Quran only mistakes
-
oh well..u hv to keep on trying sometimes, maybe the person might understand..but if he/she doesnt then its safe to agree to disagree. no harm in trying. if hes genuinely trying to keep an open mind and try to learn instead of repeating the same thing, then good on him. if hes not then i wont continue with a pointless debate. but i do find this thread topic amusing. new argument posted plus im fresh meat here, so havent got that sick n tired of old arguments just yet O0
-
Yes Leyna I've been concerned about your haram behaviour laugh
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who is the best of mankind and the closest to Allaah, used to eat meat and drink milk and honey. When one of his Companions wanted to give up meat, he told him that this was wrong. Anas reported that there was a group of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), one of whom said, ?I will never marry women?; another said, ?I will not eat meat?; another said, ?I will not sleep on a bed?; and another said, ?I will fast and never break my fast.? News of this reached the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He praised and thanked Allaah, then said ? What is wrong with the people who are saying such and such? I pray and I sleep; I fast and I break my fast; and I marry women. Whoever deviates from my Sunnah (way) does not belong to me.? (Reported by al-Nisaa?i; the story is also to be found in the two Saheehs of al-Bukhaari and Muslim).
http//www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/2521
& & &
-
what kind of guidance is that which you are saying that dog meat and snake meat is good and lawful? That is not guidance, except the guidance of the Devil.
I honestly don't know if snake or dog meat is good and lawful. The issue hasn't come up for me. I haven't prayed or reflected much over it. It is a non-issue in my daily life. Pig's flesh on the other hand is everywhere where I live, and I avoid it since God instructs me to not eat it in no uncertain terms.
My friend, the Quraan itself tells us the tremendous importance of the outer form of the Salaat, including which parts of the body to wash during ablution (i.e. face, hands up to the elbow, to rub the head, and the feet up to the ankles), as well as the command to bathe the entire body for major ritual purification
If the outer form of the prayer is not important, why the Quraan goes into so much detail about the ablution and method of purification?
Thank you for making my point for me. God obviously wants us to be clean before seeking to be near Him, and has left us detailed instructions for achieving this cleanliness. People have later added to His divine instruction (nasal rinsing, doing things thrice, right before left and so forth) and also added a whole set of things that supposedly destroy one's ritual cleanliness. They then make a logical somersault in concluding that since the Qur'an does't instruct them to do things the way their fathers/scholars taught them, the Qur'an is lacking in detail, which goes directly against what the Qur'an says about itself.
-
Allaah says in the Quraan that He has only forbidden pork, blood, dead meat, and meat sacrificed in the name of other than Allaah. That means, for you "Quraan-only followers", everything else is good to eat for you, including dog and snake (how disgusting!)
And as has been mentioned, your argument is based on the strawman fallacy that eating such meat is wrong.
What is you answer to this?
-
I hate to break this to you, but you do know he died 1378 years ago don't you?
How can he be the judge in our disputes NOW?
How can you obey him NOW?
By following what he followed, which is Quran.
You really need to open your eyes my friend. peace
I?m surprised by your ignorance
The messenger is alive in his grave he can see and hear also. >(
http//www.beautifulislam.net/prophethood/alive_in_grave.htm
-
Look how you yourself are in doubt and cannot seem to make up your mind! On one hand you are saying God-fearing humans automatically don't need to eat dog meat or snake meat or eagle meat, therefore it is not mentioned in Quraan, on other hand you are saying maybe God doesn't have a problem with eating these impure animals!
Allaah says in the Quraan that He has only forbidden pork, blood, dead meat, and meat sacrificed in the name of other than Allaah. That means, for you "Quraan-only followers", everything else is good to eat for you, including dog and snake (how disgusting!)
Dog tastes like the brown meat on the chicken. Not so tasty in my opinion, ate it once in an Indian version of McDonalds. The term hot dog became very literal.
Snake tastes a bit like crocodile, hard to find an exact reference.
Eagle, who eats eagle?Are you basing your definition of an impure animal as something with a fang or talon? I don't get it because there are numerous animals without fangs or talons that can be considered impure to eat, leeches for example....But then of course there are not many leeches in the middle east so how could they include that in the hadith...
