Author Topic: Message to brother Osama  (Read 1690 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline A proud Muslim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Message to brother Osama
« on: July 21, 2018, 05:57:01 AM »
I have noticed that you dismiss sahih hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim, brother Osama. You shouldn't do this, because if the hadith was proved to be narrated from the prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), then we should accept it. If you would like to prove that a hadith is not true in sahih Bukhari, then you should prove that it has not been narrated correctly from the prophet Muhammad (ﷺ). I advise you to study the Science of Hadith, and you'll indeed comprehend what I'm talking about.

Offline Sama

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2018, 01:31:03 PM »
 [Brown] has produced an ambitious study that will itself become a canon for the study of the canonization of the Saḥīḥayn and so like them it is worthy of much attention and analysis.
 Herbert Berg
This is an unusual book in many ways, all of them good. Its scope is strikingly broad, it is in conversation with the latest scholarship both in the field of specialization and also in the wider world of theory, and it is well-written.
https://islaambooks.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/the-canonization-of-al-bukhari-and-muslim-by-jonathan-brown.pdf

Offline A proud Muslim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2018, 02:56:37 PM »
What are you trying to say, brother Sama?

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2018, 11:59:17 PM »
As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers,

Brother Proud Muslim, I do not reject the Hadiths.  But your Sira and Hadith collections books are not the Glorious Quran.  And the Hadiths that don't directly describe the Glorious Quran belong to the garbage in my opinion.  And if there is a contradiction, then the Hadith gets abrogated (ex: stoning to death punishment).  The Quran mentions:

Muhammad
The Prophet
The Messenger

All of the Noble Verses that address the Prophet explaining the Glorious Quran address him as The Messenger.  And when the Prophet violated the Quran, Allah Almighty addressed him as The Prophet.  If you get them all jumbled up, and give me the barrel of crap that Muhammad was a "walking Quran", then you, - with all due respect, - are totally ignorant like the cultists.

Muhammad himself said that he spoke HAZAL (jokes, nonsense) هزلي , while Allah Almighty ASSURES US that the Quran is not HAZAL هزل :

www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm#bottom_line
www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm


The mass collections of the hadiths today is a sinful innovation (bidaa').  And because it is a rotten practice, it had cursed this Ummah and divided it.




The Quran's Declaration:

Also more importantly, Allah Almighty in the Glorious Quran Itself declared that what doesn't agree with the Quran must get rejected.  Please visit the following article and directly respond to the "bottom line" sub-section:

www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm#bottom_line
www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm

I hope this helps, Insha'Allah.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline A proud Muslim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2018, 05:59:43 AM »
Quote
As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers,

Brother Proud Muslim, I do not reject the Hadiths.  But your Sira and Hadith collections books are not the Glorious Quran.  And the Hadiths that don't directly describe the Glorious Quran belong to the garbage in my opinion.  And if there is a contradiction, then the Hadith gets abrogated (ex: stoning to death punishment).  The Quran mentions

Wa-Alaikum-Salaam, brother Osama. First of all, I've never said that hadiths are the Glorious Quran. I said that if they have been narrated correctly from the prophet Muhammed (ﷺ), then we should accept it. Like in science, if something has been proved to be true, we should accept it. Hadiths don't need to be like Quran in order to be accepted. There're tons of ways to prove that a thing is true even if it's not Quran.


Quote
All of the Noble Verses that address the Prophet explaining the Glorious Quran address him as The Messenger.  And when the Prophet violated the Quran, Allah Almighty addressed him as The Prophet.  If you get them all jumbled up, and give me the barrel of crap that Muhammad was a "walking Quran", then you, - with all due respect, - are totally ignorant like the cultists.
I think the hadith that you're referring to is فقد جاء في حديث طويل في قصة سعد بن هشام بن عامر حين قدم المدينة ، وأتى عائشة رضي الله عنها يسألها عن بعض المسائل ، فقال :
( فَقُلتُ : يَا أُمَّ المُؤمِنِينَ ! أَنبئِينِي عَن خُلُقِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ ؟
قَالَت : أَلَستَ تَقرَأُ القُرآنَ ؟
قُلتُ : بَلَى .
قَالَت : فَإِنَّ خُلُقَ نَبِيِّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ القُرآنَ .
قَالَ : فَهَمَمْتُ أَن أَقُومَ وَلَا أَسأَلَ أَحَدًا عَن شَيْءٍ حَتَّى أَمُوتَ ...الخ ) رواه مسلم (746)
وفي رواية أخرى :
( قُلتُ : يَا أُمَّ المُؤمِنِينَ ! حَدِّثِينِي عَن خُلُقِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ .
قَالَت : يَا بُنَيَّ أَمَا تَقرَأُ القُرآنَ ؟ قَالَ اللَّهُ : ( وَإِنَّكَ لَعَلَى خُلُقٍ عَظِيمٍ ) خُلُقُ مُحَمَّدٍ القُرآنُ )
أخرجها أبو يعلى (8/275) بإسناد صحيح .
قال النووي رحمه الله تعالى في "شرح مسلم" (3/268) :
" معناه : العمل به ، والوقوف عند حدوده ، والتأدب بآدابه ، والاعتبار بأمثاله وقصصه ، وتدبره ، وحسن تلاوته " انتهى .
وقال ابن رجب في "جامع العلوم والحكم" (1/148) :


The hadith doesn't really say that our beloved prophet is a walking Quran. It says that the prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) character's is the Quran, which means that he acted in accordance with it, adhering to its limits, following its etiquette, paying heed to its lessons and parables, pondering its meanings and reciting it properly.



Quote
The Quran's Declaration:

Also more importantly, Allah Almighty in the Glorious Quran Itself declared that what doesn't agree with the Quran must get rejected.  Please visit the following article and directly respond to the "bottom line" sub-section:

www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm#bottom_line
www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm

I hope this helps, Insha'Allah.

All hadiths that have been proved to be narrated from the prophet Muhammed (ﷺ) are never in contradiction with the Quran.

Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2018, 05:35:04 PM »
I would say that the most significant point of interest is: exactly what is meant by a "proven" Hadith. Most things today cannot be proven by absolute certainty, let alone things that happened 1400 years previously. Who gets to decide which narration is "proven" and which isn't? Is it Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Hanbal or Imam Albani? At the end of the day, they are all humans and all their "proofs" are human endeavours.

Now it might be possible that all the Hadiths in all the Sahihs are true (although even most conservative scholars don't believe so), we don't have any way to be sure. No critical thinking Muslim can be expected to believe blindly in all the narrations mentioned, in say Sahih Bukhari, for no other reason than because Imam Bukhari thought they were to be "proven".

If you would like to prove that a hadith is not true in sahih Bukhari, then you should prove that it has not been narrated correctly from the prophet Muhammad (ﷺ).

When Osama Abdullah provides evidence regarding actions mentioned in a particular Hadith being in contradiction with Qur'anic laws, this is exactly what Osama is doing i.e. "prov[ing] that it has not been narrated correctly from the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ)." Among the historical criticisms an alleged Hadith is made to go through, include the question of whether the Prophet would have done something that contradicted the Holy Book he was supposed to be preaching, or not?

All hadiths that have been proved to be narrated from the prophet Muhammed (ﷺ) are never in contradiction with the Quran.

Maybe according to your interpretation of the religion. Assuming by "proved" you mean the Sahih Bukhari narrations, as Osama Abdullah points out, the stoning to death punishment for adultery would be one contradiction. The Qur'an specifically mentions the punishment of lashes for fornication and adultery, but the Hadith records stoning as the punishment. Most would see this as a clear contradiction, or at-least re-interpret those particular Hadiths (some scholars argue that the stoning was actually done for the crime of creating corruption in the land, assaults on women, and not adultery).

Furthermore, there are definitely some Hadiths which parallel the Qur'an with regards to historical evidence for their reliability - I would say that such are the strongest argument against the Qur'anists - however, from what I understand, such narrations are comparatively quite few and most refer to prayers and rituals. The vast majority of narrations happen to be Khabr-e-Ahad, like the Prophet advising a few individuals, in his personal capacity, instead of addressing a public gathering.

Offline A proud Muslim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2018, 03:05:55 PM »
Quote
I would say that the most significant point of interest is: exactly what is meant by a "proven" Hadith. Most things today cannot be proven by absolute certainty, let alone things that happened 1400 years previously. Who gets to decide which narration is "proven" and which isn't? Is it Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Hanbal or Imam Albani? At the end of the day, they are all humans and all their "proofs" are human endeavours.
First of all, if you would like to dismiss hadiths, then you should also consider dismissing historical facts. The science of Hadith is like historical facts, but 100 times authentic as most historic facts are from historians who could get their words from random people or just some rumors. The science of hadith is every complicated. The one who gets decide that the narration is proven is the one who has the proof. It's not about who decides that narration is proven. It's about who has the proof to decide. Transmissions are not taken except from trustworthy narrators, and this is known by his daily life and how he interacts with people, and how he memorizes things.


Quote
When Osama Abdullah provides evidence regarding actions mentioned in a particular Hadith being in contradiction with Qur'anic laws, this is exactly what Osama is doing i.e. "prov[ing] that it has not been narrated correctly from the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ)." Among the historical criticisms an alleged Hadith is made to go through, include the question of whether the Prophet would have done something that contradicted the Holy Book he was supposed to be preaching, or not?
Very well, I would like to see an authentic that is in a contradiction with the Quran.


Quote
Maybe according to your interpretation of the religion. Assuming by "proved" you mean the Sahih Bukhari narrations, as Osama Abdullah points out, the stoning to death punishment for adultery would be one contradiction. The Qur'an specifically mentions the punishment of lashes for fornication and adultery, but the Hadith records stoning as the punishment. Most would see this as a clear contradiction, or at-least re-interpret those particular Hadiths (some scholars argue that the stoning was actually done for the crime of creating corruption in the land, assaults on women, and not adultery).
It wouldn't actually be a contradiction if the punishment of lashes was for fornication and not adultery. The hadith proves that adultery has another punishment, and that the zany mentioned in the Quran was meant to be the one who had intercourse before marriage.


Quote
Furthermore, there are definitely some Hadiths which parallel the Qur'an with regards to historical evidence for their reliability - I would say that such are the strongest argument against the Qur'anists - however, from what I understand, such narrations are comparatively quite few and most refer to prayers and rituals. The vast majority of narrations happen to be Khabr-e-Ahad, like the Prophet advising a few individuals, in his personal capacity, instead of addressing a public gathering.
I don't have any comment on this one.





Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2018, 07:13:07 PM »
First of all, if you would like to dismiss hadiths, then you should also consider dismissing historical facts.

Sure, why not. If the historical evidence is less than that of the Qur'an, those historical "facts" can also be considered unreliable. However, it should be pointed out that the truthfulness of those historical facts is usually inconsequential.

The one who gets decide that the narration is proven is the one who has the proof. It's not about who decides that narration is proven. It's about who has the proof to decide.

And what exactly is that "proof"? Is it sufficient evidence? If so, considered "sufficient" by whom? Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Hanbal or Imam Albani?

Additionally, since no new "proof" has come out for over a thousand years now, what was Imam Albani doing confirming and rejecting Hadiths, in the twentieth century? How could he dare term a Hadith as weak, when another scholar, a thousand years previously, considered it as reliable? Aren't the two drawing their conclusions from the same "proof"?

Transmissions are not taken except from trustworthy narrators, and this is known by his daily life and how he interacts with people, and how he memorizes things.

Transmissions are taken from a variety of sources, sometimes trustworthy, sometimes not. Human scholars decide which transmission is trustworthy and which isn't, and a lot of times they differ with each other on the matter. One transmission believed trustworthy by one group of scholars might be unreliable in the eyes of a second group.

Furthermore, as I mentioned before, a majority of the narrations are Khabr-e-Ahad. You might not have a problem believing in them, but other Muslims of a more sceptical nature cannot be expected to absolutely believe in them too.

Very well, I would like to see an authentic that is in a contradiction with the Quran. ... It wouldn't actually be a contradiction if the punishment of lashes was for fornication and not adultery. The hadith proves that adultery has another punishment, and that the zany mentioned in the Quran was meant to be the one who had intercourse before marriage.

The Qur'an verse never differentiates between the married and unmarried. Your argument against a contradiction here, is based on circular reasoning i.e. employing two unproven premises to prove each other. Either you have to prove, using external evidence, that the Qur'an verse is referring only to fornication; or starting from the other end, you have to prove that the Hadith is not a later abrogation (in other words a contradiction) of the Qur'an verse.

In fact, according to the interpretations I've read, the case of stoning is used as proof by conservative scholars that similar to how one Qur'an verse can abrogate another, at times, the Hadith can also abrogate a Qur'an verse. Such thinking is supported by the content of Qur'an 4:25, in which the punishment for former female slaves, regarding the crime of adultery, is half that of free women. Obviously, there's no "half" of stoning to death.

Additionally, some would argue the punishment for apostasy in the Hadith, as another example of a contradiction. The Qur'an mentions individuals repeatedly committing apostasy, but never mentions any punishment for them; however, the Hadith calls for the capital punishment. If apostates were to be killed, how can they repeatedly commit the crime?

Offline Mohamed Saif

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2018, 11:53:55 PM »
So how do we come to a proper conclusion?  Should Apostates be killed or not or should adulterers be stoned or not?  How are we supposed to implement the Shariah if we cant come to a certain conclusion?

Offline A proud Muslim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2018, 05:12:00 AM »
Quote
Sure, why not. If the historical evidence is less than that of the Qur'an, those historical "facts" can also be considered unreliable. However, it should be pointed out that the truthfulness of those historical facts is usually inconsequential.
Can you dismiss the fact that Egyptians built the pyramids? Or that Amr-Ibn el Aas entered Egypt? You cannot easily dismiss historical facts. If you chose to dismiss a historical fact, then you should tell  us on what basis can you determine that a historical fact is true or not.


Quote
And what exactly is that "proof"? Is it sufficient evidence? If so, considered "sufficient" by whom? Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Hanbal or Imam Albani?

Additionally, since no new "proof" has come out for over a thousand years now, what was Imam Albani doing confirming and rejecting Hadiths, in the twentieth century? How could he dare term a Hadith as weak, when another scholar, a thousand years previously, considered it as reliable? Aren't the two drawing their conclusions from the same "proof"?

Do you know how science of hadith works? There're many things that could be used to make a hadith weak. For example, if a narrator tells another narrator something, and they have never met, then there's (ingitah) in sanad, and that makes the hadith weak. If one of the narrators is liar/unknown/not good at memorizing/doesn't have documentation, then the hadith is weak, and there're many ways to determine that a hadith is weak or not. I advise you to read a little bit about science of hadith.

Quote
Transmissions are taken from a variety of sources, sometimes trustworthy, sometimes not. Human scholars decide which transmission is trustworthy and which isn't, and a lot of times they differ with each other on the matter. One transmission believed trustworthy by one group of scholars might be unreliable in the eyes of a second group.

Furthermore, as I mentioned before, a majority of the narrations are Khabr-e-Ahad. You might not have a problem believing in them, but other Muslims of a more sceptical nature cannot be expected to absolutely believe in them too.
Sahih hadiths are taken from trustworthy sources. It's like someone hearing something in the news and telling somebody, and this person told another person, and so on..until it reaches bukhari, or Muslim, or whatever Imam. They see if the narrator is trustworthy/good memorizer/ not a liar, and then they start studying the narrators, and see if there's any something wrong in the narration chain.

Quote
The Qur'an verse never differentiates between the married and unmarried. Your argument against a contradiction here, is based on circular reasoning i.e. employing two unproven premises to prove each other. Either you have to prove, using external evidence, that the Qur'an verse is referring only to fornication; or starting from the other end, you have to prove that the Hadith is not a later abrogation (in other words a contradiction) of the Qur'an verse.
But actually I didn't use two unproven premises to prove each other. I used a proven hadith to prove a premise. If the hadith is proven, and it says that adultery punishment is stoning, then this means that the Quran verse is referring only to fornication.

Quote
Additionally, some would argue the punishment for apostasy in the Hadith, as another example of a contradiction. The Qur'an mentions individuals repeatedly committing apostasy, but never mentions any punishment for them; however, the Hadith calls for the capital punishment. If apostates were to be killed, how can they repeatedly commit the crime?
The apostasy mentioned in the hadith is meant to be the one who wage war against Muslims, and causes problems for the Islamic states.

Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2018, 07:32:56 AM »
@Mohamed Saif,

First, I should make clear that I'm not rejecting any Hadith, just asserting that different people have different thresholds of certainty. One group of Muslims can be completely fine with Akhbar-e-Ahad, while a second group cannot. And then there would be a third group in the middle: usually being fine with Akhbar-e-Ahad, unless they are related to extremely important matters such as capital punishments, in which case they would subscribe to the concept of no punishment in the presence of reasonable doubt, and Akhbar-e-Ahad would definitely figure as reasonable doubt for them.

As far as I've understood, on the matter of the Hadith being used as a source of Shariah, there are three important interpretations.

One is the complete and absolute belief in all Hadith literature. Even going to the extent of believing an activity not performed during the Prophet's time is also prohibited. For example, since birthdays were not celebrated by the Prophet's companions, therefore such an activity must be prohibited. From what I've seen, such interpretation is followed by the majority of lay/common Muslims. This is something, not even conservative scholars subscribe to since there are more than a few Hadith that contradict each other, or are known to be fabricated but still managed to get recorded in the Saheeh Hadith books. This interpretation is significant not because of theological evidence in support of it, but because of the large number of Muslims who believe in it.

Second is the belief that all Hadith are by-default part of God's everlasting Shariah unless there is some additional evidence that would put the Hadith in doubt. Suspicions, such as one Hadith being contradicted by a more historically reliable Hadith, or by some Qur'an verse etc. Most conservative scholars would subscribe to this interpretation.

In contradiction, the third group, practically speaking, follows the idea that Hadith are by-default not part of everlasting Shariah. They argue that since Prophet Muhammad was given the responsibility to spread the religion far and wide, to spread God's divine Shariah, its obligations and prohibitions to all the people of the world until the Day of Judgement, he must have fulfilled this obligation in as public a manner as possible. He must have mentioned such theological knowledge to as many people as possible, as has happened with the Qur'an and a smaller portion of the Hadith, the Muttawatar Ahadith. Rest of the scripture i.e. the Akhbar-e-Ahad, where the Prophet is found addressing only a few individuals were his personal opinions or recommendations in his capacity as the judge, leader, father, husband, elder etc. of his people. The Imam Muslim reported date palm grafting hadith is significant in this regard.

Akhbar-e-Ahad can be considered as part of divine Shariah only when they go along with the Qur'an - hadith cannot abrogate the Qur'an. When such appears to be happening, then that particular hadith is either historically unreliable or has its meaning misunderstood.

So how do we come to a proper conclusion?  Should Apostates be killed or not or should adulterers be stoned or not?  How are we supposed to implement the Shariah if we cant come to a certain conclusion?

Conclusions can be drawn in the same way they have been drawn for centuries. Going through all the evidence and deciding for oneself, which interpretation holds more water. In a lot of cases, which conclusion is right and which is incorrect is not as important as having sincere intentions and making sincere efforts to find the right path, no matter what that path may be.

A Muslim can become a scholar to be at the best position to come to the right conclusion, but since for general lay Muslims such is usually impractical, the easier method is to go through the brief evidence put forth by the eminent scholars of each interpretation.

Regarding which interpretation should be implemented, the Qur'an 42:38 concept of: اَمْرُهُم شُوْرٰی بَينَهُمْ (Muslims, who settle their affairs with mutual consultation) is the practical method which has been agreed upon by conservative scholars for centuries. However, unlike the current status quo, a good argument can be made for common Muslims to also become a part of this consultation by educating themselves on the limited related matter, instead of blindly accepting and believing in error prone humans.

Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2018, 07:33:48 AM »
@A proud Muslim

Can you dismiss the fact that Egyptians built the pyramids? Or that Amr-Ibn el Aas entered Egypt? You cannot easily dismiss historical facts.

One refers to what as fact, and what as theory depends on an individual's threshold of certainty. Different people have different degrees of scepticism. If the evidence for Egyptians building the pyramids, or Amr-Ibn el Aas entering Egypt was in par with Akhbar-e-Ahad, then a lot of people wouldn't consider such things as historical facts either. Some might, but not everyone can be expected to do so.

If you chose to dismiss a historical fact, then you should tell  us on what basis can you determine that a historical fact is true or not.

As I previously mentioned, most things in history are not guaranteed, however, when it comes to Akhbar-e-Ahad the reliability, as compared to other sources of Islam, decreases exponentially. This is essentially a subjective issue. Not every Muslim will consider the supporting evidence for such individual source narrations to be reliable enough to live their entire lives based on them. The following is a representation of one scholarly opinion on the matter:

Quote

As regards the matter of [the non-Muttawatar] Hadīth that is only the explanatory source. It has been transmitted through isolated reports (akhbār-i ahād) which are never considered absolutely authentic. The Prophet (sws) never arranged for their dissemination and it was left on the discretion of the people to transmit something they had heard the Prophet (sws) say or observed him do.

Although the scholars of the science of Hadīth have tried their best to sift the truth from falsehood from the oral tradition the individual reports suffer from inherit problems which render them subject to analysis and critical study. They made sure that the narrators they accept the Hadīth from were of sound memory and understanding, yet [t]hey could never guarantee that memory of a certain individual did not fail.

Through they tried from various sources to ascertain the trustworthiness of the narrators yet they could not remove human element from them. One cannot claim that a certain narrator was of absolutely infallible memory, perfect understanding, perfectly truthful and absolutely trustworthy. One can not guarantee that a certain individual heard something from the Prophet (sws) proper context and understood it as it was conceived by the Prophet (sws). We cannot make sure that he was able to transmit the saying or act in proper contextual background and did not fail to leave out all the necessary details. We also fail to make sure that all the narrators were able to communicate the original saying or act without any change in its meaning, context, references, related details and its basis in the basic religious sources. We cannot guarantee that the narrator did not change the saying because of his background, paradigm, and ability to comprehend and express what he understood without a slight alteration.

These are the inherent problems with the individual narratives because of which the scholars of the science of Hadith always considered the isolated reports as zannī source that is probable truth and not absolutely reliable thing.

Punishment Of Rajam And The Qur’an


But actually I didn't use two unproven premises to prove each other. I used a proven hadith to prove a premise. If the hadith is proven, and it says that adultery punishment is stoning, then this means that the Quran verse is referring only to fornication.

Although there are some who argue that the stoning was actually done for the crime of creating corruption in the land, however, such is irrelevant at the moment.

Coming back to the point, the premise which is unproven is that the Hadith was, in fact, an elaboration and not an abrogation of the Qur'an verse. That it was always known that the Qur'an verse was restricted only to unmarried individuals. As I've mentioned before, in contradiction to your argument, conservative scholars take the hadith as evidence that hadith can abrogate the Qur'an.

The apostasy mentioned in the hadith is meant to be the one who wage war against Muslims, and causes problems for the Islamic states.

Once more, the hadith itself does not include any such restriction. The wording of the hadith appears to include everyone without restriction. Now, although you can follow the more benign interpretation of the hadith, the fact remains that Muslim scholars over the centuries have accepted and promoted the more violent interpretation.

Now, if your interpretation is to be accepted as true, the only way majority Muslim scholars could have come to the right conclusion is if the hadith narrator had included the required context. However, such a context is absent and in-turn, this hadith becomes a cause of much injustice (injustice, according to your interpretation). This begs the question, which other Akhbar-e-Ahad hadiths are there, which are devoid of such essential context?

Your acceptance of the liberal interpretation of the apostasy hadith proves the inherent problems present in hadiths narrated by single (or very few) individuals.

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2018, 07:49:47 AM »
As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers,

A false hadith is not just limited to it being in contradiction with the Glorious Quran.  That's one criteria although this particular one doesn't always translate into the hadith being false.  It could be also the Glorious Quran abrogated it.

A false hadith is also that is in contradiction with established science, and/or a hadith that contains gibberish nonsense.  Those are either 100% false hadiths, or authentic Hadiths that had been badly paraphrased throughout the 300 years of their documentation. 

The cultists play games.  They're very noisy with other Muslims.  Don't fall for their games brother Proud Muslim.  I also find it odd that you asked for a single Hadith that contradicts the Glorious Quran when I gave you the strongest one above.  The Prophet speaking hazal does compromise:

1-  His Words being always considered as Hadiths.

2-  Hadiths are Divine Inspirations.

This is all in light of Allah Almighty assuring us, in the Glorious Quran, that the Quran is not hazal. 



Couldn't Define Hadith:

Muslims could not properly define the word "Hadith" throughout the centuries!  They just babel nonsense.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Message to brother Osama
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2018, 12:33:28 PM »
And with all of this hazal nonsense, no sane Muslim would say that the Hadiths abrogate the Quran.  Yet, we have quacks that say exactly that.

A Hadith could never abrogate the Quran.  Period.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah