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.skynightblaze wrote:I am asking you for an islamic source..... An unreliable source can never agree with a reliable so in this case either BUkhari is wrong or the following sources are wrong so again no definite conclusion can be drawn.The argument goes in favour of Bukhari because he is considered more reliable than any of the sources given below.... Even if we assume that Bukhari was unreliable it doesnt discredit his entire work.
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)."
That is blasphemous on the ground of Muhammad who interdicted the writing down of his sunna, Ibn Saeed Al-Khudry: "Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it." In the time of Muawiya, according to Ibn Hanbal, Zayd Ibn Thabit (some 30 years after the Prophet's death), told him a story about the Prophet. Muawiya liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said: "The messenger of God ordered us NEVER to write anything of his hadith."
Again, history demonstrates that this order was respected up to Ibn Hanbal as he reacted against the prohibition of hadiths still maintained by the Mutazilites. It is him who declared them as sanctified as the Koran, which until then was also considered a -created- book. What Hanbal has done is to create another religion, Muhammadanism, instead and contrary to the Koranic Islam and the orders not to write down anything from Muhammad.
That has been done! I have proven the complete falsification of B.1.3.98.skynightblaze wrote:Common sense tells us that grandsons of Umar wouldn’t narrate hadiths from Abu Huraira if their grandfather and all the people before them considered Abu Huraira as a liar and obviously Pussy Cat the grandsons of Umar knew better than you who is born in 21st century.They were muslims and no muslim would dare to refer to a known liar to understand their prophet. Show me a single case today. I will accept your argument.
Not at all since the Koran is -completely silent- about his year of birth, of his father or mother. It's solely in the hadiths and sira.skynightblaze wrote:Your argument regarding birth of muhammad is self defeating.
Muhammad -Myth vs Reality
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5518" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=98720#p98720" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So you have been defeated twice....
Game over for you. Period.