Proof Qur'an-alone is Error
-
This hadeeth explain it all ;
This is indeed the law of allah, it is a preventive law it aims to frighten the muslims and keep them from adultery because of its destructive consequences (destruction of 2 families, the children fate, ...), it is a serious threat to the stability of the community of muslims.
But see how the prophet and his companions were merciful and tried to avoid killing that person even if they knew that it was their duty, they told him to tell no one because they are aware of the consequences. But when this person insisted, there were no escape but accomplishing the punishment. A true muslim aint supposed to commit adultery so the punishment aint supposed to be applied.
There must also be 4 witnesses, wich is very hard to achieve, where can you find 4 people who witnesses a sexual intercourse (except on a X rated movie ) ?
And even if a man testify against his wife, she can swear and not be punished "But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie". (24
And the punishment can be decided only by the ruler.
It is really legislated and don't judge by what people are doing nowerdays, it is pure insanity.
above highlight is from me.
The Law of Allah is in Quran and it is lashing, NOT stoning.
You are saying that 'people' in this hadith were having to force the prophet to apply a Law from Allah and he was reluctant to OBEY Allah.
-
That's why the chain of the narrator is important ; according to aicha who said to ibn abbas who narrated to x who told y who told z. When the chain is trustworthy the hadith must be sahih.
An example of a fabricated hadith with sahih isnad
That sahih isnad does not ensure the authenticity of a hadith is also proved by examples. Thus consider the following hadith
Hisham bin ?Ammar related to us ?Isa bin Yunus related to us Yusuf bin Ishaq related to us from Muhammad bin al-Munkadir from Jabir bin ?Abd Allah
that a man said ?O Messenger of God! I have some wealth and a child (walad). My father wants to take away (yajtaha) my wealth?. He said ?You and your wealth belong to your father?. (Ibn Majah 2282)The isnad of this hadith is sahih. Yet the hadith is a pure fabrication, as we can see from the discussion concerning it in al-Risalah of Shafi?i.
Did you know this? That a sahih chain does not in fact guarantee a sound narration? The above hadith was caught by Shafi'i because he went and analysed the matn. Do you know why ilm ul rijal is not a science at all, merely conjecture and opinion? When Bukhari says ?narrator x is reliable? he is making a subjective claim, in that he considers x to be reliable based on conditions he thought up himself. They are not objective. This puts you at the mercy of the hadith compiler because you cannot verify his ilm of men. Besides, there's no way you can tell that a man you've never met who died fifty years ago is ?reliable? in narrating anything. This is common sense, which must be suspended to comply with sectarian agendas.
The question that follows is that if every narrator in the chain is reliable, yet the hadith still comes out corrupted, how can you trust any other hadith with those narrators in the chain? If you can answer that question, you'll quickly come to realize why matn criticism stopped. The whole ?science? collapses like a deck of cards.
Perhaps you knew this, perhaps you didn't. But I can guarantee that if you have doubts in your mind and you tried to investigate it, you would be slapped down by your scholars. Investigating this matter using your God given brain is a no-no.
-
But see how the prophet and his companions were merciful and tried to avoid killing that person even if they knew that it was their duty, they told him to tell no one because they are aware of the consequences. But when this person insisted, there were no escape but accomplishing the punishment. A true muslim aint supposed to commit adultery so the punishment aint supposed to be applied.
Again twisting of words and a clean lie .
Hadith Malik 4931520
Ma'iz bin Malik came to Abu Bakr and said "I am a base fellow for I have committed adultery." Abu Bakr replied "Repent before the Lord and tell no one else." The man still felt guilty and went to Umar who gave him the same reply. Still feeling guilty he went to the Prophet who asked if he was ill or mad, married or single. On hearing that Ma'iz was healthy and married, the Prophet ordered him to be stoned to death.
Where it shows the mercy of Prophet???
It only shows the mercy of Abu Bakr and Umar... they were only merciful.
As per the above hadith, Prophet Mohammed was cruel and rude.
And Abu Bakr and Umar went against the Allah and Prophet Mohammed about punishment.
MashaAllah, everybody got their own choice to follow in your deen?
Allah said "lashes"
Prophet said "stone to death"
Abu Bakr said "Repent before the Lord and tell no one else"
Umar said "Repent before the Lord and tell no one else"
This is just A hadith... think about other hadiths... brickwall
May Allah guide us all towards the Truth.
Mohammed M. Khan -
An example of a fabricated hadith with sahih isnad
That sahih isnad does not ensure the authenticity of a hadith is also proved by examples. Thus consider the following hadith
Hisham bin ?Ammar related to us ?Isa bin Yunus related to us Yusuf bin Ishaq related to us from Muhammad bin al-Munkadir from Jabir bin ?Abd Allah
that a man said ?O Messenger of God! I have some wealth and a child (walad). My father wants to take away (yajtaha) my wealth?. He said ?You and your wealth belong to your father?. (Ibn Majah 2282)The isnad of this hadith is sahih. Yet the hadith is a pure fabrication, as we can see from the discussion concerning it in al-Risalah of Shafi?i.
