Answering Christianity Research Center

I see a lot of arrogance in your posts. A lot of ad hominems a lot of insults...and not many actual arguments. It seems as if you are the definition of a kaffir according to the Quran.

Your first problem is your failure to grasp Quran 45:6

For the gazillionth time , trying to delude people with changing the translation into "Hadith" to support your ideology means nothing . And for the gazillionth time , you ignore the fact that Sunnah IS a revelation from Allah . THAT'S the point which I won't let you shove aside

"These are God's revelations (Quran) that We recite to you truthfully. In which statement other than God and His revelations (Quran) do they believe?" 45: 6

There, I changed the word "hadith" to "statement" just to make you feel better. My argument remains.

The Sunnah CANNOT be a revelation from Allah based on this above verse.

This verses states that THESE are God's revelations. What does "these" revelations refer to? It refers to THIS book--the Quran.

So Allah is telling you that these are God's revelations that we RECITE to you. In what OTHER statement other than THESE (Quran) Revelations will YOU believe in??

You completely disregarded this point. This is the verse that defeats you and there is no way of it.

It is important that you take these Quranic words seriously brother, for your own soul,
do not turn a blind eye to the words of God in the Quran.
 
Why is it so difficult to believe all the words of God which I showed you?
 
Do you want to be sorry on Judgement day and say I wish I did not let my ego blind me from the truth? Do you really want to stand before your lord and say that?

Really , you need to be slapped for constantly lying . The cheap and pathetic attempt you make to delude us that the teachings of the prophet peace upon him are his personal opinions won't be tolerated . That's first . As to the second point : HOW IN THE WORLD DOES YOUR BRAIN FUNCTIONS !? Who on earth understands this ?! We said that the teachings of the prophet peace upon him when it comes to religion are revelation . Who gave you the ridiculous idea that EVERY SINGLE THING HE SAID is revelation ?! There is even a narration about this case :

Hadiths. They follow every thing he said. Not only that if the prophet muhammad says dogs are haraam to keep in the house, then dogs are haram to keep in the house. I'm sure Allah really wanted us to not have dogs in our house, it seems very relevant to Islam, eh? Hadiths say things the prophet said and you follow it. IN fact, hadiths tell you that you should even dress and look like him....LOL---sounds like you are making idolatry of the prophet Muhammad. I think the prophet would be sick to the stomach knowing what corruption occurred and how many people idolize him. And more importantly, the prophet and Allah would be ashamed of you.  I hope you are able to see your own hypocrisy. The prophet himself would be disappointed in you and what has become of his ummah.

The Quran also predicts that:

The Messenger will say, my Lord, my people have deserted this Qur’an. (25:30)

I give you zero out of ten in comrehending . You don't just go against the way an entire body of scholars through history understood Quran , you think you outsmart them in a language you fail at . These are 3 explanations by Ibn Uthaimeen , Assa'di , and Ibn Katheer . And none of them supports you

Again with the authority argument. Again....This is crap. You don't need so called 'scholars' to explain the Quran. The Quran said no such thing. God will explain the Quran, you seek to learn the Quran. Nowhere does it state follow scholars. Scholars have been wrong in the past, and they are wrong now.

I have repeatedly shown you that this argument from authority that you are basing your faith on is crap. I could just site Quranist scholars to show you the opposite. Or even better, I could cite shia scholars to show you you are wrong. This DOESN"T give me an argument!

I want you to actually address the argument. Not say, "you are wrong because my scholars disagree with you".

Back to the Quranic verse you didn't agree with:

Najm 1 By the star when it descends, 2 Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, 3 Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. 4 It is not but a revelation revealed,

I had stated that from a linguistic point of view, we note that God says "In Huwa ila wahe yuha" 53:4 ..... this literally translates to (It is nothing but inspiration being inspired). the word "Huwa" is a key word in this verse, it literally means 'it', but that is not all. The word 'it' in English does not give a gender, 'it' could refer to a masculine or a feminine equally. However, in Arabic the word "Huwa" refers to the masculine (as opposed to the word Hiya which refers to the feminine). The word "Huwa" here refers to the Quran which is masculine in gender.

You replied by saying:

And I suppose that "وحي"=revelation is feminine ?! I suppose حديث=Hadith is feminine ?! Stop trying to sound smart with Arabic , it doesn't help you in any way .

I think this is where you really showed your lack of arabic understanding. But, I am not going to discuss further. Just read my argument again.

I will tell you however, that I know that you DO agree that the Quran should be interpreted using other verses in the Quran, correct? So if this is the case then Quran 53:4 should be interpreted using other verses. Okay, let's do that.

whats their take on Surat Al Najeem (The Star):

Some Quranists would say what he speaks in 53:3 is the same truth spoken in 51:23. It is important to remember that Quranists try their best to take a holistic approach to the Quran and not attempt to understand a verse in isolation. If you read 51:23 and then read onwards to its conclusion, you see that the Messenger was commanded to warn the people (51:55). The warning is what he was speaking. And we know from 6:19 that he was commanded to warn with the Quran.

Also, the next verse 53:4 says that what he speaks is nothing but wahy - revelation. And wahy is defined in 6:19 as the Quran.


So now you have TWO reasons to believe that Quran 53:4 is not speaking of hadiths or any other soruce of revelation except the Quran. I have given you a linguistic reason and another reason that uses a hollistic approach of the Quran by interpreting Quran 54:3 using other verses.

But, you will continue to persist arrogantly... I know you will. This makes you a disbeliever and I would have a hard time calling you a Muslim at this point.

If we take it with this premetive way of view as you do we'd be accusing Allah of contradicting . Exalted he is from what you describe !

16:44 [We sent them] with clear proofs and written ordinances. And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.

The words in 16:44 clearly state that the messenger can only make things clear to the people by means of what is revealed to him (Quran). This is also confirmed in 6:114 which states that the only source of law is the book. In addition, the messenger is prohibited from adding his own teachings to the message he received from God. If he does he would be committing a great error that would incur a severe punishment from God (see 69:44-46).
It must also be said that a common misunderstanding arises when one or two verses are looked at in isolation. Without looking at all the relevant verses dealing with one particular Quranic topic, a misleading deduction can be arrived at.

If we read 16:44 and 3:164 on their own it may well appear that the messenger can fully explain the Quran to the people and that he is the teacher of the Quran, but what about when we read 55:1-2 which says that God is the teacher of the Quran?

Also, what about 75:19 where God is speaking to the messenger and tells him clearly that it is He (God) who will explain the Quran?

It is clear that when we read other verses we get a different picture.

As a result, we must arrive at a common meaning which would be in harmony with all the Quranic verses and not just 3:164 and 16:44.

The common meaning is that the messenger delivered the Quran to the people and that he spent all his remaining days preaching the Quran and commanding people to follow it and showing them what the Quran requires them to do. The messenger was literally a walking Quran when it comes to religious questions! If someone asks him how to do wudu, the prophet would recite the Quran and tell them exactly what it says without adding anything to the Quran--since the Quran is the only source of law (6:114 and 45:6).

However, the messenger cannot guide anyone or guarantee that all people will understand the true message of the Quran. It is God, and God alone, who can guide the people and truly explain the message of the book to the ones who deserve the guidance.

The Quranic verses which confirm this truth are numerous, such as:
“You cannot guide the ones you love. God is the only One who guides in accordance with His will, and in accordance with His knowledge of those who deserve the guidance.” 28:56

And in 72:21 the messenger is commanded to proclaim to all people:
“I possess no power to harm you nor to guide you” 72:21

The messenger is a tool and a medium between God and the people, but the messenger cannot change what is in the heart nor can he implant belief into any heart nor can he guide anyone, he can only pass the message:
"The sole duty of the messenger is to deliver the message (Quran)" 5:92

This duty does not only apply to the messenger, it applies to any Imam or teacher or preacher. There are thousands of such teachers all over the world today giving lectures, lessons and sermons. They all try to explain the Quran, but do all their listeners understand the message of the book?

The answer is NO!

The fact that 99.9% of all Muslims today are following a corrupt religion that has little to do with the Quran, and the fact that they are committing “shirk” (associating partners with God) by making the prophet a partner with God in everything they say or do and including his name along side the name of God in every worship practice (shahada, Salat, Hajj, etc), which is contrary to the Quranic command in 6:162 which states that all our worship practices must be dedicated to the name of God alone; all this confirms that despite their numerous scholars, Imams, interpreters and teachers, with all their volumes of 'tafseer' (interpretations/explanations), they have not really understood the simple message of the book. All their teachers could not really explain the principal message of the Quran to them which is to dedicate all our worship rituals and practices to the name of God alone (6:162) and to accept the Quran as the only source of law (6:114).

It remains to remind ourselves with the clear command in 45:6:

“These are God's revelations (Quran) that We recite to you truthfully. In which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?” 45:6

It follows that all who say that we need the hadith because the hadith explains the Quran are in fact showing their utter rejection of the command in 45:6 for not accepting any hadith other than the Quran.

---------------------------------

To conclude, the messenger is authorised to use the Quran alone to preach to the people. The messenger will pass the message of the book to all people and invite all to accept and follow the Quran, but he cannot guide anyone nor guarantee that anyone will attain the true message of the book. And if the messenger cannot guide anyone (72:21), so much for the claim which states that the Hadith offers guidance!

Did you SERIOUSLY just use Chrsitianity as a scapegoat ?! You just used the Bible which is full of unknown writers as a scapegoat ?! If you're so deluded as to put both at the same level then that's YOUR OWN PROBLEM ! Not to mention any theorist can claim the same about Quran using your logic .