-
i do find this thread topic amusing. new argument posted )
Haha yes I can relate to being fresh and therefore not being sick of it. Plus this is highly amusing. Especially now - thanks afridi220, Leyna and others.
@ Leyna - laugh Well, it HAS to be the truth as it was "found in the two Saheehs of al-Bukhaari and Muslim" yes hmm
-
I?m surprised by your ignorance
The messenger is alive in his grave he can see and hear also. >
http//www.beautifulislam.net/prophethood/alive_in_grave.htm
So he was buried alive? I can assure you after over 1300 years he is dead, he cannot hear your prayers nor see you, check Quran.
-
Dof meat is halal for someone from philippines or cat meat is halal from someone from china and spider meat is halal for someone from amazons, to me it's gross to eat gost meat and specially camel meat, as for camel meat, i feel it's haram even though i know according to the quran, it's halal, it's not been prohibited
-
ah , so u believe that usman took care of the preservation of the Word of God and not God himself? interesting. now i see why u think the way u do.
btw, i see that u think there are a couple of hadith that u dont believe..thts intersting...though why would u advocate a book that even u dont believe in entirely, and consider to possibly be erroneous in some areas?What I'm saying is that Allaah preserved His Word through the effort of men. Did Allaah drop the Quraan with all its Surahs and Ayats arranged in the right order? did it come down from the clouds as a book between two covers?
Or was it revealed upon the tongue of the Messenger ? Was it not compiled during the caliphate of 'Uthmaan , some two or three decades after the passing away of the Prophet?
So the exact same objection you raise against the Hadeeth can also be made about the Quraan. There is a saying, "Don't throw stones at someone's house if your own house is made of glass"
The earliest complete manuscripts we have of the Quraan are in fact found to be compiled at least a century after the Prophet passed away
John Gilchrist states "The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death."
Even the first hadith compilation we have, the Saheefah of Hammaam ibn Munnabih is dated to earlier than that, the mid-first century of the Islaamic calendar. It contains 138 narrations or Hadiths, 98 of which can be found in Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim!
-
In a prophecy to the Virgin Mary before the birth of Jesus the Messiah (peace be upon him), Allaah announces
And He (Allaah) will teach him (Jesus) the Book, and the Wisdom, and the Torah, and the Gospel
If, as the "Quraan-only" group claims, that Al-Hikmah (the Wisdom) is the same thing as the Quraan, why has Allaah enumerated four different things which He will give knowledge of to Jesus?
It is obvious that the Torah and the Gospel are not the same, they are two different revelations that Allaah gave knowledge of to Jesus.
In addition, Allaah says He will also give knowledge of the Book, meaning the Quraan, and the Wisdom, meaning the Sunnah, to Jesus.
Since Torah and Gospel are different things, therefore it is proven that all these four things which Allaah has mentioned (Al-Kitaab, Al-Hikmah, At-Tawrah, and Al-Injeel) are separate and distinct revelations. They are not the same thing or four different titles of the same book!
The Gospel and the Torah are different revelations, therefore, the Kitaab and the Hikmah are also different revelations.
Coincidentally, this verse is also a proof that Jesus is still alive and will descend at his second coming, with correct knowledge of the Kitaab (Quraan), and the Hikmah (Sunnah).
-
see now YOU are reducing Gods word to mans word. according to ur hadith it says that Usman compiled it, but see i believe that the prophet wud never hv been so casual about his job that he wudnt hv compiled the quran in its entirety in his lifetime. so where is that quran? maybe its been sidelined so that people after th eprophet could get all the praise for "saving" islam by preserving the Quran. God is enough to preserve His word. He does not need man. i believe the quran when it says that God will protect His message.no man.maybe thts not enough fr you.
What I'm saying is that Allaah preserved His Word through the effort of men. Did Allaah drop the Quraan with all its Surahs and Ayats arranged in the right order? did it come down from the clouds as a book between two covers?
Allah preserved HIs word through Him. he just gave messengers the honor of compilation.NOT muslim NOT shaafi NOT paul NOT mark, lucas, john etc.
