Quranist debate videos, very interesting for those interested
-
Mmh the discustion stopped in the middle saying end of part 1. Then you the man who talked touching the cube. Then it continued.
What ?
Its like a commercial, its four parts, pretty cool. I am now finishing part 2. Have you guys heard of him before? I love his style. I wonder where this lecture is in, it looks like Pakistan or something. His style is clever, maybe we should promote him or something. I see no Quranist videos in youtube.
-
Salaam.
Its like a commercial, its four parts, pretty cool. I am now finishing part 2. Have you guys heard of him before?
Yeah, we have. Here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13164.msg109272#msg109272
I love his style. I wonder where this lecture is in, it looks like Pakistan or something.
Yes, Karachi, Pakistan.
-
Yes he talks precisely. I like that.
He also repeats himself a lot i like that also.
Isn't the International Islamic propagation Center started by Ahmed Deedat.
There are rumours that he was a Quranist but was hiding it. Also the same with Harun Yahya although he talks about the Mehdi.
Anyone has any other lecture videos.
-
Isn't the International Islamic propagation Center started by Ahmed Deedat.
No, Deedat's centre was IPCI (Islamic Propagation Centre International). Not IIPC.
There are rumours that he was a Quranist but was hiding it.
I have read rumors that Deedat clarified that he denounced the rejection of Hadith.
-
Salaam all
I am not really impressed by his speech. He translates a word wrongly (7adeeth), because he mixxes it with (7adath) which is event. Consequently, he made the qur'aan "events". Why would a believer shiver from listening to events? Moreover, stories of prophets are referred to "qaSaS stories". There is even a chapter with tis title which is almost only about stories of prophets. He proves it by the stories of Musa and Ibrahim's guests mentioned in the qur'aan as 7adeeth. He deliberately ignores that those people had conversations (with God and with Ibrahim). As for "7adeeth" alghashia, this "ghashia" is not even an event yet.
Secondly, hell and paradise are not events. They are not yet.
Thirdly, he made a specific verse (the one he says the longest verse) a general one, in order to discredit the books of hadeeth. I do not think the problem with Bukhari et al is that they did not have (two witnesses). You do not need "two witnesses" for a research, which is, at best, what Bukhari did. Another problem with this generalization of this verse is that he is making the rule of "one man and two women" testimony a genral rule.
I just stopped after the second part. I do not want to waste my time on someone changing great rules to discredit haeeth. Hadeeth discredits itself.
-
Salaam all
I am not really impressed by his speech. He translates a word wrongly (7adeeth), because he mixxes it with (7adath) which is event. Consequently, he made the qur'aan "events". Why would a believer shiver from listening to events? Moreover, stories of prophets are referred to "qaSaS stories". There is even a chapter with tis title which is almost only about stories of prophets. He proves it by the stories of Musa and Ibrahim's guests mentioned in the qur'aan as 7adeeth. He deliberately ignores that those people had conversations (with God and with Ibrahim). As for "7adeeth" alghashia, this "ghashia" is not even an event yet.
Secondly, hell and paradise are not events. They are not yet.
Thirdly, he made a specific verse (the one he says the longest verse) a general one, in order to discredit the books of hadeeth. I do not think the problem with Bukhari et al is that they did not have (two witnesses). You do not need "two witnesses" for a research, which is, at best, what Bukhari did. Another problem with this generalization of this verse is that he is making the rule of "one man and two women" testimony a genral rule.
I just stopped after the second part. I do not want to waste my time on someone changing great rules to discredit haeeth. Hadeeth discredits itself.
He said that when an event is mentioned it becomes a hadith. So there is an event (hadath) and when we talk about that event it becomes a hadith. So he is correct. Thats why we use hadathani, meaning he told me about an event. Rather than kalamani, which means he just told me something. So he is right that hadith is describing an event by words.
Second he must have meant the intitial witness(companion) were a single witness. This is correct, most hadiths in Bukhari are narrated by a single person, it does not matter after that how many narrated the hadith since its origins are single and later it spread out(common link) and ended with different sources.
Thirdly it was interesting what he said about the prophet's wives not being allowed to discuss and conversate with the common people. He no doubt was refering to Ayesha who did exactly that after the prophet passed away.
His problem was the same problem some have here, he does not believe in the sunnah as a matter of principle and not that its been fabricated or unreliable. In the Q&A he had problems with that when he was asked about the verses in the Quran that says Obey God and Obey the messenger. He said it means the Quran, actually he should have said its made for the companions who were there. And it was made as an order to obey the community leader and whoever leads them after the prophet. He made it a hard sell.
This way he has reduced the prophet to a tape recorder. nope