Answer and Win
-
Dear Fellow,
I think I was very clear in this thread that I need elaboration of Quran Only point of view about Surah Fil/Feel. But nobody noticed.
Scondly I would like to say that certainly I would not follow those Ahadith which contradict Quran. To me Quran is the REAL stencil to judge the Ahadith also. And I had been clear in my explanations several times,,,so I dont need to mention my standpoint about Ahadith again. So MQuran Please dont throw your fire on me saying that I beliver quran to be rubbish (Naoozubillah).
VirtualEye.
-
Peace,
Mr.humble.
-
my imam told me, under which circumstance did allah sent down the quran and each of its verses.
He revealed the Quran to be a blessing to the world, and He revealed it to a just man, exactly as quoted in the Quran. Does it matter to us on which circumstances each and every verse came down? Does these circumstances apply to us? I think not. These are ignorant questions. Ask him then;'Why do you want to know? Why do you need every bit of information on every moment it was revealed? Does the Quran refer to that we have to know this? NO. Does this knowing make the Quran clearer? No, as most stories in the hearsay reports contradict each other. These are easier to answer then you think Mr.Humble. His question then would be, how do you know it is from God? Your answer is easy again. Ask him if the hearsay reports proof it is a revelation from God? NO, the surroundings and history don't determine the proof. The scripture itself does. It is the Quran itself that proofs it is a clear revelation. Then he would say, how do you know it is not corrupted? 1. Because God promises so. 2. I know it is from God, through the science and truths that are in it. 3. The hearsay reports tell atleast 7 different stories on the compilation that contradict each other, also we have about 6 different versions of the Quran. So his approach doesn't proof him better. 4. answer 1 is enough.
What does your imam have left then?? Nothing. -
if you follow quran only, and the history of the prophet is great in detail in detail, aren't you rejecting history?
History??? Scientifical history cannot be based on 200 year old hearsay reports. If that is the only thing we have, then we must be as cautious as we can. We must investigate who wrote them and why. And he doesn't approach it has history but as being part of the revelation. So in this he his hypocrite and blind. How can you base your religion on rumors? These rumors must then proof themselve just like the Quran to be significant. If we put them to the test, does any of them pass the science test? No. Does any of them pass the no contradiction test? No. Are they contained as one book? No. They're spread out over several books and scholars still scobale over which one is true or not. All of these would not stand the test, but the Quran does pass all of these.
So ask him these questions
-
Does the Quran need the hadith to proof it is a divine scripture or can the Quran proof that by itself?Could the Quran without any history, still proof it is divine?
-
Does the hadith need the Quran to proof they're divine or can they proof by itself they're divine?
-
Which pass the science test? The Quran or the hadith?
-
Do the hadith contain any contradictions?
-
Where does it say in the Quran we must explain the Quran through these hadith and that they must be uphold?
-
Is the Quran detailed or not and does it explain itself?
-
Who were the first compilers of hadith? Persians or Arabs, and how where they judged on their objectivity?
-
Is there any agreement on hadith, which to follow and which to neglect? Is there any agreement with every islamic party, and do those hadith have any value of knowledge?
The real answer on 1 to 4
Maurice Bucaille in his book, 'The Bible, Quran and science'
"The Qur'an follows on from the two Revelations(gospels and tora) that preceded it and is not only free from contradictions in its narrations, the sign of the various human manipulations to be found in the Gospels, but provides a quality all of its own for those who examine it objectively and in the light of science i.e. its complete agreement with modern scientific data. What is more, statements are to be found in it (as has been shown) that are connected with science and yet it is unthinkable that a man of Muhammad's time could have been the author of them. Modern scientific knowledge therefore allows us to understand certain verses of the Qur'an which, until now, it has been impossible to interpret."
"When a comparative study is made between the statements connected with science to be found in the collection of hadiths, which are attributed to Muhammad but are often of dubious authenticity (although they reflect the beliefs of the period), and the data of a similar kind in the Qur'an, the disparity becomes so obvious that any notion of a common origin is ruled out.
In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad's day, it is inconceivable that many of the statements In the Qur'an which are connected with science could have been the work of a man. It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the Qur'an as the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place, on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and the presence in it of scientific statements which, when studied today, appear as a challenge to explanation in human terms."
Rule for divine revelation given by science and the Quran itself
482 Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from other than GOD, they would have found in it numerous contradictions.
Quran passes the first questions with colours, the hadith already failed them miserably.
Answer for question 5
7185 Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things GOD has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which Hadith, beside this, do they believe in?
316 Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith, and thus divert others from the path of GOD without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution.
3929 GOD cites the example of a man who deals with disputing partners (Hadith), compared to a man who deals with only one consistent source (Quran). Are they the same? Praise be to GOD; most of them do not know.
456 These are GOD's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than GOD and His revelations do they believe?
5234 Let them produce a Hadith like this, if they are truthful.
7750 Which Hadith, other than this, do they uphold?
Answer to 6
12111 In their history, there is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not fabricated Hadith; this (Quran) confirms all previous scriptures, provides the details of everything, and is a beacon and mercy for those who believe.
6114 "Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture fully detailed?" Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt.
6115 And the word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.
6116 And if you obey the majority of those on Earth they will lead you astray; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them. You shall rule among them in accordance with GOD's revelations, and do not follow their wishes if they differ from the truth that came to you. For each of you, we have decreed laws and different rites. Had GOD willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He thus puts you to the test through the revelations He has given each of you. You shall compete in righteousness. To GOD is your final destiny - all of you - then He will inform you of everything you had disputed.
We have cited for the people every kind of example in this Quran, that they may take heed.
We have cited in this Quran every kind of example, but the human being is the most argumentative creature.
Answer to 7 we all know
From the book, "TWO ISLAMS" 1949 by Faazil Deeniyaat, Ghulam Jeelani Barq
"While the Sahaba Kiram had been burning collections of Ahadith, how did our Muhaddithin encounter millions of Ahadith? Bukhari found 600,000 plus. The chain of narration contains 5-6 persons. How could he investigate 3.5 million narrators 99.9% of whom were dead and buried? And Yahya bin Moin had 1.4 million Ahadith! One doesn?t need to be a rocket scientist to gauge the chaos, forgery and fraud.
Allama Muhammad Tahir Gujrati, in his famous book ?Qanoon Al-Akhbaril Maudhu?ah War Rijalud Dhu?fa? has collected the names of nearly 2,000 men who spent their lives in forging Ahadith. If one forged 1,000 the other manufactured 10.000.
Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi said, ?I cannot tell in public why I cannot teach Bukhari to a European convert.?
Do not think that that only non-Muslims used to commit this crime. Numerous men like Ibn Abi Yahya in Madina, Alwaqidi in Baghdad and Maqatil bin Sulaiman in Khurasan, being on high posts such as provincial chief justices, were very much involved in this ?noble? assault on the Qur?an. Allama Ibn Jozi has compiled a long list of many ?revered Imams? of Islam participating in this deplorable assault. (Tazkarah Maudhu?aat by Allama Muhammad Tahir, pgs 9 on) "Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq (famous for writing the first biography of the exalted prophet) said Imam Maalik is a liar. (Jaame? Mukhtasir pg 19
Imam Maalik said Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq is DAJJAL. (Jaame? pg 19
Imam A?mash said to Imam Abu Hanifah I can?t stand you in your own home. (Pg 199)
Imam Abu Hanifah said Imam Jabir Al-Ja?fi is a great forger.
Imam Abu Hanifah said Imam A?mash neither observes Saum nor does he take the post-coital bath. (Pg 199)
Imam Saeed bin Musaib and Imam Hasan Basari called Hazrat ?Ikramah a liar and ?Ikramah said the same about those two. (Pgg 197-19
Imam Qatadah considered Imam Yahya bin Katheer a fabricator and the latter thought the same of the former. (Pg 199)
Imam Saleh Al-Marri said Imam Hammad is a big liar. (Fathul Mulhim pg 13
Imam Yazeed bin Haroon said Imam Ziyad bin Maimoon keeps changing the chains of narration. (Fathul pg 139)
Imam ?Ubaidullah bin Ma?az said Write nothing from Qazi Abi Shaibah (Fath pg 13
Imam Abu Ja?far Al-Hashmi said Imam ?Umro bin ?Ubaid is a liar. (Fath pg 137)The first ever man to collect the names and details of (5 million!) narrators was Imam Yahya bin Mo?een. Imam Shaafi?i said He is absolutely unreliable. (Kitab fi Dhu?fa, Jaame? Mukhtasir pg 201)
If Bukhari really was so carefull and that only small mistakes ended up in his books, how then can you explain this?
Hazrat Ayesha narrated that the prophet (S) used to kiss his wives and had intercourse with them while he was observing Saum (Abstinence). (Bukhari pg 226, vol 1)Muhaddith Abu Daud was not to be left behind. Hazrat Ayesha said, ?The prophet used to kiss me and suck on my tongue while he was fasting.?
Hazrat Ayesha was sitting at her home in Aisha bint Talhah?s company when her husband Abdullah came in and he was fasting. Hazrat Ayesha said to Abdullah, ?What is holding you back from embracing, kissing, riding and playing with your wife even though you are fasting?? (Muwatta Maalik pg 89)
Ayesha said, ?When Rasoolullah desired to have intercourse with me while I menstruated, he would order me to tie a piece of cloth around my waist.? (Bukhari, The Book of Menstruation124)"Are these real imams that were following truly the Quran? Why then did they report these which contradict the Quran clearly? How come these passed their tests? Why narrate these if they clearly contradicted the Quran? Can we really say then that these people were really followers of the Quran? Do you really dare to say you can trust these men? These are no little mistakes, these are deliberate written down reports. Any student of the Quran would know these must have been false. How then still did they wrote them down? It can only give 2 answers; 1.They didn't knew the Quran. 2.They had their own agenda, and didn't care what the Quran said. Now we know they knew the Quran, so that only leaves 2....
Lets look at where these 'imams' all came from
IMAM BUKHARI He was born in Bukhari in hijra 256 and some believe the date to be hijra 260 but we all know that he died in Samarkand. It is said that after wandering through different cities and villages he collected close to six hundred thousand hadiths and after sifting through he found 7,300 ahadith that he considered close to being authentic. Some have been repeated in various chapters. If we do not count the repetitions, the total figures we get are 2,630 or 2,762.IMAM MUSLIM Muslim bin Hajaj belonged to a city in Iran called Nishapur. He was born in hijra 204 and died in hijra 261.
TRIMZI Imam Abu Isa Muhammad Trimzi was from the city called Trimz in Iran. He was born in hijra 209 and died in hijra 279.
ABU DAWOOD He comes from Seestan in Iran. He was born in hijra 202 and died in hijra 275.
IBNE MAJA Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Zaid ibne Maja came from northern Iran, a city that goes by the name of Kazdin. His year of birth is hijra 209 and he died in hijra 273.
IMAM NISAAYEE Imam Abdur Rahman Nisaayee came from a city called Nisa in Iran's eastern province of Khorasan. He died in hijra 303.
All were NON-Arabs. And all these fall under the the 'sahih' books. They all wrote down hadith that contradicted the Quran gravely, this cannot be dismissed as that they made some slip. These can only be taken as deliberate writings, where by they knew it was against the Quran.
And to answer 8 we all know what is the case on this. If there was no difference in accepting hadith, then there wouldn't be more then 200 sects......
Read this book also, it contains almost all you want to know on hadith and answers on hadith upholders
http//www.tolueislam.com/Parwez/mh/mh.htmAnd even the hadith that look like they dont contradict the Quran, are 1. unneccesary then s they coincide with the Quran, and the Quran contains all details, so these hadith are useless. 2. Anybody can write stories based on words or verse from the Quran, and are still not to be trusted as they come from the same people who wrote the most scandelous reports.
So you rifat, this is easy. Learn all the factors. Lets see if any imam can give any answer to my questions that shows hadith are to be followed......I think we both know the answer to that.....
Peace
-
-
Dear Fellow,
I think I was very clear in this thread that I need elaboration of Quran Only point of view about Surah Fil/Feel. But nobody noticed.
Scondly I would like to say that certainly I would not follow those Ahadith which contradict Quran. To me Quran is the REAL stencil to judge the Ahadith also. And I had been clear in my explanations several times,,,so I dont need to mention my standpoint about Ahadith again. So MQuran Please dont throw your fire on me saying that I beliver quran to be rubbish (Naoozubillah).
VirtualEye.
It is proven that Abraha had his campaign in the year 550, not 570. So this would set back all the reports as they all claim the time period of 570-632. Also Abraha didn't use eliphants as these could not travel the desert. They couldn't transport all that water that eliphants need. So the hadith that are reported being connected with these verses cannot be true. This defies logic. Why do you think they use camels?
Unfortunately, historians often rely on Jahiliya poetry to reconstruct the history of the "pre-quranic" period in Arabia. They also rely on "post-quranic" stories such as those produced by Ibn Is-haq. The most well known turning point in the history of "pre-quranic" Arabia seems to be the alleged Year of the Elephant. This is the year when an Abyssinian expedition under the leadership of Abraha was supposedly defeated while allegedly invading Maka(t). This is also the year when the prophet was supposed to be born. This year is given by traditional historians as the year 570AD.
Fortunately, we can objectively investigate the history of Abraha because in this case we have physical archeological evidence in the form of a very detailed inscription written to commemorate his expedition. This large inscription is depicted on a rock near a well in southern Arabia.The Abraha inscription is an example of the kind of archeological evidence that provides information that totally contradicts the official view of Jahiliya history.
Transliteration
"bi khayl Rahmanan wa masyha malikan Abraha Zybman malik Saba' wa Zuraydan wa Hadramut wa Yement wa r'a rab hamw twadam wa thamat satro zn satran k'ghazow ma'ndam ghazwatn rab'atan b'warkhan Zthbatan Kafa saadu kl bani amrm wa zaki malikn abjabar b ainam kadat wain w basharm bin hasahanm bainm san dam wa mardam wa hadaru qadami jayshan alia bani yamram kadat wail bi wad samrakh wa mardam wa sadam bi wad bi manhaj tarban wa zabahow wa sarw wa ghanamw zaisam wa makhdah malakin bi Halban wa dawn ka zalam maidam wrahanw wa badanahaw nwa sa'aham mw Amram Bin Mazran wa rahanamw bin haw wa sata khalafw ala ma'dam wa qafalw bin hal ( bi)n bi akhayal Rahmanan wa rakhaw zalan salthany w sathya ws."
Translation
"With the power of the Almighty, and His Messiah King Abraha Zeebman, the King of Saba'a, Zuridan, and Hadrmaut and Yemen and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle against the tribe of Ma'ad (in) the battle of al-Rabiya in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" and fought all of Bani A'amir and appointed the King Abi Jabar with Kinda and Al, Bishar bin Hasan with Sa'ad, Murad, and Hadarmaut in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and Al in Zu Markh valley and Murad and Sa'ad in Manha valley on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban and reached Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered Omro bin al-Munzir.
(Abrha) appointed the son (of Omro) as the ruler and returned from Hal Ban (Halban) with the power of the Almighty in the month of Zu A'allan in the year sixty-two and six hundred."
The above inscription describes in detail the expedition of Abraha until his return. As one can clearly see, contrary to the fairy tales that we hear from traditionalists there is absolutely no mention of anything related to elephants, Kaaba(t), or Maka(t). According to the inscription it is Abraha who defeated and returned after conquering the Arab tribes and not the other way around as traditionalists contend.
It is not surprising that the inscription doesn't mention elephants. It would have been highly impractical to bring elephants into the desert and carry their weight in water. Moreover, elephants had fallen out of use as battle gear approximately seven centuries earlier. This is for the simple reason that elephants' feet are very sensitive and it is very easy to defeat elephants in battle by placing thorns or any sharp objects in their path. Elephants would have suffered greatly in the scorching sands of the desert without giving an invading army any advantage. Thus, it is very unlikely that Abraha used elephants.
Chapter 105 of the great reading doesn't say anything about Kaaba(t), Maka(t), or Abraha. In light of verses such as 1182 and 1574 that talk about the punishment of the people of Lot as being hit by "7ijarat min sijjil", the same exact Arabic term in chapter 105, the chapter is more likely to be referring to the people of Lot and not Abraha.Peace
-
Peace
I did not ask you the fiseability report of the Elephants.
1- Explain the Surah Fil/Feel using Quran Only
2- Using any historical evidence means justifying the use of Ahadith also.
3- That archialogy you refer has same value as Ahadith written in old times. Written Ahadith in old times are also the part of archialogy then.
4- That archialogy is part of your belief to understand this Surah Feel? HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE ARCHIOLOGICAL WRITING WAS NOT WRITTEN BY THE PERSON LIKE IMAM BUKHARI OR IBN-ISHAQ???Who asked you to prove or disprove any poetry about abraha?
Where is it written in Quran that he was abraha?
If Elephants did not do anything then what is the mentioning of it in Surah Fil/Feel.
PLEASE EXPALIN SURAH FIL/FEEL USING QURAN ONLY LOGICS, AND NOT HISTORY. IF YOU USE HISTORY AND YOU DENY ALL THE BASIS OF THE IDEOLOGY OF QURAN ONLY PEOPLE.
VirtualEye.
-
Peace,
I have proven already that the hadith cannot be used here. So we have to try to understand this with the Quran itself. Also VE, there is a big difference with history and archeology and written down hearsay. All history must be scientificaly verified, and then still must be treated with caution. This is how i do it.
So your 2 and 3 are ignorant, as written down hearsay and directly found evidences are 2 different things. And 4 can be checked with carbon dating.And i already gave a beginning
In light of verses such as 1182 and 1574 that talk about the punishment of the people of Lot as being hit by "7ijarat min sijjil", the same exact Arabic term in chapter 105, the chapter is more likely to be referring to the people of Lot and not Abraha.Quote
IF YOU USE HISTORY AND YOU DENY ALL THE BASIS OF THE IDEOLOGY OF QURAN ONLY PEOPLE.O yeah is that so? Where is our policy book saying that? The thing is VE, what you call history, is what science calls rumors. Big difference.... History must be written down immediately, then it can be trusted with some certainty. If there is a gap between the writer and the event, then it must be taken with real caution. And it always must taken with caution. But the Quran is clear enough by itself, so yes, it doesn't need anything besides it.
-
Peace,
I have proven already that the hadith cannot be used here. So we have to try to understand this with the Quran itself. Also VE, there is a big difference with history and archeology and written down hearsay. All history must be scientificaly verified, and then still must be treated with caution. This is how i do it.
So your 2 and 3 are ignorant, as written down hearsay and directly found evidences are 2 different things. And 4 can be checked with carbon dating.Does the carbon dating prove the authenticity of the archiological writing that the writer in that age wrote corret matter and not like those Imams bhukari and tirmize etc? (well its the claim of Quran only people for bukhar and other imams). You did not asnwer my this question.
And i already gave a beginning
In light of verses such as 1182 and 1574 that talk about the punishment of the people of Lot as being hit by "7ijarat min sijjil", the same exact Arabic term in chapter 105, the chapter is more likely to be referring to the people of Lot and not Abraha.Nice jump you have taken. Previously you said you have archilogical writing in which abraha is mentioned, now you say they are people of lot.
And please ask you own friends there if you need to open your eyes or not. Why? Have look at only the first verse of this Surah
105.001
105.001 Seest thou not how thy Lord dealt with the Companions of the Elephant?Did our prophet see lot? or did we see lot? Did our prophet see then brids throwing stones?
Now look at what kind of stonning was on the lut/lot
007.084
007.084 And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone) Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!Al-Qur'an, 007.084 (Al-Araf )
And in Surah Fil/Feel
105.004
105.004 Striking them with stones of baked clay.Go ask your some of friends the meaning of who knows arabic.
Now to just prove you one point wrong I have to put about 15 minutes. So when I show my anger that does not mean I am cursing some person. I am angry that people keep giving arguments against me and dont even see the verses and their differences even for a few sconds.
It is evident as daylight now that people in Surah fil/Feel are not Lut/Lot. You could also see this instead of wasting your brain on opposing me.
Pardon me agian I have to be harsh when I have to do more effort on the points which were already obvious.
VirtualEye.
-
peace the nabi mquran and ve,
first of all,what does the term "abu lahab" mean in itself. if you think abu lahab is the only one to be cursed in the quran, then think again!
Abu Lahab is literally 'father of flame'. I take that definition phenomenologically, which means that I look at a flame (which any person can see at any point) and acquire a meaning from that phenomena.
the question with abu lahab is that his name has been mentioned in the quran only once. doesn't his name refer to the fire?why would his name be that important to be mentioned in the quran? according to the hadith, allah sent this verse to mohammed(pbuh) because abu lahab said to him "may you be destroyed". in fact, according to the hadith, some of the parts of the quran has been sent down to alleviate the pain of the prophet mohammed(pbuh)(i could recall to the best of my knowledge, correct me if i am wrong).
His name could have been his given name OR not. What's important is the 'lahabian' personality which he espoused.
Al-quraan alleviates all human pain, not just that of Muhammad ibn Abdullah.
according the hadith, the "kafirs" teased mohammed because they were jealous of what he preached.in fact, since mohammed was childless, they made fun of him by saying "hey, since you have no successor, your religion will not make it into the future".
This has no bearing to my relationship with al-quraan, sorry.
one of the greatest challenge/misconceptoin i still face today since i gave up the hadith is
- my imam told me, under which circumstance did allah sent down the quran and each of its verses.
Ask him, which VERSION of the asbabun nuzool are you referring to? Can I show you other versions?
- if you follow quran only, and the history of the prophet is great in detail in detail, aren't you rejecting history?
Yes I am and gladly so. Muhammadan history is the greatest hodgepodge of mishmash I've ever seen in my life. It tells only of the imagination of historians.
i admitted defeat and i could not answer using the quran alone... but i did not give up the fact that quran alone is enough. because i know what is important for me to live by in order to live a happy, prosperous and successful life.i know what i read in the quran, i know god is ever merciful i know there is a god/loght within everybody, if we take the time to relize, we could learn more... and that was my substitution for salat and all those "sunni" stuff i used to do before i followed quran alone.
You admitted defeat? Is your imam contactible via email? Perhaps we could create a correspondence here.
quran could defend ityself,... which is enough for me
Good for you.
-
Dear Fellow,
I think I was very clear in this thread that I need elaboration of Quran Only point of view about Surah Fil/Feel. But nobody noticed.
I told you. I accept the meaning of the ayat but I've not witnessed such an ayat in my life. Al-quraan proposes an experience and readily allows for constant expansion of tafseer.
Scondly I would like to say that certainly I would not follow those Ahadith which contradict Quran. To me Quran is the REAL stencil to judge the Ahadith also. And I had been clear in my explanations several times,,,so I dont need to mention my standpoint about Ahadith again. So MQuran Please dont throw your fire on me saying that I beliver quran to be rubbish (Naoozubillah).
Ah good. So you judge hadith by hadith ? So do I. That's why I reject all hadith because al-quraan forbids me to follow that which I wasn't witness to. I'm sure you don't believe al-quraan to be rubbish but you certainly treat al-quraan like it.
-
Peace,
I have proven already that the hadith cannot be used here. So we have to try to understand this with the Quran itself. Also VE, there is a big difference with history and archeology and written down hearsay. All history must be scientificaly verified, and then still must be treated with caution. This is how i do it.
So your 2 and 3 are ignorant, as written down hearsay and directly found evidences are 2 different things. And 4 can be checked with carbon dating.Does the carbon dating prove the authenticity of the archiological writing that the writer in that age wrote corret matter and not like those Imams bhukari and tirmize etc? (well its the claim of Quran only people for bukhar and other imams). You did not asnwer my this question.
They are older and have thus more claim to be taken seriously. Plus it was normal that after battles kings and leaders would leave the 'news' written on their route, and this inscription is written in exact that style. Also it was written in the language of the king, in an area where people didn't know that language. So logic tells us, that only a person connected with Abraha could have written that. So yeah, if i have to compare it with persian writers that wrote things down that were direct attacks on the Prophet, things that couldn't been minor mistakes, but deliberate written down lies. As they must have known Quran. So i don't trust them anymore. Plus please tell me the logic of using elephants, animals with the biggest need for water, in the DESERT. Please tell me, how can we trust a man who wrote down 2000 hearsay reports of 600.000, where 80% of the 2000 contradict with the Quran, and even claim such as that during fasts, during daylight, the Prophet had sex with his wifes? This cannot be a mistake, an overseen thing. This was deliberately chosen.
And i already gave a beginning
In light of verses such as 1182 and 1574 that talk about the punishment of the people of Lot as being hit by "7ijarat min sijjil", the same exact Arabic term in chapter 105, the chapter is more likely to be referring to the people of Lot and not Abraha.Nice jump you have taken. Previously you said you have archilogical writing in which abraha is mentioned, now you say they are people of lot.
?? Yes, i have proof the hadith are wrong on the story of surah 105. So we know that Abraha is not connected with the story. So what jump? I have scientificaly proven that we must dismiss the hadith, so know we have to find the answer in the Quran itself. So i used crossreference to find an answer. If it is the answer is still to be checked. Where do i say it was Abraha like you seem to say here?
And please ask you own friends there if you need to open your eyes or not. Why? Have look at only the first verse of this Surah
105.001
105.001 Seest thou not how thy Lord dealt with the Companions of the Elephant?Did our prophet see lot? or did we see lot? Did our prophet see then brids throwing stones?
We have to investigate what this can mean. I know, like i said, it was only an attempt. But it is better then your hearsay reports written down by people who didn't care if it contradicted the Quran or not. But it was normal and still is, that people carried names of animals. Like with the story of Solomon, where some tribes in Yemen where called Tair and Naml. Also Ibn kathir acknowledges this. So this is the way to investigate. First see what we can find using cross-reference, and then also what we can find in history. And that history has to be thouroghly checked before you can use it as proof. And then still we have to be carefull. This is science.
Now look at what kind of stonning was on the lut/lot
007.084
007.084 And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone) Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!Al-Qur'an, 007.084 (Al-Araf )
And in Surah Fil/Feel
105.004
105.004 Striking them with stones of baked clay.Go ask your some of friends the meaning of who knows arabic.
Interresting that you haven't posted the verses i gave, this shows tampering in your arguments. You deliberately avoided those verses. So i have to learn arabic? No, you have to learn honesty. As you can see, the same words are used.
1182 Falamma jaa amrunajaAAalna AAaliyaha safilahawaamtarna AAalayha hijaratanmin sijjeelin mandoodin.
1182 So when Our command came, We turned it upside down, and We rained on it with rocks made from hardened clay.
1574 FajaAAalna AAaliyaha safilahawaamtarna AAalayhim hijaratan minsijjeelin.
1574 Thus We turned it upside down, and rained over them with rocks made from hardened clay.
1054 Tarmeehim bihijaratin minsijjeelin
Now to just prove you one point wrong I have to put about 15 minutes. So when I show my anger that does not mean I am cursing some person. I am angry that people keep giving arguments against me and dont even see the verses and their differences even for a few sconds.
It is evident as daylight now that people in Surah fil/Feel are not Lut/Lot. You could also see this instead of wasting your brain on opposing me.
Pardon me agian I have to be harsh when I have to do more effort on the points which were already obvious.VirtualEye.
What have you proven? NOTHING. You even avoided the verses i gave which are directly from the Lot story. So it is not worth discussing with you, as you can't discuss in a normal way. If we look at the evidence, then i give more value to the inscription that was written in the language of Abraha in an area where nobody spoke that language, then to people who deliberately wrote down stories that went directly against the Quran, these people wanted to change the message. And i used cross-reference which gave an interresting thought, as that maybe the elephant were a people that carried that name. These are just thoughts, but they are based on science.
Peace
-
Peace all,
When one uses the scripture to have a MIND GAME. He is so busy in his MIND that he misses the MESSAGE WHICH IS VERY SIMPLE.!
GET STRAIGHT FROM INSIDE.
Having the whole QURAN in the brain will not bring guidance till one starts to get straight from WITHIN. Then honesty,.... will start manifesting.
Peace,
-
peace,
Answer to 7 we all know
From the book, "TWO ISLAMS" 1949 by Faazil Deeniyaat, Ghulam Jeelani Barq
"While the Sahaba Kiram had been burning collections of Ahadith, how did our Muhaddithin encounter millions of Ahadith? Bukhari found 600,000 plus. The chain of narration contains 5-6 persons. How could he investigate 3.5 million narrators 99.9% of whom were dead and buried? And Yahya bin Moin had 1.4 million Ahadith! One doesn?t need to be a rocket scientist to gauge the chaos, forgery and fraud.
Allama Muhammad Tahir Gujrati, in his famous book ?Qanoon Al-Akhbaril Maudhu?ah War Rijalud Dhu?fa? has collected the names of nearly 2,000 men who spent their lives in forging Ahadith. If one forged 1,000 the other manufactured 10.000.
Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi said, ?I cannot tell in public why I cannot teach Bukhari to a European convert.?
Do not think that that only non-Muslims used to commit this crime. Numerous men like Ibn Abi Yahya in Madina, Alwaqidi in Baghdad and Maqatil bin Sulaiman in Khurasan, being on high posts such as provincial chief justices, were very much involved in this ?noble? assault on the Qur?an. Allama Ibn Jozi has compiled a long list of many ?revered Imams? of Islam participating in this deplorable assault. (Tazkarah Maudhu?aat by Allama Muhammad Tahir, pgs 9 on) "Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq (famous for writing the first biography of the exalted prophet) said Imam Maalik is a liar. (Jaame? Mukhtasir pg 19
Imam Maalik said Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq is DAJJAL. (Jaame? pg 19
Imam A?mash said to Imam Abu Hanifah I can?t stand you in your own home. (Pg 199)
Imam Abu Hanifah said Imam Jabir Al-Ja?fi is a great forger.
Imam Abu Hanifah said Imam A?mash neither observes Saum nor does he take the post-coital bath. (Pg 199)
Imam Saeed bin Musaib and Imam Hasan Basari called Hazrat ?Ikramah a liar and ?Ikramah said the same about those two. (Pgg 197-19
Imam Qatadah considered Imam Yahya bin Katheer a fabricator and the latter thought the same of the former. (Pg 199)
Imam Saleh Al-Marri said Imam Hammad is a big liar. (Fathul Mulhim pg 13
Imam Yazeed bin Haroon said Imam Ziyad bin Maimoon keeps changing the chains of narration. (Fathul pg 139)
Imam ?Ubaidullah bin Ma?az said Write nothing from Qazi Abi Shaibah (Fath pg 13
Imam Abu Ja?far Al-Hashmi said Imam ?Umro bin ?Ubaid is a liar. (Fath pg 137)The first ever man to collect the names and details of (5 million!) narrators was Imam Yahya bin Mo?een. Imam Shaafi?i said He is absolutely unreliable. (Kitab fi Dhu?fa, Jaame? Mukhtasir pg 201)
If Bukhari really was so carefull and that only small mistakes ended up in his books, how then can you explain this?
Hazrat Ayesha narrated that the prophet (S) used to kiss his wives and had intercourse with them while he was observing Saum (Abstinence). (Bukhari pg 226, vol 1)Muhaddith Abu Daud was not to be left behind. Hazrat Ayesha said, ?The prophet used to kiss me and suck on my tongue while he was fasting.?
Hazrat Ayesha was sitting at her home in Aisha bint Talhah?s company when her husband Abdullah came in and he was fasting. Hazrat Ayesha said to Abdullah, ?What is holding you back from embracing, kissing, riding and playing with your wife even though you are fasting?? (Muwatta Maalik pg 89)
Ayesha said, ?When Rasoolullah desired to have intercourse with me while I menstruated, he would order me to tie a piece of cloth around my waist.? (Bukhari, The Book of Menstruation124)"no offense. but "bunch of idiots". who? you answer if you truely know god and the quran.
ahora, comprendes tu sennor virtualeye porque yo no acceptir ahadith?
(translation do you understand now why i reject EVERY hadith, mr. virtualeye).why don't you look at surah fil/feel according to the quran. isn't the quran alone enough?
if you still say, the hadith explains the quran better than the quran explains itself, then aren't you saying those "bunch of idiots" explain the quran better than allah?
i know what you are going to say! you will say, nauzubillah. surely, reject all hadith except the best hadith, the quran. know what is important for you to live by acoording to the quran.surely, it contains no contradictoin or 'nonsense'.
what was the purpose for you to ask this question. do you question the authenticity of the quran? or do you simply ask whether this "bombing of the elephants" happened in history or not. to answer this question, one must look upon why is it in the "fully deailed quran"? god punishes the igorant SPIRITULLY... it serves its purpose why those band of elephant riders were punished... because they turned away/rejected GOD WHILE KNOWING...perhaps there is something to be learned from the quran and its message and why is it important. so review your question (the purpose).
peace, rifat