Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
As we have learnt from Bukhari Sunnah Lesson # 1, that according to Bukhari the oneness of Allah Tawhid Allah is when two prophets argue together and one slams dunk the other.
It seems that mister Bukhari realized that the above crap cannot be called the oneness of Allah, so he elaborated on the oneness of Allah in another hadith under the same chapter that he named التوحيد , Al-Tawhid , let's have a look:
Hmm what was that exactly dear Muslim brothers and sisters?
Well, the above hadith is not a saying or an action of Mohammed, rather an alleged saying and action by Aysha
Aysha is telling us through Bukhari that she never was jealous of any woman except Khadijah, then she ended her hadith by saying that his Lord (the Lord of Mohammed) commanded him to inform her (Khadijah) that she will have a house in Paradise.
Hold on a minute, was that suppose to be the oneness of Allah?
It seems that mister Bikhari was so confused that he listed absolutely non sense under a chapter that he named Al-Tawhid, what is more revolting, that the above hadith suppose to explain to us the Quran words قول الله تعالى ولا تنفع الشفاعة عنده إلا لمن أذن , i.e. intercession will not be allowed except to those who will be permitted as in the Quran verse: 20:109 يومئذ لا تنفع الشفاعة الا من اذن له الرحمن ورضي له قولا
Now I am asking mister Bukhari and all his confused followers in his hadith wagon, how the jealousy of Aysha towards Kahdijah is explaining to us verse 20:109 that لا تنفع الشفاعة الا من اذن له الرحمن ورضي له قولا?
Well, how about this question, how the jealousy of Aysha towards Kahdijah is explaining to us the oneness of Allah?
I guess no one will be able to answer those two simple questions, which should lead to the final survey:
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat 28 Jan, 2012 8:37 am; edited 3 times in total
Posted:
Sun 08 Mar, 2009 9:50 am
BMZ Moderator
Status: Age: 76 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 614
Post subject:
Hello, Ahmed
I think Hadith collectors were worse than the stamp collectors. At least the stamp collectors get mostly genuine stamps.
I also believe that most of the hadith collectors never checked any hadith under the shade or light of Qur'aan. Hence the result that we have so many junk ahadith.
For two hundred years or more, people followed only Qur'aan and only heard the genuine sayings of our dear Prophet.
I just hope our Muslim brothers and sisters start reading Qur'aan and get Allah's message direct.
As for me, after I read the alleged ahadith, I disposed of all ahahdith collections. Hadith collections give me the creeps.
Salaams
Baig
Posted:
Sun 08 Mar, 2009 1:12 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
BMZ wrote:
Hello, Ahmed
I think Hadith collectors were worse than the stamp collectors. At least the stamp collectors get mostly genuine stamps.
I also believe that most of the hadith collectors never checked any hadith under the shade or light of Qur'aan. Hence the result that we have so many junk ahadith.
For two hundred years or more, people followed only Qur'aan and only heard the genuine sayings of our dear Prophet.
I just hope our Muslim brothers and sisters start reading Qur'aan and get Allah's message direct.
As for me, after I read the alleged ahadith, I disposed of all ahahdith collections. Hadith collections give me the creeps.
Salaams
Baig
Salam mate
Indeed, however we won't be questionable for collecting Stamps, because we do not use the stamps as a source of shirking Allah laws with any other laws
Here is another crap mate:
Salam all
In today's lesson, we will look at a very strange hadith, the hadith is listed under a chapter that Bukhari named: الاعتصام بالكتاب والسنة , i.e. Upholding the Book and the Sunnah
Well, if you remember in lesson # 2 that Bukhari lied to us and told us that the Sunnah is also Kitab Allah, let me remind you with what was said in Fath Al Bari associated book: غرضه من أن السنة يطلق عليها " كتاب الله ", i.e. Bukhari position that the Sunnah is also called Kitab Allah (the book of Allah)
Clearly the Sunnah and Kitab Allah for Bukhari are the same, which is Kitab Allah, why then he named that chapter while differentiating between the two as two different things? This is a very valid question, because in such case he should have named the chapter: الاعتصام بالكتاب , i.e. Upholding the book, it seems that Bukhari was not sure if really the Sunnah is also Kitab Allah, he simply contradicted himself. Let's now look at the hadith which suppose to be explaining to us: قول الله تعالى ليس لك من الأمر شيء, i.e. the saying of Allah in the Quran in verse 3:128 ليس لك من الامر شيء او يتوب عليهم او يعذبهم فانهم ظالمون , i.e. 3:128 You have no decision in the affair whether He turns to them (mercifully) or chastises them, for surely they are unjust.
The hadith is stated by Ibn Omar, who actually refrained himself from talking about the prophet after the prophet died as we have been informed in other hadith books which I may show it to you later, however let's just assume that Ibn Omar said the following:
That he heard the prophet while praying Salat Al-Fajr saying the following:
The prophet alleged to have said:
O Our Lord! Praise be to You in the hereafter, then Ibn Omar heard the prophet saying: O Our Lord! Curse that person, and that person so Allah revealed the following verse:
3:128 ليس لك من الامر شيء او يتوب عليهم او يعذبهم فانهم ظالمون , i.e. 3:128 You have no decision in the affair whether He turns to them (mercifully) or chastises them, for surely they are unjust.
If that is true, then it simply means that Allah shunned Mohammed by telling him in simple words: It is not your business whether Allah forgives them or chastises them
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
So what we should learn exactly from the above Sunnah?, to curse other people while praying?
Well, what else we should learn? That Mohammed was cursing people while praying?
Mohammed who was described by Allah as a man of sublime morality was cursing people during his Salat.
And the whole thing suppose to be a lesson for us to follow the Sunnah and Kitab Allah, I mean Kitab Allah and Kitab Allah
Possibly the prophet did so, he was a human like us, who knows, but do we really need to know that about the prophet?
I mean, don't we know already that Allah has power over all things and that He does what He wants without being questionable?
Honestly, I can't find any lesson to be learnt in here other than that the whole matter is only for Allah, Mohammed even does not have any part of it.
Now, let me end this lesson by showing you the other hadith where we learn from it that Ibn Omar refrained himself from talking about the prophet after his death:
I have accompanied Ibn Omar for a year and I never heard him transferring any hadith that was said by the prophet salla Allah alayhi wa sallam
-> See how Ibn Omar refrained himself from talking or transferring any hadith by the prophet, which must raise the question, how we really know that the above hadith reported by Bukhari about Ibn Omar is true?
Bukhari followers can tap dance all day long by parroting that it is a Sahih hadith, for me however I refuse to accept that the noble prophet was cursing others during his salat, now why the Quran verse was revealed, it absolutely makes no difference to my belief, I careless to know the reason for every verse revelation
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat 28 Jan, 2012 8:38 am; edited 2 times in total
Posted:
Sun 08 Mar, 2009 6:48 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
Today's Bukhari Sunnah lesson is very interesting, I will add to it a Quran lesson, possibly some may give heed. We will look at an alleged hadith that suppose to have happened straight after the prophet died and before the prophet corpse was buried.
I actually like this hadith, however there is still no Sunnah in it, rather some information to what happened at such moment after the prophet death.
The hadith is alleged by someone named Abu Salmah (and I am sure that most of us do not know who the hell he is) who reported that Aysha told him something, and the whole thing is alleged by Bukhari. Because the hadith is about Aysha's father, as Mohammed was dead at such point of time, the hadith implies truthfulness in its story, however we are still unable to confirm that, what we are about to read, had really happened, it should still be classified as Zunn (conjectures), therefore, only Allah is The One Who knows the truthfulness in such allegation, simply all of us cannot know that. Let's look at such allegation of hadith and see if we may learn something from it:
Bukhari listed the above allegation under a chapter that he named الجنائز , i.e. The funerals, under such chapter, Bukhari listed a sub-chapter that he named: الدخول على الميت بعد الموت إذا أدرج في أكفانه , i.e. Seeing the one who died after he was wrapped in his coffin.
Well, you will be able to see that, the above story which I am about to walk you through, CANNOT be a sunnah from the prophet, a Muslim child should understand that with ease.
Now, if I ask that Muslim child: Why you think that story which we are about to read cannot be a Sunnah by the prophet? I am sure he will reply saying: Because the prophet was DEAD at that moment of time. I say to such child: Good boy, your parents failed to understand that.
See, it was (clearly and irrefutably) Bukhari who invented such sunnah, an invented and un-required sunnah, trying to create a law that controls the following aspect:
Should we see anyone who died after he/she was wrapped in his/her coffin?
Far out, why the hell we need such Bukhari sunnah?. Well, even if the above allegation of a sunnah ended up by prohibiting it, I will still have a look at a dear relative after being wrapped in his/her coffin, if I want to, THERE WILL BE NOTHING TO STOP ME, I tell ya.
Let's now see what Bukhari has established for us as a sunnah regarding such useless aspect, anything between brackets are my own comments and is not part of the allegation as documented and explained by me.
The allegation goes like this, Abu Salmah said that Aysha told him that:
Her father Abi Bakr came to her from his house riding his horse, so he entered a mosque and did not talk to anyone until he entered before Aysha (seems that he was very upset hearing the news that Mohammed has died), so he went to the prophet coffin and removed the cloth covering the prophet face, then leaned over and kissed him, then he cried (obviously Bukhari is telling us that it is ok to uncover dead humans to have a final look before they are buried, and even kiss them final goodbye)
After Abi Bakr cried for a moment, (he said something that I could not understand, however it is not related to the invented law of uncovering the dead or not to see them), sort of Abi Bakr said: My very dear messenger of Allah, Allah will not gather upon you two deaths, as for the death that was decreed upon you, you have fulfilled it. (I really could not understand what he was trying to say)
Abi Bakr then went outside while Omar was speaking to the gathered people, so Omar asked him to sit down, but Abi Bakr refused, then Abi Bakr stated the Shahada, so all the people directed their attention to him instead of Omar, so Abi Bakr said to the people:
To whoever among you who worships Mohammed (peace be upon him), then Mohammed (peace be upon him) has died, and whoever among who worships Allah, then Allah is Ever-Alive Who does not die. Then he recited the following Quran verse to the people:
And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed before him; so if he died or is killed, you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will not harm Allah a thing, and Allah will reward the grateful. [Al Quran ; 3:144]
وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىَ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ (144)
I will walk you through this very important verse that Abi Bakr recited to the people during Mohammed funeral later on, but after I finish this allegation of hadith walk through.
Abu Salmah then said:
By Allah, the people never knew that Allah has sent this verse until Abi Bakr recited it to them (looks like the verse was revealed to Mohammed a while back and the people just forgot about it, how confused they were, even during the time of the prophet). Abu Salmah then said that the people took the verse from Abi Bakr and kept reciting it forever, and that was the end of the allegation of hadith.
Now a few questions must be raised:
1) Why Abi Bakr told the people: To whoever among you who worships Mohammed, then Mohammed has died?
The answer should be clear; it seems that Abi Bakr has witnessed so many people who were doing just that, i.e. WORSHIPPING MOHAMMED.
Can you sense that what Abi Bakr said in a funeral, is not really something that is common, nor that it is offering condolences to the people, RATHER something that you expect to never hear in a funeral, and even may be offensive to be said in such sad times. YET, Abi Bakr who was a very wise man and also loved Mohammed dearly (more than anyone for that matter) comes out and says such tough words that clearly differentiated between Mohammed and Allah as two separate and incomparable entities. Both (Allah and Mohammed) have the same cause of course, because Mohammed was only working for Allah and doing what Allah commanded him to do, however the two can never be equal, such equality does not have to be by saying it, rather it happens more commonly through the actions of the so called believers while they are unaware of their horrible crime (worshipping others other than Allah, which should also mean shirking others with Allah).
2) Why Abi Bakr tells the people the fact about Allah that He is Ever-Alive and does not die?
Again, the answer is simple, see, the above fact about our God, that He is Ever-Alive and does not die, should be firmly known by any so called believer, it is something of the basics of belief, but it seems that Abi Bakr sensed that so many people were so ignorant to such simple fact about Allah while they have been indulged in their worshipping of Mohammed. It seems that they did not even care about such fact about Our God.
3) Why Abi Bakr selected such verse 3:144 to recite it to the people?
Again and again, the answer is very clear, because the people were ignorant of it, such ignorance was confirmed in the same allegation of hadith, see what Abu Salmah said at the end: والله لكأن الناس لم يكونوا يعلمون أن الله أنزلها حتى تلاها أبو بكر , i.e. By Allah, the people never knew that Allah has sent this verse until Abi Bakr recited it to them , i.e. the people did not know the verse, DESPITE that it was revealed to them soon after the battle of Uhud, when during the battle and while the Muslims were getting defeated, a rumor spread around the battle field that the prophet was killed, so the Muslims started to drop their weapons and surrender to the enemy thinking that there should be nothing left for them to fight for after the death of the prophet, as alleged in their books of hadith.
So, for so many years from the time of the battle of Uhud until the prophet natural death, the people never pondered upon such verse 3:144, and even forgot it totally to a degree that they would have never know that it was revealed, they may be excused actually because up to such moment, having your own copy of the Quran was almost impossible.
It seems that they were given a very tough lesson by Abi Bakr, so after they heard it from him, they just kept reciting it. I actually believe that they were not reciting it so many times to ponder upon it, RATHER to pay condolences to themselves after the idol they were worshipping has died. So it is possible that they learnt nothing from Abi Bakr.
From all the above we can conclude the following:
1) There are people who indeed worship Mohammed. And it was since the time of Mohammed, till this very moment.
2) There is no sunnah by the prophet that is related to Quran one way or another, rather an incident by some other people after the prophet died
3) Bukhari tried hard to invent his own sunnah using such allegation, by creating a useless Sharia that is based on the useless query of (Is it allowed to see dead humans after they died and have been wrapped in their coffin and before their burial?). The answer was not even given to us, rather we should work it out from the allegation based on the fact mentioned in there that Abi Bakr did so by uncovering the prophet then kissing him, i.e. it is ok for us to do so, but as I said earlier, even if someone stopped Abi Bakr from doing so, NOTHING IS GOING TO STOP ME FROM DOING SO.
A final note before stating the conclusion of such hadith, see how many times Allah was mentioned in the above hadith:
1- When Aysha was mentioned in the chain of narrators, she was praised by saying: عائشة رضي الله عنها , i.e. Allah is pleased with her, I have translated it as the exact Arabic words, which used the verb of pleasing in past tense, it is not a Dua to Aysha like Asa An Yardda Allah Anha, i.e. May Allah be pleased with her, i.e. it is a boast (praise) of Aysha that Allah is already pleased with her, which is fine with me, but can you see that in the process they mentioned Allah without praising Him? And that is not fine with me:
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 1
2: When the prophet was mentioned in the chain of narrators as being the husband of Aysha: زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم , i.e. the wife of the prophet salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam, i.e. praising Mohammed, which is fine with me, in fact it is a command from Allah, however I am not at all fine with the fact that in the process of praising Mohammed, they mentioned Allah without praising Him:
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 1
Mohammed: 1
3: When Abi Bakr was mentioned: أبو بكر رضي الله عنه , i.e. Abi Bakr, Allah is pleased with him, i.e. praising Abi Bakr, which is fine with me, but during the process of praising Abi Bakr, they mentioned Allah without praising Him:
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 1
Mohammed: 1
Abi Bakr: 1
4- When Aysha was mentioned again in the hadith itself, she was praised again by saying: عائشة رضي الله عنها , i.e. Allah is pleased with her, i.e. praising Aysha again, which is fine with me again, but during the process of praising Aysha again, they mentioned Allah without praising Him again:
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 1
Abi Bakr: 1
5: When the prophet was mentioned again in the story itself: النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم , i.e. the prophet salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam, i.e. praising Mohammed again, however I am not at all fine with the fact that in the process of praising Mohammed again, they mentioned Allah without praising Him again:
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 2
Abi Bakr: 1
6: When Ibn Abbas was mentioned: ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما , i.e. Ibn Abbas, Allah is pleased with them both (I really do not who is the second), let's just assume they meant Allah is pleased with Ibn Abbas only, i.e. praising Ibn Abbas, and in the process, they mentioned Allah without praising Him:
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 2
Abi Bakr: 1
Ibn Abbas: 1
7: When Abi Bakr was mentioned again: أبو بكر رضي الله عنه , i.e. Abi Bakr, Allah is pleased with him, i.e. praising Abi Bakr again, which is fine with me again, but during the process of praising Abi Bakr again, they mentioned Allah without praising Him again
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 2
Abi Bakr: 2
Ibn Abbas: 1
8: When Omar was mentioned: وعمر رضي الله عنه , i.e. And Omar, Allah is pleased with him, i.e. praising Omar, and in the process, they mentioned Allah without praising Him:
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 2
Abi Bakr: 2
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1
9: When Abi Bakr was mentioned for the third time: أبو بكر رضي الله عنه , i.e. Abi Bakr, Allah is pleased with him, i.e. praising Abi Bakr for the third time, which is fine with me for the third time, but during the process of praising Abi Bakr for the third time, they mentioned Allah without praising Him for the third time:
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 2
Abi Bakr: 3
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1
10: When the prophet was mentioned for the third time: محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم , i.e. Mohammed salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam, i.e. praising Mohammed for the third time, and in the process of praising Mohammed for the third time, they mentioned Allah without praising Him for the third time:
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 3
Abi Bakr: 3
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1
11: When the prophet was mentioned for the fourth time: محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم , i.e. Mohammed salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam, i.e. praising Mohammed for the fourth time, and in the process of praising Mohammed for the fourth time, they mentioned Allah without praising Him for the fourth time:
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 4
Abi Bakr: 3
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1
12: When Abi Bakr was mentioned for the fourth time: أبو بكر رضي الله عنه , i.e. Abi Bakr, Allah is pleased with him, i.e. praising Abi Bakr for the fourth time, and in the process of praising Abi Bakr for the fourth time, they mentioned Allah without praising Him for the fourth time:
Score of praise:
Allah: 0
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 4
Abi Bakr: 4
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1
13: When Allah was mentioned as saying the Quran verse 3:144: قال الله تعالى , i.e. Exalted Allah said, finally they praised Allah for the first time:
Score of praise:
Allah: 1
Aysha: 2
Mohammed: 4
Abi Bakr: 4
Ibn Abbas: 1
Omar: 1
However, Allah was mentioned another 5 times on His own (not during using Him for praising others), and they never praised Him:
a- لا يجمع الله عليك موتتين , Allah will not gather over you two deaths
b- ومن كان يعبد الله , and whoever worships Allah
c- فإن الله حي لا يموت , indeed, Allah is Ever-Alive Who does not die
d- والله لكأن الناس , By Allah, the people were
e- أن الله أنزلها , that Allah has sent it down
Omar too was mentioned a second time without praising him:
Do I really believe that most Muslims cared or currently care about Allah and His message? Well, I doubt it indeed
Let me walk you through verse 3:144 which Abi Bakr reminded the people with, after Mohammed death, and see if we can learn something from it:
And Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away; so if he died or is killed, you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will not harm Allah a thing, and Allah will reward the grateful. [Al Quran ; 3:144]
وما محمد الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل افان مات او قتل انقلبتم على اعقابكم ومن ينقلب على عقبيه فلن يضر الله شيئا وسيجزي الله الشاكرين
-> How clear as stated by Allah: And Muhammad is not except a messenger, it seems that Allah knows that the people will worship Mohammed one way or another and make him more than a messenger even, so Allah revealed such message for all of us to tell us who is Mohammed, next we read something that is more compelling: indeed, the messengers before him have passed away, i.e. Mohammed is like all other messengers, again it seems that Allah knows that the people will differentiate between Mohammed and all the rest of the messengers. HOW COMPELLING. We can see this clearly now days, and I will show it to all of you (many times) from their own hadith and hopefully the blind should be able to see it inshaallah.