Did you know this? That a sahih chain does not in fact guarantee a sound narration? The above hadith was caught by Shafi'i because he went and analysed the matn. Do you know why ilm ul rijal is not a science at all, merely conjecture and opinion? When Bukhari says ?narrator x is reliable? he is making a subjective claim, in that he considers x to be reliable based on conditions he thought up himself. They are not objective. This puts you at the mercy of the hadith compiler because you cannot verify his ilm of men. Besides, there's no way you can tell that a man you've never met who died fifty years ago is ?reliable? in narrating anything. This is common sense, which must be suspended to comply with sectarian agendas.
The question that follows is that if every narrator in the chain is reliable, yet the hadith still comes out corrupted, how can you trust any other hadith with those narrators in the chain? If you can answer that question, you'll quickly come to realize why matn criticism stopped. The whole ?science? collapses like a deck of cards.
Perhaps you knew this, perhaps you didn't. But I can guarantee that if you have doubts in your mind and you tried to investigate it, you would be slapped down by your scholars. Investigating this matter using your God given brain is a no-no.
This hadith is sahih, it is not in contradiction with everything as
"And when We made a covenant with the children of Israel 1 You shall not serve any but Allah and 2(you shall do) good to (your) parents," (283)
"And 1serve Allah and do not associate any thing with Him and 2be good to the parents" (436)
"And your Lord has commanded that 1you shall not serve (any) but Him, and 2goodness to your parents." (1723)
"And We have enjoined man in respect of his parents--" (3114)
"They ask you as to what they should spend. Say Whatever wealth you spend, it is for the parents and the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer" (2215)
"And We have enjoined on man doing of good to his parents; " (4615)
Also this hadith have been approved by Al Albani and is stated as sahih and is in accordance with alot of others
Narrated Al-Walid bin 'Aizar I heard Abi Amr 'Ash-Shaibani saying, "The owner of this house." he pointed to 'Abdullah's house, "said, 'I asked the Prophet 'Which deed is loved most by Allah?" He replied,1'To offer prayers at their early (very first) stated times.' " 'Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "2To be good and dutiful to one's parents,"
Narrated Abu Huraira A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Who is more entitled to be treated with the best companionship by me?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man said. "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man further said, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man asked for the fourth time, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your father. "
Narrated Abu Bakra Allah's Apostle said thrice, "Shall I not inform you of the biggest of the great sins?" We said, "Yes, O Allah's Apostle" He said, "1To join partners in worship with Allah to be undutiful to one's parents."
This hadith is not contradicting any commandement.
-
above highlight is from me.
The Law of Allah is in Quran and it is lashing, NOT stoning.
You are saying that 'people' in this hadith were having to force the prophet to apply a Law from Allah and he was reluctant to OBEY Allah.
You reject it just because it does not belong to your actual standards of 2010 according to european state of mind. I bet you also want to refute slashing if it wasnt stated in the quran. I can see you and your little group arguin about
-Oh, personnaly I understand 'jald' as caressing.
-Me I see it more like wiping with a delicate cotton sheet.
-No you are both wrong, it means 'encouraging' or 'cheering' this is clear.
-OK maybe but according to David Cohen Zielberman 'jald' means 'licking' and 'kissing with compassion'.
-I don't know, I'll finish my 'contact' without bowing and I'll be back to discuss it.
COME ON !
-
But it does not mean he is plotting against islam.
But there is no proof he was not. You understand what I mean. History is written by the victorious. Bukhari is failproof because people want him to be.
That's why the chain of the narrator is important ; according to aicha who said to ibn abbas who narrated to x who told y who told z. When the chain is trustworthy the hadith must be sahih.
Can you vouch for x, y and z? Do you know what kind of muslims they were? Were they failproof? Are you sure that the hadith collected by Bukhari have not been changed or slightly modified by scholars in the last 1000 years?
Also, Sunni are not all in the right nor all in the wrong. But again, you are judgin people and not hadeeth, their interpretation commit only themselves, you and I are not entitled to follow what they say, look into the hadeeth and make up your mind. You can interpret it by yourself also, like you are interpreting Quran. For a certain situation you can find for example 5 hadiths where 2 are feebles and 1 refuted, you still have 2 sahih, check them and compare them with the quran then try to find the purpose of such a claim and what would the narrator gain if it wasnt true, make up your mind !
