posted
Now, I have to start explaining again., the goat now,....and I'll never finish my assignments. I paid for the bloody course, I dont want to have to redo it!!!!
Arabic speakers who read that alleged verse will not hesitate for a minute to reject it...You have to speak Arabic to know that....the quran has a certain quality to its words and phrases.It's considered to be miraculous in structure. The idea of its beauty of expression and inability to imitate it is the its main strength. The quran challenges people to produce a similar verse. This challenge was directed to the Arabs of the peninsula in the seventh century who were widely renown for their literary accomplishments and they failed to produce anything.
That alleged verse is of very poor quality that is not difficult to be recognized by a modern Arabic speaker at a hundred yards.
Number two: The idea that Ayisha would leave quranic script under her bed for goats to eat, chicken to trod on and people to kick is just so preposterous. It is an irresponsible action that I cant see happening in the prophet's house.
End of story
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Number three for Muslims only because I cant ask non Muslims to belive in the infalllibility of the Quran: When God told us in the quran that He will protect and preserve the quran till the end of time, it makes sense that he wont lose a bit of it to goats by mistake.
-------------------- Noha Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka ): Goat?! I don't mention a goat
Well, alhamdullillah that you didnt....but apparently Dalia heard it from someone. You probably know what she is referring to.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188: Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed . I too, stoned it along with them.
Btw, I was told that The narrator saw the accident(illegal sexual intercourse)
It says in the hadeeth narrated by Imam Muslim in his Saheeh that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a previously-married man (commits zina) with a previously-married woman, (the punishment is) one hundred lashes and stoning.” (al-Hudood 3199)
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
but sultan you are missing the point about the monkeys. How do you know it wasnt married to the other monkey and how do you know it was committing illegal sexual intercourse
I cant believe I am even asking this question
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*: I was being facetious, homing pigeon! I've never believed the story about the goat, I think it's ridiculous and blasphemic.
So no need to explain it to me ... please go and take care of your assignments.
I just finished work right now (and it's close to 1.00 a.m. here), if that comforts you.
It could be false but it is not illogical. Goats are known to eat papers and books. The only reason you are so shocked is that you think those writings were revelations from God and if so they could not have been destroyed. Since your premise is wrong your conclusion is wrong too.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, undercover, there is about half a dozen reasons that invalidate this story.
Sultan, Dalia was referring to the alleged incident of the goat that ate some quranic script that was left under sayida Aysha's bed and forgotten at the time of the prophet's death. Presumably it contained a quranic verse that said "alshaykh walshaykha forgomoohoma albatta".....I've seen a salafi brother defend that incident for 44 discussion forum pages!
-------------------- Noha Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: but sultan you are missing the point about the monkeys. How do you know it wasnt married to the other monkey and how do you know it was committing illegal sexual intercourse
I cant believe I am even asking this question
She was with the first Monkey(her husband) whom She left sleeping and went to the other Monkey. This is what I was told from Hadith scholars. when Monkeys saw her, she was stoned. By the way This story is very strongly authentic.
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka ): By the way This story is very strongly authentic. [/QB]
Doesnt matter! If it doesnt make sense, the strength of authenticity doesnt count.
Like other senseless stuff as Moses running after a stone that stole his clothes. That one has a strongly authentic sanad, too!
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*: I was being facetious, homing pigeon! I've never believed the story about the goat, I think it's ridiculous and blasphemic.
So no need to explain it to me ... please go and take care of your assignments.
I just finished work right now (and it's close to 1.00 a.m. here), if that comforts you.
It could be false but it is not illogical. Goats are known to eat papers and books. The only reason you are so shocked is that you think those writings were revelations from God and if so they could not have been destroyed. Since your premise is wrong your conclusion is wrong too.
The Quran verses were passed on through word of mouth, through learning and committing to memory. If you have read any you will know it has a certain poetic prose to it. This is also how so many people even now can recite the entire Quran from memory. I doubt a goat eating a piece of paper with a verse on it will have also erased it from the memories of those people.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*: And how did they know the first monkey was her "husband"? Did the narrator also witness them signing the marriage contract?
It's easy to get it Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sultan.org(In Makka ): By the way This story is very strongly authentic.
Doesnt matter! If it doesnt make sense, the strength of authenticity doesnt count.
Like other senseless stuff as Moses running after a stone that stole his clothes. That one has a strongly authentic sanad, too! [/QB]
we got Quran and Sunna by Isnad. All stories make sense if we actually understand it.
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ahhh we are back to the 'you dont understand it correctly' one again
Sultan do you believe in the trinity?? No?? well maybe thats because you dont understand it correctly Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are many absurd hadiths that do not stand up to the challenge of the real commonsense, despite being acknowledged as Sahih.
Take this story for example:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 315 Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "At every womb Allah appoints an angel who says, 'O Lord! A drop of semen, O Lord! A clot. O Lord! A little lump of flesh." Then if Allah wishes (to complete) its creation, the angel asks, (O Lord!) Will it be a male or female, a wretched or a blessed, and how much will his provision be? And what will his age be?' So all that is written while the child is still in the mother's womb."
This hadith resembles to a joke. Just the thought of this little angel that gets in there and stands in front of the womb each time a man become intimate with his wife watching the whole act and supplicating Allah for a drop of semen right on his face, is entertaining. Shall we discard this Hadith as a fabrication? It certainly goes against our commonsense. But wai a minute. this hadith was not against the commonsense of those who used to count it to each other 1400 years ago. It does not make sense to us, but it made perfect sense to them. So whose commonsense is the standard? Few hundred years ago, the commonsense dictated that the Earth is flat. All the philosophers and prophets agreed. Today it doesn’t? Can we say that these hadithes that go against our modern commonsense are false now, but they were true then because they were in accordance with the commonsense of the ancient folks?
The point is that we cannot dismiss the authenticity of a Hadith based on our commonsense. Today’s Muslims have taken for granted that Muhammad was the messenger of God and therefore he could not he wrong. So they reevaluate the hadithes as time goes by and keep discarding those that their newfound understanding of science proves unsound. This method is highly biased.
Today more educated Muslims find many absurdities in the ahadith and their first reaction is to deny them. However, since the majority of the hadithes are nonsensical, the growing consensus is to deny all the hadithes and vilify the unfortunate Bukhari and Muslim who were revered for over a millennium. This is unfair. Bukhari and Muslim, along with other Muhaditheen did not invent these hadithes but reported them as they were told. It is not right to shoot the messenger if the message in unpleasing. And it is highly unethical to defile these reporters and deny what they painstakingly collected, because what they reported blemish Muhammad. Some of these reports are fabricated and false but many of them are true. Because many of these hadithes are of dubious nature, we should not rely on them as religious source of guidance but to dismiss them as historic source is committing a grave mistake. These hadithes are all we have about the life of the Prophet. They narrate the stories of the historic Muhammad. They should not be taken as a substitute to Quran (assuming that this is a revealed book) but they are the biography of the Prophet. If you deny all the hadithes how can you prove the historicity of the Prophet? If all those stories are false and someone with a diabolic wit has forged all of them, then perhaps someone equally malignant has fabricated the Quran and the whole Islam is nothing but a fanciful tale. Without the Hadith, we know nothing of Muhammad, his life and his history.
does anyone else get the idea nothing we write is read at all?
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bananas i would think Dalia, they would have more value. Perhaps peanuts are for the divorce settlements
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Mmmh, speaking of bananas and peanuts ... I just remembered that many primates are vegetarians. Now here's something humans would be well advised to learn from them. Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
....[W]hen you listen to the braying of the donkey, seek refuge in Allah from the Satan [sic] for it sees Satan (Muslim, no. 6581)
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it that donkeys see Satan and bray? Do other animals see Satans? Why can't we see the Satans? I would guess that human and donkey eyes see the same wavelengths, more or less, so why can't we see them? Even if the sight wavelengths are different, we should be able to see the Satans using IR or UV detection equipment. But I know of no one who has ever said they've seen a Satan using this type of technology!
Is it sultan who gives Islam a bad name or Sahih Bukhari? The Hadith clearly portray the workings of Muhammad's mind. He accepted superstitions, myths, and made bizarre declarations whenever he had to say something about an event, or something he didn't understand.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: [QUOTE] You probably know what she is referring to.
No I don't what is it?
Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 638
"Narrated the Prophet Muhammad, "There are no hadith. Read the damn Quran. The hadith are informative but they are not a source of law."
