Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
chulo45 wrote:http://www.iqrasense.com/hadith/authenticating-hadith-sayings-of-the-prophet-an-overview.html
MD Marketers wrote:York wrote:Sorry, it is the "Authoritative Validity of the Sunnah":
AUTHORITY FROM GOD!
Also, supposed to be available as MP3 on the net. The info you desire is there, ie. where in the Quran states that the Sunnah (hadith) is to be followed.
The hadith was preserved in the chests of men for 200 yrs before it was collected by the imams Bukhari, etc. It continues to be preserved as such. The imams didn't write down everything they collected. Bukhari's hadith collection book contains about 7000 narrations from the 100,000 or so that he memorized / collected.
Will watch the video shortly.
So Muslims are supposed to believe the Hadith was "preserved in the chests of men for 200 yrs?"
Like I always say I will assume anything you say to be true once it makes logical sense.
Where did you get this "preserve in the chest" theory from?
Will discuss same sex marriages in another thread soon.
Ok I finished watching the video.
The video starts with the assumption that the "Sunnah of the Prophet" was preserved by Allah & referenced to in the revelation of Qur'an.
Where in the Qur'an does it say that "Sunnah of Muhammed" will be preserved?
Where in the Qur'an does it say "Sunnah of Muhammed" + Qur'an = Islam
Just show me one verse that says follow the teachings/sayings of Muhammed whereby teachings/sayings does not mean Qur'an.
How do you know the Sunnah spoken about in the Qur'an isn't the Qur'an?
Can you show me one verse of Qur'an that says follow the Qur'an AND the Sunnah?
Just one verse is all that is needed and you would have won this argument that certain "Hadith outside Qur'an" is preserved by Allah.
York wrote:
Neither God nor Mohammed permitted expanded explanations of Quran to be written down. Never once were the followers allowed to utter a word outside of revelation and claim it to be divinely inspired. The Qur'an also said give thought to the explanations, not "follow actions of Mohammed".
If you wrote a book and proclaimed all students of this book shall listen to their literature teacher's explanations of the book, would you take that to mean "listen to the teacher's explanation even when they say something that cannot be found anywhere in the book"? Wouldn't it be more logical to think it means "listen to their explanation of only the things written in the book"
If John tells you "this water is hot" and Mary says "what John is trying to say is this water is hot because it is 100 degrees Celsius". Is this the same thing John was saying? Is this not a baseless expansion of what John was saying? This is what Hadith does it gives new meaning to Qur'an. Meanings depicted by mere men who are not divinely inspired. If Bukhari was divinely inspired then why did he compile a bunch of Hadith that contradict themselves? Whatever happened to preservation of the Message? It's obvious the Qur'an was preserved because it has no contradictions, but hadith are riddled with other contradictory hadith.
I'm looking for the verse in the Qur'an that says something close to "follow Mohammed's actions as well as Qur'an". There isn't any.
How do you explain the following verses & still follow Sahih Hadith?
If Mohammed were alive today what do you think he would do to the people reading & printing all these Sahih Hadith?
If your Qur'an said pray 3 times daily (not 5) & it didn't explain the rituals involved why would you insist that it's an incomplete instruction?
Is it not possible the Qur'an just wants you to pray to the being that wrote it in a way that does not contradict anything else in the Qur'an?
Where did it say prostrate yourself exactly as Mohammed prostrated himself in the exact amount of times he prostrated.
If it says prostrate then do whatever you understand prostration to be as many times as you wish for the purpose of praising your lord once it does not contradict your holy scripture.
If you think congregational prostration should be made ritualistic for simplicity then do so, but don't make the rituals compulsory if it wasn't compulsory in the Quran. That would be defying Quran.
Even the very Hadiths you believe in shows Mohammed had different ways he positioned himself when praying, so why is standardized prostration even an issue to you?
York wrote:MD,
Is it clear to you that the Qur'an was revealed and exists in reality memorized by millions? Do you believe in it as instructions sent by God? Will you then follow it?
York wrote:
We have to be a mufassir to understand basic Qur'an? That's an insult to the intelligence of every Muslim that isn't a muffasir.
Are you sure you don't mean:
You have to be a muffasir to twist basic Qur'an?
If you believe muffasir are better at understanding & teaching Qur'an than logical scholars then ask them this:
How do Mufassir explain why they still classify the following Hadith as Sahih when they contradict other Sahih Hadith:
You should perform ablution once, twice or three times?
Do evil omens exist?
Who was Dajjal?
Protection from Dajjal:
None or Two rak'ats after Asr:
Dajjal blind in which eye?
Standing while drinking something is Forbidden or Recommended?
How long was Muhammad in Mecca for, 10, 13 or 15?
Gold and Silver?
Who collected the Quran?
Prayer: 25 times or 27 times superior?
Here are more:
If Sahih Hadith are inspired by God despite all these contradictions then it says a lot about your belief system.
I'm not a seeker of truth. I'm a seeker of logic.
York wrote:http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contradictions_in_the_Hadith
Why not just post your source above? You will not find truth the way you are going about.
Just read the Quran and Hadith for yourself.
York wrote:
Which category do you think this verse falls under?"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?" 6:114
A. Al-Ahkam (commandments)
B. Al-Fara'id (obligatory duties)
C. Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers)
D. Others not entirely clear.
Let that be the first question you ask a Mufassir.
If their answer is not D then ask them this:
Is Hadith book a source of Islamic law other than the Qur'an?
Is the Qur'an not "fully" detailed as a source of Islamic law?
What does the words "fully detailed" mean?
If the verse used the word "detailed" alone instead of "fully detailed" would it have made a difference?
What is the difference between being "detailed" & being "fully detailed"?
Is it logical to say the Qur'an is "fully detailed" as a source of Islamic law & still say it needs "more" details in the form of Hadith as an additional source of Islamic law?
Explain how that statement is logical.
Is your explanation not finding a hidden meaning to the verse?
I asked Muffasir these questions before, the answers will shock you.
York wrote:
Hikmah
Hikmah (Arabic: حكمة, ḥikma) is an Arabic word meaning wisdom
The word didn't just change meaning in the Arabic language the instant the prophet received revelation. When did it change meaning?
You are applying a biased meaning to the word "Hikmah" to prove a point.
If you have no issues with applying biased meanings to words in your own Holy Scripture to find truth then you are not "finding" truth, you are twisting it to serve your own agendas.
If your God chose Arabic as the language of his final revelation then you should respect it's meanings & not twist it conveniently.
After almost a week of discussion the best argument you can come up with to defend Hadith are:
1. The other guy isn't a religious scholar.
2. Change the meaning of the words to prove a point
3. Claim the other guy isn't guided by Allah
4. Claim only Muffasir can understand basic Qur'an using "intellect & logic" whilst non Muffasir must use the blind faith.
Let me know when you are going to start refuting the countless arguments I put forward by dealing with them directly instead of this obvious attempt to redirect logic into irrelevant discussion.
I might as well be debating a Christian at this point.
MD Marketers wrote:Personally I don't believe in anything as absolutely true but I can definitely see an Islam without Hadith would definitely be a more peacefully religion & much easier to follow. I know many Muslims believe that Islam wasn't meant to be easy to follow, but didn't the Qur'an say God wouldn't give you a burden heavier than you can carry?
desifemlove wrote:eh? ISIS today is no different to his successors, the Ottomans, Akbar the great in India, or any great Muslim empire and how they conquerered. if they burned people in 1550 AD, or 1450 AD, it would be "dais ah cool scene, nutten wrong wit dat..." only reason now is our moral system is different.
York wrote:^lies, Muslims didn't act that way. That's why he warned about them in the quoted article.
He warned about groups with the characteristics of ISIS, not specifically ISIS alone.
Haters will be haters and rejecters of truth will reject ....the truth.
desifemlove wrote:York wrote:^lies, Muslims didn't act that way. That's why he warned about them in the quoted article.
He warned about groups with the characteristics of ISIS, not specifically ISIS alone.
Haters will be haters and rejecters of truth will reject ....the truth.
you was there during the original Caliphate times?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Dizzy28, pugboy, trinigamer, triniterribletim and 162 guests