Moreover, the scholars don't gain anything to say that theres 5 prayers, on the opposite, if they are corrupted it would better for them to say theres less salats and alcohol is OK for example. What is the purpose for saying the opposite ? Do they want the people to be busy with salaat so they can have all the women ? )
It's true that nowerdays theres alot of misconseptions and you will always find people who interpret claims to suit their own desire, see how the NOI interpret the Quran, they don't need hadeeth neither but they invent spaceships and black man is god and supreme mathemathics and all that good stuff )
Of course I'm not following it blindly, God said "And thus we have made you a just/middle community/nation that you will be witnesses over the people". You are not supposed to be a blind follower but an intermediate person who uses his mind and adapt with the situation.
Badr, I am a little confused about you. You walk, talk and act like a sunni, but you are not? What are you? I think you are a Quran Alone that has not refuted hadith. Since getting to know many ortodox sunni muslims in my learnings of the Quran I can say that at least half of them would not consider you a muslim, just like they consider me not muslim. Even you seeing me as a muslim would make you a disbeleiver in their eyes.
And I understand that you always are thinking that I am referring to people and not hadith. Like you said before, one rotten apple doesn't spoil the basket. It is my fault that I have explained my objections towards sunni (and shia) in a better way. What I mean is; The only system that is without fault, is the system of God. So if man has found reasons to kill and oppress eachother in the name of God, then they are not following God's system, they are following the wrong interpretation. Like example sunni, where there is room for misinterpretation. Sunni islam as a system has flaws, therefore it is not the system of God. -
If you can answer that question, you'll quickly come to realize why matn criticism stopped. The whole ?science? collapses like a deck of cards.
handshake
As basically stated by Jonathan Brown in his recent Hadith book.
See the following site http//ahadithstudies.wordpress.com
Some links on problems in so-called "sahih" hadith
http//asimiqbal2nd.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/bukhari-matan.pdf
http//asimiqbal2nd.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/contradictions.pdf
http//www.mostmerciful.com/hadithbook-sectiontwo.htm -
handshake
As basically stated by Jonathan Brown in his recent Hadith book.
See the following site http//ahadithstudies.wordpress.com
Jonathan Brown hmmmm hmm
Do you still need back ups from non muslim writers ? We already stated that they will NEVER try to make islam progress, whats their purpose on doing so ? Not a valuable argument again.
-
But there is no proof he was not. You understand what I mean. History is written by the victorious. Bukhari is failproof because people want him to be.
If theres no proof against him nor for him why do you assume the worst ?
Can you vouch for x, y and z? Do you know what kind of muslims they were? Were they failproof? Are you sure that the hadith collected by Bukhari have not been changed or slightly modified by scholars in the last 1000 years?
No I am not sure that's why again I recommand to use ones mind.
Badr, I am a little confused about you. You walk, talk and act like a sunni, but you are not? What are you? I think you are a Quran Alone that has not refuted hadith. Since getting to know many ortodox sunni muslims in my learnings of the Quran I can say that at least half of them would not consider you a muslim, just like they consider me not muslim. Even you seeing me as a muslim would make you a disbeleiver in their eyes.
I try to walk on footsteps of the prophet Muhammad PBUH, he was that kind of muslim, he was compassionate, generous, intelligent, peaceful, etc... I try to take him as Uswa as stated in the Quran. I referr to what he could have done if he was in this or that situation and I deal with hadeeth with an open mind, that means I dont refute it totally nor accept it blindly, I referr also to those who studied it better than me without thinking they are corrupted or plotting, but that mistakes are a human attribute as none is perfect but Allah.
And I understand that you always are thinking that I am referring to people and not hadith. Like you said before, one rotten apple doesn't spoil the basket. It is my fault that I have explained my objections towards sunni (and shia) in a better way. What I mean is; The only system that is without fault, is the system of God. So if man has found reasons to kill and oppress eachother in the name of God, then they are not following God's system, they are following the wrong interpretation. Like example sunni, where there is room for misinterpretation. Sunni islam as a system has flaws, therefore it is not the system of God.
Theres no sunni islam (even if I stated that word myself sometimes in that discussion but it was just to make a long story short) theres only islam. What you think of it as sunni today is the majority of muslims and, as theres good and bad everywhere, this majority seems to have the most bad but it's like that just because they are the majority. I know it's confusing. But sunni is a relative late word, people started calling them sunni to differentiate them from the different sects that spawned, prophet Muhammad was not sunni, he was just muslim. So those who you call sunni are ; Islam -shia -sufi - quranaloners -other sects = Sunni (so a melting pot of all and everything). I don't even think it is possible to judge this grup because you will certainly find one type and its total opposite amongst them.
-
This hadith is sahih, it is not in contradiction with everything as
Irrelevant. You just posted a hadith that repeats the teaching found in the quran. If that's the method, fine, but it begs the question what's the point of hadith if you're just going to refer it back to the quran? What's wrong with the quran on its own? Deficient? Unclear?
My post was in response to this comment
That's why the chain of the narrator is important ; according to aicha who said to ibn abbas who narrated to x who told y who told z. When the chain is trustworthy the hadith must be sahih.
Your own scholars, namely Shafi'i, have proven this to be utterly false. I gave you an example he uses in his discourse of a sahih chain that produces a false narration. So despite knowing this, your scholars continue to lie to you and tell you that hadith classification is a thorough "science". They tell you that it is fool-proof, yet can't explain why nonsensical hadith like the following get classified as sahih
Bukhari Book 60 Number 80
Narrated Abu Huraira The Verse??You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.? means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.Did you read the links provided by Wakas? Only a sectarian can continue to believe this scam after reading the obvious flaws of hadith classifications. Are you a sectarian, Bad? Are you concerned with finding the truth or being part of the popular club?
The "science" is a sham. There's nothing scientific about claiming a man you've never met and is long dead can be reliable in narrating hadith.
-
Irrelevant. You just posted a hadith that repeats the teaching found in the quran. If that's the method, fine, but it begs the question what's the point of hadith if you're just going to refer it back to the quran? What's wrong with the quran on its own? Deficient? Unclear?
My post was in response to this comment
Your own scholars, namely Shafi'i, have proven this to be utterly false. I gave you an example he uses in his discourse of a sahih chain that produces a false narration. So despite knowing this, your scholars continue to lie to you and tell you that hadith classification is a thorough "science". They tell you that it is fool-proof, yet can't explain why nonsensical hadith like the following get classified as sahih
Bukhari Book 60 Number 80
Narrated Abu Huraira The Verse??You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.? means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.Did you read the links provided by Wakas? Only a sectarian can continue to believe this scam after reading the obvious flaws of hadith classifications. Are you a sectarian, Bad? Are you concerned with finding the truth or being part of the popular club?
The "science" is a sham. There's nothing scientific about claiming a man you've never met and is long dead can be reliable in narrating hadith.
Did I said that the science is perfect, in alot of my post you will see that I said mistakes are human and in this case if the Shafi'i said the hadith is false others and I agree with them find it true, and it is logical as your duty before your parents came in alot of verses just after believing in allah.. wich make it sacred and more important than alot of small heritage details as you may think it.
Shafi'i has his own interpretation like most of you (at your own level of course) may disagree about 2 or 3 prayers, with or without bows (even you are far from beign scholars).
You are afraid to make your mind outside your little bubble and I can understand it. -
If theres no proof against him nor for him why do you assume the worst ?
I don't assume the worst, I assume Bukhari is somewhere between a criminal to almost divine. I would like to follow what is divine, and there is only one book which is up to par.
I try to walk on footsteps of the prophet Muhammad PBUH, he was that kind of muslim, he was compassionate, generous, intelligent, peaceful, etc... I try to take him as Uswa as stated in the Quran. I referr to what he could have done if he was in this or that situation and I deal with hadeeth with an open mind, that means I dont refute it totally nor accept it blindly, I referr also to those who studied it better than me without thinking they are corrupted or plotting, but that mistakes are a human attribute as none is perfect but Allah.
Theres no sunni islam (even if I stated that word myself sometimes in that discussion but it was just to make a long story short) theres only islam.
"
Of course I'm not following it blindly, God said "And thus we have made you a just/middle community/nation that you will be witnesses over the people". You are not supposed to be a blind follower but an intermediate person who uses his mind and adapt with the situation.
Welcome Quran Alone member number 13.
I am sorry my friend Badr, but you are a Quran Aloner in the making. You got all the signs..... welcome
-
I don't assume the worst, I assume Bukhari is somewhere between a criminal to almost divine. I would like to follow what is divine, and there is only one book which is up to par.
"
Welcome Quran Alone member number 13.I am sorry my friend Badr, but you are a Quran Aloner in the making. You got all the signs..... welcome
If I wasnt speaking arabic (so I can witness all the misinterpretations and the dishonesty of some of the members that twist the meanings of the Quran to please those in doubt and those who don't know and attract them to make them join their sect), I would have joined your little group.
-
Peace,
Respectfully.I came from Regent's mosque few minutes ago and saw that they are selling copies of hadeeth and copies of The Qur'an. But the hadeeth written by men are on the upper shelf and the copies of The Qur'an are below the hadeeth written by men ......
This is not a coincidence.
Peace. -
Peace,
Respectfully.I came from Regent's mosque few minutes ago and saw that they are selling copies of hadeeth and copies of The Qur'an. But the hadeeth written by men are on the upper shelf and the copies of The Qur'an are below the hadeeth written by men ......
This is not a coincidence.
Peace.Can I ask what did you went there for ? (a simple question without ulterior motive)
