Interesting post regarding Bukhari & Mushrik
-
Salaam all,
Do you say batar Al shajara or Qataa Al shajara?
Hussein
Do you say amputate the tree or cut the tree? Are they the same?
As for people who murder, you can look it up.
Do you think I just throw my question without looking it up? No capital punishment for murder.
-
Peace all,
Because there is another term for cutting, does not mean that Qataa has to mean something else. You cannot prove it. Do you say batar Al shajara or Qataa Al shajara? and both mean the same. making new rules to manipulate the Qur'an is interesting.
I tell myself the same thing. Why cant two words be synonyms? However some people here say that there are just one word for whatever description it may be, as you pointed out. However, I cant really question, since they know Arabic while I don't. However, I still hold on to my beliefs on the matter.
Do you think I just throw my question without looking it up? No capital punishment for murder.
Doesnt the Quran say something to the degree of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a nose for a nose" like the Jewish law? Also in regards to murder, we can kill that person or pardon them, the choice is ours, but if we do not follow Gods law, we ourselves will be punished?
Peace
-
Peace all,
Doesnt the Quran say something to the degree of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a nose for a nose" like the Jewish law?
PeaceDo you mean that if you cause someone to loose his eye, they should come and remove your eye? What if you wre already one-eyed? Does your one eye has the same value as his one-of-a-pair eye? What if a man caused a woman to loose her bereast? What should he loose for that? This verse is about compensation. Same thing in the case of murder. You are only allowed to kill a "nafs" to save another threatened by this "nafs", but not as punishment if the innocent "nafs" has already died. In this case, the criminal "nafs" pays compensation paid to the family of the victim then there is fasting in addition to that. Of course you may just pardon the blood money, but you can't pardon the fasting.
-
Peace,
Do you mean that if you cause someone to loose his eye, they should come and remove your eye? What if you wre already one-eyed? Does your one eye has the same value as his one-of-a-pair eye? What if a man caused a woman to loose her bereast? What should he loose for that? This verse is about compensation. Same thing in the case of murder. You are only allowed to kill a "nafs" to save another threatened by this "nafs", but not as punishment if the innocent "nafs" has already died. In this case, the criminal "nafs" pays compensation paid to the family of the victim then there is fasting in addition to that. Of course you may just pardon the blood money, but you can't pardon the fasting.
You know what it means for an eye for an eye. Meaning a life for a life. If they kill someone innocent, why would you allow someone like that to live in society? Pay off by money, blood money? I think the latter sounds more ridiculous (no offense) then a life for a life. Ill use the same logic as you are. Lets say if he is a rich man. Can he keep on killing people if he just pays it off?
Wa Salaam
-
Salaam amuslim
545 "And we ordained therin for them that a life for life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth and wounds equal for an equal. But if any remits the compensation by way of charity, it shall be for him/her and expiation, and whoever does not judge by what God has reveled, such are the wrong doer/not doing justice"
Why would a rich person kill for no reason? Just to pay money? If this happens, then there is something wrong with his mind, and still you can't punish a mad person. And God did mention the case of killing for no reason, but did not set a worldly punishment for that.
-
Do you mean that if you cause someone to loose his eye, they should come and remove your eye? What if you wre already one-eyed? Does your one eye has the same value as his one-of-a-pair eye? What if a man caused a woman to loose her bereast? What should he loose for that? This verse is about compensation. Same thing in the case of murder. You are only allowed to kill a "nafs" to save another threatened by this "nafs", but not as punishment if the innocent "nafs" has already died. In this case, the criminal "nafs" pays compensation paid to the family of the victim then there is fasting in addition to that. Of course you may just pardon the blood money, but you can't pardon the fasting.
Very interesting indeed! Can you Please further explain it, (whenever you get time).... )
Thanks
-
What if a man caused a woman to loose her bereast? What should he loose for that? This verse is about compensation.
He should lose one of his nuts to compensate, as in, "eye for an eye". D & -
Do you mean that if you cause someone to loose his eye, they should come and remove your eye? What if you wre already one-eyed? Does your one eye has the same value as his one-of-a-pair eye? What if a man caused a woman to loose her bereast? What should he loose for that? This verse is about compensation. Same thing in the case of murder. You are only allowed to kill a "nafs" to save another threatened by this "nafs", but not as punishment if the innocent "nafs" has already died. In this case, the criminal "nafs" pays compensation paid to the family of the victim then there is fasting in addition to that. Of course you may just pardon the blood money, but you can't pardon the fasting.
A one-eyed person may well know to avoid committing crime, methinks.
-
Peace Samia,
Salaam amuslim
545 "And we ordained therin for them that a life for life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth and wounds equal for an equal. But if any remits the compensation by way of charity, it shall be for him/her and expiation, and whoever does not judge by what God has reveled, such are the wrong doer/not doing justice"
Why would a rich person kill for no reason? Just to pay money? If this happens, then there is something wrong with his mind, and still you can't punish a mad person. And God did mention the case of killing for no reason, but did not set a worldly punishment for that.
If I am correct, you believe that the Quran says we should "cut" the persons hand if they commit robbery. Also, adulterers should be flogged 100 times. Why would a murderer, who commits something worse than the other two, only have to pay money and not a harsher penalty than the other two? The murderer is indeed a danger to society, why should we let them stay?
Adulterers are a danger to society because of diseases that they can pass around, STDs, and other reasons. Makes sense that their penalty would be flogging and that they can only marry each others.
Why should someone who commits murders just have to pay a fine? Even if they are crazy in the head, they are still a danger to society. Who is more important, the society as a whole or one person?
492 Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due) If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running by way of repentance to Allah for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom.
Isnt compensation only in regards to this context? It doesnt mention murderers, its an accidental killing.
Peace
-
Salaam all,
Amuslim, Arabic is full of synonyms. Some speakers of Arabic here play with the words to arrive at their bias appropriate conclusion. This is the biggest danger of "Qur'an alone" theology. It is a theology of personal bias gone wild. When you get rid of one system of checks and balances, the hadeeth, you end up with only one system that is manipulatable as the linguistic and especially when you add to it, "common sense" which could be "nonsense".
Samia, In Arabic you can use both words. I would use Qataa Al shajara, rather than batara Al Shajara. Qataa there means put the saw in one end and let it come out of the other end. It is linguistically correct and that is what you and I were taught in school, except in different countries.
There is an Aya that tells us about killing some people
533 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
Also, The rule of the eye for an eye and soul for soul still applies, unless the family of the victim decided otherwise.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam all,
Amuslim, Arabic is full of synonyms. Some speakers of Arabic here play with the words to arrive at their bias appropriate conclusion. This is the biggest danger of "Qur'an alone" theology. It is a theology of personal bias gone wild. When you get rid of one system of checks and balances, the hadeeth, you end up with only one system that is manipulatable as the linguistic and especially when you add to it, "common sense" which could be "nonsense".
Brother, this "bias" does not go against the Quran. It is not bias, it is merely the individual's best understanding of the Quran at that time. There is nothing wrong with this, it doesn't go against the Quran. That's the beauty of not sticking to one orthodox belief and resorting to it all the time. You study the Quran, you learn from it, you progress as a Muslim. There is always room for improvement as a Muslim. But when everyone just refers back to one orthodox belief (in this case Arab traditions), there is no room for improvement. I hope you see what I am saying.
Peace all
-
Peace Ade, all,
I never said that Bukhari is the liar himself who wrote Shahih Bukhari out of nothing.
There is no reason to be hesitant or apologetic when it comes to calling whoever wrote the book of Sahih Bukhari a liar. Whoever wrote this book is certainly a proven liar beyond reasonable doubt.
In the very introduction of the book, the author brags to have studied 600,000 stories and to have memorized 200,000. This is a physical impossibility. So not only is the author a proven liar, but he also shamelessly and arrogantly boasts with his lies. Of course, only people who suffer from "hero worship" and have emotional attachment to such lies equally as shamelessly disregard common sense and imagine that the book of the liar provides "checks and balances" for the book of the truth.
You have the higher ground by far so don't be hesitant or apologetic when it comes to demolishing the house of cards called Hadiths. Your typical Hadith-defenders opponents know that it is a house of cards built on the edge of hell. This is why they will defend even the silliest hadiths (a la "stoning monkeys" to the death. They know that like a house of cards, take away one and the whole thing comes crashing down.
Peace,
Ayman
-
? Our Lord! Send amongst them a Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom, and sanctify them for Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise.?
ayman
There is no reason to be hesitant or apologetic when it comes to calling whoever wrote the book of Sahih Bukhari a liar. Whoever wrote this book is certainly a proven liar beyond reasonable doubt.
In the very introduction of the book, the author brags to have studied 600,000 stories and to have memorized 200,000. This is a physical impossibility. So not only is the author a proven liar, but he also shamelessly and arrogantly boasts with his lies
One must not indulge in a topic one knows nothing of.
- 600,000 stories out of them some two liners and at most of two pages.
- 200,000 memorized most of them are having the same content just with difference of chain and slight change of words.
- At that time the most important religous education was to memorize the Quran and Hadith, so he was one of the many who dedicated decades of his life in just memorizing HAdith, by using the following method.
Effectiveness (Priority)
Adherence (Interest)
Efficiency (Process)
Scholars have given the study of hadith a great weight. They argued over how early one can start studying it and how one can perfect it. Some said as early as 10 years, others said 12, 15 or 20. - Even today have you ever listened or heared to Dr. Zakir Naik he has an excellent memory.
- As an example of how early you can begin, Imam Shafii memorized all of Imam Malik?s Muwata? when he was only 10, (offcourse for a materialistic alike of ayman it is a lie)
- Many Madrassah's I have visited in my country I have seen young boys with memory skills of 5,000 to 7,000 Hadith's along with 6,000 + Ayats of Quran, and hundreds of Duwa's, Duroods etc.
- It may be an addition to our brother ayman who is misguided that A scholar who is called a ?Hujjah? of hadith is one who memorizes at least 300,000 ahadith. A Hafiz is one who memorizes 100,000. A Hakim is one who memorizes all of the known ahadith.
These titles are not of just today, they are of centuries old, so if no one existed who memorized 300,000 Hadith why then there was a title for him.
- Latest research shows us that a student using some Phoneic system can develop 100,000 words written vocubalary at age of 23 only studying two hours daily, meaning to say by dedication and proper system and enough time provided that is not impossible.
Thus it has again been proved that Ayman is the LIAR of the century, who is shameless even when playing with word of GOD, telling us to change the HOUSE of Allah and we know Allah did not said us to do so.
Offcourse I am not advocating the memorization of HAdith or Quran senselessly but it is just to prove that not Bukhari is a Liar but AYMAN is!
-
Samia
Not just that, but he did not attend the stoning himself, nor did he give any guidelines such as "if he repents, let him go; if he runs let him go; if....". Why did the prophet bother to stone the woman/mother of a baby himself, but here he just threw orders to regret later not giving a complete order with its conditions? What was this bukhari at? Showing us that Muhammad was not even a good statesman, let alone a prophet?
Your criticising Bukhari or other Muslim writers just depict your mentality and your dark thoughts accepting west as your masters.
The masters say
If you tell yourself that the top professional and managerial jobs in this country require an IQ of at least 115 or thereabouts, then you also have to tell yourself that only about 2.5 percent of blacks appear able to compete for those jobs. The comparable figure for whites would be about 16 percent. Total black population with IQs over 115 800,000. Comparable figure for whites about 30 millionWhat do you say about this writer who wrote this?? he did proper research, sampling etc. and what he found correct he wrote it down as conclusion, is he a Liar? can you call him a liar, despite you wanting to smay be spank him?
Similarly how can you blame Bukhari for any thing he reports after careful researching tools available at that time.
-
Muhammad ibn Ismail al Bukhari had a supernatural memory
Im?m Bukh?r? was a man with a very strong memory. When we look at his memory, it is as if his body from head to toe stored it. Seeing his memory, the memory of Ab? Hurayrah radiyall?hu
anhu is rekindled in the hearts of Muslims. Hashid ibn Ism??l states that in his childhood "Im?m Bukh?r? used to go with us to the Scholars of Basra to listen to Ah?d?th. All of us used to write Ah?d?th down, except Im?m Bukh?r?. After sixteen days, we thought about it and we condemned Im?m Bukh?r? saying that, 'you had wasted so many days work by not writing down Ah?d?th.' Im?m Bukh?r? asked us to bring our notes to him. So we all brought our notes, upon which Im?m Bukh?r? began to read Ah?d?th one by one from the top of his head until he narrated to us more than fifteen thousand! Hearing these, it seemed that Im?m Bukh?r? was reteaching us all of the Ah?d?th we had noted."Muhammad ibn Azhar Sajist?n? says "I used to go to Sulaym?n ibn Harab accompanied by Im?m Bukh?r? for listening to Ah?d?th. I used to write the Ah?d?th, but Im?m Bukh?r? wouldn't. Someone said to me, 'Why doesn't Im?m Bukh?r? note the Ah?d?th down?' I told him, 'if you missed any H?d?th in writing, you could obtain it from the memory of Im?m Bukh?r?.'"
Im?m Bukh?r?'s memory could be understood by knowing that if he glanced through a book, it would be committed to memory instantly. In his early period of acquiring knowledge, he memorised seventy thousand Ah?d?th and later in his life, this figure reached three hundred thousand. Of these, one hundred thousand were sah?h (rigorously authenticated) and two hundred thousand were not sah?h (hasan, da`?f, etc). Once he went to Balkh and the inhabitants desired that he should recite one Had?th from each of his shaykhs. Then he orated from one thousand Shaykhs one thousand Ah?d?th.
Sulaym?n ibn Muj?hid says "One day I was present in the company of Muhammad ibn Sal?m Baykand?. Muhammad ibn Sal?m said, 'If you had come earlier, I would have shown you the child who has seventy thousand Ah?d?th in his memory.' Sulaym?n stood up from his company and started looking for Im?m Bukh?r?. Shortly he found him and asked, 'Are you the one who has committed seventy thousand Ah?d?th to memory?' Im?m Bukh?r? replied, 'I have learnt more Ah?d?th than this by heart. I even know the place of birth, death and residence of most of those companions from whom the Ah?d?th are narrated."
Al-Bukhari was seen just like the prophet Muhammad
His acceptance by Allah's Messenger sallall?hu `alayhi wa sallam
Im?m Bukh?r? devoted his entire life, in the search for the way of life given by the Holy Prophet sallall?hu
alayhi wa sallam, in acting upon his sayings and researching into this science. His each and every action was a fragment of the way of the Messenger. Warr?q stated "In a dream, I once saw Im?m Bukh?r? walking behind the Prophet sallall?hualayhi wa sallam and his feet would fall exactly where the feet of the blessed Prophet had fallen."Farbar? stated "Once in a dream, I met the Holy Prophet sallall?hu
alayhi wa sallam and he asked me, 'Where are you going?' I replied, 'To Muhammad ibn Ism??l .' He then said, 'Go, and give him my sal?m.'"Just as the Holy Prophet sallall?hu
alayhi wa sallam had happiness with Im?m Bukh?r? during his lifetime, he was also pleased with him after his death. Concerning this,Abd al-W?hid ibn ?dam Aways? stated "I saw the Holy Prophet sallall?hualayhi wa sallam in my sleep standing with a group of his Companions. I asked, 'O Prophet sallall?hualayhi wa sallam, who are you waiting for?' He replied, 'For Bukh?r?.' After a few days I heard the news of Im?m Bukh?r?'s passing away. He had died at the very moment that I saw the Prophet sallall?hu `alayhi wa sallam in my dream."http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukhari
I wonder who wrote the above and when and if at all therein lies any truth.
Here's other stories about him
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Bukhari -
Salam Hussein,
It is simple. May be Umar was not aware that the stoning as a ruling was abrogated. The prophet did not stone people every day.
Your argument is inconceivable here. If the prophet ceased stoning adulterers due to abrogation, the companions must have been told about it.
Btw, I am arguing like this is simply to follow your reasoning that there was quranic verses to stone adulterers. The thing is I don't believe the abrogation of quran and hence I believe the prophet never stoned adulterers. I will explain why soon.
It also seems, from the hadeeth, that the implementation of stoning was before the Aya of the flogging and that we do not have reports of it after. Some people may think that it was abrogated while others would say no, just the situation did not occur. That is why Shafii raised the issue in his book Al Risala. That is also that same question was raised by Sheikh Al Zarqa.
As for me, the hadith seems to be the attempt to corrupt the true teaching of quran. Of course the enemies of Islam at that time know very well that in quran there is no room for stoning adulterers, that is why they had to
- invent "another quran", and then
- hijack quranic verses regarding abrogation as if quran could abrogate quran, and finally
- come up with the idea that since the prophet did stoning and Umar warned ummah not to leave the obligation to stone adulterers even though the stoning verses are abrogated physically, it means stoning adulterers is the sunnah of the prophet we have to follow.
And "amazingly", sunni and shia scholars buy that idea o
I am sorry. This is interestingly sad. The previous poster pointed out that if they were killed, then they cannot marry and the Aya mentioned marriage. That is true only if all were killed. However, stoning or not stoning, the traditional school means that some will live. Is that difficult to understand?
Wait wait wait ...first time I refer 242, you said "Not necessarily. The Aya does not say that you cannot go beyond flogging or add to it."
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14899.msg139333#msg139333
...and then I refer to the continuation of 242 which clearly explain we cannot go beyond flogging unless we believe dead people can marry. Now, you give some "strange" explanations and you ask me "Is that difficult to understand?" ...Actually I am the one who should be asking like that! Are verses 241-243 that difficult to understand?
-
Assuming a hadeeth takes a minute to recite, those people were sitting for 250 hours? The only possible explanation is that at one point in time, there were intelligent rocks (hence the incredible attention span).
"In his early period of acquiring knowledge, he memorised seventy thousand Ah?d?th "
From what I heard, this was by age 10. Still, seventy thousand hadeeth would be remarkable for a human of any age.
Does anyone (only sane people need apply) actually believe these stories?