Interesting post regarding Bukhari & Mushrik
-
Those discussions about stoning and other Hadith nonsense and in fact the very exitence of Hadiths, serve as a sign that the great reading hasn't been tampered with.
Peace Ayman, all,Very true indeed! Thanks for pointing that out!
Not at all, what about the Talmud and other teachings? I agree it is a sign, but it's not concrete.
OK guys, here is the article ...
http//www.e-bacaan.com/artikeli_debunking.htm
That was good Without someone to dispute that, though, I doubt it.
-
Azan, (the call to prayer), puts Satan to flight, expelling gas as he runs away (Bukhari Beginning of Creation 2237).
Well what can we learn from this hadith of the farts? Satan should not eat so much Jalapeno beans before vigorous exercise. Any Mexican could have told him that. Which verse is explained by this fart hadith?
rotfl
-
Not at all, what about the Talmud and other teachings? I agree it is a sign, but it's not concrete.
What I understood from Ayman's post is "that people had to invent hadiths" serves as a sign that quran has not been tampered (otherwise they would have simply tampered with quran itself) ...That is what I refer to when I said "very true" in my previous post ...As for talmud and other teachings, I believe there are signs also although maybe not directly related with whether quran has been tampered or not.
That was good Without someone to dispute that, though, I doubt it.
-
The Prophet ordered the killing of dogs (Bukhari, Beginning of Creation 2247).
What would you expect ? after sex with 11 wives, slave trading, ravishing prisoners of war, pimping prostitutes, telling your mom she will burn in hell, feeding people camel?s urine and gouging out their eyes ? its now time to start killing dogs.
eat
-
Salam Ade,
And what do you think guys? Is it true (or closer to the truth) that Shahih Bukhari is not even written by Bukhari?
Yeah I think so. Given the span of years involved and the extremely dubious and contradictory nature/substance of the hadith, it suggests to one that it's building on maybe a smaller number of obscure text and embellishing and/or adding as they go along the roller coaster of the years. Also, many of those hadith are based on something that they wanted to do or did and needed a divine justification for as there is none in the quran that suits them, instead the quran contradicts their base desires.
There is so much "shuffling" as the author notes and there is no recorded compilation previously throughout those years known as "the complete bukhari book", instead others were collecting and making their own versions of "the definitive and complete bukhari". Who's to say what got in there while they were making these definitive collections when there wasn't even a complete bukhari book in the first place. I read a book called "The Ring Of the Dove" a while back
In The Ring of the Dove we find these various tendencies and influences meeting together, to form a perfect blend of sacred learning and profane delectation. Ibn Hazm never lets us forget that he is a Moslem, with a reverence for and an expert knowledge of the traditional-Moslem values and sciences. He freely illustrates his discourse with quotations from the Koran, and the Traditions of the Prophet, these latter supported by all the paraphernalia of what the Arabs called `ilm al-hadith, those chains of transmission " which are considered to guarantee the authenticity of the sayings put into Mohammed's mouth. He contrives to keep the discussion on a high moral level, though he occasionally takes a plunge into more dangerous depths; he rounds off his book with a pair of erudite and ethically irreproachable chapters (though even these contain a shocking anecdote or two) which he hoped would conciliate even the most austere spirit.
From what I read of it, they drew from some sayings and made up their own simultaneously as they went along. It is an insightful look about people who lived in those times seperate from what you might read in a "religious" book as it is letting us make inferences about how one thing was embellished and at times added on to what was already present. It also gives us hints as to where these guys came up with all these "horny" hadith as the author noted in his article .
-
Salaam Ade,
Your argument is inconceivable here. If the prophet ceased stoning adulterers due to abrogation, the companions must have been told about it.
This would be the reasoning that Imam Shafii used. Reasonable. However, if there was no occasion to stone, then the prophet did not go about announcing this is abrogated or this is not. Abrogation is generally deduced from his practice. There were no cases of adultery and no punishment happened. It leaves the judgement open.
- 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.
There is nothing wrong in that. You do follow what the prophet did and ordered. Now, if you have something in the Qur'an that clearly tells you not to do it, then you will have a point. There is nothing in the Qur'an that tells you, clearly and unambiguously, not to stone. You and others here use indirect methods and indirect methods cannot give you certainty of opinion. So, the honest thing to do is accept the difference in opinion without hurling accusations.
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?
Wow, So, I said that, but I did not say that this is what needs to happen all the time. In fact, in another response I elaborated further that the general rule is flogging, but the general rule accepts particular exceptions. Your statement is only correct when the particualr exceptions of stoning become the absolute and no Sunni ever claimed that.
- The prophet was gentile.
Since the prophet was gentile, he would not command people to stone adulterers claiming that it is God's command.
Does not work. We inherit many rules from the Israelites with some modifications and the stoning rule is in that category. The Qur'an does not say this is rule for Jew and this is rule for Gentile.
- After the prophet received revelations, the revelations do not command to stone adulterers.
The revelations even leave no room for stoning adulterers as can be easily understood by reading 241-3.
See above.
- Quran do not abrogate quran.
Quote from hlatif on August 01, 2007, 065745 PM
3- The idea that God abrogates part of the Qur'an or makes it forgotten is not alien to the Qur'an. The Aya that says Ma nansakhu min Ayatin Aw nunisiha nati bikhayrin minha= What we abrogate of sing or make forgotten, we bring better than her.The aya quoted is from 2106. If one reads carefully from 2105-108, one can easily see that the ayats do not refer to quran.
Another attempt at limiting the Qur'an where there is no limitation. The Ayat of Allah are in the Qur'an and in the other books. The statement of 2106 does not differentiate whether it is here or there. It applies to all. Your insistance on not applying to the Qur'an is not supported by the text, no matter how much you like to believe it.
So since stoning verse is not yet forgotten, God must be explaining something else in 2106 when He says He makes the ayat forgotten.
God explains lots of things in that Aya. If that Aya was actually abrogated, then the Aya applies to it. If you want to insist that the Aya was never there, then you have to prove it with factual data and not emotional data.
Shahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3421
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).
And quoting this hadeeth without the isnad proves ignorance of the poster. The isnad give clues to the hadeeth. It starts with "it was read on Malik". A statement like that makes Malik saying "I did not hear it, but someone read it on me". In the language of Isnad, this makes it weaker. So, even though Malik recorded it in his Muwatta, he never worked with this hadeeth. In fact, most Sunni scholars worked with this hadeeth. This should prove to you that Sunnis are not monolithic and are more distinguishing in the way they view and critique and work with hadeeth.
Take care and I will respond to the mediocre article later.
Hussein
-
Salaam all,
This is my response to this mediocre polemical article
OK guys, here is the article ...
http//www.e-bacaan.com/artikeli_debunking.htm
But the ulema insist the Quran cannot be understood without their ?second only to the Quran? collection of fake Bukhari hadith. If the ulema have read the Bukhari hadith they would have discovered that there are only enough hadith to cover one-third or less of the Quran. And the ulema do not realise that in the hadith of Bukhari they will come across the following phrase, ?No hadith were recorded here?, as Bukhari?s ?explanation? for 28 surahs or chapters of the Quran. (See Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6 - Tafsir of the Quran, translation by Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan, University Medina Al Munawwara).
In other words, Bukhari himself admits that there is no hadith to explain 28 complete surahs or chapters of the Quran. That is 25 percent of the 114 surahs in the Quran. And the remaining hadith are sketchy, ridiculous and do not explain any of the verses of the Quran at all.
1- Bukhari would not say there is not. He would say, I did not run into or I did not narrate.
2- Ulema accept what Ibn Abbas related to understanding the Qur'an. He said The Qur'an is three parts, one which is understood by the Arabs, one that is understood by the Sunna and one that will be understood at it's own time. So, they never claimed that the Sunna explains all the Qur'an. They did claim that the Sunna explains the practice and concepts of the Qur'an.
3- The Qur'an is much wider to be able to limit whether this is covered by it or not. Things that are totally unrelated on a superficial level, may be related at a deeper level.The ulema themselves say that "Bukhari?s text has not come down to us in a single uniform version, but exists in several ?narrations? (riwayat), of which the version handed down by al-Kushaymani (d.389) on the authority of Bukhari?s pupil al-Firabri is the one most frequently accepted by the ulema".
1- The author forgot that the Qur'an is not one single version and no one questions it's authenticity.
2- The way the hadeeth was transmitted is through memory and then writing and that is also the way the Qur'an came to us, but on a wider scale. So, if the versions are different then one can study each other. In fact, one of the criticisms of Salafis by more traditionalists is that the Salafis' knowledge of hadeeth did not come from people who taught them hadeeth in the traditional manner.
3- All scholars that came after Bukhari and before Kushaymani mentioned Bukhari and his hadeeths and addressed them. Some of them directly critiqued some of his hadeeth. So, the idea that they all accepted them is false. Ibn Hazm who was mentioned in a previous post did not accept many of Bukhari's hadeeth, So he cannot make them up and then reject them.
4- What makes Bukhari's hadeeth different is not the material in them. They all are already present in works not attributed to him and that appeared before him and after him. What makes them different is the strength of the Isnad. If you have different versions of Isnad then that will become apparent because the science of the people of Isnad was already developed before Bukhari and can detect people who never met with each other and so on.So, by the ulema?s own admission, their collection of fake Bukhari hadith is compiled from a ?commentary? on the subject by another fellow by the name of Ibnu Hajar Al Askalani. The real author of the Sahih Bukhari collection that is sold in the bookshops today is Ibnu Hajar Al Askalani, not Imam Bukhari.
1- False. People have recorded and available writings on Bukhari well before Asqalani. One will find them in the full Fatawa of Ibn Taimiyyah, the writings of Ibn Abdul Barr, Ibn hazm and numerous others.
2- Asqalani is significant not because of preservation of Bukhari, but because he listed the hadeeths as well as the different criticisms of it from other people. He mentioned the people in Isnad and what about them. He also mentioned the different hadeeths, not in Bukhari that shed more light to it, then he mentioned different ways people understood the hadeeth and accepted it or refused it. So, it is not really tafsir, but a critique of it and other works and opinions of different scholars through the time about it.
3- The presence of the variant versions makes a case that Asqalani did not make anything up. Variant versions make that it was existant before him.
As for part two and the immature listing of hadeeths, then the author would have benefitted in investing time reading Ibn Hajr and he would have gotten answers that are better than his immature rants. However, immaturity and mediocrity is what people like on this site.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam Raj-ah
Please give your commentary on this "thorough research" (see link) in which the so called Bukhari demonstrated a personal understanding of the quraan!!
My comment on the link is very similar to what the comments of different scholars are on the following statements
- There was no person by the name of Abraham it is a myth.
- Moses never existed.
- Muhammad was name invented by Arabs.
- Kaaba was made by Meccans as a consipiracy against Muslims.
Non sense!
Tempering, addition or deletion Yes there is a possibility for that but issuing the statement
They speak with pride about ?the dazzling level of measures adopted by Imam Bukahri in preserving the credibility of his 'Sanad' ?. But despite all these ridiculous comments there is no evidence that Imam Bukhari even wrote the so-called 'Sahih Bukhari'
This is pure Non sense.
This idea like most of the ideas have been derived by the biased west the "masters" of some.What weightage does these HAdith have is another debate, but telling us that Bukhari did not wrote Sahih Bukhari is an absurd claim without any support.
We shall go into detail in the next post.
-
My comment on the link is very similar to what the comments of different scholars are on the following statements
- There was no person by the name of Abraham it is a myth.
- Moses never existed.
- Muhammad was name invented by Arabs.
- Kaaba was made by Meccans as a consipiracy against Muslims.
I see. So you equate Bukhari to Muhammad, Moses and Abraham...and therefore the quraan to the hearsay storis of Asqalaani et al.
Same logic as this one if you don't believe in hadith, you cannot believe in the quraan
-
Salam hussein,But how can you believe we are not to implement stoning without rejecting hadiths which command stoning???
Actually, when I gave the illustration I was not talking about one individual narrator in hadith books. My illustration was talking about the general normal reaction of people if they find out they have been betrayed/lied. Just forget about the hadith books first and try to understand my illustration. Try to imagine if you a businessman and you are betrayed, or if you have girlfriend and your girlfriend cheated you, and soon and soon.Now, if we apply the illustration to hadith books, then it will be just the same if people find out that they have been betrayed/deceived/lied by hadith books, of course normal objective people won't trust hadith books again.
Yes, that is exactly the basic premise of science of hadith. If the narrators are considered liars, their reports are rejected. On the other hand, if the narrators are considered trustworthy, their reports are accepted.
What is the consequence? If nowadays we find out those "trustworthy" narrators have been narrating lies, then Bukhari must have made mistakes considering them trustworthy.
Whether it is narrated by one, two, three, one hundred, and soon, a lie is lie.
Agree.
I didn't say that.
No, I won't. Erring is completely different from lying.How can I prove? Well, common sense will help. Let me just give illustration.
If I go from my home to the university at 0830 am with three of my friends, and then a narrator reports that I go at 9 am, then he is erring (maybe he forgot the exact time). If another narrator reports I go with five of my friends, then he is erring (maybe he saw me with five persons and thought all are my friends).
If I never stone adulterers and then a narrator reports that I stone adulterers, then this can no longer be erring. This must be intentional lying!
Yes, this is why the more we find false hadiths, the more we cannot trust hadith books. Why? Simply because the same liars have been narrating hadiths in the same hadith books even though we know liars do not always lie. This reasoning is valid if we consider chain of narrators is true. Are there other possibilities? Yes, for example- the chain of narrators itself is fake
written the prophet -> A -> B > C -> D -> E -> Bukhari
fact satan -> C -> D -> E -> Bukhari (in this example, C is the liar while D and E and Bukhari are the victims) - the chain of narrators never exists
Parties which are able to corrupt Bukhari's book add to Bukhari's book something to suit their goals
Bukhari wrote - (nothing)
Added by enemies of Islam the prophet -> A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> Bukhari
I never said that Bukhari is the liar himself who wrote Shahih Bukhari out of nothing. In this thread I also already said that I don't deny the possibility that some sayings of the prophet might have survived through hadiths. And I repeat again what I already said in another thread I have big big problem to believe the book Shahih Bukhari we have nowadays is authentic from Bukhari and at the same time believe that Bukhari is muslim. Why? Because Bukhari believed in the hadiths which say quran is not authentic. Bukhari didn't reject this hadith for example
Shahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas
'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."
Take a look also in the hadith below ...
Shahih Malik Muwatta Book 41, Number 41.1.10
Malik related to me that Yahya ibn Said heard Said ibn al-Musayyab say, "When Umar ibn al-Khattab came from Mina, he made his camel kneel at al-Abtah, and then he gathered a pile of small stones and cast his cloak over them and dropped to the ground. Then he raised his hands to the sky and said, 'O Allah! I have become old and my strength has weakened. My flock is scattered. Take me to You with nothing missed out and without having neglected anything.' Then he went to Madina and addressed the people. He said, 'People! Sunan have been laid down for you. Obligations have been placed upon you. You have been left with a clear way unless you lead people astray right and left.' He struck one of his hands on the other and then said, 'Take care lest you destroy the ayat of stoning so that one will say, "We do not find two hadds in the Book of Allah." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stoned, so we have stoned. By He in Whose Hand my self is, had it not been that people would say that Umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of Allah ta-ala, we would have written it, "The full-grown man and the full-grown woman, stone them absolutely." We have certainly recited that.'"
Malik said, "Yahya ibn Said said Said ibn al-Musayyab said, 'Dhu'l-Hijja had not passed before Umar was murdered, may Allah have mercy on him.' "
Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, "As for his words 'The full-grown man and the full-grown woman' he meant, 'The man and the woman who have been married, stone them absolutely.' "
Hussein, do you believe Umar didn't write the verse of stoning in quran because he feared people more than Allah? Do you believe the true companions of the prophet did nothing seeing quran is being corrupted because they fear people more than Allah?
This is not erring Hussein ...This is clear and plain fabrications!!!
Stoning is not small error bro.Read further and you will find out that you cannot go beyond flogging. Have you read 243? From that verse, it is clear and plain that adulterers CAN MARRY. Dead people cannot marry, right?
Wassalam,
AdeSee http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning3.htm
- the chain of narrators itself is fake
-
Regarding stoning
The best way to analyse it is by checking out the source, let us see what Bukhari wrote about it
Narrated 'Amru bin Maimun "During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them."
The HAdith can be rejected right away as it gains no support from the Quran.
But it may be a temporary law for a time period only if Muhammad did Ijtihad, which definitely is allowed by Allah according to Quran, still we have to be sure DID MUHAMMAD ordered any Such thing??We have to find out that did Prophet had ordered the stoning of a she-monkey, and that lapidation for zina is extended to animals as well.
On closer scrutiny of the above-recorded hadith, anyone proficient in the sciences of the Hadith (ulum al-hadith) would immediately see the fallacy of such a claim when the matn (text) and isnad (chain of transmission) of the hadith is studied.
Firstly, the person who uttered the above words was not the Prophet Muhammad himself, but by one of his Companions by name of 'Amru bin Maimun.
The hadith is categorized as mauquf (lit. "stopped", meaning that it is a saying traced to that of a Companion, Therefore, since it is clear that this hadith is not a saying of the Prophet, much less ascribed to him, it cannot be a basis for a ruling in Islam.Secondly, the sentence "During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance" needs to be pondered upon
Samia
I see. So you equate Bukhari to Muhammad, Moses and Abraham...and therefore the quraan to the hearsay storis of Asqalaani et al.
Same logic as this one if you don't believe in hadith, you cannot believe in the quraanDon't try to put words in my mouth.
-
Peace Rajah,
Infact what I found is "He said, I heard as-Sa
dani say, I heard some of our companions say, Muhammad Ibn Ismail said I selected/published this book - meaning the Sahih book - from about 600,000 hadiths/reports".
Therefore it is highly doubtful that Bukhari said or mentioned the number of 600000.
Even though if he said it then we must understand that
that a had?th is comprised of both a text (matn) and a chain of transmission (isnad). In the science of hadith, the same text with ten chains of transmission is regarded not as one had?th but rather as ten had?ths, despite the fact that the text attached to each chain is the same in every case.
Proffessor Mustafa al-Azami adds
Now it is clear that when traditionalists give enormous numbers for the traditions, they mean channels and sources of their transmission, and do not mean real numbers of hadithHmm... I can safely guess that you couldn't find anyone who memorized the equivalent of 200,000 Hadiths. So as usual your argument is shifting. I am afraid that Azami's apologetic thesis doesn't work either. EVEN IF THE 600,000 were just ONE HADITH with 600,000 "channels". It is still a physical impossibility for Bukhari to study ONE HADITH with 600,000 channels or memorize 200,000 versions of even just ONE HADITH.
Rajah and Hussein, all the excuses and fallacies used in defending Hadiths have been dealt with many many years ago. All the Ahl Al-Hadith arguments can be distilled into the combined logical fallacies of appeal to authority and circular arguments. Hearsay is judged based on the appeal to the authority of assumed transmitters whose character is judged based on the appeal to authority of other hearsay. We are way beyond this point while you are still stuck. My sincere advice to you is to let go of your emotional attachment to whoever wrote the book of Bukhari, stone cubes, black stones, etc. and start to use your god-given mind for the purpose that the god gave it to you.
Peace,
Ayman
-
carrot
Cool article. I particularly like the choice of hadith and the commentary . Thanks!
Well we have to understand that once we our selves if not have read about Hadith Stuff in detail we should not comment on it, Hadith is a man made stuff and obviously there may be errors and mistakes in it and YES there are even some blunders but that does not discredit their writers and compilers. YOU JUST CAN'T DISREGARD THE ACTIONS AND WORDS OF A PERSON WHOM ALLAH CHOSED TO UTTER HIS WORDS. But before that we have to be sure that is this realy action or words of that person? a very difficult job though.
A minority among the Muslims do not accept the various books of Hadith as being an accurate representation of what the prophet Muhammed said. They take the Koran as Criterion (Furqaan in Arabic), according to the Koran's own claim (2185), accepting only those hadith which the Koran confirms and attests in totality.
Most Muslims who have taken on themselves the responsibility of teaching Islam to others have themselves abandoned the Koran by upholding hadith and that is 100% NOT MY STANCE.
So what is interesting about this Hadith, dear carrot, which amazes you? along with the commentary.
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 9, Number 490 Narrated 'Aisha The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman." I said, "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away, for I disliked to face him."
According to this precious piece of magnificence from Bukhari, women are like dogs and donkeys. And exactly which verse in the Quran is explained by this precious pearl?
Dear CArrot, You like writer of this article are having some serious mental disorders and hatred for the Prophet has taken you to the darkness from where it is hard to return.
Read it, it says;
Ayesha said
The things were mentioned before me meaning to say SOME ONE MENTIONED the things which annul the prayer to Ayeasha.
THEY SAID meaning to say those who were asking the question to Ayeasha those SOME ONE mentioned, DOG, WOMEN, and DONKEY.
Ayesha got angry and said ARE YOU COMPARING US (WOMEN) with DOGS?
Instead she quoted the action of Prophet Muhammad that "Prophet prayed even if Ayesha was lying between him and Qibla" NOW YOU BRAINWASHED friends this is the HADITH, this is the action of Prophet that he does not mind even if a women (his wife) is between him and Qibla during his prayers.So how could you or this mentally retarted writer of the article claim that WOMEN are compared to DOGS in this HADITH.
Shame on the LIARS.
-
Peace
carrot
Well we have to understand that once we our selves if not have read about Hadith Stuff in detail we should not comment on it, Hadith is a man made stuff and obviously there may be errors and mistakes in it and YES there are even some blunders but that does not discredit their writers and compilers. YOU JUST CAN'T DISREGARD THE ACTIONS AND WORDS OF A PERSON WHOM ALLAH CHOSED TO UTTER HIS WORDS. But before that we have to be sure that is this realy action or words of that person? a very difficult job though.A minority among the Muslims do not accept the various books of Hadith as being an accurate representation of what the prophet Muhammed said. They take the Koran as Criterion (Furqaan in Arabic), according to the Koran's own claim (2185), accepting only those hadith which the Koran confirms and attests in totality.
Most Muslims who have taken on themselves the responsibility of teaching Islam to others have themselves abandoned the Koran by upholding hadith and that is 100% NOT MY STANCE.
So what is interesting about this Hadith, dear carrot, which amazes you? along with the commentary.
Dear CArrot, You like writer of this article are having some serious mental disorders and hatred for the Prophet has taken you to the darkness from where it is hard to return.
Read it, it says;
Ayesha said
The things were mentioned before me meaning to say SOME ONE MENTIONED the things which annul the prayer to Ayeasha.
THEY SAID meaning to say those who were asking the question to Ayeasha those SOME ONE mentioned, DOG, WOMEN, and DONKEY.
Ayesha got angry and said ARE YOU COMPARING US (WOMEN) with DOGS?
Instead she quoted the action of Prophet Muhammad that "Prophet prayed even if Ayesha was lying between him and Qibla" NOW YOU BRAINWASHED friends this is the HADITH, this is the action of Prophet that he does not mind even if a women (his wife) is between him and Qibla during his prayers.So how could you or this mentally retarted writer of the article claim that WOMEN are compared to DOGS in this HADITH.
Shame on the LIARS.
About the wife in the middle of the qibla, is there a hadith that states that nothing can be directly in front of you while doing Salat? My Sunni friend said that pictures are not supposed to be in front of you. Now I know theres a hadith about not having pictures but since not all Sunnis follow that, I thought Id ask.
Also, is there a hadith stating something how the angels are on a mans beard? I know of some Sunnis that believe this as well, however I havent seen the hadith for it.
Peace
-
According to ahadeeth, you are required to have an inanimate object blocking the path in front of you for salat. Nothing should come between this and you. I'll see.
-
carrot
So what is interesting about this Hadith, dear carrot, which amazes you? along with the commentary.Dear CArrot, You like writer of this article are having some serious mental disorders and hatred for the Prophet has taken you to the darkness from where it is hard to return.
Read it, it says;
Ayesha said
The things were mentioned before me meaning to say SOME ONE MENTIONED the things which annul the prayer to Ayeasha.
THEY SAID meaning to say those who were asking the question to Ayeasha those SOME ONE mentioned, DOG, WOMEN, and DONKEY.
Ayesha got angry and said ARE YOU COMPARING US (WOMEN) with DOGS?
Instead she quoted the action of Prophet Muhammad that "Prophet prayed even if Ayesha was lying between him and Qibla" NOW YOU BRAINWASHED friends this is the HADITH, this is the action of Prophet that he does not mind even if a women (his wife) is between him and Qibla during his prayers.So how could you or this mentally retarted writer of the article claim that WOMEN are compared to DOGS in this HADITH.
Shame on the LIARS.
Can you please explain all the hadith (especially those referring to women) that were listed on that page? If you will, explain how they are relevant to understanding the Quran. I'm asking in seriousness, I'd like to know what these hadith mean according to Sunnis. Thanks.
-
Salaam Twilight,
If you are genuinely interested, then you may want to invest some of your own effort to find those links rather than ask for them. That would be more productive for your intellectual and spiritual health.
However, once you try and decide that you need help, then you can come back and ask. Spoon feeding is not the best way for a person to genuinely learn.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Ok, thanks. I've already read and heard explanations of such hadith women are inferior to men because apparantly woman was created out of the rib of man, are generally too emotional (in a negative way), aren't 'religious' or smart, spend much of our lives gossiping, backchatting and creating problems in society (e.g. by enticing men into doing naughty things), it is the 'shariah right' (although some make it sound like an obligation) of a man to marry more than 1 wife, men can rape (i totally read this in an online fatwa once) their captured slaves if they like since they own them, the prophet gave the thumbs up for muta for some period of time before he decided to tell the people that God wants believers to be chaste, etc.
I thought perhaps a sunni/shia here would give a sensible answer to defend any of those sayings attributed to our great prophet, but realistically there is no way a sane person can defend such ridiculously false hadith.
Satan rests at night in your noses (Bukhari, Beginning of Creation 2241).
And that is why you should not pick your nose at night while in bed. You may pluck out Satan along with the goobers.Rofl D
-
, but realistically there is no way a sane person can defend such ridiculously false hadith.
peace
yeah > can defend such hadiths
Satan rests at night in your noses (Bukhari, Beginning of Creation 2241).
And that is why you should not pick your nose at night while in bed. You may pluck out Satan along with the goobers.Rofl
rotfl
peace