he came near I said, (to myself), "I hope Allah has given me my request." The man asked (me), "Where are you from?" I replied, "I am from the people of Kufa." He said, "Weren't there amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet's) shoes, Siwak and the ablution water container? Weren't there amongst you the man who was given Allah's Refuge from the Satan? And weren't there amongst you the man who used to keep the (Prophet's) secrets which nobody else knew? How did Ibn Um 'Abd (i.e. 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud) use to recite Surat-al-lail (the Night: 92)?" I recited:--

"By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness. And by male and female." (92.1-3) On that, Abu Darda said, "BY ALLAH, the Prophet made me read the Verse in this way after listening to him, but these people (of Sham) TRIED THEIR BEST to let me say something different."
Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama."How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:

‘By the male and the female.’ Abu Ad-Darda said, "I TESTIFY that I heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--

‘And by Him Who created male and female.’ BUT BY ALLAH, I WILL NOT FOLLOW THEM."

Sunan Abu Dawud Number 3964
Zaid b. Thabit said that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) used to read: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt (ghairu uli’l-darari) but the narrator Sa‘id did not say the words "used to read."


The case for variant of the quran is documented in the ahadith of Bukhari as well as Abu Dawud and interestingly this coincides with the findings of historic research..

More ever its documented in the ahadith that governor of Al hajjaj changed the quran a bit who died around 715 AD. This is also confirmed by historic research which states that calligraphy writing proves that quran was edited around 715 Ad. The proofs provided from ahadith above are just samples. I can give plenty of such proofs from ahadith which talk about variants of the quran.

Now here is the knock out punch for those who claim all the ahadith are fabrications..


IF ALL THE AHADITH ARE FABRICATIONS THEN HOW COME FINDINGS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH MATCH WITH THAT OF WHATEVER IS DOCUMENTED IN THE AHADITH??



In such a case how can anyone claim that all the ahadith are unauthentic?? This only goes to show that there is some degree of truth in the ahadith.The ahadith collectors reported facts to the best of their knowledge. I guess this is sufficient to prove that not ALL The ahadith are false...

I have a couple of questions for all those who claim that ALL THE AHADITH ARE FALSE.

1)
Ahadith clearly show Muhammad as a criminal and hence if all the ahadith are false then it would mean that ahadith fabricators portrayed Muhammad in bad light deliberately. In that case it’s clear that their aim was to defame Muhammad. In such a case why would the same ahadith writers glorify Muhammad and claim that he performed miracles??? It makes least of sense when we see that same people who wanted to defame Muhammad also portray him as someone who could perform miracles.

Now one may ask me a counter question as to why would they show Muhammad in bad light if the ahadith writers were true believers and not fabricators?? The answer is provided in the spoiler..

Spoiler! :
The answer to this question can be understood when we understand how believers in a cult operate! One has to understand how the psychology of a muslim works.

Cult members don’t find anything wrong even in committing crimes but at the same time they glorify their cult leader. To understand why people documented the crimes of Muhammad and yet at the same time glorify him by claiming that he performed miracles just look at the muslims today....

Stoning is still carried out in some parts of muslim world because Muhammad carried out stoning and yet people don’t find anything wrong in it and yet they glorify Muhammad and claim that he performed miracles. Same would apply to muslims of the past and that may explain how they could glorify his miracles and yet at the same time portray him as a thug.



2) Now there are some ahadith which say that Muhammad forbid writing down any material other than quran. Now if the ahadith writers were fabricators then why would the same writers mention facts that would expose them for what they did ? A liar would always try to hide facts that expose him/her. None is so stupid to include facts which prove they were liars especially when their aim is to fabricate.

I guess this is a knock out punch for those who claim ALL the ahadith are fabrications.
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: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

Continued from above

I just want to add a few more points here . I will add to the question no 1 above i.e. the question concerning as to why would ahadith writers would glorify muhamamad by telling us he performed miracles. ITs clear that this attitude is of a believer and not a fabricator because a fabricator wouldn't bother to glorify Muhammad. A believer will always try to glorify their cult leader and therefore we see that the writer of ahadith were believers. Now why would believers themselves write something deliberately bad about their own prophet and send themselves to hell??
Answering Islam wrote: In spite of the drastic measures adopted by 'Usman for the suppression of all other copies of the Quran except his own, the reading of Ibn-Mas'ud continued for many years to be preserved amongst his followers, the people of Iraq. Thus in the year 378 of the Hegira a copy of Ibn-Mas'ud's Quran was discovered at Bagdad, which proved, on examination, to differ materially from the editions then current. It was at once burnt midst the acclamations of the deluded people.
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Goldsa ... /chap3.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The copy of Ibn Masud contained variations from today's quran. This confirms Bukhari and other ahadith collections who claim that Ibn Masud had a quranic copy of his own which differed from the quran of today.
So here is 1 more proof for these ahadith be true.
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: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

ARGUMENT 8 : Muhammad never Existed

I will be covering 2 main points here:
1) I will show that Muhammad indeed existed as a real figure
2) I will further show more proofs for ahadith being true

I would have had no problems with someone claiming Muhammad didnt exist however its not the truth especially when we see non muslims writers during 6th and 7th century describing him... Following is an article from islamic awareness ( Perhaps the only scholarly website attempting to defend islam)
Islamic Awareness wrote: This much faded note is preserved on folio 1 of BL Add. 14,461, a codex containing the Gospel accord to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark. This note appears to have been penned soon after the battle of Gabitha (636 CE) at which the Arabs inflicted crushing defeat of the Byzantines. Wright was first to draw the attention to the fragment and suggested that "it seems to be a nearly contemporary notice",[19] a view which was also endorsed by Nöldeke.[20] The purpose of jotting this note in the book of Gospels appears to be commemorative as the author appears to have realized how momentous the events of his time were. The words "we saw" are positive evidence that the author was a contemporary. The author also talks about olive oil, cattle, ruined villages, suggesting that he belonged to peasant stock, i.e., parish priest or a monk who could read and write. It is worthwhile cautioning that the condition of the text is fragmentary and many of the readings unclear or disputable. The lacunae are supplied in square brackets.
Following is the quote from a non muslim which the above para is talking about..

A Record Of The Arab Conquest Of Syria, 637 CE / 15-16 AH


... and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., ̣Hiṃs)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth
[...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, ome fifty thousand [...][21]
[/color]

Please read the part in colored. This passage comes from a non muslim.. Notice what he says:

1) Arabs of Muhammad plundered some villages

2) Some people were taken as captives.

This not only proves Muhammad existed but it also proves that the ahadith which talk about plundering (Ghazwas for example) people and taking them as captives are definitely true!

Now lets turn towards another non muslim source mentioning muhammad...

John bar Penkaye (writing 687 CE / 67-68 AH)

Having let their dispute run its course, after much fighting had taken place between them, the Westerners, whom they call the sons of ’Ammāyē, gained the victory, and one of their number, a man called M‘awyā [i.e., Mu‘awiya], became king controlling the two kingdoms, of the Persians and of the Byzantines. Justice flourished in his time, and there was great peace in the regions under his control; he allowed everyone to live as they wanted. For they held, as I have said above, an ordinance, stemming from the man who was their guide (mhaddyānā), concerning the people of the Christians and concerning the monastic station. Also as a result of this man's guidance (mhaddyānūtā) they held to the worship of One God, in accordance with the customs of ancient law. At the beginnings they kept to the traditions (mašlmānūtā) of Mụhammad, who was their instructor (tā’rā),to such an extent that they inflicted the death penalty on anyone who was seen to act brazenly against his laws [38].

I request the readers to pay attention to the the enlarged part..

Firstly we see that a non muslim source confirms the fact that death penalty for apostates was carried out by followers of Muhammad and therefore this confirms the ahadith which talk about death penalty for apostates. :D so again the conclusion ALL THE AHADITH ARE false is completely wrong.

Now secondly the quote says "the followers followed "THE TRADITION OF MUHAMMAD". The tradition implies sources other than quran i.e ahadith or sayings of Muhammad .

It also refutes the claim that Muhammad is not an example for muslims to follow because according to a non muslim source the followers of muhamamad were following his laws and tradition. This is what early muslims did and that too its according to non muslim sources and not muslim sources .


Some of the more non muslim sources confirming that Muhammad existed..

Thomas The Presbyter (Writing c. 640 CE / 19 AH)

AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa‘dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.

AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Kedar and Benōthō. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.[28]


Let's see one more source mentioning Muhammad..

Sebeos, Bishop Of The Bagratunis (Writing in 660s CE / 40s AH)


At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.[32]


Anyway the source for my quote is islamic awareness. They have provided plenty of proofs for existence of Muhammad however I have quoted only a few . The full article can be found below..

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Histor ... lysaw.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OH Father of quranites /Messiah of quran alone muslims (THE CAT)! Thou are proven wrong again and Abbasids rock ! :D :lol:


TO be continued....

I will be answering THE CAT's argument who quoted Sam shamoun's article "Allah sunnah trumps quran" and some more finer points. CAT made the arguments in the following link...

viewtopic.php?p=163406#p163406" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

@continued from above
Islamic awareness wrote: Seven milestones on the Damascus-Jerusalem road from the reign of ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (65-86 AH / 685-705 CE). Some of them can be seen here. They start with the typical formula of

Bism Allāh al-raḥmān al-raḥīm lā ilāha illa-Allāh waḥdahu la sharīka lahu Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ...

In the name of God the Compassionate the Merciful. There is no god but God alone without partner and Muhammad is the messenger of God ...
Here is the link of inscriptions which talk about Shahada of islam..

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Histor ... iptions/#3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So here is another proof that the ahadith were not FABRICATED by Abbasids who came to power in 750 Ad. The shahada existed even during Ummayad dynasty . For brevity's sake I have quoted only 1 proof from the above link of islamic awareness and there are plenty of such proofs talking about Shahada i.e. the first pillar of islam which is described by ahadith.

Now lets examine the argument from Sam Shamoun which tells us how sunnah trumps the quran. One can read the following passage from his article and get the idea as to what he wants to convey.
Spoiler! :
The second major problem is the assertion that the reason why Muhammad didn’t allow the recording of his traditions is because of his fear that the people would confuse them with the Quran. How could anyone confuse Muhammad’s words with the Quran when the latter is supposed to be unmatchable? Since Sunnis believe that the words Muhammad spoke when he wasn’t reciting the Quran were not dictated to him, but were merely inspired in the sense that the ideas were from Allah but the words that he used to express them were his very own, how then could anyone confuse the two together?

In other words, wouldn’t the words of the Quran be of superior quality and eloquence to Muhammad’s statements since the former were divinely dictated to him which he then recited?

Moreover, doesn’t Muhammad’s fears show that his statements were equal to the Quran? Is this why certain reports claim that Muhammad was given something similar to or like (mithli) the Quran? But if they are equal to the words of the Muslim scripture then doesn’t this meet the challenge of the Quran to produce something like it? If so wouldn’t this falsify the Quran’s claims that it is inimitable? After all, how can human speech no matter how inspired be equal to Allah’s words which are dictated through a human agent?

Let the reader keep this point in mind. Muhammad’s Sunna wasn’t dictated by Allah but was relayed through Muhammad’s own words and modes of expression. It, therefore, cannot have the same level of eloquence and authority of the Quran which is supposed to be the very speech of Allah which was dictated word for word. And yet the hadith literature makes the bold assertion that Muhammad’s Sunna is exactly like or equal to the Muslim scripture!

What this basically implies is that Muhammad’s Sunna trumps the Quran and falsifies the latter’s claim of being unmatchable and fully detailed, that it is the best hadith there is, since Muhammad’s hadiths are just as good and equal to the Muslim scripture.

To top it off, Muhammad’s statements haven’t come down to us entirely intact, but have been intermingled with the words of the narrators who often times forgot or summarized what they heard. Thus, the statements of uninspired, fallible humans have the same level of authority as the Quran, being its equal!
This argument is a subjective argument. This argument will convince only the believers in islam because they believe that words in the ahadith (human words) cannot match the quran (GOd's words) however the same argument cannot be used against disbelievers. If the words of ahadith seem equal in rank with the words of quran then it doesn't act as a proof of corruption of ahadith to a disbeliever because a disbeliever considers both quran and ahadith to be words of men and therefore a disbeliever will not see a problem here like a believer who thinks quran cannot be matched. We disbelievers believe that quran is a word of men just like ahadith and hence words of quran can match or be equal in rank with that of ahadith.

As a matter of fact we (disbelievers) know that quran is false and not from any God therefore Muhammad has already equated himself to Allah in the quran so it should not surprise anyone when the words of Muhammad in the ahadith are equated with words of Quran/Allah.

In short , Sam Shamoun's intended audience were muslims who would see the problem here. That article was written by keeping muslim view point but since CAT is devoid of any common sense we him bringing this argument from him.

Anyway here are more pathetic arguments from the CAT in response to my argument 8.

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=8146&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only point I want to stress here is that the above proofs were not brought here to show how muhammad plundered or raped or took captives. The ahadith were brought to show how the early muslims/companions of muhammad (637 AD to 640 AD) looted , raped and took captives and the non muslim sources tell us that these muslims followed the tradition of Muhammad and therefore it means that muhammad left a tradition of looting, raping, and taking captives!. Its as simple as that.

This also shows us that it wasn't Abbasids who fabricated the islamic history because these criminal acts are even confirmed by non muslim sources and they are traced to the time of 637 - 640 AD and not to the time of Abbasids i.e 750 AD onwards.

More ever it makes no difference even if we find a non muslim source who documents about the character of muhammad as early as 640 or 637 AD i.e slightly after Muhammad died . To know about the existence of Muhammad we don't need a non muslim source to be writing about Muhammad only when Muhammad was alive. That is a stupid argument.
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: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

Argument 9: 7th century writings of Doctrina Jacobi (a non muslim)indicate that Muhammad was alive between the time 634 AD to 640 Ad thereby debunking the islamic history which claims that muhamamad died in 632 Ad.


My previous argument debunks the position of those who claim Muhammad didn't exist however CAT has clarified his position and put a new argument claiming that sira and tafsirs are completely unauthentic because non muslim source like Doctrina Jacobi claim that Muhammad was alive between 634 AD to 640 Ad which contradicts the claim of islamic history that Muhammad died in 632 Ad.

Here is the following quote from CAT...
Spoiler! :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrina_Iacobi
It records a prophet in Arabia during the birth time of Islamic tradition proclaiming the advent of a Jewish Messiah. The document
contradicts the notion in Islamic tradition that the prophet was dead at the time of the conquest of Palestine but agrees with some traditions of other peoples of the time.
1) --Was the traditional Muhammad a Jewish Messiah, as depicted therein?
2) --It portrays the Saracens (not yet Muslims) as allied with the Jews. Is this traditional?
3) --It shows a warring leader in Syria between 634-640. Is this the traditional account?
4) --It contradicts the Islamic tradition that he was dead by 632.
5) --But it agrees with some traditions of OTHER peoples of the time.

More so, the Doctrina described him as something NEW:
''What do you tell me, lord and teacher, concerning the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens?'' -''I have fear that we are getting ready to meet the devil, yet depart, Lord Abraham, and learn about the prophet who has appeared...''It's pretty clear that it relates to someone alive (between 634-640) whom had just appeared! Is this the traditional account?

CAT doesn't document the complete quote of Doctrina Jacobi because it actually confirms my position i.e not all the ahadith are false.
Doctrina Jacobi V.16, 209. [p. 57] wrote: When the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_of_Jacob" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is what a non muslim historian Collin Wells has to say about Doctrina Jacobi...
Colin Wells wrote: To be sure, the picture given in the Doctrina Iacobi seems garbled, and many of its details disagree with the traditional account (for example, in seeming to describe the prophet as leading the armies of the Saracens himself). ... Yet one could hardly expect a Byzantine source from this early and turbulent period to get all the details right. Even later, most Byzantine sources displayed gross misunderstanding of matters Islamic, just as Muslim sources generally did of matters Byzantine."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_of_Jacob" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EDITED TO CORRECT A MISTAKE
=======================================
I had mentioned here that Saracens were never muslims. I got this idea from wikipedia however I came across quotes from other non muslim writers that refer muslims are Saracens so therefore I have to correct this mistake however the rest of my arguments stays valid..

-========================
Secondly even for a second if we assume that whatever Doctrina Jacobi said was true it still creates a problem for ahadith rejectors. The quote from Doctrina Jacobi also says that Muhammad was a false prophet who shed people;s blood and it also talks about Muhammad’s claims of having the keys of paradise. This quote if true, partially debunks the historian ibn ishaq with regards to time line of Muhammad from 570 AD to 632 AD as it says that Muhammad existed around 634 to 640 Ad however it also supports the ahadith, the tafsirs and Sira which talk about Muhammad killing people for islam and it also supports the claim of ahadith which quote Muhammad as having key to paradise (we have ahadith which mention this) and therefore what it would mean is that not all the ahadith are false inspite of some being false which clearly supports my position.

More ever the question needs to be asked here is what could possibly be the motive behind fabrication of muhammad’s birth and death date by Islamic historians? A fabricator needs to have a purpose to fabricate a lie. Fabricating the time line of Muhammad (570 to 632 AD) absolutely doesn’t help the fabricator serve any purpose .

It's obvious that Jacoba Doctrina is not a reliable source just as Colins Wells put that Byzantine sources misunderstand muslim sources just like muslim sources misunderstand Byzantine’s sources. After all who would possibly know better about Muhammad's birth? Muslims or byzantines?

The Cat wrote: You state that John Bar Penkaye describes how Muhammad's tradition were kept on and it shows you haven't read correctly. The text underlines how Muawiya: ''As a result of this man's guidance (Muawiya) they held to the worship of One God, in accordance with the customs of ancient law. At the beginnings they kept to the traditions of Muhammad.''See how it debunks your assertion that he was an example to follow. The text praises Muawiya for going contrary to that!
[/quote]

The text praises Muawiya for going against the teachings of Muhammad which means that Muhammad indeed taught violence and a message of intolerance and that message of Muhammad is well documented in the ahadith so thanks for again proving that ahadith regarding criminal activities of Muhammad are authentic. Now what muawiya did is irrelevant because the same quote also says that early muslims followed Muhammad dedicatedly to the extent that they would kill any apostate of islam!

Rest of the CAT;s post has already been addressed plenty of times and hence ignored rightly.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by skynightblaze »

Argument 10: Examining Western Scholars like Schacht, Wansbrough,Goldziher

Let us examine the arguments of all the above mentioned western scholars..
Wansbrough wrote: He caused a furor in the 1970s when his research on early Islamic manuscripts, including the analysis of the repeated use of monotheistic Judeo-Christian imagery found in the Qur'an led him to posit that the rise of Islam was a mutation of what was originally a Judeo-Christian sect trying to spread in Arab lands, rather than by simple cultural diffusion. As time evolved the Judeo-Christian scriptures were adapted to an Arab perspective and mutated into what became the Qur'an which was developed over centuries with contributions from various Arab tribal sources. Wansbrough's research suggests that a great deal of the traditional history of Islam appeared to be a fabrication of later generations seeking to forge and justify a unique religious identity. Within this context, the character of Muhammad could be seen as a manufactured myth created to provide the Arab tribes with their own Arab version of the Judeo-Christian prophets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wansbrough" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just checked Goldziher’s writings in detail and I found he doesn’t contradict Schacht regarding claim about the time lines when ahadith are fabricated. I will have to correct that mistake however Schacht does contradict Goldziher on other counts.Herbert Berg in his book himself mentions this.. Read the point no 55 in the following link..

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8oYL ... &ct=result" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If one examines the arguments from 3 different western scholars we find that none of them agrees with each other. Goldziher believes that isnad ,practice of recording words and actions of Muhammad is genuine while Schacht doesnt believe that. He believes that this process came later only to involve Muhammad . Both of them disagree on a significant point as to how the ahadith corruption begun.
=======================

Wansbrough states that Muhammad didn’t even exist. Now Schacht and GOldziher believed that Muhammad existed unlike Wansbrough.