Nope, I did not use christiantiy as a scapegoat. I used it as an example as to how a WHOLE nation can be wrong and misguided.

I did that so you would STOP saying that " You are wrong because 99% of muslims disagree with you, a whole nation cannot be wrong".
This isn't an argument and it is fallacious. It is actually called Argumentum ad populum meaning "argument from popularity fallacy".

Do you wanna see how an ENTIRE nation can be wrong? The Quran itself states that it will happen:

The Messenger will say, my Lord, my people have deserted this Qur’an. (25:30)

Side note: Notice that it states that the prophet's people have deserted the Quran. If there was another revelation besides the Quran that Muslims have to believe in, why would Allah neglect to mention it? Wouldn't this be the PERFECT place to put the other revelation the prophet allegedly received?

There's a whole lot of charecteristics hypocrites share and they can't go unnoticed . Any of them deem someone unworthy of narrating even if he's truly a Muslim . Explanation ? Even a Muslim may have some charecteristics of hypocrites and still be a Muslim . That however is a dangerous sign and not an excuse to keep them . As for holding to "They make mistakes" , again , such a mistake wouldn't pass an entire nation unnoticed 

1.) Hypocrites CAN go unnoticed. Liars can also go unnoticed and it happens all the time. Evidence for this is the 698,000+ Hadiths that you believe are not authentic. They were either lies or mistakes. This gives evidence for my point.

2.) A mistake can go to an entire nation unnoticed. It has happened before--in Christianity for example. Again, this isn't an argument.

Hello brother black Muslim, I don't have time to respond to your every claim. So if you don't mind, if there are any claims you feel are really important that I didn't address. Please let me know. I am trying to show you and all the other Muslims the sunnah of ALLAH.

This is about chapter 69: 40-46:

So what do sane people understand from this ? It says that Quran is a revelation from Allah and not something prophet Muhammad peace upon him makes out of his mind . What does that have to do with Sunnah ? Nothing . But you probably think that we're so stupid as to let you fool us with the signs from 44 to 46 . You want to delude yourself that the teachings of the prophet peace upon him are innovations ! When you make such a pathetic attempt , your opponent is Quran itself

It says more than that brother and it is completely about the sunnah.

Quran 69:40, 43-46 [That] indeed, the Qur'an is the word of a noble Messenger...And if Muhammad had made up about Us some sayings,We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut from him the aorta.

The messenger is prohibited from adding his own teachings to the message he received from God (Quran). If he does he would be committing a great error that would incur a severe punishment from God. The hadiths are allegedly the messenger's own teachings besides (Quran). This means that the prophet's alleged sunnah should therefore be rejected.

Najm 1 By the star when it descends, 2 Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, 3 Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. 4 It is not but a revelation revealed,

You claim is that the words "It was divine inspiration" indicate that every word spoken by Muhammad in his life time (or at least since he started receiving the revelation at the age of 40) is to be regarded as being divine inspiration. As a result of this false claim, you  preach that all Muslims must obey every word spoken by the prophet, whether it is Quran or his personal sayings (hadith).

From a linguistic point of view, we note that God says "In Huwa ila wahe yuha" 53:4 ..... this literally translates to (It is nothing but inspiration being inspired). the word "Huwa" is a key word in this verse, it literally means 'it', but that is not all. The word 'it' in English does not give a gender, 'it' could refer to a masculine or a feminine equally. However, in Arabic the word "Huwa" refers to the masculine (as opposed to the word Hiya which refers to the feminine). The word "Huwa" here refers to the Quran which is masculine in gender.

What all this means is that in this verse, God is specifically speaking about the inspiration of the Quran to Muhammad. God is not speaking about every word uttered by Muhammad!!

It is amazing how much corrupting of the Quran you need to do to make it support the lie that there is a second source of revelation other than the Quran!

Nahl 43 And We sent not before you except men to whom We revealed [Our message]. So ask the people of the message if you do not know. 44 [We sent them] with clear proofs and written ordinances. And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.

So you bring up Quran 16:44 again??

You are still missing the point!
you are still turning a blind eye to the command in 45:6
 
please read this verse again where God prohibits us from following ANY hadith other than the Quran.
why do you ignore this command?
 
"These are God's revelations (Quran) that We recite to you truthfully. In which hadith other than God and His revelations (Quran) do they believe?" 45:6
 
In addition, please note the following:
 
1- We are told in the Quran that it is God who explains the true meaning of the Quran:
 
"Al-Rahman, He teaches the Quran" (55:1-2)
 
God is the One who explains the Quran, but he will only explain it to the hearts of those who are satisfied with God alone and God’s word alone.
 
2- The prophet was commanded to follow the recitation of the Quran, but was also reminded that it is God who explains the Quran:
 
[75:16] Do not move your tongue (O Muhammad) to hasten it (the Quran).
[75:17] It is We who will collect it and provide its recitation.
[75:18] Once We recite it, you shall follow such a recitation.
[75:19] Then it is WE who will explain it.
 
Guess what brother!
These glorious words are immediately followed with the words:
 
[77:49] Woe on that day to the rejecters.
[77:50] So in which hadith, other than this (Quran), do they believe?
 
 
3- The Prophet Muhammad was commanded by God to tell the people that he cannot guide them:
 
[72:21] Say (O Muhammad), “I posses no power to harm you, nor to guide you.”
 
If the prophet cannot guide us (all guidance comes from God) how can we say that we can get guidance from the hadith?
 
-------------------------------------------
 
It is important that you take these Quranic words seriously brother, for your own soul,
do not turn a blind eye to the words of God in the Quran.
 
Why is it so difficult to believe all the words of God which I showed you?
 
Do you want to be sorry on Judgement day and say I wish I did not let my ego blind me from the truth?

Quran IS complete when it tells us to follow the teachings of the prophet peace upon him which ARE from Allah . Done . Thridly , changing the translation to "Hadith" only makes you cheaper . And if we take the signs in this premetive way of understanding , then where are the laws of gravity in Quran ? Where is the explanation of calculs in Quran ? Where does it tell us how to cook beef ? Forget that , where does it tell us how to pray ? Where does it tell us WHEN to pray ? ANY and EVERY rejector of Sunnah will contradict himself and fall in an endless pit of confusion with his own belif for rejecting it . 

LIES! The Quran does not tell us in ONE verse to follow another revelation besides it. And This argument (prophet teaches us the meaning of the Quran) falls flat on its face since it contradict the Quran:
 
1- Would God want us to attain the meaning of the Quran through the hadith of the prophet, then command us to believe no hadith other than the Quran (45:6)? Is God contradicting Himself?
 
2- Would God tell us that the prophet will explain the Quran to us then tell us specifically that it is He who explains the Quran (55:1-2) and that the Prophet was not assigned the job of explaining the Quran (75:19)?
 
3- Would God assign the duty of explaining the Quran to the prophet, then also tell us that the ONLY duty of the prophet is to deliver the Quran:
 
[5:99] The sole duty of the messenger is to deliver God’s message, God knows what you reveal and what you conceal.
 
The question after reading all  this is:
Do we believe God’s words, or do we believe the one who makes such claims?

A nice - and failing - attempt pal . Let's take it the other way which you dance around . A teacher tells you your schoolbooks are complete . But to explain them proporly you need to read the textbooks with their notes details . On what planet does that mean the schoolbooks are not complete ? Especially when they tell you to return to the textbooks . PERIOD .

EXACTLY! The issue with the Quran is it did NOT say that you need another source to properly understand the Quran! IN fact, it said quite the contrary!

Are we finally on the same page???

Yet again , you fail miserably in showing any weakness about the science of Hadith . Just empty claims any person can make .

Let's assume for one second that I don't know the science of hadith. Didn't you list some components of the science and didn't I show you its flaws??

wouldn't understand thing the way you desire . First of all , Allah is the source of law

Allah IS the source of law and the source of law is NOT present in the sunnah, it is present in THIS book. Read the verse again:

”Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?” The Word of your Lord is complete in truth and in justice” 6:115

THIS book (Quran) is fully detailed and complete! No exceptions were made in the Quran. That means that following hadiths makes you a disbeliever!

Quran IS complete when it tells us to follow the teachings of the prophet peace upon him which ARE from Allah . Done . Thridly , changing the translation to "Hadith" only makes you cheaper . And if we take the signs in this premetive way of understanding , then where are the laws of gravity in Quran ? Where is the explanation of calculs in Quran ? Where does it tell us how to cook beef ? Forget that , where does it tell us how to pray ? Where does it tell us WHEN to pray ? ANY and EVERY rejector of Sunnah will contradict himself and fall in an endless pit of confusion with his own belif for rejecting it .

The QUran is complete in terms of religious relevance!

If a professor tells you that your textbook has everything you need to know and is complete, you KNOW it means everything that you need to know FOR the course! Meaning this book will give you everything that is relevant! So of course a physics book is not going to discuss poetry. And a literature book is not going to explain calculus! This makes your argument nothign more than a rant.

The QUran doesn't explain calculus because it is not relevant to Islam in terms of worshiping Allah. Just as a biology book doesn't explain poetry because it is not relevant to the study of biology!

Where does the Quran tell us how to pray and when to pray?.....I KNOW you did not mean that. I know that you know where.

The answer is no . You take an entire nation for idiots when you think such lies can pass them all unnoticed .

It has happened in the past, hasn't it? So why are the modern scholars immune?

How about Christianity, huh? How did all these lies get past the scholars unnoticed?

