Khiladi says to MrMuss: Really, I am amazed at your comprehension level.

LOL sounds familiar doesn't it...sucker

muss,

i don't do research for you because you're not my professor. It is very simple really, I do research for a reason. So give me a reason to WHY I need to find five munafiq names killed by these sahabs. What really is the significance of this besides your own satisfaction of randomly coming up with something that you can hold against them?

If you want to ignore the above paragraph altogether, then just answer this. Where is there any kind of hadith from the Prophet s.a.w. that says to be a good companion or a reliable one, you HAVe to kill five munafiqs. IF you please, that would be a good enough reason for me to research it, since it's from the Prophet s.a.w. If it's just your own intuition that makes you trhink the fact that they may or may not have killed 5 hypocrites justifies how great they are...then well, that's just not good enough.

Is that straightforward enough for you?

MrMuss..

This is actually getting quite laughable.

What is the point numbering everything if you're going to ignore my questions?

Why don't you take a little survey in this village about who is answering questions in comments between you and I, and than we will see the responses. Because, usually your brethren seem to stop short after given evidence, and only stubborness of a certain individual persists in responding with long cut-and-paste jobs of totally irrelevant material, such as an introduction to the work of a translation of Bukhari by Dr. Muhsin Khan.

You mention hadith specialists, yet scholars that studied hadith for years but who are respected by others, you can dismiss out of hand. You must know something they missed during their lives.

Ah, the standard polemical argument. "You must know something they missed during their lives." If this is what you call a response, than really your judgement really falls incredibly short. Do you know who Imam Nawawi (R) is? How many years did he live before me? Do the criticisms of the hadeeth specialists of certain personalities WHO I QUOTE THAT EXISTED LONG BEFORE ME, and the basis on which the argument is made is anything NEW? Please provide your evidence...

Again, the question I asked:
"could you please explain how so many 'weak' (read 'unreliable' hadith are present into your Sahih - I am presuming you know what the word means - book after all the precautions taken by it's author?"

Wow... you've moved to a huge generalization... How many weak hadeeth did I quote MrMuss.. out of over many thousand hadeeth, tell me how many of them I quoted that make "so-many hadeeth' weak. Really, is this the extent of your criticism?

Seeing as you are now also an expert on Shia matters, please explain that if Az-Zuhri was such a lover of the Shia why did az-Zhuri why he fabricated a hadith which said that Imam Ali and his uncle al-Abbas would be among the people of Hell?

Can you provide where the 'hadeeth' is? If Zuhri is such an unreliable narrator, why are you using hadeeth from Zuhri that stain Umar (R)?

Have you even answered the question why Umar ibn Badul Aziz appointed him, if what you say is true? Wait a minute... did you avoid that question also?

Before you want to get worked up next time just because your point is refuted and claim that it is "ABSOLUTELY GROUNDLESS", do your research. The logic that you displayed is a true revelation of your ignorance. Subhan'Allah.

Please refrain from using that beautiful phrase in the context of your PETTY ACCUSATION against me THAT IS GROUNDLESS...

Oh, the same hadith specialists that you dismiss when their teachings don't suit you?

hmmm.. interesting... can you provide the evidence where I rejected the 'same' hadeeth specialists when it suits me? Or are you simply rebuking an imaginary concept in front of your head?

Calm down.

Nice try MrMuss...

Where in the hadith does it say that he was on his own?

Actually, you ARE THE ONE making the accusation, and considering even according to you, he left and went to Abu Bakr (R), where do you substantiate the baseless opinion.

Nice try MrMuss... but you haven't proven a SINGLE THING.

You yourself mentioned that Muslim writes - Yes I know you said "THIS ADDITION OF THE NARRATOR is in actuality taken most likely from the following narration" but since you're now guessing yourself, let us take what Muslim writes - that he went to Abu Bakr in a rage (clearly, the Prophet's answers were not good enough) and went and asked the same questions again.

Really, I am amazed at your comprehension level.

The hadeeth in Muslim CLEARLY STATES IT WAS AN ADDITION OF THE NARRATOR. I stated that this addition most likely was taken from the narration of Bukhari, WHICH COMES FROM AZ-ZUHRI. And we already elaborated on Az-Zuhri... should I sell it out to you in CAPITAL LETTERS so that you can understand it?

Does that not amount to the same thing? Are his questions not suggesting that he thought it was wrong for Muhammad SAW to seek peace with Quraysh.

So now it's gone from questioning of the prophetgood to a disagreement with the Treaty... I like how you continually argue to try and stain Umar (R)...

Wow... since when did I object to Umar (R) not agreeing with it. What did I say? When Allah revealed the verse that "We have granted you a manifest victory", it clearly points out to the fact that immediately after it was REVEALED, this consoled once and for all the Companions (R), who ahd set out to perform umrah.


If you want to see accounts of what happened, just read your own books. You will then also come across how Umar later said that he never had more doubts on the truthfulness of the Prophet than he had on that day; which in turn implies that he had doubts on other occasions. Of course, no doubt, those books will be now be no good for you either...

WHy is the standard shia responde, read your own books.. I mean it's like a broken record... read your own books.. when the books are read, and the criticism of those that read our own books is made, they than say,

"if this is the case, than you need to reject all your books'... as if the scholars of the past haven't been engaging the books in this manner for well over hundreds of years... it's nothing new... just the fact that your shia propagandists spew forth this argument based upon your ignorance has led you people to parrot it...

Since we're on what is mentioned and what is not, where in your hadith that your first 3 Chaliphs killed even 5 Munafike'en in the battles of Islam?

Why do you keep shifting topics?

Now that you have what happened in front of you, I again ask where Umar gives similar reasoning?

Actually, I knwo the story quite well..

You mean that when Ali (R) refuses to obey the Prophet because He believes it is DISHONORING the Messenger of God, and Umar gets upset to not obey the Treaty because it is DISHONORING the religion of God it is two different examples of logic?

Wow.. no wonder you quote totally irrelevant material...

Khiladi:

What is the point numbering everything if you're going to ignore my questions?

You mention hadith specialists, yet scholars that studied hadith for years but who are respected by others, you can dismiss out of hand. You must know something they missed during their lives.

Again, the question I asked:
"could you please explain how so many 'weak' (read 'unreliable') hadith are present into your Sahih - I am presuming you know what the word means - book after all the precautions taken by it's author?"

Seeing as you are now also an expert on Shia matters, please explain that if Az-Zuhri was such a lover of the Shia why did az-Zhuri why he fabricated a hadith which said that Imam Ali and his uncle al-Abbas would be among the people of Hell? Before you want to get worked up next time just because your point is refuted and claim that it is "ABSOLUTELY GROUNDLESS", do your research. The logic that you displayed is a true revelation of your ignorance. Subhan'Allah.

"You mean textual criticism, which has been going one for thousand years in the Muslim ummah by the hadeeth specialists is called highlighting selected parts?"

Oh, the same hadith specialists that you dismiss when their teachings don't suit you?

"IN FRONT OF MANY PEOPLE'... WHERE IN THE HADEETH IS THEIR QUESTIONING IN FRONT OF MANY PEOPLE..."

Calm down.

Where in the hadith does it say that he was on his own?

You yourself mentioned that Muslim writes - Yes I know you said "THIS ADDITION OF THE NARRATOR is in actuality taken most likely from the following narration" but since you're now guessing yourself, let us take what Muslim writes - that he went to Abu Bakr in a rage (clearly, the Prophet's answers were not good enough) and went and asked the same questions again. Does that not amount to the same thing? Are his questions not suggesting that he thought it was wrong for Muhammad SAW to seek peace with Quraysh.

If you want to see accounts of what happened, just read your own books. You will then also come across how Umar later said that he never had more doubts on the truthfulness of the Prophet than he had on that day; which in turn implies that he had doubts on other occasions. Of course, no doubt, those books will be now be no good for you either...

Since we're on what is mentioned and what is not, where in your hadith that your first 3 Chaliphs killed even 5 Munafike'en in the battles of Islam?

It seems I am going to have to walk you through what happen with Ali.

Dictating to Ali, the Prophet said: "Write, In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Beneficent." Suhayl, the Makkan envoy, at once raised objection, and said, "Do not write this. Instead, write, ?In Thy name O Allah.'" The Prophet complied with this demand.

The Prophet next asked Ali to write: "This is a treaty of peace between Muhammad, the Messenger of God and the Quraysh..." Suhayl again objected, and said: "If we had acknowledged you a messenger of God, why would we be fighting against you? Therefore, do not write the words, ?the Messenger of God,' and write only your own name and the name of your father."

The Prophet was agreeable to comply with this demand also but Ali had already written the words, "Muhammad, the Messenger of God," and he refused to delete them. He said to his master: "This high rank has been bestowed upon you by Allah Himself, and I shall never delete the words ?Messenger of Allah' with my hand." Thereupon, the Prophet took the pen in his own hand, and deleted the words which were offensive to the idolaters.

Now that you have what happened in front of you, I again ask where Umar gives similar reasoning?


The_keeper:

Masha'Allah. Since you are an active researcher and have a motive to learn, please find us the name of the five people that I asked so that everyone else may learn also.

Umer2281:

"What hole? you notice how everyone who is in a discussion with you keeps commenting on ur defciency in understanding arguments. No buddy, there is no hole. This shared sentiment we have about you is a testament to that. Sucker..."

Clearly you haven't noticed that we are discussing different points of view. Do you think I am expecting praise from any of you? Are you really that naive? (Khiladi: Are these questions implying that Umer can see what should be obvious?)

Come on mehnaz, all you have to do is read my thread before it, geez.

thekeeper, exactly the credibility of what are you referring to?

Yahh, it was . . . wasn't it? No point in going off topic so I'll erase my comments as well lol

what r u talking about? i thought this thread was about the rightly guided caliphs.

LOL, Umer2281, looks like you don't just look like a retarded turd anymore . . .

DesiHulk: lol looks like you don't know how to read either.

no doubt The_keeper...

in fact, they also fail to mention that Allah was cleansing the Companions from their faults, as well as exposing the hypocrites. This was one of the reasons for the various battles. Further, certain methods after a particular period in revelation were also adopted to expose the hypocrites even further. Among them, certain conditions on praying at the masjid. This is precisely why we see narrations of the Prophet (S) saying the hardest prayer for a hypocrite is the fajr prayer and the isha prayer.

This was a revelational period that the very Sahabah (R) were witnessing before THEIR VERY EYES. They became witnesses of this truth, according to the Quran, to mankind. IT WAS NO JOKE, and these people make it like it is.

Yet this credibility factor, as much as evertyhing is centered around it here, they ignore it completely because it wouldn't benefit them to accept that.

thing is khiladi, nobody addresses the hadiths here that the Prophet has always mentioned his sahaba in good faith. Then furthermore, they will only tell us how perfect bukhari is FOR US, despite NONE OF US ever claiming perfection of it, and pointing to a couple of weak hadiths and telling us our PERFECT narrations are faulty. And even funnier how they ignore that we believe in levels of authenticity of narrations.

Like come on, do you people actually read and respond or do you just selectively pick and choose in your favour?...

The_keeper..

it's not really about weaker, because it has its benefits..
if you notice, Imam Bukhari has compiled more than ONE VERSION of the event, through DIFFERENT NARRATORS... so it is here where we can analyze what is true and what is not... this is further researched through other compilations...

we can also determine the 'credibility' of a narrator with respect to the 'same' narrations that are recorded through other narrators... this as well as looking at the biographies of rijal... the discussion of hadeeth specialists on particular narrators...

One more point regarding Muhsin Khan's translation as it relates to the authenticity of Bukhari. The late Shaykh Al-Albani, despite certain disagreements I have with him, whom is very well respected among the likes of Dr. Muhsin Khan, has himself declared weaknesses in certain narrations of Bukhari and Muslim. So does this constitute absolute unconditional perfection of Bukhari?

Muss,

what kind of proofs HAVe you showed me?...you come in here and try to tell us how great bukhari is and genuine and find the weakest of hadiths in there to say, see?...there is your great bukhari. I'm completely opening my mind here and trying to undetrstand your perspective butyou're all over the place.

About me waiting here and not researching, that is a very nice assumption, oh well, so much for listening to the Prophet s.a.w. about not making assumptions. I am reading books in parallel and listening to lectures. I don't "sit around and wait for" you to come back here man, I have a life a job, and a motive to learn. If you don't like to beleive that, then that's your shortcoming not mine.

then you go and blindly mention abu bakr and umar burning this and that and those. Where is your evidence that you are so proudly "coming at me with every time we debate something" as you would say. Come on man, people need to think before they talk here. This is getting old.

Some awesome rebuttals, MrMuss but let me give you a quick sumamry of the responses that you will, invariably, get lol. "Mr. Muss, here we go again in circles because you are not willing to admit that the views and beliefs I was born with are categorically correct and yours are completely wrong, fabricated and innaccurate. MrMuss, you are dumb and lack basic comprehension skills. Some people here persist on committing biddaa (naudubillah) and excess exhAultation of entities other than Allah." Yeah, some real budding divinity school PHds we have in the house here lol.

" And keep making your excuses; you're just making the hole deeper..."

What hole? you notice how everyone who is in a discussion with you keeps commenting on ur defciency in understanding arguments. No buddy, there is no hole. This shared sentiment we have about you is a testament to that. Sucker...

MrMuss,

So now your going to give me a full length discussion on the compilation of Bukhari as if this answers the criticisms I made...

It has been unanimously agreed that Imam Bukhari's work is the most authentic of all the other works in Hadith literature put together. The authenticity of Al-Bukhari's work is such that the religious learned scholars of Islam said concerning him: "The most authentic book after the Book of Allah (i.e. Al-Qur'an) is Sahih-Al-Bukhari."

1. It is not UNANIMOUSLY agreed that Bukhari's work is the most authentic work of hadeeth literature put together. In fact, certain scholars hold Muslim's account as more authentic, and some even consider the Muwatta as more authentic, because the hadeeth's recorded delineate on whether a particular hadeeth has been accompanied by practice.

2. Imam Nawawi (R) clearly has stated that a hadeeth that is AHAD always indicates a probability of doubt. Thus even if a hadeeth is recorded in BOTH Bukhari and Muslim, though ahad, it is NOT without possibility of doubt. The only way a hadeeth, according to the scholars, becomes authentic is if it attains the state of mutawattir, and even here, among the ahl-fiqh and ahl-hadeeth there are different standards.

3. Even if we were to accept your argument, just to play the game for a little bit, where in the statement 'most authentic of all works put together' mean DEVOID OF POSSIBILITY OF ERROR. Where does it state anywhere in the introduction that Bukhari is as authentic as the Quran?

4. And than you bring up Muhsin Khan to justify your point... That in itself is laughable. Have you read his translation of the Quran, where he himself does his own mudraj?

5. Also, you implied in another post that Az-Zuhri was a follower of the Shia. You are incorrect, he is considered as an enemy of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS). You may read in Ibn al Hadeed's Sharh Nahj ul Balagha:

"Zuhri ibn Shab possessed a heart filled with enmity towards Hadhrath 'Ali". I hope this allows you to retract your false claim.

This claim is ABSOLUTELY GROUNDLESS. In fact, Az-Zuhri was appointed by Umar ibn Abdul Aziz to compile hadeeth works, and everybody knows the piety and love Umar ibn Abdul Aziz had for the ahl-bayt. According to the shia, he (R) was the one who allegedly stopped the cursing of Ali (R) that was initiated by Muawiya... I love how shia contradict themselves. In fact, I stated that Zuhri was known for MUDRAJ, and other defects in hadeeth narrations.

6. You can use all the different sayings you want and highlight in all of the selected parts that please you, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that he was questioning the Prophet's reasons to accepting the Hudaybiyya Treaty only days after making a pledge of fealty to him. What reasons did he have to question the Prophet in front of so many people? Did he not trust him to do what is best for Islam? In the incident with Ali (AS), he is not questioning the Prophet SAW so please show me where the parallel is.

Highlight selected parts??? You mean textual criticism, which has been going one for thousand years in the Muslim ummah by the hadeeth specialists is called highlighting selected parts? You know... I think this worries you, because it simply devastated your whole argument. Now you've shifted the argument to 'questioning IN FRONT OF MANY PEOPLE'... WHERE IN THE HADEETH IS THEIR QUESTIONING IN FRONT OF MANY PEOPLE...

It is not denial of prophetood now, but questioning in front of many people... you see how things are being twisted by you people...

7. Did he not trust him to do what is best for Islam? In the incident with Ali (AS), he is not questioning the Prophet SAW so please show me where the parallel is.

He did not question but HE REFUSED to obey the Prophet (S)... so going with your analogies, while Umar simply questioned, Ali (R) did not even obey the command. It's even worse if I follow the conclusions or your logic. Did Ali (R) not trust that what the Prophet (S) was doing was best for Islam by erasing Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?

Are you just writing random sentences for the sake of it? Where is the Prophet of Islam in that paragraph? But to answer your question, I have always trusted whatever decision my Father has taken as I know that he only does what is best for the family. And if you have difficulty in believing that then so-be-it

There is no Prophet of Islam in this paragrapg... it's called an anlogy to demonstrate your failure in appreciating the style of language...

Khiladi:

Please read the following:

"It has been unanimously agreed that Imam Bukhari's work is the most authentic of all the other works in Hadith literature put together. The authenticity of Al-Bukhari's work is such that the religious learned scholars of Islam said concerning him: "The most authentic book after the Book of Allah (i.e. Al-Qur'an) is Sahih-Al-Bukhari."...

Many a story has been told about Imam Bukhari in his struggles in collecting Hadith literature. He travelled to many different places gathering the precious gems that fell from the lips of the noble Prophet Muhammad. It is said that Imam Bukhari collected over 300,000 Hadiths and he himself memorized 200,000 of which some where unreliable. He was born at a time when Hadith was being forged either to please rulers or Kings or to corrupt the religion of Islam.

It was a great task for him to sift the forged Hadiths from the authentic ones. He laboured day and night and although he had memorised such a large number he only chose approximately 7275 of which there is NO DOUBT about their authenticity.

Before he recorded each Hadith, he would make ablution and offer a two Rak?at prayer and supplicate his Lord (Allah). Many religious scholars of Islam tried to find fault in the great remarkable collection of `Sahih-Al-Bukhari' but without success. It's for this reason they unanimously agreed that the most authentic book after the Book of Allah is Sahih-Al-Bukhari.

Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan
Islamic University
Medina AI-Munawwara
(Saudi Arabia)"

Now read the following praising the author and the nature of the translation:

"I have persued a little portion of this translation and found that the translator has succeeded in rendering the meanings of "Al-Jami' As-Sahih" (Sahih al-Bukhari) into English in a simple comprehensible style free from complications. I have also noticed that he has chosen successfully the best and most authentic interpretation of some Hadiths that are interpreted differently by different scholars.

Dr. Mahmud Hamad As-Sudani did his best to check the whole translation. The second revision was done by Mr. Shakir Nasif Al-Ubaydi. Finally, Dr. Muhammad Taqiy-ad-Din Al-Hilali checked the translation with the translator Dr. M.M. Khan thoroughly and minutely, doing his utmost to correct the minor mistakes he detected, till the translation acquired a high degree of precision.

May Allah bountifully reward whoever has participated in this benevolent work; and may He make people benefit by it.

I am perfectly sure that the translation, with Allah's help and after all the great efforts exerted in its production, has neared perfection.

In Allah's Hands are all means of success. And Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

MUHAMMAD AMIN AL-MISRI
Ph.D. Cambridge Univ.,
Advisor & Head of Shari'a Department
College of Shari'a and Islamic Studies,
Mecca Al-Mukarrama."

Since the translation is now out of question, could you please explain how so many "weak" (read "unreliable") hadith are present into your Sahih - I am presuming you know what the word means - book after all the precautions taken by it's author?

Also, you implied in another post that Az-Zuhri was a follower of the Shia. You are incorrect, he is considered as an enemy of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS). You may read in Ibn al Hadeed's Sharh Nahj ul Balagha:
"Zuhri ibn Shab possessed a heart filled with enmity towards Hadhrath 'Ali". I hope this allows you to retract your false claim.

"You are biased and predujice, and this is what clearly makes you 'justify' the behavior of Ali and not the behavior of Umar... that's why you never even thought for a moment that Abu Bakr (R) was not 'doubting Muhammad's prophethood' in this situation... It clearly shows what your intention is..."

Of course I did but since we weren't dealing with Abu Bakr but trying to understand the actions of Umar, the role he played wasn't important. We can deal with him when the time comes, but I am glad you finally realised that I am not a fan of most of your Khulufa. It wasn't always that way though.

You can use all the different sayings you want and highlight in all of the selected parts that please you, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that he was questioning the Prophet's reasons to accepting the Hudaybiyya Treaty only days after making a pledge of fealty to him. Was his love of Islam so great that he thought he should question the Prophet SAW in front of other people? Did he not trust Allah's Messenger to do what is best for Islam? You and I never saw the Holy Rasul but are willing to accept Him without question. Surely someone who was in his company would have been able to show more faith than you or I could. If you trust someone so much, why the need for so many questions? In the incident with Ali (AS), he is not questioning the Prophet SAW so please show me where the parallel is.

"Wow... you mean if your father owned a piece of property, and some guy came along and stated that your father and you cannot walk on this property this year, and your father agrees to it, what would you say?"

Are you just writing random sentences for the sake of it? Where is the Prophet of Islam in that paragraph? But to answer your question, I have always trusted whatever decision my Father has taken as I know that he only does what is best for the family. And if you have difficulty in believing that then so-be-it.

The_keeper:

"And where did I refute the Sayyidna Zakareya's story in the quran, if I refuted anything in the quran I wouldn't be muslim now would I?". Why do continue attribute things to people that they have not said? Please show where I said that you refuted that incident?

Here is what you did say, "p.s. using a weak narration "to clear up the quran" IS and will always be wishywashy in my opinion". The only thing that I cleared up from the Qur'an was the skewed meaning that was being attributed to a question by Hadhrat Zakariya (AS). Kindly explain how my narration on the events was "weak" so that if I have made a mistake, I may not repeat it in future.

I love the game you play. I go and get everything for you while you sit around and wait. Seems very fair to me. Maybe if you start to reciprocate the gesture by giving us the five names of requested, I will reconsider your request.

"by your twisted logic, we should pretty much abandon anything except the quran and forget the very hadiths and sunna that the Prophet specifically asked us to use as a reference. What you're saying is pretty much propostorous and makes no sense."
Proposterous and nonsense; explains why Abu Bakr and Umar burnt them after the Prophet SAW passed away.

Umer2281:

I am glad that you have on several occasions shown everyone that you do not posses the basic manners thant one should have learnt in childhood. What you say doesn't affect me so please continue if you like; It just reflects badly on your parents.

And keep making your excuses; you're just making the hole deeper...