Volume 3, Book 43, Number 638:
Narrated Um Salama:
(the wife of the Prophet) Allah's Apostle heard some people quarreling at the door of his dwelling. He came out and said, "I am only a human being, and opponents come to me (to settle their problems); maybe someone amongst you can present his case more eloquently than the other, whereby I may consider him true and give a verdict in his favor. So, If I give the right of a Muslim to another by mistake, then it is really a portion of (Hell) Fire, he has the option to take or give up (before the Day of Resurrection)." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/043.sbt.htmlPosts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, my brother!!! Undercover, please try a little and make some effort at an objective approach..........what I just spent hours trying to explain make it clear that there is no guarantee that these stories have been in circulation for hundreds of years. Bukhari didnt travel back in time. He met "a" person who informed him of the hadiths he knew and the links from which he got them; most of them being dead by the that time so there was no way for Bokhari to go ask them DID you really hear this thing from that person before you in the chain link? AND there were hadiths were some links were missing called (hadith morsal)....How can you verify those even if you travelled back in time? Then he heard of another person who knows some hadiths and he went to see them . He travelled back and forth across the Muslim lands to meet everyone alive who knows any hadiths but he could never trace the chain links back....I hope you got my point now.
Oh, and do you know about a Persian guy (fire worshipper) who dedicated his life to stealthily passing fake hadiths? why dont you know him? why didnt you come across him in your wide researches? I have a suggestion why...because you werent looking for the truth, Undercover, as much as you were looking to pick holes.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
it's easy to get(understand) to whom the animal is married to. Get it?
No, I don't. Were they wearing rings? Did the narrator see them announce their marriage to the other monkeys?
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
it's easy to get(understand) to whom the animal is married to. Get it?
No, I don't. Were they wearing rings? Did the narrator see them announce their marriage to the other monkeys?
and more importantly, did they have a party?? No marriage in Islam if it's kept secret, gotta have a party Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
it's easy to get(understand) to whom the animal is married to. Get it?
No, I don't. Were they wearing rings? Did the narrator see them announce their marriage to the other monkeys?
and more importantly, did they have a party?? No marriage in Islam if it's kept secret, gotta have a party
and no papers?, no ma`zoon ? no government stamp, no mahr ??? ???
I just want to ask something, in what jungle in the Arabian peninsula did the prophet (PBUH) allegedly saw this event? Or do monkey live in the desert
Posts: 785 | From: Cairo, Egypt | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
أنا أقصد ان الامام البخارى ذكر فى مقدمة كتابه انه لا يدعى لنفسه العصمة و جدير بنا أن نتجنب اثارة الحديث فى المواضيع الخلافية فى ظروف غير مناسبة والا أصبحنا كما يصف البعض طابور خامس داخلى
-------------------- Noha Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
دقته واجتهاده ظل البخاري ستة عشر عاما يجمع الأحاديث الصحاح في دقة متناهية، وعمل دؤوب، وصبر على البحث وتحري الصواب قلما توافرت لباحث قبله أو بعده حتى اليوم، وكان بعد كل هذا لا يدون الحديث إلا بعد أن يغتسل ويصلي ركعتين.
يروي أحد تلامذته أنه بات عنده ذات ليلة فأحصى عليه أنه قام وأسرج يستذكر أشياء يعلقها في ليلة ثمان عشرة مرة.
وقال محمد بن أبي حاتم الوراق كان أبو عبد الله إذا كنت معه في سفر يجمعنا بيت واحد إلا في القيظ أحيانا فكنت أراه يقوم في ليلة واحدة خمس عشرة مرة إلى عشرين مرة في كل ذلك يأخذ القداحة فيوري نارا ويسرج ثم يخرج أحاديث فيعلم عليها.
وروي عن البخاري أنه قال: لم تكن كتابتي للحديث كما كتب هؤلاء كنت إذا كتبت عن رجل سألته عن اسمه وكنيته ونسبته وحمله الحديث إن كان الرجل فهما، فإن لم يكن سألته أن يخرج إلي أصله ونسخته فأما الآخرون لا يبالون ما يكتبون وكيف يكتبون.
وكان العباس الدوري يقول: ما رأيت أحدا يحسن طلب الحديث مثل محمد بن إسماعيل كان لا يدع أصلا ولا فرعا إلا قلعه ثم قال لنا لا تدعوا من كلامه شيئا إلا كتبتمو
Posts: 2728 | From: جمهورية مصر العربية | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I would guess that human and donkey eyes see the same wavelengths, more or less, so why can't we see them? Even if the sight wavelengths are different, we should be able to see the Satans using IR or UV detection equipment. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic