DO you agree with The Cat?

[The Cat]

How can people compare Joshua,Moses & Muhammed :
Do you need to be intellectually dishonest or have some scary tendencies of your own?

Leaving aside insults, Ibn Warraq (quoting scholars) saw the clear juxtaposition (excerpts):
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Origins_of_the_Qur'an

--The earliest Greek source speaks of Muhammad being alive in 634, two years after his death according to Muslim tradition.
Where the Muslim accounts talk of Muhammad’s break with the Jews, the Armenian version differs strikingly: The Armenian
chronicler of the 660s describes Muhammad as establishing a community which comprised both Ishmaelites (i.e., Arabs) and
Jews, with Abrahamic descent as their common platform; these allies then set off to conquer Palestine. The oldest Greek
source makes the sensational statement that the prophet who had appeared among the Saracens (i.e., Arabs) was proclaiming
the coming of the (Jewish) messiah, and speaks of the Jews who mix with the Saracens, and of the danger to life and limb of
falling into the hands of these Jews and Saracens.

--In the non-Muslim sources, it is Palestine which is the focus of his movement, and provides the religious motive for its conquest.
The Armenian chronicler further gives a rationale for this attachment: Muhammad told the Arabs that, as descendants of Abraham
through Ishmael, they too had a claim to the land which God had promised to Abraham and his seed. The religion of Abraham is in
fact as central in the Armenian account of Muhammad’s preaching as it is in the Muslim sources; but it is given a quite different
geographical twist. If the external sources are in any significant degree right on such points, it would follow that tradition is
seriously misleading on important aspects of the life of Muhammad.

--Cook points out the similarity of certain Muslim beliefs and practices to those of the Samaritans (). He also points out that the
fundamental idea developed by Muhammad of the religion of Abraham was already present in the Jewish apocryphal work called
the Book of Jubilees (dated to c. 140-100 B.C;), and which may well have influenced the formation of Islamic ideas. We also have
the evidence of Sozomenus, a Christian writer of the fifth century who "reconstructs a primitive Ishmaelite monotheism identical
with that possessed by the Hebrews up to the time of Moses; and he goes on to argue from present conditions that Ishmael’s laws
must have been corrupted by the passage of time and the influence of pagan neighbors."

--Sozomenus goes on to describe certain Arab tribes who, on learning of their Ishmaelite origins from Jews, adopted Jewish observances.
Again there may have been some influence on the Muslim community from this source. Cook also points out the similarity of the story of
Moses (exodus, etc.) and the Muslim hijra. In Jewish messianism, "the career of the messiah was seen as a re-enactment of that of
Moses; a key event in the drama was an exodus, or flight, from oppression into the desert, whence the messiah was to lead a holy war to
reconquer Palestine. Given the early evidence connecting Muhammad with Jews and Jewish messianism at the time when the conquest of
Palestine was initiated, it is natural to see in Jewish apocalyptic thought a point of departure for his political ideas."

--The evidence "of Judeo-Arab intimacy is complemented by indications of a marked hostility towards Christianity." An Armenian chronicle
written in the 660s also contradicts the traditional Muslim insistence that Mecca was the religious metropolis of the Arabs at the time of
the conquest; in contrast, it points out the Palestinian orientation of the movement. The same chronicle helps us understand how the
Prophet "provided a rationale for Arab involvement in the enactment of Judaic messianism. This rationale consists in a dual invocation of
the Abrahamic descent of the Arabs as Ishmaelites: on the one hand to endow them with a birthright to the Holy Land, and on the other to
provide them with a monotheist genealogy." Similarly, we can see the Muslim hijra not as an exodus from Mecca to Medina (for no early
source attests to the historicity of this event), but as an emigration of the Ishmaelites (Arabs) from Arabia to the Promised Land.

--The Samaritans held Moses in high regard, Moses being the prophet through whom the Law was revealed. For the Samaritans,
Mt. Gerizim was the rightful center for the worship of Yahweh; and it was further associated with Adam, Seth, and Noah, and
Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. The expectation of a coming Messiah was also an article of faith; the name given to their Messiah
was the Restorer. Here we can also notice the similarity of the Muslim notion of the Mahdi.

We can tabulate the close parallels between the doctrines of the Samaritans and the Muslims in this way:
MOSES-------EXODUS----PENTATEUCH-------MT. SINAI/GERIZIM------SHECHEM
Muhammad--Hijra----------Koran------------------Mt. Hira---------------Mecca

Under the influence of the Samaritans, the Arabs proceeded to cast Muhammad in the role of Moses as the leader of an exodus (hijra),
as the bearer of a new revelation (Koran) received on an appropriate (Arabian) sacred mountain, Mt. Hira.....

ALL the first non-Islamic accounts that we have attest of a partnership between messianic Jews and Saracens. THEM ALL...

And this again frontally contradicts the Islamic tradition stating that Muhammad severed his ties with them by 624!

You can see this in the much later effort to put Ishmael, instead of Isaac, as the Koranic Son of the Promise...
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8369

Note: If you are to repeat the same abusive words than His Senility, I'll ignore you or reply equivalently...

[The Cat]

Talking about His Senility, I've answered him in my RC thread...
viewtopic.php?p=167761#p167761

But kept some of his slanderings for here...

You do not understand that atleast 90% of what you write is complete crap. More ever you do not understand what these fallacies mean and how they are applied. Everytime you use them you insult those who coined these fallacies.... One doesn't have to answer crap ..... You are yet to understand what logic means. Please take lessons at logic because you are extremely poor at it.

You're only -trolling- more ad Hominem and Poisoning the well. So who's the TROLL between us...?

And selectively answering (Cherry Picking) or Appeal to the people are logical fallacies too.

And I can't see how anyone basically trolling industrial fallacies can teach about logic.

Rest of your nauseatingly stupid arguments in this post are not even worth quoting.

Expected from someone still unable to differentiate between 'authentic' and 'authenticity', someone stating that
the siras of Muhammad are genuine accounts, yet emerging 200 years after his death. An illogical possibility!

Again, ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well (etc) are not arguments in the sphere of logic.

_________________________________
Debunking the four main hadithers' arguments...
(mute the sound if you don't like the musical background)

1) Hadiths are revelations? The Sunna...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfNnJWysnis


2) To obey the messenger is to obey the hadiths?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-0-a53AjS4

3) Can the hadiths explain the Koran?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdFtFBetNU8

4) His sunna is binding on the believers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WshWX2c8JwI

Now, a researched must (especially made for Muhammadans):
AhmedBahgat on the prohibition of the hadiths by Muhammad:
Al-Khadri; Abu Hurairah; Zaid ibn Thabit; Ibn Masud; al-Ashaari; Ibn Abbas.
viewtopic.php?p=128846#p128846

Part 2: Ibn Omar; Abdul Rahman; Abu Al-Aaliah; Omar Ibn Al-Khattab; Ibn Masud.
viewtopic.php?p=128847#p128847

Part 3: Ibn Masud; Abu Musa; Ibn Awin; Al-Bughdadi; Ibn Gaadah; Al Shubi; Ibn Yazid.
viewtopic.php?p=128848#p128848


Skynightblaze (as Sheikh Feiz) vs Koraners... in a video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IAq06Qu5Q

[MesMorial]

Thanks for the interesting threads of "Forward-thinking vs Backward-looking paranoia".

Where can it be found? Thanks...

You write them.

[MesMorial]

One reason I agree with The Cat is the logical inconsistencies of hadith (some echoes the above video):

Spoiler! :

Ahadith have a number of uses:

• supporting the teaching of a particular sect against others (such as what nullifies ablution or which seafood is prohibited);
• flattering or justifying the authority and practices of a particular king against dissidents (such as Mahdy and Dajjal);
• promoting the interest of particular tribes or families (such as favouring the Quraysh tribe or Muhammad’s family);
• justifying sexual abuse and misogyny (such as Aisha’s age; barring women from leading Sala prayers);
• justify violence, oppression and tyranny (such as torturing members of the Urayna and Uqayla tribes, massacring the Jewish population in Medina and assassinating a female poet for her critical poems);
• exhorting more rituals and “righteousness” (such as nawafil prayers);
• validating superstitions (such as magic and idolising the black stone near the Kaaba);
• prohibiting certain things and actions (such as prohibiting drawing animal and human figures, playing musical instruments and chess);
• importing Jewish and Christian beliefs and practices (such as execution by stoning, circumcision, head scarf, hermitism and rosary);
• resurrecting pre-Islamic beliefs and practices common among Meccans (such as intercession, slavery, tribalism and misogyny);
• pleasing crowds with stories (such as the story of Miraj (ascension to Heaven) and bargaining for prayers);
• idolizing Muhammad and claim his superiority over other messengers (such as numerous miracles, including splitting the moon);
• defending hadith fabrications against monotheists (such as condemning people who find the Qur’an alone sufficient);
• advertising products of a particular farm (such as the benefits of dates grown in a town called Ajwa).


Hadith-followers believe that following ahadith is obligatory for Muslims.

Hadith-followers must prove that ahadith are actually from the Prophet and Allah (i.e. a part of Deen). Allah instructs:


“And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.”

Qur’an 17:36


Thus without absolute certainty, we cannot follow ahadith as obligatory sources of religion. The Qur’an alone is the truth (2:91, 2:119, 2:144, 2:146-147, 2:176, 6:19, 10:32-33, 16:102, 35:31, 39:23, 45:6).


“And most of them do not follow (anything) but conjecture; surely conjecture will not avail aught against the truth; surely Allah is cognizant of what they do. And this Qur’an is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book. There is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds.”

10:36-37


Allah promised to preserve the Qur’an (15:9, 41:42, 75:17), but nothing else. The only mission of the Messenger was to convey the Message (5:67, 5:99). A part of conveying the Message was making sure that people could memorise and access it, thus he taught the Qur’an just as Allah taught it (55:1-2). In turn, Muslims are expected to teach it to each others (3:79).

Being alive at the time, the Messenger was able to personally dictate the Qur’an to his followers and ensure that thousands could commit it to memory. According to sources, the Messenger stated that he had delivered all Revelations to the believers.

It is not recorded that the Messenger took such care with ahadith. Since they were not written down and compiled into book form for some centuries after his death, it is clear that the Messenger could not verify what Sunnites and Shi’ites adhere to today.

Abi Said al Khudri reported that the Prophet said:


““Do not write down anything from me except the Qur’an. Whoever writes down anything other than the Qur’an must erase it. Narrate (from me) what you hear to others; there is no harm in that. But if anyone attributes a lie to me, he should prepare his seat in Hellfire.””


This is reported seven times in three different collections, with just minor variations in wording.

There are some ahadith to be found where the Prophet permitted the writing of unspecified material, but it should be kept it in mind that the circumstances were vague and that the people were permitted, not instructed.

Thus as a retort to the abovementioned hadith, scholars say that the original prohibition was for the sake of keeping traditions separate from the Qur’an.

The Prophet could have specified this by ordering that all ahadith be labelled as such, or that the Qur’an and ahadith be kept separate.

Some then retort that there was a shortage of writing material.

Again, this could have been specified and it does not explain why the writing material was to be destroyed.

They then explain that the rest of the hadith states that it is permissible to narrate. This is no surprise because the Messenger followed only the Qur’an. He could not force people to not talk about him, but the hadith quite clearly forbids ahadith becoming a competing source of religion. Narrating to others was offered as an alternative for his eager audience, but the Messenger never said that it was mandatory. The words “there is no harm in that” confirm that it is an optional alternative, and that only the truth (for example his Qur’anic conduct) was to be mentioned. In short, the enshrinement of ahadith by Sunnites and Shi’ites is impeached by their own sources. Mixing ahadith with religion is the same as physically mixing them with the Book.

There are other ahadith where the Messenger praises the passing on of a “tradition”, but it is never compulsory and the reason is given (that someone else may understand it better). In short, the passing on of Qur’anic narrations for discussion was allowed.

Several ahadith reported on the authority of Zayd state that the Prophet never lifted the writing-prohibition. The situations in which he says this vary, but the idea is consistent.

ibn Hanbal’s version:


“Zayd ibn Thabit (the Prophet’s personal aide and scribe) was visiting the house of Mu’awiya (thirty years after the Prophet’s demise) and was narrating to the Caliph a story about the Prophet. The Caliph, who became much impressed with the story, suddenly asked his scribe to record the story. Zayd then cautioned the Caliph thus: “The holy Prophet has forbidden us from writing down anything from his ahadith.””

(also Sahih Muslim, Book 42, Number 7147)


In the Musnad of Imam Ahmad we find the disciples narrating:


“Whatever utterances we heard from the Prophet we noted down in writing. One day it happened that the Messenger appeared and asked us about the subject of our writings. We replied that whatsoever we hear from his lips we transform it into writing. To this he said:

“What! – are you compiling another book along with the book of Allah?” (meaning in other words that this cannot be possible). He then commanded us to keep Allah’s words pure and that we not amalgamate them with any kind of ambiguities. So we made a bonfire of our notes and parables in an open field.”

(Quoted from “Tudween e Hadith”, p.249).


Also:


“Shaddad bin Ma’qil and I entered on ibn ‘Abbas. Shaddad bin Ma’qil asked him: “Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur’an)?” He said: “He did not leave anything except what is between the bindings (of the Qur’an).” Then we visited Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya and asked of him (the same question). He said: “The Prophet did not leave anything except what is between the bindings (of the Qur’an).””

Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 537: Narrated by ‘Abdul ‘Aziz bin Rufai’


The attitude of the “four Caliphs” supports the conclusions of above. Following the death of the Prophet, they did everything possible to prevent the spread of ahadith whilst having the opportunity to collect all that they wished. With proper supervision, such an action could have provided a much more sound compilation than what there is today, but the surprise does not last when we realise that ahadith were never meant to be written down.


“Abu Bakr gathered the public after the death of the Prophet and addressed them thus: “You are transmitting conflicting ahadith that clash with the words of the Prophet. The persons to follow you will be in a worse predicament. Transmit no ahadith from the Prophet. Speak to those who would like you to transmit ahadith in this way: “Behold! God’s book is with us, abide by what has been made lawful for you therein and avoid what has been prohibited.””

Zahabi, Tezkiratul Huffaz.


Imam Zahabi quotes another parable of the Messenger’s wife, Aisha, recording:


“The wife of the Messenger mentions that her father (Hazrat Abu Bakr) had collected the ahadith of the Messenger which were five hundred in number. She says:

“One night I noticed that my father was restless in bed and was very perturbed. I asked him if he was in some bodily pain or whether or not his condition was due to any bad news that he might have heard. He did not answer my question. In the morning he asked me to bring him the collection of ahadith and he made a bonfire of them all.” ”

(Quoted in “Tudween e Hadith”, p.285-88)


As far as Hazrat Omar’s caliphate is concerned, Allama ibn Abdulbur has mentioned him in his famous book “Jama e Biyaan ul ilm”, wherein he records:


“Omar wanted to compile the sayings and parables of the Messenger. He asked the companions of the Messenger to grant him a decree, to which they faithfully conceded.

Yet in spite of the companions’ consent, Omar was not convinced. For one whole month Hazrat Omar performed Istekhara. One morning when Allah calmed his body and mind and he was able to concentrate on the issue at hand, he talked to his people about his decision to compile the ahadith. Then he declared: “I thought about the generations that have passed before us, who wrote books and adhered to those books so strongly that they forgot the Book of Allah. I swear by Allah, I will not let the word of Allah be amalgamated with other words.””

(Quoted in “Tadween e Hadith”, page 394)


This was decided as the Messenger had ordered every companion to dictate nothing besides the Qur’an. Omar did not finish the matter here. He not only prohibited and banned the collection of ahadith, he went a step further and, as is written in Tubqaat ibn Sa’ad:


“During Hazrat Omar’s caliphate the ahadith were in abundance. He reacted by putting the people under oath that whatever ahadith the people had in their possession they would bring to him. As commanded, the public submitted whatever they possessed. He then ordered a public bonfire of ahadith.”

(Vol.5, p.141)


This was the third incident of igniting hadith-collections (the first ignition took place when the Messenger commanded it. The second instance was when Hazrat Abu Bakr did the same with his own collection, and the third was when Hazrat Omar took all the collections from the people under oath and publicly ignited them). Each incident was in the capital city. Of what happened afterwards we get a glimpse in Hafiz ibn Abdulbur’s Jama e Biyaan, wherein he states:


“Though Omar ibn Khattaab first expressed his desire to compile the ahadith, it dawned upon him later that it would not be appropriate. He thus sent a circular in the districts and cantonments to destroy whatever ahadith anybody was in possession of.”

(“Tadween e Hadith”, Vol.1, page 400)


He writes further and gives us a detailed account of how elaborate and precautionary measures were taken for the compilation of the Qur’an. If the government wanted, what could possibly have come in the way of adopting the same policy towards the compilation of the ahadith? He states that the government of that time had a specific purpose in mind by rejecting ahadith.

Furthermore, according to Qaza bin Qa’ab:


“When Caliph Omar sent us to Iraq, he emphatically drummed it into our heads that Iraq was a place where sounds of the Qur’an echo like wild bees, and that we must exercise extreme precaution so as not to distract people’s minds with all kinds of ahadith.”

“It was asked of Abu Huraira if he remembered during Hazrat Omar’s caliphate stating the ahadith in the same way he was doing now. He responded that if he had done so, Hazrat Omar would have physically scolded him.”


It has also come down to us that Hazrat OmarR had imprisoned Hazrat Abdullah bin Ma’soodR, Abu DurdaR and Abu Ma’sood AnsariR for illegally possessing ahadith.


This was the situation at the time of the Messenger and his companions.


Further ahadith which suggest that ahadith were not actually a part of Islam (contradicting blatantly Sunni ahadith):


“Narrated by ibn Abbas: When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said: “Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.” Umar said: “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur’an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.” The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said “Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray,” while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah’s Apostle said, “Go away!” Narrated Ubaidullah: ibn Abbas used to say: “It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise.””

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 70, Number 573


“Narrated ibn Abbas: 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.”).”

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716


“Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah: ibn Abbas said: “When Allah's Apostle was on his deathbed and there were some men in the house, he said: “Come near, I will write for you something after which you will not go astray.” Some of them (i.e. his companions) said, “Allah's Apostle is seriously ill and you have the (Holy) Qur’an. Allah’s Book is sufficient for us.” So the people in the house differed and started disputing. Some of them said: “Give him writing material so that he may write for you something after which you will not go astray.” while the others said the other way round. So when their talk and differences increased, Allah’s Apostle said: “Get up.” ibn Abbas used to say: “No doubt, it was very unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah’s Apostle was prevented from writing for them that writing because of their differences and noise.””

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 717


“Narrated Said bin Jubair: That he heard ibn Abbas saying, “Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is? After that ibn Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked ibn Abbas, “What is (about) Thursday?” He said, “When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah’s Apostle deteriorated, he said: “Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.” The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet. They said: “What is wrong with him? Do you think he is delirious? Ask him (to understand).” The Prophet replied: “Leave me as I am in a better state than what you are asking me to do.” Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying: “Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.” The sub-narrator added, “The third order was something beneficial which either ibn Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot.””

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 393


“In the evening the Prophet got up and glorified Allah as He deserved and then said, “Why do some people impose conditions which are not present in Allah’s Book? Whoever imposes such a condition as is not in Allah’s laws, then that condition is invalid even if he imposes one hundred conditions, for Allah's conditions are more binding and reliable.””

(Bukhari Book #34, Hadith #364)


“Allah’s Apostle ascended the pulpit and said, “What about those people who stipulate conditions which are not in Allah’s laws? Whoever stipulates such conditions as are not in Allah’s laws, then those conditions are invalid even if he stipulated a hundred such conditions.””

(Bukhari Book #50, Hadith #893)


A hadith which sunnis accept (e.g. Ibn Hajar (in Isaba) and Ibn Abdu'l-Bar (in Isti'ab)) quote from Abu Huraira that the Prophet said, “There are many who misquote me, and one who misrepresents me has his abode in Hell. When a hadith is reported to you on my behalf, you should put it before the Holy Qur'an.”

Another hadith acknowledged by both sects, narrated by Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi in his Tafsir Kabir, Volume II, page 271, reports that the Prophet said, “When a hadith from me is reported to you, put it before the Book of Allah. If it agrees with the Holy Qur'an, accept it. Otherwise, reject it.”


***


In this day and age it would take years to assemble a reliable and accurate biography. In Bukhari’s time there were no computers, yet he managed to assess countless people without leaving any evidence of research. The Persian Imams “rubber-stamped” each other’s preferences (or simply included their own without takings such time).

The majority of ahadith only appeared in the time of the successors (and the successors to the successors) of the Companions. The “tabi’in” are the generations after the Companions of the Prophet, some 70-120 years later. The “tabi tabi’in” are the successors of the successors, their time being 130-190 years following that of the Prophet.

Thus the majority of ahadith arose about 100-200 years after the Prophet. However accurate the methodology of “isnad” was, the scholars only started talking about it 150-200 years following the deaths of the last “tabi tabi’in”. This means that when the research to establish the isnad was initiated, none of the Companions, the succeeding generation or the generation after was able to provide any kind of guidance or rebuttal.

Thus, the authenticity of the statements cannot be vouched for at all.

Even students of elementary psychology would know that a message of fifteen words will get distorted in passing through about five messengers. Remember that ahadith contain thousands of detailed and complex narrations, covering things from ablution to jurisprudence. These narrations passed through hundreds of narrators spread out over thousands of miles of desert, spanning two or three hundred years.

All this at a time when news travelled at the speed of a camel’s gait, recorded on pieces of leather or bone or scrolls, in a land without abundance of paper or scribes for written record.

It is unlikely that the hadith-writers could have been very accurate, even if they were sincere. A camel-journey from Mecca to Damascus might take a month or two; in fact any journey between the major populated areas of the time was lengthy.

It is therefore unlikely that the hadith-writers verified the thousands of details personally. It stands to reason that they relied upon story-telling to fill in the blanks.

Scholars invented the concept of “tadil” of the Companions which mandates that they (the Companions) were protected from committing any error when recalling or narrating the Prophet’s “traditions”. This is refuted by the many contradictions, inconsistencies and memory-lapses of hadith-narrators.

Thus the “Science of Ahadith” is hearsay and conjecture, prohibited by 6:122-116 and 10:37-38 of the Qur’an.

Bukhari is reported to have sifted through more than 600,000 ahadith, and presented only 7,275 in his “authentic” collection. A quick calculation will show that these figures are impossible for a human-being to achieve. If, on average, each hadith consists of three sentences (in truth many run into paragraphs), Bukhari would have had to collect, study, investigate, evaluate and record over 1.8 million sentences during a period of 40 years. This is the equivalent of researching (which includes the long camel-journeys to-and-fro across the desert) and attesting to the authenticity of over three hundred books, each equivalent to the thickness and complexity of the Qur’an, in 40 years.

Compare this to the 6346 verses revealed to the Prophet over 23 years. According to another source, ibn Hanbal reported that there were over 700,000 authentic ahadith. If this were correct, then working for 23 years at a pace of 18 hours a day, seven days a week, the Prophet would have had to produce one hadith about every 13 minutes.

Reliance upon “isnad” alone is thus unacceptable. Ahadith should be evaluated using their content and logic, and any hadith with an “authentic” isnad yet illogical content should be wholly rejected.

The weakness of ahadith can be considered from three aspects:

1) Contradiction to the Qur’an.
2) Contradiction to history, known scientific facts or common sense.
3) Contradiction to other ahadith.

Under this selection process, most ahadith in all collections would be rejected.


***


Persian Imams, their original collection and categorisation as “sahih”:


Bukhari: Found 600,000, selected 2762.
Muslim: Found 300,000, selected 4348.
Trimzi: Found 500,000, selected 3115.
Abu Dawood: Found 500,000, selected 4800.
Ibn Maja: Found 400,000, selected 4000.
Nisai: Found 200,000, selected 4321.



Some suspicious personalities (see 9:101):


1. Wakidi - A Magian historian.

2. ibn Ishaq - A Jew and pro-Majoosi Historian (Imam, Malik 2nd Fiqa Imam declared him a Kafir & said his books “Seera” are a heap of lies).

http://www.answering-christian-claims.c ... Ishaq.html

http://quransmessage.com/articles/ibn%20ishaq%20FM3.htm

3. All hadith-Imams from Persia may have been hidden Zoroastrians. These include Bukhari, Muslim, Trimzi, Abu Dawood, ibn Kaja and Nisaayee.

4. Amar bin Aaas - A hypocrite?

5. ibn Hisham - A Magian student/apprentice of ibn Ishaq.

6. Wahab bin Monaba - A hypocrite (who fabricated a hadith along with Ka’ab Al-Ahabr & Abu Huraira that Jesus went up alive and will come again. They copied this story from the Pauline Christians. However, in the oldest manuscripts of Bibles (3rd century), no trace of his ascension is to be found (this story was apparently added later).

7. Hamam bin Monabba - A hypocrite?

8. Ka’ab Al-Ahbar - Ring-leader of the hypocrites? He was a Jewish Rabai from Yaman, who apparently accepted Islam in order to harm it. He was also the mastermind for the murder plan of the 2nd Caliph: Umar bin Khattab.

9. ibn Abbas and Amar bin are suspicious because they were students of Ka’ab Al-Ahbar.

10. Abu Hurraira - A machine who apparently produced over 5000 ahadith in just 2 years. He was an ex-Yamni Jew and was a student of K’a’ab Al-Ahbar.

11- Imam Tabri - A Magian Zoroastrian with two different paternal identities.

12- Shuab Zuhri and Yaqoob Kileeni - collected lies in Al-Kaafi, and were Sabaite pro-Parsi Shi’ites.

http://www.ourbeacon.com/phpBB2/viewtop ... 4cb4a2fab7

[skynightblaze]

Talking about His Senility, I've answered him in my RC thread...
viewtopic.php?p=167761#p167761

But kept some of his slanderings for here...

You do not understand that atleast 90% of what you write is complete crap. More ever you do not understand what these fallacies mean and how they are applied. Everytime you use them you insult those who coined these fallacies.... One doesn't have to answer crap ..... You are yet to understand what logic means. Please take lessons at logic because you are extremely poor at it.

You're only -trolling- more ad Hominem and Poisoning the well. So who's the TROLL between us...?

Obviously you! is that a question to be asked? When I do name calling I can justify my name calling for you. Calling spade a spade is not ad hominem. When I call your a TROLL I can justify my argument. It is not that I merely do name calling but at the same time I refute your insensible posts so I dont use name calling as a substitute for answers. You have the habit typing on and on and therefore you tire out your opponent and then when opponent avoids answering you claim that you have won. This is a typical style of a troll. You deserve mockery thoroughly because first of all you are not at all smart as you think and that you act as if you are the MR Einstein part 2. Well one would have thought of excusing this arrogance atleast if you were really intelligent but i don't understand why you have so much of high opinion about yourself when you are an absolute idiot and nothing more than a gigantic troll? Stupid and arrogance is the worst combination that one can have.

Anyway I have decided here that I am going thrash you here again so I am going to reply to every argument you make no matter how stupid it is. Btw Quoting links or videos is another sign of a troll. Put the arguments here on your own and summarize them . I am going to hand you your arse. I cant be bothered to watch all the videos.

And selectively answering (Cherry Picking) or Appeal to the people are logical fallacies too.

I don't think anyone would accuse anyone for avoiding gibberish and selectively answering the things that make sense. If someone picks up the best argument from every person and rejects the insensible things then we do not accuse that person of a fallacy. Now the only question is who decides whether a post is sensible or not?. Those who feel that your posts make sense are welcome to ask me why I call your posts insensible and a pile of gibberish.

And I can't see how anyone basically trolling industrial fallacies can teach about logic.

I know how you see . Islam is older than quran because it says so To hide your stupidity you claim that root SLM is older than quran. Anyone with clear vision can see that you never spoke about the root but about the religion itself. Anyway I never claim to be intelligent unlike you . I am an average person but you are even below par . I wonder how you managed to graduate.

Rest of your nauseatingly stupid arguments in this post are not even worth quoting.

Expected from someone still unable to differentiate between 'authentic' and 'authenticity', someone stating that the siras of Muhammad are genuine accounts, yet emerging 200 years after his death. An logical impossibility!

Enough of your stupidity! This must be zillionth time that I have pointed out to you that there existed ahadith in the first century Hijra and therefore it is not that Ishaq totally invented a new religion because things about Muhammad were indeed in float. Writings of early non muslims also confirm the sira on many counts and therefore they clearly are not completely forged documents. Now when I call you a troll for this argument you claim it is ad hominem or poisoning the well exactly like below

Again, ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well (etc) are not arguments in the sphere of logic.

[skynightblaze]

Bring your arguments here. Summarize them here .

[The Cat]

It is not that I merely do name calling but at the same time I refute your insensible posts so I dont use name calling as a substitute for answers.... You deserve mockery thoroughly because first of all you are not at all smart as you think and that you act as if you are the MR Einstein part 2..... Well one would have thought of excusing this arrogance atleast if you were really intelligent but i don't understand why you have so much of high opinion about yourself when you are an absolute idiot and nothing more than a gigantic troll? Stupid and arrogance is the worst combination that one can have.... Those who feel that your posts make sense are welcome to ask me why I call your posts insensible and a pile of gibberish..... I am an average person but you are even below par . I wonder how you managed to graduate.

Thanks again for showing, so eloquently, who's a TROLL between us, and this by definition...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community...
with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself....

Well, well, well...

@Supporters of CAT. Please turn up and show your faces and please accept my debate challenge . If you believe in this idiots incoherent ramblings please do turn up . Its a request to all those who deem this gigantic troll as scholarly....

please do stand up if you have the balls and respond to my arguments. You are free to use this TROLL's arguments if you want .

Time to wake-up His Senility: YOU-HOU... there's a long awaiting challenge!

Debate challenge to Skynightblaze and/or Ozes (by MesMorial)
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11106

[skynightblaze]

Time to wake-up His Senility: YOU-HOU... there's a long awaiting challenge!

Debate challenge to Skynightblaze and/or Ozes (by MesMorial)

See you there .

[yeezevee]

Good.. Great discussion about trolls...

[MesMorial]

Time to wake-up His Senility: YOU-HOU... there's a long awaiting challenge!

Debate challenge to Skynightblaze and/or Ozes (by MesMorial)

See you there .

2-on-2 is also okay (hypothetically), not that I am asking anyone.

[The Cat]

Time to wake-up His Senility: YOU-HOU... there's a long awaiting challenge!

Debate challenge to Skynightblaze and/or Ozes (by MesMorial)

See you there .

2-on-2 is also okay (hypothetically), not that I am asking anyone.

Our 'epitome of logic' got confused AGAIN. He clearly indicated that anyone but me is challenged.

Any witch way, Snb has been debunked on all topics way before, so his harping on is but trolling...
viewtopic.php?p=129107#p129107
viewtopic.php?p=164086#p164086

Moreover, His Senility DID acknowledge this...

Round one: Are the Sahih Hadiths (Bukhari/Muslim) Reliable?
viewtopic.php?p=123806#p123806
viewtopic.php?p=123938#p123938

Basically they contradict the quran and hence we need to accept that hadiths cant be taken as source of guidance....
We have to accept that hadiths cant be take as a source of guidance so I decided to give up on the part that explains quran .

Round two: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy? (much over early accounts)
viewtopic.php?p=130846#p130846
viewtopic.php?p=130998#p130998

I agree that we dont have manuscripts to prove every single hadith existed as was narrated by people who compiled them...

Third round: Muhammad, Myth vs Reality (much about 'Mecca')
The Cat: ''I don't have to shout how you were defeated, you did that yourself copiously...''
viewtopic.php?p=151586#p151586
viewtopic.php?p=152252#p152252

So he keeps rambling back the same debunked arguments all over and back again. Isn't it trolling? The fact REMAINS
that we've got --not one valid manuscript of anything before around 750--, and that... forgeries are STILL on the way!
viewtopic.php?p=166823#p166823

[skynightblaze]

@mesmorial

If your arguments are like reciting = teaching then I am sorry I am not at all interested in such dishonest attempts . Your debate with Darth was a real turn off and if you want to debate the same way I am not interested in debating you.


@CAT

You don't have to prove that you are stupid every single time. I guess people already know that. Actually someone just asked me to spend my time in a productive way rather than wasting my time on a TROLL like you but since I have accepted the challenge I will go with this may be one last time.

[The Cat]

Skipping his usual fallacies, this is too pathetic, even from His Senility, checking:

@CAT.... since I have accepted the challenge I will go with this may be one last time.

The debate proposed was that of Mesmorial, not... mine which would have been ludicrous!

My quote

--Debate challenge to Skynightblaze and/or Ozes (by MesMorial)

I even gave the correct reference, open by MesMorial, which our 'epitome of logic' didn't check!
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11106

More of the shame...

@mesmorial..... I am not interested in debating you.

His challenge was addressed to anyone but me...
viewtopic.php?p=163282#p163282

Please ask any of your supporter to debate me on those arguments.... Please let me know if anyone of you
wishes to defend what this idiot says. I bear no enmity with anyone of you here so please be my guest.

--(later)I am ready to debate them 1 on 1 or even 1 vs many.
--(on this page) Its a request to all those who deem this gigantic troll as scholarly.... please do stand up
if you have the balls and respond to my arguments. You are free to use this TROLL's arguments if you want .

Now, although he wanted to debate anyone but me, inviting others on 1 on 1 or many...

Right here, he's ready to debate -me- while rejecting exactly... what he was asking for!

Thus His Senility is the epitome of illogical inconsistencies, the above demonstrated troll & loser of all our previous debates.

[MesMorial]

SNB says:

If your arguments are like reciting = teaching then I am sorry I am not at all interested in such dishonest attempts . Your debate with Darth was a real turn off and if you want to debate the same way I am not interested in debating you.

Would SNB prefer to rephrase that as: "I have run out of methods to dis the honesty"?

The bell is ringing: "Their argument's dead!"


@ The Cat;

Thanks for interesting threads.

[MesMorial]

Having beaten back all attempts to prove that Hadith is part of Islam, it should be expected that The Cat's position is more logically connected to the history of Islam than SNB's.

Since the Qur'an forbids/rejects ahadith as law, the stakes in this debate are lowered. So if I were to talk about ahadith, I would be asking for the context of each hadith and judging it according to Islam. It would create problems for people if they believed in ahadith which contradicted the Qur'an (Islam), because their prophet would be un-Islamic. That person must use their brain and judge it by the Qur'an, leading them to either reject Islam or the "science" of Hadith in general (the "science" of Hadith is to be rejected based on its self-admitted man-made nature anyway).

Telling them that the Qur'an endorses un-Islamic practices will just sustain the current situation.

[skynightblaze]

SNB says:

If your arguments are like reciting = teaching then I am sorry I am not at all interested in such dishonest attempts . Your debate with Darth was a real turn off and if you want to debate the same way I am not interested in debating you.

Would SNB prefer to rephrase that as: "I have run out of methods to dis the honesty"?

The bell is ringing: "Their argument's dead!"


@ The Cat;

Thanks for interesting threads.

Not answering useless arguments is not exactly running out of arguments. You and your TROLL friend CAT don't even understand such a simple thing. Quran says Muhammad came to teach and you claim teach means recite. Thats the most pathetic argument I ever saw . When people refute to debate you claim our arguments are dead??

Further your TROLL could never answer as to how non muslims confirm the ahadith something which he is yet to come terms with .

[skynightblaze]

Spoiler! :

Skipping his usual fallacies, this is too pathetic, even from His Senility, checking:

@CAT.... since I have accepted the challenge I will go with this may be one last time.

The debate proposed was that of Mesmorial, not... mine which would have been ludicrous!

My quote

--Debate challenge to Skynightblaze and/or Ozes (by MesMorial)

I even gave the correct reference, open by MesMorial, which our 'epitome of logic' didn't check!
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11106

More of the shame...

@mesmorial..... I am not interested in debating you.

His challenge was addressed to anyone but me...
viewtopic.php?p=163282#p163282

Please ask any of your supporter to debate me on those arguments.... Please let me know if anyone of you
wishes to defend what this idiot says. I bear no enmity with anyone of you here so please be my guest.

--(later)I am ready to debate them 1 on 1 or even 1 vs many.
--(on this page) Its a request to all those who deem this gigantic troll as scholarly.... please do stand up
if you have the balls and respond to my arguments. You are free to use this TROLL's arguments if you want .

Now, although he wanted to debate anyone but me, inviting others on 1 on 1 or many...

Right here, he's ready to debate -me- while rejecting exactly... what he was asking for!

Thus His Senility is the epitome of illogical inconsistencies, the above demonstrated troll & loser of all our previous debates.

your desperate attempts can be easily seen. The problem with you is you lack common sense. I have declared in this thread that I am going to debate you. People can change minds. I decided to debate you not because you were scholarly but because you are another loud mouth troll who needs to be put to rest. I asked you to bring your arguments here on this thread and in return you directed me to Mesmorial's challenge? If anyone is an idiot it is you.

AS far as debating Mesmorial is concerned his arguments are pathetic to the core. Anyone with common sense(you are logically excluded) can see that all he does is put up a spin around the arguments. when quran says Muhammad came to teach he claims Muhammad's job is to recite and not TEACH .There is a huge difference between teaching and reciting. Teaching means teaching and not reciting. Enough of gibberish ! It is like telling us the sky is yellow when we can clearly see it is blue. This may work with your gang of stupid people but it simply does not work with people having common sense. Not only me , none should debate him if he is going to continue arguing this way. He has already lost the debate there itself so what is the point of arguing further about this issue? It is a waste of time.

[The Cat]

I have declared in this thread that I am going to debate you. People can change minds.... I asked you to bring your arguments here on this thread and in return you directed me to Mesmorial's challenge? If anyone is an idiot it is you.

You misread everything and then construct around it. The proposed debate was that of Mesmorial.
But you stubbornly keep on as if there was, effectively, a challenge from my part. There was none!

You've responded to a non-existent challenge from me! Swallow that.
viewtopic.php?p=167904#p167904
''See you there.''
His Senility just got confused all over again... as usual. I've never been 'there'...

For this ain't just anecdotal... that's how our 'epitome of logic' builds -everything- from impetuous misreadings!

About MesMorial, if his arguments are so weak then why do you deceivingly back off from a PROMISED debate to anyone?
Here's the challenge again: viewtopic.php?p=167718#p167718

And why should I pursue debates I won by landslides all over, clearly depicted above? With someone trolling industrial logical fallacies?

[MesMorial]

Skynightblaze has demonstrated he does not agree with my conclusion.

Would he accept my challenge to debunk the supporting evidence which led to it (via accepting the debate), rather than attacking the conclusion on its own?

It follows that if I say "reciting is teaching" without supporting, it is not good enough. Therefore to be fair, SNB must not simply say "reciting is not teaching". That would be a logical fallacy.

[skynightblaze]

And why should I pursue debates I won by landslides all over, clearly depicted above? With someone trolling industrial logical fallacies?

That is why you are a unique troll. Anyway you claimed here that I avoid answering when cornered so your challenge did exist. I was replying to it and you were the one who brought Mesmorial's challenge when the issue was between us.