I hope you realize this is not an argument. You are only ranting.

You make it sound as if hypocrites are stealth ninjas which we can never detect . The fact is that Quran itself shows us their charecteristics :

A really good hypocrite would be hard to detect.....Secondly, you forgot about the role of people making honest mistakes in the hadith literature.

So you didn't address my arguments against the 'science' of hadiths, you just said hypocrites are impossible to have existed. What a lie.

Only one fact can let you see for sure that hypocrites did exist and did lie. Bukhari collected 700,000 hadiths and he thought around 2,000 were authentic. That means there were 600,000+ hadiths that were lies probably stated by hypocrites...

So you admit that you're a liar . Anyway , honest people MAY make mistakes , but for the WHOLE nation to notice this mistake

Again, you appeal to the ''whole nation'' crap. A whole nation was wrong before. Take Christianity. 

Again, this isn't an argument. I actually want to see evidence from the Quran that I have to follow hadiths and evidence that the science of hadiths is valid. So far, none were given. What I got instead are a bunch of Quranic misinterpretations and a bad defense of the science of hadiths by appealing to authority and saying the whole nation can't be wrong....Yes ,they can and they have in the past.

So flat out , every single Muslim out there MUST know that it is obligatory to obey the prophet peace upon him in what Allah reveals to him . And if you're going to be stubborn and argue that we shouldn't obey him , then don't dare call yourself a Muslim . It isn't me who says so , it the noble Quran which you are most ignorant of

Yup, but hadiths are not reveled to Muhammad and are not from Muhammad. They are fabrications. In fact, given that 695,000+/700,000 hadiths were shown to be fabrications by Bukhari gives evidence for my claim.

In fact, the Quran tell us the complete opposite:

Quran 69:40, 43-46 [That] indeed, the Qur'an is the word of a noble Messenger...And if Muhammad had made up about Us some sayings [other than this revelation-Quran],We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut from him the aorta.

If narrating things one man after another isn't a good way - in fact , the best - to judge what's valid and what's not , what is ? You just use your ignorance of the basics of this method to justify your doctrine

Narrating things and accepting the narration from the last man is NOT a good way. It fails on it self and renders the last narration unreliable. The best way is to actually hear the words from the prophet and write them down and not spread them to other people.

Now here you assume that there HAS to be hadiths in Islam. You would be wrong, the Quran is sufficient completely on everything relevant to Islam.

”Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?” The Word of your Lord is complete in truth and in justice” 6:115
”This is not fabricated ‘hadith’; this (Quran) confirms all previous scriptures, provides the details of everything, and is a guidance and mercy for those who believe” 12:111
”We have revealed to you this book to provide explanations for everything, and guidance and mercy and good news for the submitters” 16:89

In spite of the very clear words: “fully detailed”, “details of everything” and “explanations for everything” the corrupt interpreters somehow still claim that the Quran does not include all the details! Sadly, they claim that the Quran has only mentioned the major outlines of the religion while as the details of everyday rituals are only to be found in the Hadith and Sunna!

These false claims only go to expose these people’s ignorance of the Quran, and also their disbelief in God's words.

What does Allah mean by EVERYTHING?
If a professor tells you, your textbook is complete contains everything and made no exceptions--What are you going to believe? You are going to say that the textbook has everything that is relevant to the course. That does not mean that you can go to another textbook and say that "this other textbook has things relevant to the course that is not in the textbook the professor authorized" The only things that are relevant in the course is everything in the professor's textbook. If any other textbook contains anything else that is not mentioned in the professor's textbook, it is NOT relevant to the course. PERIOD.

I don't know where Muslims make this false claims. They are disbelievers of the Quran and Allah's word.

Then you state certain requirements in the science of hadiths. I will show how they are unreliable

The connection of the chain . This means that if someone tells something about a person he can't prove he met - or died before he was ever born - then the narration is dropped at once .

Can't a fabricator prove he met someone but lie about what the person he met means? The answer is Yes.

Justice of the narrators . This means that not anyone is accepted in narrating . They must be known by name (معلوم العين) and honesty (معلوم الحال) .

Can't a fabricator be a hypocrite and being perceived as being honest and then LIE about the chain of narration and list honest people to make it seem like his narration is true? Yes again.

Adjustment of narrators . It means that the narrators need to have good memory in what they talk about . When someone narrates the same thing the same way to different people at different times , that's a sign of a solid memory .

The fabricator can have good memory in what he fabricated and narrate the same fabrication every time to pass his sick twisted agenda.

So as you have seen these methods are unreliable and not a science not to mention that even honest people can make big mistakes! In fact, I could be considered an honest Muslims to my friends, yet have an atom's weight of dishonesty and I want to pass on an Islamic agenda that I THINK will be good for Islam. Therefore, I will lie about where I got the narration and make it an authoritative source so people believe me. I will remember my lie very well because I made it up.

Now you call this a conspiracy theory and that people don't do this. But Bukhari collected 700,000 hadiths are 99% of them were lies. This supports my belief.

As for the absurdity of "Narrators could have fabricated chains" , even though the last points I made show that it's impossible for such a thing to go unnoticed , I'll play your game and ask : How do I know that Quran is from Allah and not an innovation of humans ? Because it says that it is from Allah ? Nah , that's circular reasoning . How do I know it wasn't altered or corrupted ? Because it says that it didn't ?

The last points you made do not show that it is impossible for a narrator PERCEIVED as being honest but is actually a hypocrite in lying about the chain of narration. Moreover, honest people can make big mistakes and say something false about a narration unwittingly.

How do I know that the Quran is preserved and from Allah? The number 19 code of the Quran let's us know that unless people in the past had computers, they wouldn't be able to make a book with such a strong numerical consistency.

Spamming "The majority of these narrations are pure lies" might work when you argue with 3 years old or mentally challenged individuals , but not with someone who has the slightest bits of common sense

you are gonna need to do better than insult my argument. If all of those hadiths (700,000+_were fabrications, then it is likely that the ones we have were also fabrications and now we know that people in the past LIED about the prophet Muhammad. This (combined with the flaws in hadith collection) therefore renders hadiths unreliable. Moreover, the Quran tells us to not believe in ANYTHING with respect to religion unless it is in the Quran.

So Ahmad bin Hanbal - رحمه الله - was careul with narrations and wouldn't just accept anything told to him .

You missed the point. My point was, there are so many lies in hadiths and so many people lied about the prophet. This means that hadiths are fundamentally unreliable.

Ahmad bin Hanbal is also a human being. He is not infallible. He would obviously accept hadiths that fit his perception as being correct. Even he made a BIG mistake into collecting hadiths based on a flawed science of hadith collection.

And although it's true that the people of falsehood tried to corrupt it , it doesn't mean they succeeded

Oh, they did succeed at fabrications. There are lies in sahih hadiths that do not agree with the Quran or science. Lies upon lies upon lies.

Here is an example of the success of the fabricator:

Book 039, Hadith Number 6707.
------------------------------
Chapter : The beginning of the creation and the creation of Adam (peace be upon him).

Abu Haraira reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) took hold of my hands and said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created the clay on Saturday and He created the mountains on Sunday and He created the trees on Monday and He created the things entailing labour on Tuesday and created light on Wednesday and lie caused the animals to spread on Thursday and created Adam (peace be upon him) after 'Asr on Friday; the last creation at the last hour of the hours of Friday, i.e. between afternoon and night.

^This was deemed a sahih hadith. LOL. Now, you would say that some modern islamic scholars disregard this hadith. I would agree with you, BUT, the point was lies did make it to the "sahih" hadiths.

This hadith provides evidence for the fact that

1.) the hadith collection science is flawed
2.) Fabricators have been fabricating in our hadiths
3.) The hadith collectors made mistakes and are not trustworthy

Moreover there are hadiths that sahih Muslim says are reliable taht bukhari doesn't. So these hadith collectors themselves disagree on which one is true.

Given the commands in the Quran, the flaws in the hadith science, the fact that many hadiths were fabrications and lies we should abandon all such pictures altogether.

We need to be Muslim. We need to follow the commands of Allah.

Quran 45:6 These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement other than Allah and His verses (these verses) will they believe?

Let's break this verse down. The beginning of the verse talks about the Quran. THESE are the verses of Allah in which we recite to you in truth. It is speaking of the Quran. You MUST agree with this as any honest person would. A sentence later, Allah tells you in what statement other than THESE verses will YOU believe? That clearly means that the message include ONLY these verses. Nothing else.

What does that verse tell you?! Honestly ask yourself this: Does that sound like Allah wants you to follow something else besides these verses (Quran)? How could any honest person possibly say that sounds like Allah wants us to follow hadiths.


The verses that come immediately after are:

(Quran 45:7-8)  Woe to every sinful liar, Who hears the verses of Allah recited to him, then persists arrogantly as if he had not heard them. So give him tidings of a painful punishment. And when he knows anything of Our verses, he takes them in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment.

You are being tested by Allah as we speak. Are you a sinful liar who hears the clear verses of Allah and then you persist arrogantly as if you had not heard them? If so (which I know you are), then I am giving you tidings of a punishment as Allah ordered me.  And when you read Quran 45:6, you take it in ridicule. Indeed, you will have a humiliating punishment if you persist in this kufr. The only religious statement you are allowed to believe is in THESE verses (Allah's verses).




 

The issue with the Jinn being bacteria is that Jinn are beings with free-will and conscious thoughts. Bacteria are not beings with free-will and conscious thoughts, therefore bacteria are not jinn.

I will quickly summarize a flaw in the 'science' of hadith collection and one important point in the collection of these fabrications. I would also like to remind everyone the Quran leaves absolutely NO room for that nonsense. Although Brother Osama takes a view that some hadiths are pointless, I take the view that there is NO other source besides the Quran. Brother Osama asserts that hadith are just supplements to the Quran and if they woudl only explain the Quran. Firstly the Quran makes no mention of that, secondly, even IF the hadiths would just agree with the Quran, then what is the point of following hadiths if all there valid contents are already in the Quran?


Now a quick run through of a flaw in the hadith (or shall I call it the telephone game or chinese whispers)

Flaw 1) The Quran says NOTHING or even mentions the hadiths or following them. If the Quran is the only source of law and says nothing of hadiths and tells us to not follow any other book, then following hadiths are not a commandment from Allah. And if you are a follower of hadiths you are NOT a Muslim (submitter). You disregarded Allah's strict commandment.

Flaw 2) The 'science' of hadiths is bad philosophy and hardly a science. First of all hadiths are chinese whispers, it is like the telophone game in elementary school where you whisper things to student and the student whispers to the next in the whole class. How often is the last whisper the same as the original? Secondly, the hadith collectors decided to collect hadiths and call them 'sahih' based on the character of the hadith whisper chain. Now the issue is, couldn't the fabricator also fabricate the chain of narrations. I could go on and on, but I will later.

Flaw 3) The number of hadiths collected and attributed to the prophet Muhammed is in the hundreds of thousands, as much as 700,000. The majority of these hadith are pure lies and fabrications and were rejected by the early Muslim scholars who thought they can figure out which hadith is authentic and which is not. Let us look at some of the famous hadiths collectors and what they collected.

• Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, collected about 40,000 hadiths, in his famous "Musnad".He chose these 40,000 hadiths from among 700,000 hadiths. In other words he thought 660,000 hadith were un-proven, lies and/or fabrications and the others may be authentic. That is 94% lies and fabrications
• Bukhari collected about 600,000 hadiths and accepted 7275 hadiths and considered 592,725 hadiths to be un-proven hadiths, lies and/or fabrications, that is almost 99% of what he collected .
• Moslem collected 300,000 hadiths and only accepted 4000 of them, and refused about 296,000, that is almost 99% of these collected hadiths .

This gives us an idea of how much corruption entered or tried to enter Islam from the back door. Now we should understand why God promised to preserve, protect and safeguard His book which is described as the only authentic hadith, the only acceptable hadith and the best hadith.

IF that is how much corruption entered in the hadiths, then that should make you think about the nature of hadiths and how they are nothing more than fabrications. I'm sure Bukhari and Moslem are infallible and they would pick the right ones. LOL!! 700,000 hadiths, 99% corruption according to Bukhari. Again LOL 

What does the Quran say about that:

[Quran 6:112] And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy - devils from mankind and jinn, inspiring to one another decorative speech in delusion. But if your Lord had willed, they would not have done it, so leave them and that which they invent.


I believe that all of my beliefs are rational and reasonable. I am open minded and I would be 100% willing to dump a dead belief system. Hadiths are that belief system. You'd have to reach a new height in irrationality to believe in that nonsense even despite the Quran tells us NOT to.

Quran 69:40, 43-46 [That] indeed, the Qur'an is the word of a noble Messenger...And if Muhammad had made up about Us some sayings [besides the Quran],We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut from him the aorta.

^Muhammad can not make up ANYTHING about Islam/Allah. All he could say about Allah is what is in the Quran. Now you have some hadiths that say things like Jinn make babies cry or that Allah does this and does that and they are NOT in the Quran...

Unfortunately Muslims don't like to question their beliefs even though the Quran tells them to.

This topic is the MOST important topic in the atheism/theism worldviews.

Once you can get atheists to accept the rational position and accept the possibility that the world we observe may not be the whole world or the real world, you can give them an edge of allowing them to reach the right path. Earlier, I have stated that naturalism is unjustified and presented reasons why.

Here is another argument to show that naturalism is unjustified.

1.) If the human mind and senses are limited, they cannot understand/sense every aspect of the world
2.) The human mind and senses are limited
3.) Therefore the human mind and senses cannot understand/sense every aspect of the world.

In order for the atheist to debunk this argument, he must disagree with either premise #1 or #2. If not the conclusion follows. Now premise one is obvious. If a mind is limited, then its function is limited. Just as a limited calculator will make limited calculations. Premise 2 is supported by science completely and there are senses in which we do not posses. So the conclusion follows, there are aspects of the world we don't and can't understand.

Now the naturalist asserts that the natural world is all there is because of a lack of evidence for the supernatural world. The problem is there is a lack of evidence because there CANNOT be evidence of something we can't observe. Remember the deep sea fish analogy.  The blind deep sea fish does not have evidence that beings exist outside the deep sea and that is because the blind deep sea fish CANNOT have such evidence. In that case, the deep sea fish would be unjustified in stating that the deep sea is all there is just as the naturalist is unjustified in stating the natural world is all there is. What we find is that the deep sea fish was not only unjustified in its beliefs but is WRONG. Just as wrong as the naturalist may be.

The naturalist/atheist expects physics to discover everything about reality. But as I have shown earlier, physics and science are limited in scope. That is to say that physics cannot tell us what is beyond the universe. As we go back in time, physics stops at the beginning of the universe. So, of course, physics, which operates only within the universe, knows nothing of things outside of the universe. Just because physics is unable to tell us what is beyond the universe and that we cannot leave our universe to observe what is beyond, does NOT mean that there is no beyond. Just because the deep sea fish cannot leave the deep sea, does not mean there is no beyond.

I will continue with future arguments against naturalism.

There is a growing trend in modern society for people to be naturalists. Naturalism is the belief that the natural world is all there is and that there is nothing beyond the natural world. This viewpoint leaves no room for God nor anything outside of the natural realm. My major point here is that belief in naturalism is unjustified!

Naturalism uses a tool known as science. It is actually like a form of scientism which states that the world is governed by only natural laws and that there is nothing beyond the natural (observable/detectable/verifiable) universe.

It is unreasonable to say that things could exist beyond the natural world. This is because we cannot know about such things as we can only observe/detect/measure/verify ONLY things that exist in the natural world. If there is something that we cannot observe/measure/verify/detect, then we wouldn't be able to perceive it. So if it is possible that there are things that we cannot perceive, how can we deny the existence of those things?

Science requires the use of things that we could experiment on/test. Science is all about detectability / observability / verifiability. Now the question is, what if there is something that we cannot measure/observe/verify/detect? Science cannot answer if such things exist so it cannot be determined that such things exist as per naturalistic explanation because the nature of the entity is not within the scope of science/naturalism.

To restate, science deals with things we can observe/measure/verify/detect. If something is timeless/space-less/transcendent and it created space-time (and matter and energy), then it cannot be observed/measured/verified/detected! Things we can observe/measure/verify/detect are only things that exist in the Universe.  God by definition is the creator of the universe, space, time, matter and energy! This means that he is not composed of such things and that he is outside of the universe (transcendent). God exists outside of the universe and the scope of science includes only things that exist in the universe therefore God's existence is beyond science's scope.

The premises could go like this:

1.) The scope of Science/naturalism includes only things we can detect, observe, measure, or verify
2.) We cannot detect, observe, measure, or verify things outside of space-time (matter, energy, time)
3.) Therefore things outside of space-time are not within the scope of naturalism


Premise 1 and premise 2 are universally agreed by all scientists and philosophers. So the conclusion follows, therefore there is no good reason to support naturalism.

With this in mind, we cannot discover anything outside of naturalism's scope. So it is no surprise that we cannot discover God. It is because God is outside the natural world. He created the natural world. How can we observe God is he is outside of space-time and all we can observe have to exist within space-time?

An analogy to the belief in Naturalism would be that of a deep sea fish. Imagine a blind deep sea fish state that "nothing exists beyond the deep ocean, the deep ocean is all there is". The fish is clearly wrong as we do exist beyond the deep sea. not only that, the Fish's belief is unjustified. How could it state that nothing exists beyond the deep ocean if it cannot observe things outside of the deep sea. Just as the deep sea fish is unjustified, we are unjustified in stating that nothing exists beyond the universe. How can we state that if we cannot observe anything beyond the universe (space-time, matter, energy), they do not exist?? The deep sea fish is unjustified in its belief and atheists/naturalists need to understand that their belief is just as unjustified. They need to make more rational and modest claims about reality and the world.

Conclusion: Naturalism and Anti-super-naturalism is an unjustified position.

This should also defeat the idiotic claim that "God doesn't exist because we don't have physical evidence for God". Of course we don't have physical evidence for God. We can't, he is outside of space-time therefore outside the scope of science. We can't measure anything beyond space-time/matter/energy.

It is no surprise that we get naturalistic explanations for the natural world and that we don't get naturalistic explanations of the super-naturalistic world.

Assalamualykum.


 Thanks to all for your answers. And brother mclinkin, you can't just say there is nothing called Dajjal. As brother Osama mentioned, Dajjal might not be an individual but a system which is operating in our present world.

The better question to ask is, if the Quran has informed us that it has ALL the details pertaining to Islam and that we are not to believe in any statement pertaining to Islam besides the Quran, why do you believe in the Dajjal? And why do you think that the Dajjal is pertaining to Islam?

Of course, the Quran informs us that the life of this world is a test and has many delusions and lies. So in that interpretation, there have always been dajjals and there are many of them. But there is no dajjal as the hadith describes.