So the exact same objection you raise against the Hadeeth can also be made about the Quraan. There is a saying, "Don't throw stones at someone's house if your own house is made of glas
no. thats ur tradition advocating the compilation of quran to be later than prophet muhammad. the Quran we believe in is protected by God, not so called imams.
John Gilchrist states "The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death."
Even the first hadith compilation we have, the Saheefah of Hammaam ibn Munnabih is dated to earlier than that, the mid-first century of the Islaamic calendar. It contains 138 narrations or Hadiths, 98 of which can be found in Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim!
i think ur thinking epitomises the idea that these "scholars" had make ppl believe WE are the ones who preserved the quran and safeguarded it so that no one can raise a finger at the book of sayings weve introduced. associate our work to the Book that muslims revere as Gods work and then our words would have everlasting effects.
well done, uv fallen in their trap. -
i think ur thinking epitomises the idea that these "scholars" had make ppl believe WE are the ones who preserved the quran and safeguarded it so that no one can raise a finger at the book of sayings weve introduced. associate our work to the Book that muslims revere as Gods work and then our words would have everlasting effects.
well done, uv fallen in their trap.Why don't you try to refute the undisputed evidence, instead of making more emotional arguments which simply unveil total ignorance, wishful thinking, and utter falsehood?
Even western historians have admitted this fact that Quraan was compiled during the caliphate of Uthmaan
The earliest complete Quraan manuscripts are dated to not earlier than 100 years after the death of the Prophet
You have no choice but to accept this fact. I gave the evidence and quoted even the Western historians and scholars. My challenge to you is simple, show me a single manuscript of the Quraan (does not even have to be a complete manuscript, it can even be a fragment or portion of the text) which can be dated to the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad
If you cannot bring even a shred of evidence, then I suggest you stop repeating the same lie over and over again that the first hadith compilations were written "200 years after the Prophet's death" by Bukhari and Muslim.
I already proved this fact also that the earliest hadith compilation was written in the mid first century of the Islamic calendar, referring to the compilation of Hammaam ibn Munabbih, containing 138 narrations total, 98 of which are testified to in Bukhari and Muslim's compilations.
-
Why don't you try to refute the undisputed evidence, instead of making more emotional arguments which simply unveil total ignorance, wishful thinking, and utter falsehood?
Even western historians have admitted this fact that Quraan was compiled during the caliphate of Uthmaan
The earliest complete Quraan manuscripts are dated to not earlier than 100 years after the death of the Prophet
You have no choice but to accept this fact. I gave the evidence and quoted even the Western historians and scholars. My challenge to you is simple, show me a single manuscript of the Quraan (does not even have to be a complete manuscript, it can even be a fragment or portion of the text) which can be dated to the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad
If you cannot bring even a shred of evidence, then I suggest you stop repeating the same lie over and over again that the first hadith compilations were written "200 years after the Prophet's death" by Bukhari and Muslim.
I already proved this fact also that the earliest hadith compilation was written in the mid first century of the Islamic calendar, referring to the compilation of Hammaam ibn Munabbih, containing 138 narrations total, 98 of which are testified to in Bukhari and Muslim's compilations.
it is late here but your dates seem a little confused. Uthman died around 23 years after the prophet so where does 100 years come into it?
There may have been hadith 138 narrations within the first 100 years of the prophets death but only 98 used by Bukhari, who was born 200 years after the prophets death, but then where did he find the other 599862 that he aparently sifted through to come up with less than 1% considered 'sound'?
supposed 'evidence' from western historians and scholars means zilch here buddy. The prophet recited a profound message for those of understanding, immediately after the prophet died there were at least 12 sects all with new ideas, they obviously actually had very little understanding of the whole thing. Inventions of 'Muhammed said, Muhammed did' started immediately after his death, and very few of them were fact.
-
it is late here but your dates seem a little confused. Uthman died around 23 years after the prophet so where does 100 years come into it?
Pay close attention to my post, I said that the earliest complete Quraanic manuscript we have is not dated anytime before 100 years after the death of the Prophet . John Gilcrist, a scholar in this field has mentioned this fact.
True the Quraan was compiled by Uthmaan, but there are not surviving manuscripts from his time available to us.
There may have been hadith 138 narrations within the first 100 years of the prophets death but only 98 used by Bukhari, who was born 200 years after the prophets death, but then where did he find the other 599862 that he aparently sifted through to come up with less than 1% considered 'sound'?
you obviously under the false impression that Imam Bukhari picked and choose which hadeeth to compile. That is due to your ignorance. Every hadeeth is examined based on its SANAD (chain of narrators), and what the scholars of "Ilm-ul-Rijaal" have said about each and every single narrator, including biographical information, as well as testimony regarding the character, beliefs, and other information about each and every single narrator. There are literally volumes and volumes of books on "Ilm-ul-Rijaal" written by the experts of Hadeeth where you can access this rich amount of knowledge and history.
As I have proven, it has nothing to do with picking or choosing, but rather, it is based on examining the chain of narrators.
It is also interesting to note that many of the narrations in Bukhari and Muslim are "MUTAWAATIR", meaning, mass-narrated by so many narrators that it is impossible that they have been fabricated. No modern court of law would ever reject witness testimony that is mass-narrated by so many different witnesses, especially if they do not know eachother! Which is often the case in the hadeeth sciences.
So there are literally volumes of hadith books each corroborating narrations compiled by different Muhaditheen. Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud as-Sijistani, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Muwatta of Malik, Sahifah of Ibn Abi Shaybah, Daraqutuni, Ibn Hibbaan, Ibn Khuzaiymah, Darami, and so many others.
supposed 'evidence' from western historians and scholars means zilch here buddy. The prophet recited a profound message for those of understanding, immediately after the prophet died there were at least 12 sects all with new ideas, they obviously actually had very little understanding of the whole thing. Inventions of 'Muhammed said, Muhammed did' started immediately after his death, and very few of them were fact.
One of those sects was the "Khawaarij" who rejected the Hadeeth and proclaimed to follow Quraan only. They were soundly defeated in the Battle of Nahrawan by the fourth khalifah of Islaam, the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet, Ali ibn Abi Talib .
-
So the exact same objection you raise against the Hadeeth can also be made about the Quraan. There is a saying, "Don't throw stones at someone's house if your own house is made of glass"
You keep making this argument, and I keep thinking it's wrong for a couple of reasons that I shall attempt to articulate, God willing
1 God promises to protect the Qur'an. No such promise is made regarding hadith compilations.
2 There's a definite difference in quality. The Quranic language is oratory perfection, which hadith clearly lacks - there's simply no comparing the two. The Quran is clearly easy to memorize, as evidenced by the thousands upon thousands of people who knows the entire text by heart right now. Interestingly enough, the Quran makes both these claims about itself - that it's superior to any other text, and that it is easy to remember.I challenge you to find more than a handful of people who can recite hundreds of pages of hadith, perfect and error free to the letter. Contrast this to the Quran, which is memorized so well by so many that it's impossible to get even a syllable wrong in its recital without several brothers and sisters noticing it and correcting it, provided you have good-sized congregation.
Should you counter this argument by pointing out that few muslims bother to memorize hadith the way we memorize the Quran, I can only pose the questions why do you think that is? What implications would this have for the credibility of an oral transmission chain?
Supposing that you are right in your assertion of a lengthy oral transmission of the Quran before it was penned in its present (and I believe original and eternal) form, there's still no equivocating this transmission with hadith sources based on text quality alone if nothing else.
-
Pay close attention to my post, I said that the earliest complete Quraanic manuscript we have is not dated anytime before 100 years after the death of the Prophet . John Gilcrist, a scholar in this field has mentioned this fact.
True the Quraan was compiled by Uthmaan, but there are not surviving manuscripts from his time available to us.
How many Hafiz are there now? How many were there then? The Quran is the words of Allah Almighty, it was emblazed in the brian and remembered and recited. Muhammed never forgot a word and neither did those that did study it and learn it. There is no one now or then that has memorized the entire Bukhari, why? the wording used is a clue.you obviously under the false impression that Imam Bukhari picked and choose which hadeeth to compile. That is due to your ignorance. Every hadeeth is examined based on its SANAD (chain of narrators), and what the scholars of "Ilm-ul-Rijaal" have said about each and every single narrator, including biographical information, as well as testimony regarding the character, beliefs, and other information about each and every single narrator. There are literally volumes and volumes of books on "Ilm-ul-Rijaal" written by the experts of Hadeeth where you can access this rich amount of knowledge and history.
Where did I say Bukhari picked and chose what hadith to compile?No I am not ignorant of the work that supposedly went into sanad of veryfying people dead 200 years before, i am well aware of it and I have studied in thoroughly and read the jumbled contradictory mess known as hadith that are considered 'Sahih' and based on that is why I reject them. What some scholar made a lifetime writing about in his volumes of books which twist the words of Allah and atribute the weird contradictions to a prophet of Allah I have absolutely no interest in at all. My only interest is the words of Allah which was the only interest of the messenger of Allah.
As I have proven, it has nothing to do with picking or choosing, but rather, it is based on examining the chain of narrators.
You have proven nothing at all. Can you give me a detailed extract of saying verified from your relative who died over 200 years ago and verify every single narrator of the in between him and you? If not why not? and you are trying to get me to beleive this is what happened? wake up.It is also interesting to note that many of the narrations in Bukhari and Muslim are "MUTAWAATIR", meaning, mass-narrated by so many narrators that it is impossible that they have been fabricated. No modern court of law would ever reject witness testimony that is mass-narrated by so many different witnesses, especially if they do not know eachother! Which is often the case in the hadeeth sciences.
every court of law would reject any mass narration if all the people were dead and buried 200 year before!So there are literally volumes of hadith books each corroborating narrations compiled by different Muhaditheen. Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud as-Sijistani, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Muwatta of Malik, Sahifah of Ibn Abi Shaybah, Daraqutuni, Ibn Hibbaan, Ibn Khuzaiymah, Darami, and so many others.
of course there are! Its the same pile recycled and used by different 'scholar's' What Allah send the devil works ten times as hard to lead you astray!One of those sects was the "Khawaarij" who rejected the Hadeeth and proclaimed to follow Quraan only. They were soundly defeated in the Battle of Nahrawan by the fourth khalifah of Islaam, the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet, Ali ibn Abi Talib .
Wrong, they were one of the first sects to want to kill anyone going against the sunnah.
-
You keep making this argument, and I keep thinking it's wrong for a couple of reasons that I shall attempt to articulate, God willing
1 God promises to protect the Qur'an. No such promise is made regarding hadith compilations.There is no such promise in the Quraan to protect the Quraan.
Rather Allaah says
Verily, We have sent down the Reminder, and verily, We shall guard it.
Adh-Dhikr (the Reminder) is both the Quraan and the Sunnah, whatever Allaah has sent down to the Messenger , and Allaah has promised to protect and guard it.
Now question is, if Allaah will only protect the Quraan from corruption, why He didn't mention QURAAN, instead He mentioned the DHIKR?
2 There's a definite difference in quality. The Quranic language is oratory perfection, which hadith clearly lacks - there's simply no comparing the two. The Quran is clearly easy to memorize, as evidenced by the thousands upon thousands of people who knows the entire text by heart right now. Interestingly enough, the Quran makes both these claims about itself - that it's superior to any other text, and that it is easy to remember.
Is that a proof that only the Quraan is Allaah's Revelation? What about the Torah, the the Psalms of David, the Gospel or other scriptures? The Quraan is obviously the best of revelation, but that does not mean it is the only revelation.
I challenge you to find more than a handful of people who can recite hundreds of pages of hadith, perfect and error free to the letter. Contrast this to the Quran, which is memorized so well by so many that it's impossible to get even a syllable wrong in its recital without several brothers and sisters noticing it and correcting it, provided you have good-sized congregation.
I challenge you to find even one "Quraan-only" follower who has memorized the entire Quraan.
You claim to love and follow the Quraan, but none of your people have even memorized it from beginning to end! The only people who have memorized the Quraan are the People who believe in the Sunnah and Hadeeth.
Many scholars have memorized the Ahadeeth, in fact, there were scholars of Hadeeth who memorized hundreds of thousands of narrations including the chain of narrators!