-> We are told that the above verse was revealed when a rumor spread during the battle of Uhud, that the prophet was KILLED, so you expect that the above verse should be talking about the KILLING of the messenger only, yet we see the wisdom of Allah in His book, He also included with KILLING, NATURAL DEATH, see: so if he died or is killed , HOW ACCURATE AND FULFILLING, not just if Mohammed has been killed, rather if he has been killed or died natural death. Now, let's read what Allah is warning the people of doing after Mohammed death: you turn back upon your heels? .Well, well, well, it seems that Allah knows that this is exactly what will happen with the Muslims, that they will turn back on their heals by committing (at least) what Allah explained to us in the same very verse, that Mohammed is no more than a messenger like all the rest of messengers (we should absolutely make no distinction between all of them as stated in the Quran in at least 3 locations), now the above verse can not apply to what happened during the Battle of Uhud only, because the verse is also talking about the possibility of his natural death in addition to the possibility of being killed, therefore it must apply to the Muslims now days as well, and for those Muslims who sport of worship Mohammed, Allah has an important message for them: And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will not harm Allah a thing , indeed, they are only harming themselves while they percceive not. And for those who will not turn back on their heels, Allah has other important message for them: and Allah will reward the grateful. , certainly the grateful cannot be those who turned back on their heels to what Allah clearly explained to them regarding the status of Mohammed as being a messenger of His, who should be for us as any other messenger before him.
While I am walking you through the above great verse from Allah, something struck my head through another verse, I actually talked about such verse before but never clicked in my head that there might be a hidden and very important message between the lines, based on the fact that the following words in verse 3:144 about Mohammed: ما محمد الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل , i.e. Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away , are almost the same word for word in another verse about another messenger, in addition to Mohammed, and those words were only said about these two messengers explicitly, let me bring the verse in here:
The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat the food. See how We explain to them the signs then see how they are deluded. [Al Quran ; 5:75]
ما المسيح ابن مريم الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل وامه صديقة كانا ياكلان الطعام انظر كيف نبين لهم الايات ثم انظر اني يؤفكون
-> See, the same words about Jesus, let me put the two sentences under each other so you see that the words are almost identical:
3:144 ما محمد الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل 5:75 ما المسيح ابن مريم الا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل
3:144 Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away 5:75 The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away
Well, if you have studied the Quran, then I am sure that you should know that Mohammed and Isa (Jesus) are the only two messengers that have been described with the same exact words above, that both of them are not except messengers, indeed, the messengers before them have passed away
How striking? Will, I may think of it, that possibly there is a hidden sign in there, that may be indicating that these two messengers (only) out of all messengers, are the most who are worshipped by the most humans on earth. Allah knows best
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat 28 Jan, 2012 8:38 am; edited 2 times in total
Posted:
Thu 12 Mar, 2009 3:03 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
This is Bukhari Sunnah Lesson # 2 which I missed between my comments above:
Salam all
I hope you enjoyed Bukhari Sunnah Lesson # 1, I guess there will be no Muslim who will be able to refute such lesson because in their refutation, they need to tell us what is the relation between the oneness of Allah and the silly argument that suppose to have happened or will happen between two of the noble prophets (Adam and Musa).
In today lesson, I will show you one hell of a lie by Bukhari himself, for this hadith I will bring Fath Al Bari explanation to it, let's have a look
As you can read above, again, the hadith is an allegation by the always questionable Abu Hurairah, this hadith however is indexed under a chapter named: الاقتداء بسنن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم , i.e. Taking the sunnah of the prophet salla Allah alihi wa sallam as an example
The hadith is very short actually, the chain of narrators is indeed longer than the Matn (the content) itself
The allegation in such hadith that a few people were with the prophet who possibly had to judge between two persons, the hadith actually never told us such details, rather as explained by Fath Al Bari book as you can read above under the hadith itself
The hadith only mentioned that prophet Mohammed told them: I am going to judge between you using the book of Allah
Obviously why the prophet said so, is unknown from the Matn of the hadith, all we know from it, that when the prophet had to judge between two conflicting parties, he said that HE WILL USE THE BOOK OF ALLAH
Now if you ask any believer, what the words The book of Allah, suppose to mean, most of them if not all, should tell you that it should mean The Quran
Mister confused Bukhari did not see so, he saw it as something else, let me put the exact Arabic words as stated in Fath Al Bari book, so you see it for yourself:
واقتصر البخاري هنا عليه لدخوله في غرضه من أن السنة يطلق عليها " كتاب الله " لأنها بوحيه وتقديره , لقوله تعالى ( وما ينطق عن الهوى إن هو إلا وحي يوحى )
They are saying that Bukhari position is that the Sunnah is called the Book of Allah, because it was also revealed to Mohammed as the Quran is revealed, then they stated the Quran verse that Mohammed never talked of his own desires
Well, well, well, firstly Mohamed never talked or acted of his own desires, is only what is revealed to him from the Quran, in fact the same Quran told us that at least 3 times the prophet acted according to his own desires and faulted and was exposed by Allah and was corrected (no way in those three times he was under revelation from Allah), this will be another comment inshaallah to slam dunk those confused Mushrikoon.
Very clear, that Bukhari claimed that the Sunnah of Mohammed is called the Book of Allah, which I believe for certain that it is another clear sign of how confused was Bukhari and how he misled masses of people, well the important thing that those people should know is simply, they will not be able to blame the confusion of Bukhari for their own confusion.
Kul Nafs Bima Kasabat Rahinah
Every soul will be held hostage for what it has earned
If there will be any lesson learnt from the above allegation of hadith, it is imply, when the prophet judged between the people he only judged using the book of Allah, i.e. the Quran.
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat 28 Jan, 2012 8:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted:
Thu 12 Mar, 2009 9:51 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
In today's Bukhari Sunnah lesson, we will look at two hadith from his book, the two hadith are from two different chapters, however it seems that both are talking about the same future incident on the judgment day, which means that we should cross reference both of them and see if there is any contradiction between the two, this also should give us another hint to how Bukhari was immaculate in his work, as so many claim such about him, of course the objective of Bukhari to include both hadith in his book should be nothing except that we will learn some sunnah from the prophet through them.
Let me start with the first hadith, which Bukhari listed under a chapter that he named احاديت الانبياء , i.e. The hadith of the prophets, sort of Bukhari dedicated a whole chapter to tell us what other prophets said.
Under such chapter Bukhari listed a cub-chapter that he named, قول الله تعالى
انا ارسلنا نوحا الي قومه ان انذر قومك , i.e. The saying of exalted Allah: Indeed, We sent Nuh to his people (saying): Warn your people
I assume that Bukhari is going to explain to us the following verse:
71:1 انا ارسلنا نوحا الي قومه ان انذر قومك من قبل ان ياتيهم عذاب اليم
Indeed, We sent Nuh to his people (saying): Warn your people before a painful torture comes to them.
As you can clearly read the above verse: IT DOES NOT NEED ANY ELABORATION, it is so simple for a child to understand, that Allah sent prophet Nuh to his people to warn them before a painful torture comes to them, how complicated.
Let's have a look at such allegation of hadith, and see how Bukhari will distort the meaning of the above very simple verse by telling us a strange story that should happen on the JD:
The above hadith is very weird indeed, again there is no sunnah in it what so ever, in fact the second narrator in the chain (of five narrators + Bukhari) stopped all of a sudden, sort of halfway in his story, saying that he totally forgot what the first narrator told him, HOW FUNNY, yet 4 more narrators transmitted such allegation despite they took it from someone who clearly admitted that he forgot the rest of the story.
The chain of narrators goes like this:
Ishaq Ibn Nasr -> Mohammed Ibn Obaid -> Abu Hayan -> Abi Zaraa -> Abi Hurairah
See, Mohammed Ibn Obaid admitted that he forgot the rest of the story that he heard from Ishaq Ibn Nasr. That should be enough to dismiss the whole story, yet four more narrators transmitted it, and even documented it in a book that they want to call it, the book of Allah. Those four confused narrators are as follow:
1- Abu Hayan
2- Abi Zaraa
3- Abi Hurairah
And of course:
4- Bukhari
Let me walk you through such doubtful allegation of hadith that suppose to be Sahih as Bukhari claimed and see if we may learn some sunnah from it:
Mister always doubtful Abu Hurairah is telling us that they went with the prophet for Dawah, i.e. to call others to the way of Allah.
So while they were eating, the prophet was enjoying a piece of meat, so he took a bite from it then said:
I am the master of all people on the day of resurrection, do you know how Allah will gather the first and the last people in one gathering so everyone will see them and hear them. The sun will be near and the people will say to each other: Don't you realize the misery that is waiting for you? Try to find one who will intercede for you. So the people said: Your father Adam.
So they went to Adam and said to him: O Adam! You are the father of all humans, Allah created you with His hands and blew in you from His Spirit, and commanded the angels, and they prostrated before you, and made you live in the garden, please intercede for us, don't you see the misery that we are in?
So Adam will reply: My Lord was very angry (supposedly with Adam), and such anger had no likeness before or after, and He prohibited me from the tree but I disobeyed Him, and I only care about my self, I only care about myself (Adam repeated it twice), go to someone else, go to Nuh.
So the (desperate) people went to Nuh and said to him: O Nuh! You are the first of messengers and Allah named you 'a thankful slave', please intercede for us, don't you see the misery that we are in?
So Nuh will reply: My Lord was very angry (supposedly with Nuh), and such anger had no likeness before or after, and I only care about my self, I only care about myself (Nuh repeated it twice), go to the prophet (Mohammed).
So the prophet said: So they come to me, so I prostrate under the throne, and it will be said to me: O Mohammed! Raise you head and ask for intercession and it will be granted, and whatever you ask for will be given.
Abu Hurairah then said that Mohammed Ibn Obaid said: I do not remember the rest of the story.
End of hadith
As you all (Muslims, Mushriks and Kafirs) can clearly see from the above story, THERE IS NO SUNNAH IN IT.
And most certainly it does not explain to us the self explanatory verse 71:1
How confused mister Bukhari have been, I really cannot believe that so many Muslims bought his clear cut non sense and pure crap.
The above allegation serves only one purpose in Bukhari's plan, to again raise prophet Mohammed to the most highest level any human can ever reach, a level where he will have a say to what Allah decides to do with us. The process is called شفاعة , i.e. Intercession, which I have no problem with, because it is mentioned in the Quran a few times as we will see later on inshaallah, however it was never mentioned as an explicit offering to Mohammed.
What I found very revolting that when the people asked Adam to seek it for them from Allah, he washed his hands clean from them, demeaning himself by stating his sin (what they call the first sin), and while stating that because of his sin, Allah became so angry with him that no likeness of such anger existed before or will exist after that day (I guess), this part of the story contradicts Bukhari hadith # 6961 in which he alleged to us (trying to explain the oneness of Allah) that when Musa tried to corner Adam by mentioning his first sin, Adam slam dunked Musa by telling him that how he can blame him for something that Allah decreed on him before creating him? i.e. THERE SHOULD BE NO NEED FOR SUCH ANGER from Allah towards Adam which have been associated to Him by those hadith narrators (see saying about Allah which what they do not know or have any proof for it), the Quran too contradicts such anger, because it confirmed the fact that Allah gave Adam some words then forgave him, let's have a look:
Then Adam received from his Lord words, then He turned to him mercifully; surely He is the Relenting, the Merciful.
2:37 فتلقى ادم من ربه كلمات فتاب عليه انه هو التواب الرحيم
How clear from another Quran verse that does not need any explanation by anyone, the verse is self explanatory, that Allah straight after the incident of the tree, talked to Adam and said to him some words (the lesson and the truth that He planned it all before Adam was created). Then Allah turned to Adam mercifully, i.e. Allah forgave Adam. Therefore there was no such need for such massive anger that was associated to Allah, an anger like which there was nothing before and after such incident.
Yet the same hadith contradicted its own story, by telling us that Nuh said the exact same when the people went to him asking him to intercede for them before Allah, the hadith alleged that Nuh said that Allah was so angry, such anger that there was nothing like it before or after. Come on, the hadith just told us that Allah was angry like it before such incident, during the time of Adam, how ridiculous. However while Adam provided a reason for such anger by Allah towards him, Nuh provided no reason for such anger towards him that was alleged and associated to Allah, certainly Allah might have been angry with the people of Nuh who rejected his message, but that does not mean that Allah is angry with Nuh himself, how ridiculous again, I am sure that Allah holds Nuh in high regard, and certainly Nuh won't let those who believed in him down in a such cheap way of caring only about himself while he was one of the great messengers of Allah, in fact, what Allah enjoined Mohammed of doing, was the exact same that was enjoined upon Nuh by Allah, let's have a look:
He made law for you of the religion what He enjoined upon Nuh and that which We have revealed to you and that which We enjoined upon Ibrahim and Musa and Isa, that you establish the religion and be not be divided therein; hard to the unbelievers is that which you call them to; Allah chooses for Himself whom He pleases, and guides to Himself him who turns (to Him), frequently.
42:13 شرع لكم من الدين ما وصي به نوحا والذي اوحينا اليك وما وصينا به ابراهيم وموسي وعيسي ان اقيموا الدين ولا تتفرقوا فيه كبر علي المشركين ما تدعوهم اليه الله يجتبي اليه من يشاء ويهدي اليه من ينيب
See, we follow the same as what Nuh was following, in fact the same as what all prophets were following, like Ibrahim, Musa and Isa, however can you see that Allah added on us what He sent down to Mohammed, He made law for you of the religion what He enjoined upon Nuh and that which We have revealed to you, and certainly what was revealed to Mohammed is the Quran and nothing else, Bukhari book can not be what was revealed to Mohammed while it is full of contradictions and non sense.
Bukhari books and its likes only divided the ummah into numerous sects, see what was ordained upon all of us and upon all prophets as stated in the same verse: ان اقيموا الدين ولا تتفرقوا فيه , i.e. that you establish the religion and be not be divided therein
This lame of hadith even portrayed the prophet in a not very nice manner, see, we are told that the prophet was in a Dawah (calling others to the way of Allah), you expect that the hadith will give us an example of how to call others to the way of Allah, yet all it showed us, the prophet enjoying a meal, then after he took a bite from a piece of lamb, he said all of a sudden, (I guess while his mouth was full of food) that: He is the master of all humans on the Judgment Day (praising himself), and to prove it, he told them a weird story, that was not even completed in the hadith and was suddenly interrupted due to the fact that its rest was forgotten, the moral of the story was nothing but showing that Adam and Nuh will only care about themselves on the Judgment Day, while only Mohammed will be the one who will be granted the power of intersession before Allah
I do not believe that Allah was ever angry in such anger with either Adam or Nuh, especially when I read the following verse:
Indeed Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the family of Ibrahim and the famil of Imran above all the creatures.
3:33 ان الله اصطفى ادم ونوحا وال ابراهيم وال عمران على العالمين
Now, under another chapter that mister Bukhari named التوحيد , i.e. Oneness of Allah from which we have already looked at a few useless hadith above, Bukhari listed another hadith under a sub-chapter that he named: كلام الرب عز وجل يوم القيامة مع الأنبياء وغيرهم , i.e.The words of Allah on the day of resurrection to the prophets and others.
I.e. Bukhari is going to associate words directly to Allah, the story in the following hadith seems to be talking about the same story we read in the above hadith, let's have a look at it:
Solaiman Bin Harb -> Hammad Bin Zaid -> Mubid Bin Hiala Al-Anzy
So Mubid said that a group of people from Basrah city gathered and went to Anas Bin Malik, a guy named Thabit Al-Banany went with them to ask Anas about the hadith of intercession, so when they arrived to his MANSION (look like mister Anas was very rich, he was living in a mansion), and he was praying the noon prayer, so they asked permission to enter and he allowed them, so Mubid said to Anas: O Aba Hamza (the father of Hamza), these people are from Basrah and want to ask you about the hadith of intercession, so Anas Bin Malik said:
Mohammed said that on the day of resurrection, the people will be wondering around until they come to Adam and ask him to interced for them before Allah, so Adam will tell them: I am not for it, but go and seek it from Ibrahim, he is the friend of the Compassionate (i.e. Adam let the people down)
So they go to Ibrahim (asking him the same), so he tell them: I am not for it, but go and seek it from Musa, he is the one to whom Allah spoke. (i.e. Ibrahim let the people down)
So they go to Musa (asking him the same) so he tell them: I am not for it, but go and seek it from Isa (Jesus), he is the spirit of Allah. (i.e. Musa let the people down)
So they go to Isa (asking the same) so he tell them: I am not for it, but go and seek it from Mohammed. (i.e. Isa let the people down)
Prophet Mohammed continued: So they will come to me (asking me the same), and I will say, I am for it, so I seek permission from Allah and I fall prostrating before Him, and it will be said to me: Raise you head, and say, you will be heard, and ask, you will be given, and seek intercession, it will be granted, so I say: O my Lord! My ummah (my people), Allah will say to me: Go and take out from hell whoever has a belief the weight of small seed. So I do, then I return back and prostrate to Him.
And it will be said to me: Raise you head, and say, you will be heard, and ask, you will be given, and seek intercession, it will be granted, so I say: O my Lord! My ummah, my ummah (my people, my people), Allah will say to me: Go and take out from hell whoever has a belief the weight of an atom. So I do, then I return back and prostrate to Him.
And it will be said to me: Raise you head, and say, you will be heard, and ask, you will be given, and seek intercession, it will be granted, so I say: O my Lord! My ummah, my ummah (my people, my people), Allah will say to me: Go and take out from hell whoever has a belief whose weight smaller than the weight of a seed. So I do.
(It seems that at this moment Anas stopped and they left his mansion) so Mubid continued and said: When we left I told the others, how about while we pass by Hasn (a village or something) we stop at the house of Abi Khalifah and confirm with him what we heard from Anas regarding intercession. So we went to the house of Abi Khalifah and said to him: O Abi Said (the father of Said)! We came to you with something from Anas that we never heard before , so he told us to say it, then we told him what Anas told us, but Abi Khalifah said to us: Anas told me such hadith 20 years ago, and I am not sure if he forgot or deliberately did not tell you the rest of it fearing that you rely on it without doing your best to be saved, so we asked him to tell us the rest of the hadith and he laughed and said: Humans are always in a rush. What happened that Mohammed will return a fourth time and prostrate before Allah then:
It will be said to him: Raise you head, and say, you will be heard, and ask, you will be given, and ask intercession, it will be granted, so Mohammed will say: O my Lord! Give me permission to take out from hell whoever said 'La Ilah Illah Allah' (There is no god except Allah), so Allah will say, by My Might and Honor, I will take out from hell whoever said there is no god except Allah.
End of hadith
Clearly this hadith by Bukhari contradicts his other hadith explained earlier in this comment, in the first hadith it was only (Adam, Nuh and Mohammed), while in this hadith, we have (Adam, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa and Mohammed), how obvious, both hadith however share a few things in common, that:
1) Mohammed is higher than the rest of all other prophets and he will have a vital word to what Allah may do so people will be saved.
2) All prophets with the exception of Mohammed will let their people down.
3) There is no sunnah to be learnt from both hadith, even if the second hadith tells us that those who believe in the oneness of Allah are those who declare that there is no god except Allah, because that was nothing new, the oneness of Allah was described clearly by Allah in His Quran and through a 100% Sahih hadith of Mohammed, let's have a look:
Say: He, Allah, is One.
Allah is He on Whom all depend.
He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And none is like Him.
قل هو الله احد
الله الصمد
لم يلد ولم يولد
ولم يكن له كفوا احد [The Quran ; 112:1-4]
-> How simple and clear the oneness of Allah as described to us by Allah Himself through 100% Sahih hadith of Mohammed, see the word: قل , i.e. Say, i.e. 100% Sahih hadith of Mohammed.
Bukhari however, in his second hadith above, which suppose to be explaining to us the oneness of Allah, diverted, distracted and confused the matter with something else, that Mohammed will be the only prophet who will seek intercession to anyone who declare the oneness of Allah. In the process he contradicted himself because he talked about the same story in another allegation of his which list to us different prophets in the chain of messengers in his repeated non sensible story.
As if, there were no one who believed in the previous messengers, who may be entitled to their own messengers intercession, it seems that according to the above non sensible hadith that those former believers will miss out because their own prophets declined to offer intercession, and as we have read above that the prophet was only seeking intercession for his ummah, i.e. his people, not the people of other prophets, see the non sense. Some may say that the prophet will seek intercession for them in the fourth time when he asks Allah to allow him to take out from hell anyone who declared that there is no god except Allah (as you can see the second part of the suppose to be shahada is not stated) which may imply that at the fourth time the prophet was seeking intercession to those who believed in the other prophets before Mohammed and dying before Mohammed was sent, because all they needed to have done was to say no god except Allah, a logic that may be acceptable at a glance, then its flaw will become clear in a matter of seconds, because those people before Mohammed who have declared that there is no god except Allah, should be equal to those who believed in Allah and received the message of Mohammed, YET they were left LAST for the prophet to intercede for them and take them out from hell, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
Such non sense will be clear if we look at some verses of شفاعة , i.e. Intercession in the Quran:
In a 100% Sahih hadith by Mohammed, Allah told Mohammed to say to the people the following:
39:44 Say: To Allah is the whole matter of intercession; His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, then to Him you will be returned.
39:44 قل لله الشفاعة جميعا له ملك السماوات والارض ثم اليه ترجعون
How clear the message is in the above 100% Sahih hadith by Mohammed, simply, the outcome of intercession will not be known until the sinners (who should be believers in Allah) stand before Him and someone intercede for them after permission is given, after that it is up to Allah to accept such intercession or not, the hadith writers however are telling us the outcome of such intercession before hand, that all prophets with the exception of Mohammed will refuse to intercede for their people while Mohammed will do and Allah will quickly grant it for him and does what Mohammed request.
The information that Allah will accept intercession for those who declared that there is no god except Allah, as alleged by the second Bukhari hadith above, is nothing new, it was stated in the Quran, let's have a look:
They will not have intercession, except he who has taken with the Compassionate a covenant.
19:87 لا يملكون الشفاعة الا من اتخذ عند الرحمن عهدا
-> See the above verse is talking about the sinners that: They will not have intercession, except he who has taken with the Compassionate a covenant., and guess what, that covenant is declaring that there is no god except Allah, i.e. those sinners who have believed and declared so, intercession may be granted to them. Which is like what Bukhari told us in the second hadith above, but with a major difference, which is, Bukhari is telling us that only Mohammed will be the one to intercede and other prophets will decline to do so and only care for themselves, they will not care for their own people who believed in them.
Allah clearly said in the Quran that seeking intercession will be allowed to anyone as long as Allah gives permission and accepts what they will say:
On that day intercession will not benefit except him to whom the Compassionate allows and has accepted from him a saying.
20:109 يومئذ لا تنفع الشفاعة الا من اذن له الرحمن ورضي له قولا
The angels too will be allowed to intercede:
He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves and they are from fear of Him apprehensive.
21:28 يعلم ما بين ايديهم وما خلفهم ولا يشفعون الا لمن ارتضي وهم من خشيته مشفقون
There is not one single verse in the Quran that associate intercession explicitly to Mohammed, and most certainly the outcome of the intercession will only be known at such point of time, not before hand, this is when the sinners will feel and percieve the might and power of Allah and that He has full power over all things.
Bukhari however presented it to us as if we know the outcome before hand, that only Mohammed who will intercede for us and Allah will 100% will accept it from him and remove all sinners from hell as long as they had a covenant with Allah before hand, when they declared that there is no god except Him.
One final note regarding the second hadith above, if Anas Ibn Malik refused to tell the people about the fourth time when it is alleged that Mohammed will return for the fourth time before Allah asking Him to allow him to remove all those sinners from hell, who have declared the oneness of Allah before hand, as it was stated above that Anas motive of concealing it was to avoid that the people may totally rely on that and indulge themselves in committing sins as long as they have declared the oneness of Allah, they will be saved, as they would know that the prophet will intercede for them and remove them from hell. Then I say, Bukhari spoiled such careful thoughts by Anas, because now, all of us know that by just declaring the oneness of Allah while indulging in sins all our lives, it will be more than enough for Mohammed to intercede for us and even he will have the power to remove us from hell, Allah is rendered just a mere one of the actors who is acting in a play that was directed by Bukhari, what a load of non sense dear Muslim brothers and sisters.
See, those hadith worshippers do not understand that intercession (logically speaking) has absolutely no value, being in hell or being in paradise, Allah can remove you from either, any time He wills, let's have a look:
106: So as to those who are unhappy, they will be in the fire; for them therein is exhaling and inhaling,
107: Abiding therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord wills; indeed your Lord is doer of what He wants.
108: And as to those who are made happy, in the garden abiding therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord wills; a giving which will never be interrupted.
11:106 فاما الذين شقوا ففي النار لهم فيها زفير وشهيق
11:107 خالدين فيها ما دامت السماوات والارض الا ما شاء ربك ان ربك فعال لما يريد
11:108 واما الذين سعدوا ففي الجنة خالدين فيها ما دامت السماوات والارض الا ما شاء ربك عطاء غير مجذوذ
See, those sinners who will go to hell, will abide in it EXCEPT as Allah wills: as to those who are unhappy, they will be in the fire; for them therein is exhaling and inhaling, Abiding therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord wills;
And the winners who will go to paradise, will abide in it EXCEPT as Allah wills: And as to those who are made happy, in the garden abiding therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord wills.
Therefore, the outcome of the intercession by other people is meaningless (logically speaking) because even for those who will enter paradise, Allah can take them out from it whenever He wills, and most certainly He will not and cannot be questioned regarding why He did this, or why He has done that.
Such exclusive Mashi'aa (willing) which belongs only to Allah, was presented to us by Bukhari as if, there is another willing in conjunction with it, (the willing of prophet Mohammed) and through both willing(s), the sinners will be saved, imagine that Mohammed may not intercede for some people, what will happen to them? It has to be UNKNOWN according to the man made books of hadith.
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat 28 Jan, 2012 8:40 am; edited 4 times in total
Posted:
Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:05 pm
Rigel Pawn
Status:
Faith:
Joined: Aug 17, 2007
Posts: 110
Post subject:
Salam brother,
If bukhari was not arab how come all his wiritngs are in arabic ?
Non arabs depend alot on hadiths because they dont understand Quran, but why does arab speakers depend on hadith.
Posted:
Thu 19 Mar, 2009 10:44 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Rigel wrote:
Salam brother,
If bukhari was not arab how come all his wiritngs are in arabic ?
Non arabs depend alot on hadiths because they dont understand Quran, but why does arab speakers depend on hadith.
Salam mate
It is been alleged that Bukhari learnt Arabic. However it is also been alleged that he was blind since he was a child but later on his mother asked Allah to give the sight to him back then she saw the grant of Allah in a dream, then Bukhari the following day was able to see again
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
In today's Bukhari Sunnah lesson, we will look at a hadith alleged by Bukhari which should render all Muslims who fight and kill each other, Kafiroon (Unbelievers)
The above hadith by Bukhari is listed under a sub-chapter that he named: الإنصات للعلماء , i.e. Listening to the Ulamma (The Knowledgeable), which is under a chapter that he named: العلم , i.e. The Knowledge
The message of the above hadith is very simple, it is alleged that the prophet said in the last ceremony the following while the people were listening:
Do not return after me Kuffar (unbelievers), when some of you strike the neck of the others.
Now, I am not really sure if there is any sunnah in the above allegation, but let's assume that there is, therefore it should simply be as follow:
Those Muslims who fight and kill each other, MUST BE KAFIROON, i.e. UNBELIEVERS
Well, it's really strange that Bukhari included such allegation at least 150 years after so many Muslims fought and killed each other, including the following Muslims:
1- Ali ibn Abi Talib
2- Aysha
3- Aysha's two brothers-in-law Talha and Zubayr ibn al-Awwam
4- Abd Allah Ibn al-Zubayr
5- Muˁāwīya ibn ˁAbī Sufyān
And so many more
Therefore according to Bukhari, the above mentioned Muslims along with thousands of Muslims back then, MUST BE KAFIROON, i.e. UNBELIEVERS, this is because they struck the neck of each other, i.e. they fought and killed each other, and not to my surprise, according to Bukhari, so many Muslims who now days are following path by fighting and killing each other, must be Kafiroon.
Now, if Bukhari believed in his allegations of hadith, then he should have also believed that Aysha and Ali returned Kafirs after the prophet death.
Finally, what exactly the above allegation has to do with 'Knowledge" or "Listening to the Ulamaa"? Absoutely nothing
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat 28 Jan, 2012 8:42 am; edited 3 times in total
Posted:
Sun 22 Mar, 2009 10:25 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
In today's Bukhari Sunnah lesson, we will look at another strange hadith alleged by Bukhari which should convict him and many others of the crime of not obeying the prophet.
The above hadith by Bukhari is listed under a sub-chapter that he named: من خص بالعلم قوما دون قوم كراهية أن لا يفهموا , i.e. The one who exclusively transfer knowledge to some but not others fearing that the others may not understand the knowledge), which is under a chapter that he named: العلم , i.e. The Knowledge
The message of the above hadith is non sensible though, it is alleged that Anas Ibn Malik said that it was mentioned to him the following:
The prophet said to Maaz Ibn Jabal: Whoever meets Allah while not shirking anything with Him, he should enter paradise.
So Maaz Ibn Jabal said to the prophet:
Should I inform everyone so they the receive the good tidings?
So the prophet replied back:
NO, as I fear that they may rely on that.
End of hadith
Well, can you see that Anas Ibn Malik did not tell us who told him that, he only said that it was mentioned to him. How Bukhari then managed to authenticate such allegation? This is not really important, I actually careless about any Isnad or chain of narrators, all I care about is the logic behind the message in such allegation, that is if there is any.
The logic of the above allegation is obvious, Bukhari is telling us that some people may be informed with vital and crucial information, while other should never be informed likewise, the reason given by Bukhari that, those that will be excluded from knowing such information, have been excluded because of the fear that they may rely on it totally by misunderstanding it.
The vital information in the above allegation, is simply: Anyone who meets Allah while not shirking with Him anything, will go to paradise.
According to the allegation, the prophet said so to one person only, such person is named Maaz Ibn Jabal, obviously Maaz rejoiced when he heard such crucial information, so when he wanted to say it to everyone, the prophet clearly PROHIBITED HIM from doing so, by telling him NO, as well explaining his reason to why the information should be concealed from some people, which is the fear that those people misunderstand the message and totally rely on it without working hard on their deeds beside their Iman (belief).
Now I wonder, who should deserve to know such crucial information and who should not? I mean who can judge that?, certainly the prophet could have judged it and said it to Maaz Ibn Jabal, knowing that Maaz will not rely on that alone. Now, what do you think the benefit of such message to the people like Maaz? Absolutely nothing, the danger of such message is certainly outweigh the 0 benefit it has.
Allah already told us at least a couple of times in the Quran that He may forgive all sins except Shirk, therefore there is nothing that is new in the above allegation, on the other hand, Maaz Ibn Jabal certainly did not conceal it from some people, he must have said it to a few, and from those few it spread to more people, until it reached Bukhari, so mister Bukhari in his total recklessness disobeyed the prophet and documented it in a book so every Muslim knows about it. HOW DUMB
Now, let's just assume that Maaz obeyed the prophet and only said such information to a few and concealed it from the rest, as he was commanded by the prophet, now those few started to spread it to other few(s), possibly all those people may be excused assuming that the people thought of those to whom they said it, that they will not rely on it. Now mister confused Bukhari came and put the final nail in the coffin by informing every single Muslim in the world spanning over generations and generations for 1200 years with such allegation, IN CLEAR VIOLATION TO THE PROPHET COMMAND IN THE SAME AND VERY ALLEGATION
Simply, Bukhari convicted his own self, he proved how confused, dumb, ignorant and most importantly disobedient to the prophet command, he was, and certainly millions and millions of the Muslims now totally rely on that, i.e. if they meet Allah without shirking anything with Him, they will go to paradise while totally ignoring the issue of their deeds.
See, it is not about the belief only, it is always about the belief and deeds, a fact that is mentioned in the Quran tens of times, yet mister Bukhari totally ignored such fact, in addition to his clear disobedience to the prophet command of not saying it to everyone rather a few.
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat 28 Jan, 2012 8:42 am; edited 2 times in total
Posted:
Mon 23 Mar, 2009 9:24 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
In relation to the second last Bukhari sunnah lesson ABOVE. I was driving my car and all of a sudden a verse clicked in my head which clearly contradicts such allegation by Bukhari, in which it is alleged that the prophet said indirectly that those believers who fight and kill each other must be Kafiroon.
In the following verse, we will read a command from Allah to the believers , to fight a group of believers, consequently according to Bukhari allegation, the Quran contradicted what is alleged to be said by the prophet, let's look at the verse:
49:9 وان طائفتان من المؤمنين اقتتلوا فاصلحوا بينهما فان بغت احداهما علي الاخري فقاتلوا التي تبغي حتي تفيئ الي امر الله فان فاءت فاصلحوا بينهما بالعدل واقسطوا ان الله يحب المقسطين
And if two parties of the believers fight, make peace between them; but if one of them acts wrongfully towards the other, fight that which acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah's command; then if it returns, make peace between them with justice and act equitably; surely Allah loves those who act equitably.
Verse 49:9 talks about 3 groups of believers, let's name them with some letters:
Group A
Group B
Group C
All the above groups are believers
Now imagine Group A and Group B start to fight each other, see: And if two parties of the believers fight, according to Bukhari allegation, Group A and Group B should be kafirs because they fight each other.
Now, Group C must make peace between Group A and Group B, see: make peace between them . Now, after such peace treaty was iniitiated, imagine now that one group of the two conflicting groups, breaks the treaty and starts to attack the other group, for example, let's assume that Group A violated the peace treaty and started to attack Group B again, see: but if one of them acts wrongfully towards the other , then the command from Allah that Group C should fight Group A until they wake up, see: fight that which acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah's command , i.e. according to the allegation by Bukhari, Group C and Group A must be kafiroon, therefore, the outcome of such allegation by Bukhari is simply, all three groups must be Kafiroon, HOW INSANE
This must lead to the following clear cut obvious conclusion, that such allegation by Bukhari MUST BE A LIE, or at least is not a complete account to what really said by the prophet
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Tue 19 Nov, 2013 4:31 am; edited 2 times in total
Posted:
Tue 24 Mar, 2009 10:39 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
Let me show you a clear example of how Bukhari book and its likes, totally destroyed many of the Muslims judgment regarding very serious matter, Marriage
A Saudi pervert aged 47 years old, lent another Saudi some money, so when the second Saudi failed to pay the debit back, the first Saudi suggested that he marry of his 8 years old daughter to him to settle such debit. In effect it is exactly like selling his 8 years old daughter to a clear cut pervert to free his debit.
The girls' parents are divorced, so her mother went mad and took the matter to court to annul such illegal marriage.
After she lost the first court, she won the appeal, and now the marriage legality is on pause until the appeal is looked at.
Let me show you the story from CNN as it is published today, then I will add more comments
An appeals court in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, has rejected and refused to certify a court ruling allowing a 47-year-old man's marriage to an 8-year-old girl, said a relative of the girl with knowledge of the proceedings.
Under the Saudi legal process, what the appeals court ruling means is that the controversial marriage is still in effect, but a challenge to the marriage by the girl's mother is still alive.
Rights groups hailed this week's decision because it keeps the mother's challenge going.
"I think that it happened because of the mother, because she refused to accept the [original] verdict, because she challenged the court in and took it to the appeals court, said Saudi women's rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider. "I really admire the mother for this."
The mother is extremely relieved, the family member told CNN. She also expressed her thanks to the head of the appeals court for the attention paid the case, according to the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Riyadh on Tuesday.
The appeals court action now sends the case back to the earlier judge, who will decide whether to stand by his original decision.
There in Onaiza, the judge will have a chance to either overturn or uphold his first verdict, the girl's relative said. If the judge upholds his verdict and refuses to annul the marriage, then the case will again go to the appeals court, the family member told CNN. If the judge changes his decision, then the case is effectively over, the relative added.
Al-Huwaider, co-founder of the Society of Defending Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia, warned that while this latest development should be considered a victory for women's and children's rights, this is only a first step.
"For our women's rights group, I feel this is the first real achievement we've had since we started," she said. "We are happy for the girl and her mother but this is just the first achievement. We want a law in Saudi Arabia that protects girls from early marriages -- a law that states that girls have to be at least 17 before they can marry and boys have to be at least 18. When that happens, we will really celebrate."
The case, which has garnered much criticism from rights groups within and outside Saudi Arabia, came to light in December when the Onaiza judge refused to annul the marriage on a legal technicality. Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib's dismissal of the mother's petition for annulment sparked immediate outrage.
The mother's lawyer, Abdullah al-Jutaili, said the judge found that the mother -- who is separated from the girl's father -- is not the legal guardian and therefore could not represent her daughter.
The judge also requested and received a pledge from the girl's husband, who was in court, not to allow the marriage to be consummated until the girl reaches puberty, al-Jutaili said.
The lawyer said the judge ruled that when the girl reaches puberty, she will have the right to request a divorce by filing a petition with the court. Al-Jutaili said the girl's father arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with the man, "a close friend" of his.
The judge's verdict was appealed. In a statement issued shortly after the original verdict, the Society of Defending Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia said the judge's decision went against children's "basic rights."
Marrying children makes them "lose their sense of security and safety," the group said. "Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression."
Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Saudi Human Rights Commission, a government-run human rights group, said that his organization was fighting child marriages. "Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed," al-Harithi said.
Child marriage is not unusual, said Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabian researcher for the international group Human Rights Watch, after the initial verdict.
"We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke told CNN.
---------------------------
Now, why you think those Wahabbi Saudis marry children? Well, it is because of Bukhari non sense, conjectures and lies in his man made book which most Muslims worship and consider in the same level as the book of Allah.
Let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s look at such non sense of allegation of hadith as reported and documented by Bukhari:
Look I am not going to explain to you the above useless non sense, I can assure you that there is no Sunnah whatsoever in the above allegation, which suppose to be by Aysha: in simple terms, she said the following:
تزوجني النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأنا بنت ست سنين , i.e. The prophet married me when I was six years old
Then the allegation went on with some useless information and at the end of the hadith, it is alleged that Ayshe said the following:
فأسلمتني إليه وأنا يومئذ بنت تسع سنين , i.e. She (her mother) delivered her to the house of the prophet when she was 9 years old
Now, I am asking any sane Muslim or Muslimah, what is the sunnah that we should learn from the above crap?
Absolutely nothing
Ironically we never read any other allegation in all these man made books of hadith that the prophet himself ever declared that he married Aysha at such young age.
And even more ironically we did not even hear it from Aysha herself, yet more ironically that Bukhari himself did not hear it from Aysha herself.
See, with a crap like this in a book that is called Sahih and is worshipped by so many Muslims, they will try to take the prophet as an example in such allegation, and do the same by marrying children. The problem with such freaks that they can never be like the prophet nor their wives can ever be like the prophet wives, this fact is logically comprehended after looking at the following facts:
1) The prophet married more than 4 women, while other Muslim men are only allowed to marry a max of 4 women.
2) The prophet was commanded not to divorce any of the ones that he already have at a certain point of a time, while other Muslim men are allowed to divorce their wives at any point of time.
3) The prophet was prevented from marrying any new wife, while other Muslims are allowed to marry new wives as long as they do not exceed the limit of 4, certainly by divorcing some of what they have and marrying others, yet the prophet was prevented from doing the same at a certai9n point of time, i.e. the prophet was prevented to even exchange any wife that he already have with new ones.
4) The wives of the prophet can not marry anyone after the prophet death, while the other Muslim women can remarry any time after getting divorce as long as they observe the Idaah.
5) The wives of the prophet are labeled by Allah as the mothers of the believers, while the other Muslim women can not be classified as such.
Therefore we cannot take the prophet as an example to whom we should marry and at what age our wives maybe even at such young age.
If it was true that the prophet married Aysha at such age then, it is something that is exclusive to him, as many other things were exclusive to him, he was a messenger for God sake, not an ordinary human like us.
Messengers are dealt differently by Allah compared with the rest of humans, if we should take them as an example Iswah Hasnah, then only in how they believed in, and worshipped Allah, nothing more and nothing less, in fact anything more may make such people idol worshippers which is an act that has to be certainly linked one way or another to shirk.
One important note that should not be overlooked, that when the prophet married Aysha at such age(assuming) that the story is true, the prophet never forced such marriage, Abu Bakr never owned the prophet any money for Abu Bakr to sell his young daughter to the prophet to free himself from any debits. Unlike such pervert of a Wahabbi Saudi who cornered a poor man using the money he lend him, to force him to sell his young daughter to him, which certainly confirms that he is pedophile.
We do not bloody need to know at what age Aysha married the prophet, it is totally useless information and certainly there is no Sunnah in it. If anyone can marry any girl before she reaches puberty, then what the hell should prevent them from marrying baby girls who were just been born? Absolutely nothing.
Indeed, Bukhari totally lost the plot and contaminated the minds of millions and millions of Muslims through his crap of work that he called Sahih hadith, which they shirk with the book of Allah as another book of guidance next to the Quran.
Well, there is no guidance in the above crap, rather misguidance, and we can clearly see a perfect example through such CNN story about such misguided Saudi pervert.
The above hadith is alleged by Anas Ibn Malik, so he said:
When the prophet used to Tabaraz (piss faeces), I used to bring to him water so he washes himself thereby.
End of hadith
Hmmmmmm, well, well, well, the above crap is listed under a sub-chapter that is named ما جاء في غسل البول , i.e. What was said in regards to washing the urine, but as you can see, the alleged hadith is not about washing the urine, rather washing the Buraz (faeces), would that be a clear sign of Bukhari confusion?, well, here is another sign of his confusion, he listed the above crap under a chapter that he named: الوضوء , i.e. Wudo, yet we read nothing in the above crap by Bukhari about Wudo.
I am not really sure what sunnah in the above clear cut idol worshipping example?,
That we should wash our bums with water after we piss some shit? WOW, I guess, possibly no one knew that before the prophet was sent
Possibly Allah did not tell us about that? Let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see:
O you who have believed! Do not come near the prayer when you are confused until you know what you say, nor when you are unclean -unless being travelers on the road- until you wash yourselves; and if you are sick or on a journey or the call of nature comes to anyone of you or you have touched the women, but you cannot find water then use clean soil, and wipe your faces and your hands; indeed Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving. [Al Quran ; 4:43]
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَقْرَبُواْ الصَّلاَةَ وَأَنتُمْ سُكَارَى حَتَّىَ تَعْلَمُواْ مَا تَقُولُونَ وَلاَ جُنُبًا إِلاَّ عَابِرِي سَبِيلٍ حَتَّىَ تَغْتَسِلُواْ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَى أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاء أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّن الْغَآئِطِ أَوْ لاَمَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُواْ بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَفُوًّا غَفُورًا (43)
-> How clear, see: and if you are sick or on a journey or the call of nature comes to anyone of you or you have touched the women, but you cannot find water then use clean soil,
I.e. it is clear that Allah already told us that if we answer the call of nature, we should use water to clean ourselves, and if we cannot find water, then we should use clean soil instead. Therefore Bukhari told us nothing new, in fact it does not sound that he was trying to tell us something, rather it seems that he was so indulged in his idol worshipping of Mohammed, that he documented such thing about him in a book that most Muslims shirk with the book of Allah as both being a source of sharia and authority.
Well, it is very clear that the above crap by Bukhari did not tell us anything about Wudo, supposedly this is what any sane writer should do to fill up the content of a chapter in his book that he named Wudo
Let me show you how Allah in another verse, explained to us how to perform Wudo, and in the same very verse, He also told us what to do when we answer the call of nature, and many other things:
O you who believed! When you stand up for the prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles; and if you are unclean then purify yourselves, and if you are sick or on a journey or the call of nature comes to anyone of you or you have touched the women, but you cannot find water then use clean soil, and wipe your faces and your hands from it (the clean soil); Allah does not want to put on you any difficulty, but He wants to purify you and complete His favour upon you, so that you may give thanks. [Al Quran ; 5:6]
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلاةِ فاغْسِلُواْ وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُواْ بِرُؤُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَينِ وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُواْ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَى أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاء أَحَدٌ مَّنكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لاَمَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُواْ بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُم مِّنْهُ مَا يُرِيدُ اللّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهَّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ (6)
-> See how clear the message of Allah in His Quran. Firstly He explained to us how to perform Wudo: O you who believed! When you stand up for the prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles; HOW SIMPLE, then Allah told us when we need to wash (purify) ourselves: and if you are unclean then purify yourselves, , then Allah explained to us more circumstances when we need to wash (purify) ourselves, including the answer of the call of nature: and if you are sick or on a journey or the call of nature comes to anyone of you or you have touched the women, but you cannot find water then use clean soil, HOW CLEAR
Can you see how verse 5:6 is telling us what Bukhari claimed to tell us in his allegation, yet he never did?
1- Bukhari named the chapter Wudo, yet he never explained to us any Wudo in his allegation
2- Bukhari named the sub-chapter, Washing the urine, yet he never explained to us anything about that
All Bukhari cared about is to document in a book that the prophet washed his bum with water, after he Tabaraz (pissed faeces)
Do we really need the above useless non sense after Allah revealed to us verses 4:43 and 5:6?
Here is something interesting for you that you need to think about:
4+4+3= 11
&
5+6= 11
Well, the conclusion is this, there is only one place for such allegation by Bukhari, the rubbish bin
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Tue 19 Nov, 2013 4:31 am; edited 3 times in total
Posted:
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 11:32 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
In today's Bukhari lesson, we will look at two hadith, they are numbered: # 151, and # 164, i.e. they are 13 hadith apart, yet we should see the clear contradiction between the two.
The above hadith is alleged by the always doubtful Abi Hurairah, so he said:
I followed the prophet when he went out to answer the call of nature, and while he was not looking around him, he asked me to bring to him some stones so he cleans himself or something like that, but he told me not to bring bones or faeces, so I brought to him some stones and put it next to him and turned away, so when he finished, he walked away. I was following him with the stones since.
End of hadith
What can I say brothers and sisters? Laughable, hey. The above useless non sense was listed under a sub-chapter named: الاستنجاء بالحجارة , i.e. Cleaning the self after answering the call of nature with stones, which is under a chapter that Bukhari named: الوضوء , i.e. Wudo, yet we read nothing in the above crap by Bukhari about Wudo. Rather, an allegation by a doubtful man alleging how the prophet cleaned himself after answering the call of nature.
Some hadith worshippers may say that cleaning the self after answering the call of nature is part of Wudo, then I say fine, but I tell them, why then most Muslims now days are not taking the prophet as an Iswah Hasanah, as alleged by Abi Hurairah and reported by Bukhari in his Sahih? I mean, do most of those hadith worshippers wipe their bums with stones after they answer the call of nature? If no, then tough luck to them, according to their own flawed logic, they are not obeying the prophet.
Let me explain to you something very important, the hadith above does not talk about any shortage of water for the prophet to clean himself with stones (soil) after answering the call of nature, this is evident from two facts:
1- The hadith never mentioned to us anything about any shortage of water
2- The hadith is listed under a chapter which Bukhari named Wudo i.e. cleaning the self with water, while he also included a long chapter in his book that he named Tayamum, i.e. cleaning the self with clean soil in the case of shortage of water.
Now if they say Bukhari was so intelligent man, then I have to question such intelligence, because the above hadith has nothing to do with Tayamum otherwise Bukhari should have listed it under the chapter that he named Tayamum, but as we have seen that Bukhari listed the hadith under a chapter named Wudo, i.e. for the hadith worshippers, this is what they have to do, for them to be doing the Wudo as alleged about the prophet, yet most of them now days, do not do that, therefore they cannot be following the prophet according to their own flawed logic.
What I find so bizarre is this fact, that the prophet needed someone (The stalker Abi Hurairah) to bring for him some stones after he sat down and started to answer the call of nature, as if he could not get some stones for himself before he sat down to answer the call of nature. I say to those confused hadith worshippers: You need to believe the following non sense:
1- The prophet went outside walking
2- The stalker Abi Hurairah followed him
3- The prophet needed to answer the call of nature to he sat down on the ground and started the answer
4- Then he calls Abi Hurairah to bring him some stones
5- Abi Hurairah brings some stones and drop it next to him then he looks away
6- The prophet cleans himself with the stones, then walks away
7- Since then, the stalker Abi Hurairah follows him with stones ready with him
How bloody ridiculous. Can you also see that Abi Hurairah was not sure what the prophet said exactly: so he cleans himself or something like that
And what makes it more ridiculous is the fact I mentioned earlier, that the hadith never talked about any shortage of water, yet if we just assume for argument sake that it was a case of shortage of water, then the following Bukhari hadith in the same chapter must contradicts it, let's have a look:
The above hadith is alleged by Anas Ibn Malik, so he said:
I saw the messenger of Allah at the time of Salat Asr, so the people sought Wudo but they could not find any water, so the messenger of Allah came with water that was used before for Wudo, and poured it into this container, and he commanded the people to make Wudo from it, then I saw the water pouring from under his fingers, and all the people made Wudo.
End of hadith
What can I say again brothers and sisters? The above is yet another example of how they want to raise Mohammed in a level that he was never at, the above non sense is listed under a sub-chapter that is named التماس الوضوء إذا حانت الصلاة , i.e. Seeking Wudo when prayer time comes, which is under a chapter that Bukhari named: الوضوء , i.e. Wudo. I say, what the hell was that? We already know that we should seek Wudo when the prayer time comes, it was a clear command from Allah in the Quran, yet the hadith was not about that at all, rather all it wanted to highlight that the prophet performed a miracle of producing water from under his fingers that was sufficient enough for some people to perform Wudo, YET the prophet failed to do the same for himself when he answered the call of nature as we learnt from the first hadith, i.e. he was helpless to produce water from under his fingers to purify himself, and more ironically he was even helpless to collect a few stones for himself and needed Abi Hurairah to do it for him after he already started to answer the call of nature
Can you see the clear contradiction?
Well, there is certainly no sunnah from the second hadith, we already know that we should seek Wudo before we perform any Salat
Now, if there is any sunnah in the first hadith, then it should be as follow:
1) To use stones to clean our bums after we answer the call of nature
2) That we seek the help of someone to bring to us those stones after we have already started to piss.
Do most hadith worshippers do that? Of course not, I wonder why, wasn't their idol whom they worship doing so as alleged by Bukhari and his pal Abu Hurairah?
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat 28 Jan, 2012 8:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted:
Sat 28 Mar, 2009 10:31 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
In today's Bukhari lesson, we will look at two hadith, which should be another compelling proof of how Bukhari and others were clear cut idol worshipping Mohammed, which resulted that he made his sahih book to indirectly express such type of worshipping, and consequently many confused Muslims followed path.
The two hadith are from the a chapter named الوضوء , i.e. Wudo, i.e. we should read some info about how to perform Wudo, or at least we should read some info to what is Wudo exactly? Let's walk through such sahih hadith and see if we may learn anything from it regarding Wudo. The first Bukhari hadith # 166:
When the messenger of Allah used to have his hair cut, Abu Talha used to be the first to collect some of his hair.
End of hadith
Hmmmmm, dear Muslim brothers and sisters, can you see the clear cut idol worshipping? IT CANNOT BE CLEARER THAN THAT
The allegation did not tell us how we should perform Wudo, further more the allegation never defined for us what Wudo is. All it cared about is to tell us that when the prophet used to have a hair cut, people were racing to collect some of his hair, someone named Abu Talha was the first.
Hahaha, reminds me with the bride in her wedding party, when she throws the flowers behind her back and all ladies race to be the first to get it.
Well done mister Abu Talha, you have won the first prize of who was the most idol worshipper of Mohammed.
And well done Bukhari, you just proved to us how stupid you have been, by not telling us anything about Wudo in such allegation and all you cared about is to express your idol worshipping of Mohammed, I bet you were so eager to have one hair of Mohammed.
The second hadith by Bukhari is similar to the above crap, in fact it is the previous hadith, let's have a look at the second Bukhari hadith # 165:
The above hadith is alleged by Ibn Seren, who was talking to another guy named Ubaidah, so Ibn Seren said:
We have some hair from the prophet that we took from Anas or from the family of Anas
So Ubaidah said back:
If I have one hair from him (the messenger of Allah), it would have been more loved to me than anything in this life.
End of hadith
Here you have it again, now, we realize that whole family of Anas were idol worshipping of Mohammed, who collected his hair, and they were even distributing some of it to other people. It seems that Ibn Seren was just about to do the same by t giving away some of the hair of the prophet that he took from the family of Anas to others, so they fulfil their idol worshipping of Mohammed and spread it between the people who should be following the straight path of Allah, one of those guys were so happy that he is about to have one hair of the prophet that he proudly and shamelessly said, that one hair from the prophet will be more loved to him than anything in this life.
So, how was the Wudo lesson by Bukhari? I have to say, there nothing that can beat it in its stupidity along with his stupidity
This should take us to the medal presentation to the winners of 'Who is the most idol worshipper of Mohammed':
The Gold medal goes to:
Abu Talha
The Silver medal goes to:
The family of Anas (shared)
And the Bronze medal goes to:
Mister Bukhari and Mister Ubaidah (shared)
Please put your feet together for such idol worshipper fools:
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 10 Hours Ported for PHP-Nuke by nukemods.com