So which one of the above authors is correct? I guess everyone agrees that truth is only one and not many. Its lies that are many so Which of the above 3 scholars is telling us the truth?

Let's first examine Wansbrough

Refuting Wansbrough

In my “argument 8” I have quoted non Islamic sources which confirm that Muhammad existed and hence it refutes Wansbrough. Now lets see stupidity of The CAT- the self proclaimed scholar.

According to Wansbrough Muhammad never existed but according to CAT he existed.
The Cat wrote: You're deluded again. Where did I ever say he never existed? Read my challenge again and stop making a Sunnite fool of yourself!
viewtopic.php?p=163453#p163453" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More ever this person quotes quran to claim that Quran forbids ahadith plenty of times ( see his resource center thread "hadith perfidy") but according to Wansbrough Muhammad never existed and hence it would mean quran too is a fabrication so how can CAT quote quran to justify that ahadith are forbidden?? A corrupt source cannot be taken as a standard reference to debunk something!.

Anyway the argument that quran forbids ahadith is false. This argument has already been debunked in my previous posts on this thread itself.

In other words, scholars brought up by CAT debunk CAT’s position too because CAT claims that quran wasn't forged but only ahadith and tafsirs..

This is what he wrote once in response to my claim that people after Muhammad corrupted the quran..
The Cat wrote: Thing is they did corrupt the Koran: While they couldn't alter the words themselves, they deviated the meanings
and contexts through the tafsirs/hadiths... you're otherwise defending!
viewtopic.php?p=162549#p162549" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So we have a case here of a person who doesn’t even understand that the same scholars which he uses to attack ahadith debunk his position too.


Refuting Schacht and Goldziher

Now Schacht claims that ahadith were fabrications of 2nd century of islam however my argument 7(sanaa manuscript and copy of ibn masud found after 400 years confirm ahadith to some extent) and argument 8 are full of external proofs(non islamic sources) that support the ahadith on some counts and hence all the ahadith can’t be corrupt.

The non muslim sources talk about companions of Muhamamad following Muhammad and carrying out acts like taking captives, raiding villages etc and therefore this again confirms the ahadith so this refutes both Schacht and GOldziher.


EDIT TO ADD TO THE POSTS

=============
REFUTING SCHACHT BY islamic awareness

viewtopic.php?p=168393#p168393" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Refutation to Schacht by Dr. Fahad Alhamoudi'

viewtopic.php?p=168394#p168394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
==============
I am yet to examine what Herbert Berg and Andrew Rippin say but I guess my arguments 7 and 8 clearly demonstrate that some of the ahadith are true and I have used external sources I,e sources other than Islamic to make a case so it would be mere repetition if I am to refute Herbert berg or Andrew Ripping.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:24 am, edited 4 times in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

The Cat. Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by The Cat »

Moderators: This thread (of snb) has no place here according to RC very own criteria...
It is a database of documents, websites, books and other resources, to provide
skeptics with the materials to compose their articles refuting Islam...
EDITED: due to a moderator decision, my responses were transferred here.
I still maintain that RC is no place for snb's thread or mine for that matter.
I'm arguing AGAINST Muhammadanism... While he argues FOR the hadiths!

____________________
skynightblaze wrote: ARGUMENT 1: Muhammad himself forbid writing down of hadiths and there were no ahadith for first 2 centuries....
1--there are plenty of hadiths which tell us about muhammad asking hadiths to be written down.
2--IT can be seen that there were plenty of early hadiths in the first century hijra .
3--Existence of non existence of manuscripts doesnt prove or disprove anything .We have manuscripts of quran so does that mean quran is a true book?
4--we have early manuscripts of Ibn Ishaq/Hisham's book
5--We also have tafsir of Ibn Abbas in the 7th century.
1 & 2 & 3: We have no such early manuscripts. They should have been religiously preserved in the case of Muhammad allowing them.
http://www.islamic-research.org/muhamma ... adith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More so, the classical tradition which snb defends, has it that the first compilation was done by al-Zuhri, under Umar II (717-720).
And since Buk.1.3.98 is such a multi-blasphemous anachronistic blunder, we may as well doubt it too!
viewtopic.php?p=129098#p129098" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=129107#p129107" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alfred Guillaume: http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Gu ... ns/ch1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The fact that no authentic remains of this alleged first-century compilation are extant, and that
the indefatigable students and compilers of tradition in the third century make no mention of an
effort to trace such early documents, suggest very strongly that the tradition is not based on fact.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to suggest a cogent reason why such an early collection, if it existed,
should never have been mentioned by later scholars whose life-work it was to recover the genuine hadith
...
4. Wrong. We have no manuscript of Ibn Ishaq, and partial rendition in the much later Ibn Hisham (d.833)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
... Whose very origin is far to be known. Some say, others say... Now, what's that supposed to tell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Hisham" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

5. We have no original manuscript from Ibn Abbas either, mainly what Hisham/al-Tabari reported much, much later!
The constant: -no manuscript- is calling for serious doubts. And they are both contested in Islamic scholarly circles...
http://www.answering-christian-claims.c ... Ishaq.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote: Argument 2 : Backward composition of hadiths
1--The first problem with this argument is that these non muslims or free minders are using islamic sources for their case which they discard otherwise.

2--More ever even if assume that the birth dates and death dates are correct how can anyone make a case for backward composition of hadith depending upon a single hadith? It could also be a honest mistake from Bukhari .
We're all using hadiths to debunk hadiths which is fair game. And we don't discard all Islamic sources,
not even all hadiths like those stating that Muhammad interdicted them, the Koranic interdiction too.

A honest mistake from Bukhari? The blunder of Buk.1.3.98 splashes in everybody's face, except snb!
viewtopic.php?p=129107#p129107" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=129111#p129111" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are many, many more anachronism in Bukhari (like 6.60.359; 4.747-748; 7.787; 2.24.501; 5.58.230, etc)
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/st ... adith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Including the very dating of Bukhari's publication, first known through Muhammad al-Firabri (d. 320/932)!
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78131769.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Spoiler! :
Apparently the product of the devoted and orderly activity of a single person, works like the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim
should probably be recognized as emerging into final form at least one generation later than the dates recorded for the
deaths of the putative authors.... A fortiori the rijal works associated with these collections. Bukhari's AI-Ta'rikh al-kabir
is probably a post facto description of the Sahih not a set of criteria governing the collection of its materials....

Actually, the Sahih of Bukhari seems not to have been widely published until well into the tenth century, for virtually all
known transmissions were through a single man, Muhammad ibn Yusuf ibn Matar al-Firabri (d. 320/932). Somehow, no
one else of the many illustrious traditionists who related hadith of Bukhari (al-Mizzi lists over eighty) recognized the value
of his collection of sound hadith and transmitted it. Its organization, in particular its chapter headings, seem not to have
stabilized until the mid-tenth century. It first attracted commentaries in the later tenth century.

The earliest hadith collection based on the Sahih of Muslim is said to have been that of Abu Bakr ibn Raja' al-Sindi
al-Isfarayini (d. 286/899-900); however, the earliest that might have been based on the Sahih of Bukhari is that of
Abu Alid ibn Uthman ibn al-Sakan (d. 353/964).
skynightblaze wrote:Argument 3 : Historic evidence of Abraha's inscription used to debunk the ahadith and biographers of Muhammad
1--The historical evidence of Abraha's scripture only talks about the attack but it doesnt mention the place of attack i.e mecca nor does it mention the birth of muhammad during the same year.

2--In such a case we can assign a probability of 0.5 for the story reported by islamic scriptures as false and a probability of 0.5 for the story being true.

3--(If true) this story creates a problem for all islamic scriptures including quran so again all the scriptures of islam need to be thrown out and hence we can't have a case for quran alone. (If untrue) islamic scriptures stand as they are. No scripture becomes unauthentic and hence again we cant have a case for quran alone being reliable.
1.Abraha's inscription debunks that there was a Mecca where it nowadays stand. It debunks Muhammad's ancestry,
as no al-Muttalib or Quraysh tribe are mentioned, and happening by 552 then Muhammad's birth can't be dated 570.
viewtopic.php?p=90797#p90797" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=135047#p135047" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. The authenticity of Prophetic Hadith: A Pseudo-problem, by Wael Hallaq
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/st ... adith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We trust only a historical narrative that we believe with assurance to have originated with the event itself, and even then we must guard
against "ideological" biases as well as a variety of other potential problems. In terms of the Probability Theory, any narrative that we think
to be equal to 0.51 or less is to be immediately dismissed. Compare this, for instance, with the case of a human birth, where the probability
of the infant being a girl is 0.5, since the remaining 0.5 is assigned to the probability of its being a boy. If the probability of a hadith being
true (=authentic) is only marginally higher (by 0.01 or even moderately more) than the probability of a certain new born being a girl (or for
that matter a boy), then surely we have little reason, if any, to trust such a hadith as a credible historical datum.
3. Unlike the hadiths, the Koran is the mutawatir/tawatur document per excellence, witnessed and recorded by a multitude.
viewtopic.php?p=159768#p159768" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=160095#p160095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=160296#p160296" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:Argument 4: Ahadith are of the ahaad type i.e a single narrator . There should be atleast 2 witnesses to consider them as reliable as per verses 65:2,5:106, 2:282

--a lot of ahadith in the bukhari were confirmed by multiple narrators and hence even if we assume that the criteria for determining whether a work is reliable is 2 witnesses then most of the Bukhari's work passes the test...

--Many of the ahadith become unreliable however within the book of Bukhari or Sahih muslim itself we find multiple narrations from different narrators for e.g the ahadith that deal with killing of apostates are narrated by different authors in the Bukhari and Sahih muslim's book as well so we can safely assume that these ahadith are true.
Confirmation by 2 witnesses never meant 2 different global accounts but 2 witnesses at each level of the SAME narration!

The Traditions in the Mutawatir context...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41077970/Summ ... -Criticism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The categories of mutawatur and ahad were similarly unsuitable for the hadith tradition, for essentially all hadiths were ahad. As Ibn
al-Salah (d.1245), the most famous scholar of hadith criticism in the later period, explained, at most one hadith (-Whoever lies
about me intentionally, let him prepare for himself a seat in Hellfire
-) would meet the requirement for mutawatir. No hadiths could
actually be described as being narrated by a large number of narrators at every stage of their transmission. In fact, when Mutazilites
had insisted that hadiths be transmitted by a mere two people at every stage, the Sunni Ibn Hibban had accused them of trying to
destroy the Sunna of the Prophet in its entirety.
....

The final means by which hadiths achieved exaggerated authority in the late Sunni Tradition was the exploitation of the concept of the
mutawatir reports.... Although scholars like al-Salah had declared that no such hadith existed in actuality, al-Suyuti composed a collection
() in which he included 111 hadiths he declared mutawatir because ten or more Companions had narrated it from the Prophet. -But a
mutawatir hadith had to have such number of isnads at every level of transmission, and not all the chains of transmission that al-Suyuti
used as evidence were reliable to begin with.

The very testimony of Ibn Hibban demonstrates that no mutawatir hadith was available even back then, -not a single one-!
skynightblaze wrote:ARGUMENT 5: Koran itself forbids following ahadith
ARGUMENT 6: Quran says obey the messenger and not obey muhammad
1--muhammad has to be obeyed. Following sunnah of muhammad would also mean following sunnah of Allah because sunnah of Allah contains a command to follow the sunnah of Muhammad so when people follow the sunnah of muhammad they are infact following the sunnah of Allah.

2--(Quoting 33.21; 33.40; 5.92; 16.44; 2.129)
Muhammad's job is to sanctify people, instruct the people in wisdom and scripture. Note that this verse says that Muhammad's job is to TEACH WISDOM in addition to the scripture itseld and hence there arises the need of sources other than quran i.e. ahadith which are sayings of muhammad..

3--(Quoting 3.164; 62.2)
The job of muhammad is to TEACH PEOPLE SOMETHING NEW and not just the scripture i.e. the quran....
Quran itself says that muhammad is supposed to obeyed.
1. Where does the Koran say that one should obey Muhammad or his Sunna and only him?
viewtopic.php?p=129119#p129119" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=129485#p129485" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
16.35: Are the messengers charged with aught save plain conveyance (of the message)?
24.54: The messenger hath no other charge than to convey (the message) plainly.
39.41: Thou art not a warder over them.

More so since, koranically , the 'messenger' must be linked to The Messenger, ie. Gabriel (2.97).
72:21 Say: Lo! I control not hurt nor benefit for you.
72:22 Say: Lo! none can protect me from Allah, nor can I find any refuge beside Him
72:23 (Mine is) but conveyance (of the Truth) from Allah, and His messages; and whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger...
Clearly the Messenger to be obeyed here is Gabriel. Muhammad can be of no special benefit.
viewtopic.php?p=129206#p129206" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. Where did you take that 'wisdom' (Hikma) means the 'Sunna of Muhammad'? It's really not so...
http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/ ... ses/hekmah_(P1227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).html
viewtopic.php?p=159297#p159297" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Example, 16.44 is preceded by: ''Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not!''
So the Remembrance is not the task of Muhammad either, nor pertaining to his own time.

On 33.40 (he wasn't the father -aba- of any man):
viewtopic.php?p=148380#p148380" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Seal of the prophets (not the last prophet!)...
viewtopic.php?p=148403#p148403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=148425#p148425" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3. What do you think that the Koran was while still being revealed? Something new!
Certainly not the too well-known Muhammad! Himself following their sunna/custom!
For 'sunna' and 'hadith' are two completely different things so can't be synonymous.
http://quransmessage.com/pdfs/Hadith%20and%20Sunna.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=159597#p159597" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


To be followed...
Last edited by The Cat on Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:05 pm, edited 11 times in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Debat .Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:ARGUMENT 7: ALL THE AHADITH ARE UNAUTHENTIC
1--IF ALL THE AHADITH ARE FABRICATIONS THEN HOW COME FINDINGS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH MATCH WITH THAT OF WHATEVER IS DOCUMENTED IN THE AHADITH??

2--Ahadith clearly show Muhammad as a criminal and hence if all the ahadith are false then it would mean that ahadith fabricators portrayed Muhammad in bad light deliberately.
3--there are some ahadith which say that Muhammad forbid writing down any material other than quran. Now if the ahadith writers were fabricators then why would the same writers mention facts that would expose them for what they did ? A liar would always try to hide facts that expose him/her.

4--the question concerning as to why would ahadith writers would glorify muhamamad by telling us he performed miracles. ITs clear that this attitude is of a believer and not a fabricator because a fabricator wouldn't bother to glorify Muhammad.

5--The copy of Ibn Masud contained variations from today's quran. This confirms Bukhari and other ahadith collections who claim that Ibn Masud had a quranic copy of his own which differed from the quran of today.
1. Didn't I always state that hadiths with historical content should be judged at their own values? But no hadith should be law-enforcing!
2. Didn't I state that the hadiths are a maze in which everything could be ascertained and its opposite?
3. Same. See your argument #1.
4. What is this? Fabricators can't be believers? Then learn about the terms 'pious frauds' and 'religious frauds'.

5. Where does Bukhari say that Ibn Masud had a Koranic copy of his own? He had a different ahruf (vocalization).
And we've got, still again, no manuscript of ANYTHING from Ibn Masud! Much of this only known through... Al-Tabari:
''The responsibility of all blunders rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have narrated these stories to me.
skynightblaze wrote: ARGUMENT 8 : Muhammad never Existed
1-- A Record Of The Arab Conquest Of Syria, 637 CE / 15-16 AH
This not only proves Muhammad existed but it also proves that the ahadith which talk about plundering (Ghazwas for example) people and taking them as captives are definitely true!

2--John bar Penkaye (writing 687 CE / 67-68 AH)
Firstly we see that a non muslim source confirms the fact that death penalty for apostates was carried out by followers of Muhammad and therefore this confirms the ahadith which talk about death penalty for apostates.... Now secondly the quote says "the followers followed "THE TRADITION OF MUHAMMAD". The tradition implies sources other than quran i.e ahadith or sayings of Muhammad ..... It also refutes the claim that Muhammad is not an example for muslims to follow because according to a non muslim source the followers of muhamamad were following his laws and tradition.

3--Thomas The Presbyter (Writing c. 640 CE / 19 AH)
4--Sebeos, Bishop Of The Bagratunis (Writing in 660s CE / 40s AH)
Anyway the source for my quote is islamic awareness.... OH Father of quranites /Messiah of quran alone muslims (THE CAT)! Thou are proven wrong again and Abbasids rock !
1. Which was the usual sunna (custom) of all the Bedouin's tribes. You're thus into Presentism.
viewtopic.php?p=158347#p158347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=159337#p159337" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=159476#p159476" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=159597#p159597" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. What Muawiyah did was perfectly relevant to the fact that Muhammad was never considered an example to follow. It wasn't so when
collecting the very Koran, for he never collected it himself; The first caliphs didn't follow his example of allowing 7 different recitations,
when they decided the standardization of the Koran. They followed their conscience... If Muhammad is to be followed, tell me where
does the Koran makes him an IMAM (a timeless religious guide) as with Abraham (2.124), Isaac/Jacob (21.73)... or Moses (46.12)?

2, 3 & 4. Thomas the Presbiter, the Islamic-awareness account states:
''This means that the time period between the death of Muhammad (June, 632CE)
and the earliest mention of him (4th February, 634 CE) is slightly over a year and half!'
'

What a contrived way to play with chronology. Clearly he didn't die in 634-636 so to match this assertion. Clearly too, from The Doctrina,
he was newly appearing on the scene. And when Thomas wrote the ''Tayyaye of d-mhmt'' he is clearly indicating their point of origins!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hippolytus (), mention three distinct peoples in Arabia during the first half of the third century, the Saraceni, Taeni and Arabes.
The Taeni, later identified with the Arabic speaking people called Tayy, were located around the Khaybar Oasis all the way up to
the eastern Euphrates (land of Kedar) while the Saracenoi were placed north of them.
The Tayyaye of d-mhmt, as Sebeos wrote, clearly refers to the area of Khaybar/Hegra where Mecca should be rightfully located.
Even al-Kalbi refers to Mecca as the place where the AMALEKITES lived which is obviously, again, in the Paran/Midian area,
also known as the Malachite/turquoise valley, thus the name of Amalekites! And the Saracens living in its northern part...

Now, Sebeos was writting around 660 from Armenia, in a remote monastery.
Islamic-awareness: ''Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present us with a theory for the
rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.
''

Was Muhammad still an inoffensive 'merchant' according to all the other testimonies? NO, he was a dreaded war leader.
So, this 'attention to what Muslims thought they were doing' is plainly aside, sounding like a dhimmi account...

About John bar Penkaye (689)
Islamic-awareness: ''Little is known about John bar Penkaye.... John bar Penkaye presented Muhammad as the "guide" and "instructor"
whose "traditions" and "laws" the Arabs fiercely upheld. The term "tradition" (Syr. mašlmānūtā) implies that something is handed down,
which suggests that the Muslims adhered to and enforced the example of Prophet Muhammad.
''

But Penkaye rather wrote: ''As a result of this man's guidance (Muawiya) they held to the worship of One God, in accordance with the
customs of ancient law. At the beginnings they kept to the traditions (mašlmānūtā) of Mụhammad, who was their instructor (tā’rā),
to such an extent that they inflicted the death penalty on anyone who was seen to act brazenly against his laws''
.

Here we find that Muawiya is the one who upheld the ''customs of ancient law'', while the concept of 'tradition' carries the idea of something
unwritten, orally transferred, which is the opposite of what we understand by 'law'. Thus, what the text infers is that the prophet, and his
troops, weren't following anything written like the Koran! In other words, they were violently spreading anarchy which, again, is certainly
not what we get from the Islamic tradition, yet exactly what accounts we have from most of the external sources at hand.

In Penkaye's pamphlet, Muawiya is the guidance followed, not Muhammad. This is emphasized by the fact that Muawiya's troops didn't rebel
against him, killing him out of religious duty for not abiding to Muhammad's example. They could have, easily, joined his arc enemy Ali ibn
Abi Talib and disposed of Muawiya. The fact is they didn't and its rather Ali who became more and more isolated... and murdered.

Now, it's crystal clear that the first external testimonies we possess, the Doctrina Jacobi, Sophronius and Sebeos, are frontally dismissing
the traditions that the prophet severed his ties with the Jews around 624. Umar permitted them, not only to get back into Jerusalem, but
also to establish a temple of their own and worship therein. So, all the traditions stating that Muhammad expelled the Jews from Medina,
then from all of Arabia MUST be false... as they are contradicted both by historical facts as well as by these external testimonies.
skynightblaze wrote: 1--The shahada existed even during Ummayad dynasty .

2--Sam Shamoun's intended audience were muslims who would see the problem here.

3--The ahadith were brought to show how the early muslims/companions of muhammad (637 AD to 640 AD) looted , raped and took captives and the non muslim sources tell us that these muslims followed the tradition of Muhammad and therefore it means that muhammad left a tradition of looting, raping, and taking captives!. Its as simple as that.

4--This also shows us that it wasn't Abbasids who fabricated the islamic history because these criminal acts are even confirmed by non muslim sources and they are traced to the time of 637 - 640 AD
1. Explain why the Islamic tradition gives it to Huraira. Now, many scholars like Karl-Heinz Ohlig
& Gerd R. Puin stated that Muhammad was originally a christological title, an honorific surname.
http://en.qantara.de/wcsite.php?wc_c=8052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56994" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Considerations over MHMD(t): A name or an appellation?
viewtopic.php?p=94060#p94060" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Koranic ISA, son of (Allah/Maryam)...
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And it is still blasphemous according to the Koran... Sam Shamoun saw the blunder. Snb-our-Sunnite doesn't, go figure!
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/real_shahada.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1062" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
72.18: And the places of worship are only for Allah, so pray not unto anyone along with Allah.

2. Shamouns's article: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... _quran.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Deluded. His intended audience is Christian. What do you think that answering-islam means? This is basically a Christian site
inter-debating with its Muslim counterpart, islamic-awareness (your silly trust). Then, he fully back up many arguments I've hold
myself: The Koran interdicts any religiously authoritative hadiths (7.185; 31.6; 39.23; 77.50, etc); The only Sunna to follow is
that of Allah (17.77; 33.62; 35.43); Muhammad interdicted the writing of his sunna... and since the Sharia is explicitly given in
the Koran, no man-made addition to it can be lawful. 16.116: And speak not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify
(as clean or unclean), the falsehood: "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so that ye invent a lie against Allah....


3. If he was to be followed according to the Koran, which ain't so.
viewtopic.php?p=129119#p129119" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:Argument 9: 7th century writings of Doctrina Jacobi (a non muslim)indicate that Muhammad was alive between the time 634 AD to 640 Ad thereby debunking the islamic history which claims that muhamamad died in 632 Ad.

1-- Now it’s practically impossible that Muhammad was leading Saracens because Saracens were non muslims. Doctrina Jacobi says that Muhammad shed the blood of men and its obvious he shed the blood of non muslims. Now would any non muslim accept Muhammad as a leader especially when he shed the blood of those who didn’t follow islam??

2--It's obvious that Jacoba Doctrina is not a reliable source just as Colins Wells put that Byzantine sources misunderstand muslim sources just like muslim sources misunderstand Byzantine’s sources. After all who would possibly know better about Muhammad's birth? Muslims or byzantines?

3--More ever the question needs to be asked here is what could possibly be the motive behind fabrication of muhammad’s birth and death date by Islamic historians? A fabricator needs to have a purpose to fabricate a lie. Fabricating the time line of Muhammad (570 to 632 AD) absolutely doesn’t help the fabricator serve any purpose .

4--The text praises Muawiya for going against the teachings of Muhammad which means that Muhammad indeed taught violence and a message of intolerance and that message of Muhammad is well documented in the ahadith so thanks for again proving that ahadith regarding criminal activities of Muhammad are authentic. Now what muawiya did is irrelevant because the same quote also says that early muslims followed Muhammad dedicatedly to the extent that they would kill any apostate of islam!
1. Prove how the Saracens weren't Muslims. And if they weren't then who's the 'Muhammad' leading them? That of the Tradition?
The very name of Saracens indicate a northwest, Nabataean, location in Arabia, far from nowadays Mecca or... Medina/Yathrib!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. Give me his birth-year according to Islamic traditions... from Ja'far ibn Abi 'l-Mughira, Al-Kalbi, Al-Zuhri or Musa ibn 'Uqba,
then explain why they differ so widely (from Ibn Ishaq's 570) and... who's right. If we don't know, the Tradition crumbles down!

3. It did much for the Abbasids since the forgery related their blood-line with that of Muhammad. The very foundation of all later forgeries.

4. Explain then why they didn't kill Muawiya, out of religious duty, for being such an apostate to Muhammad's example.
More troubling still is the fact that his troops could easily abandoned him to join his arc enemy: Ali. They never did...
skynightblaze wrote: Argument 10: Examining Western Scholars like Schacht, Wansbrough,Goldziher
1-- Its evident from their writings for e.g Schacht claims that none of the ahadith can be traced back to Muhammad while Goldziher says that ahadith are fabrications after Muhammad's death! In short all the 3 authors contradict each other!

2--According to Wansbrough Muhammad never existed but according to CAT he existed.

3--Schacht claims that ahadith were fabrications of 2nd century of islam however my argument 7(sanaa manuscript and copy of ibn masud found after 400 years confirm ahadith to some extent) and argument 8 are full of external proofs(non islamic sources) that support the ahadith on some counts and hence all the ahadith can’t be corrupt.

4--If the first 2 generations of muslims after Muhammad’s death were corrupt then it means even quran is corrupt because quran was compiled by people after Muhammad i,e the corrupt generation which Goldziher talks about.
1. Explain how ''none of the ahadith can be traced back to Muhammad''
& ''ahadith are fabrications after Muhammad's death'' are contradictory.

2. Pinpoint where exactly Wansbrough states that no Muhammad ever existed. He shows how the traditions are in deep cloudy mist.
Patricia Crone: What Do We Actually Know About Muhammad?
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-euro ... d_3866.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3. Schacht relied on the juristic decisions, which can be traced down chronologically. Nothing to do with your trumpeting foolishness.
viewtopic.php?p=164224#p164224" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Islamic Origins Debate Goes Public, by Peter von Sivers (a must read)
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/ ... co_058.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
European scholars has recently embarked on an ambitious effort to narrow the gap between the beginnings of the Arab expansion
and the beginnings of Islamic scholarship (c. 632–780). G. H. A. Juynboll, Harald Motzki, and a few others represented or cited in
Motzki have subjected Schacht and Wansbrough to sharp criticism for their tendency to exaggerate the gap. They have marshaled
a number of strong arguments in favor of a shorter period, extending only from the Arab expansion to the construction of the Dome
of the Rock (632–91). Even they, however, cannot ignore the difficulty of identifying texts from the period of `Abd al-Malik and his
immediate successors (c. 690–730), although they labor hard to dispel Cook’s skepticism and confirm van Ess’ optimism. Most
importantly, like their predecessors, they cannot overcome the gap of the two generations between 632 and 690
...
After careful studies even those opposing Schacht had to conclude on the total absence of ANY tradition from between 632 and 690!
And the following period (690/780) is the very beginning of a primitive bulk of traditions, most obviously a canvas in the making!

4. Read again! They were corrupted LATER, starting in the 2nd century AH, passed the first 2 generations!
Last edited by The Cat on Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:08 pm, edited 6 times 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: The Cat. Quran alone muslim. Is it possible?

Post by The Cat »

Additions to the previous answers...
skynightblaze wrote:Refuting Schacht and Goldziher
Now Schacht claims that ahadith were fabrications of 2nd century of islam however my argument 7(sanaa manuscript and copy of ibn masud found after 400 years confirm ahadith to some extent) and argument 8 are full of external proofs(non islamic sources) that support the ahadith on some counts and hence all the ahadith can’t be corrupt.

The non muslim sources talk about companions of Muhamamad following Muhammad and carrying out acts like taking captives, raiding villages etc and therefore this again confirms the ahadith so this refutes both Schacht and GOldziher and more ever even if we take Goldziher’s arguments seriously for a second they actually debunk CAT;s position of quran not being corrupt. If the first 2 generations of muslims after Muhammad’s death were corrupt then it means even quran is corrupt because quran was compiled by people after Muhammad i,e the corrupt generation which Goldziher talks about.

I am yet to examine what Herbert Berg and Andrew Rippin say but I guess my arguments 7 and 8 clearly demonstrate that some of the ahadith are true and I have used external sources I,e sources other than Islamic to make a case so it would be mere repetition if I am to refute Herbert berg or Andrew Ripping.
As always you're totally missing the point. They didn't accuse the first 2 generations of being corrupt, but LATER generations. :wacko:

See my refutations of point 7 & 8
viewtopic.php?p=164090#p164090" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And your point #8 was twice redressed:
viewtopic.php?p=163453#p163453" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=164090#p164090" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More so you're blatantly contradicting yourself, first stating along with Colin Wells that: ''one could hardly expect a Byzantine source
from this early and turbulent period to get all the details right. Even later, most Byzantine sources displayed gross misunderstanding
of matters Islamic
'', just to switch whenever it suits you. That's another fallacy called 'Cherry picking'.

Now, Schacht -proves- that the hadiths were a fabrication from the 2nd century onward by relying on the wholesome Islamic jurisprudence,
which decisions can be traced back chronologically. And he -demonstrated- how Muhammad's sunna wasn't preponderant at all before Shafi'i
(d.820). What was preponderant until then were the sunna as the general custom (Sunna) of the people and of reason.
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Schach ... uation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://ahadithstudies.files.wordpress.c ... chacht.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=164287#p164287" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.uga.edu/islam/hadith.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
During the first few centuries of Islam, it became obvious that many so-called hadith were in fact
spurious sayings that had been fabricated for various motives, at best to encourage believers to act
righteously and at worse to corrupt believers' understanding of Islam and to lead them astray.

John Wansbrough, later, took from Goldziher and then Schacht, to go further in his reflexion.
That's not contradiction but evolution in thinking as the pro/con arguments keep on piling up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Bernard Lewis states that "the collection and scrutiny of Hadiths didn't take place until "several generations" after Muhammad's death
and that "during that period the opportunities and motives for falsification were almost unlimited." In addition to the problem of oral
transmission for two hundred to three hundred years (Bukhari being the earliest in the middle of the 9th century....) there existed
motives for deliberate distortion, and a certainty that non-deliberate distortions would add or omit.
1) --Opportunities and motives for falsification were almost unlimited.
2) --Then there's the problem of oral transmissions over 200 years. The Chinese Whispers...
3) --Motives (political, personal interest, religious factions) for deliberate distortions.
4) --Certainty that non-deliberate distortions happened (by additions or omissions).

Snb has to explain how the 'original' 138 hadiths from Huraira, in the posthumous Munnabih Sahifah,
(said to appeared around 750), multiplied into Hanbal's 3,700 hadiths and then up to 5,374 in Bukhari.
Where are the sources for such a miracle? Now, don't tell me about Bukhari's own testimony, please!

And why aren't they corroborated, mutawatir/tawatur, as per 2.282, 5.106, 65.2?
They are thus frontally against the Koran, which also dismisses them all at first.
skynightblaze wrote:This not only proves Muhammad existed but it also proves that the ahadith which talk about plundering (Ghazwas for example) people and taking them as captives are definitely true!
--Was Muhammad plundering Syria/Iraq by 637, according to the tradition?
--And those lootings were customary to ALL the Bedouin's tribes. So what?
They only demonstrate how this 'Mhmd' was following ancestral customs!

As per John of Damascus (676-749), a high Damascus official (like his father) thus a first-class witness, who wrote:
--So until the times of Heraclius (d.641) they [the Arabs] were plain idolators.
--From that time to the present a false prophet appeared among them, surnamed Mamed
--Having conversed, in like manner, with an Arian monk, put together his own heresy.
1) ''They were plain idolators'', ie. not following Muhammad!
2) There was no prophet -surnamed Mamed- ''until the times of Heraclius'' (d.641)!
3) ''From that time to the present a false prophet appeared'': Muhammad is NEW!
4) It wasn't perceived as brand new religion but as yet another arianist heresy...

--For sure, it/he was still widely unknown to the historian monk Nikephoros, still by 769. To him they were pagans...
''Nikephorus did not see the Arabs as distinctive from other non-Christian groups that were attacking the empire.''
http://answering-islam.org/history/byza ... onses.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And we begin to have a detailed idea of who is Muhammad, only from the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor (813).
So it's rather clear that only between 780-810 was the 'tradition' of Muhammad started to be externally recognized.


Our home-Sunnite, snb, has to face far more than just the Koraners while debating for the legitimacy of the hadiths,
but also, ALL the preceding historical traditions based on reason and the custom (sunna) of the people, as the former
Mutazilites' jurists, as well as the vast amount of proofs accumulated by Western scholarship and... history itself!

For that purpose, he must rely on the Muhammadans' wall-of-lies and merry-go-round, which they like to call 'traditions'!
Last edited by The Cat on Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Post Reply