Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, aansoogas said:

@BornShia i still don't know why you are insisting on having more ayahs on tayammum in quran. What has the hadith given by you got to do with your question?

Read the Bukhari hadith very carefully and see what he is claiming for Aisha and referencing the following:

1. The Tayammum verse was descended in honor of Aisha.

2. He is referencing the verse 6 in chapter 5.

3. Your Uthman didn't put the Quran in chronological order and chapter 5 is the last chapter of the Holy Quran.

4. There are other Tayammum verses in the Holy Quran which were revealed prior to verse 6 chapter 5.

5. Thus Muslim already knew regarding Tayammum.

Here is Bukhari hadith again for your reference. This time read it very carefully, the wording of the Hadith.

20 hours ago, BornShia said:

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 132:

Narrated Aisha:

A necklace of mine was lost at Al-Baida' and we were on our way to Medina. The Prophet made his camel kneel down and dismounted and laid his head on my lap and slept. Abu Bakr came to me and hit me violently on the chest and said, "You have detained the people because of a necklace." I kept as motionless as a dead person because of the position of Allah's Apostle ; (on my lap) although Abu Bakr had hurt me (with the slap). Then the Prophet woke up and it was the time for the morning (prayer). Water was sought, but in vain; so the following Verse was revealed:--

"O you who believe! When you intend to offer prayer.." (5.6) Usaid bin Hudair said, "Allah has blessed the people for your sake, O the family of Abu Bakr. You are but a blessing for them.

Like I said it is a cooked hadith and Bukhari knew it is a cooked hadith and he still included it in his Sahih Bukhari, or he lack the knowledge of the Holy Quran.

Sahih Muslim and other Sahih Sitta have plagiarized this hadith too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TtHE REALITY OF BUKHARI CAN BE SEEN IN THE BOOK AT THE LINK GIVEN BELOW:

Sunni Ulema  Abu Zar’ah Razi and Abu Hatam Razi have abandoned citing traditions from Bukhari, prohibiting others as well to quote traditions from Bukhari.

https://www.al-islam.org/critical-assessment-sahih-bukhari-and-sahih-muslim-sayyid-ali-al-husayni-al-milani/chapter-1-bukhari

It is one of the signs of Bukhari’s animosity towards the Holy Prophet’s progeny and his deviation from their conduct, that he did not mention Imam Sadiq’s traditions in his book and above all he cast doubts on some of his traditions!

Bukhari also contain the baseless traditions.

https://www.al-islam.org/critical-assessment-sahih-bukhari-and-sahih-muslim-sayyid-ali-al-husayni-al-milani/chapter-2

Many obvious contradictions can be found in traditions of Bukhari.

https://asimiqbal2nd.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/contradictions.pdf

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, aansoogas said:

okay and your proof?

How many times I will give you the PROOF. My proof is HOLY QURAN. But like I said, it is your salvation. Either believe Bukhari OR THE HOLY QURAN.

Edited by BornShia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BornShia said:

1. The Tayammum verse was descended in honor of Aisha.

2. He is referencing the verse 6 in chapter 5.

3. Your Uthman didn't put the Quran in chronological order and chapter 5 is the last chapter of the Holy Quran.

4. There are other Tayammum verses in the Holy Quran which were revealed prior to verse 6 chapter 5.

and what is your proof that the other ayahs were revealed prior to the verse 6 chapter 5 (or 112)?

Don't you know that Ayahs belonging to different Surahs were revealed on different times. Prophet (saw) used to ask companions to insert ayah at a particular place. so even if the ayah in chrono order may have belonged to surah 112. it is not necessary that the ayah has to be either revealed before or after some or all of the ayahs of the last two surahs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, aansoogas said:

and what is your proof that the other ayahs were revealed prior to the verse 6 chapter 5 (or 112)?

Don't you know that Ayahs belonging to different Surahs were revealed on different times. Prophet (saw) used to ask companions to insert ayah at a particular place. so even if the ayah in chrono order may have belonged to surah 112. it is not necessary that the ayah has to be either revealed before or after some or all of the ayahs of the last two surahs.

As Ahlul Hadith you show ignorance of Holy Quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2016 at 11:16 AM, shiaman14 said:

So let me get this right - the hadith below of the Prophet is sahih:

Narrated Anas:
The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron.
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 76, Hadith 9

Even though there is a clear edict to never mutilate the body of anyone including dogs, but this is in Sahih Bukhari so it must be right. What happened to the Rehmat-al-alameen? I suppose this is what ISIS and Taliban use to justify chopping people up.

@aansoogas   @Bukhari8k @Fahad Sani -

1) is this hadith correct?

2) Would I be wrong to depict this in a cartoon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2016 at 3:14 AM, shiaman14 said:

@aansoogas   @Bukhari8k @Fahad Sani -

1) is this hadith correct?

2) Would I be wrong to depict this in a cartoon?

Yes, the account is correct however it is an abridged account. If you read relevant ahadith then you will know that this was done under Qisaas (as the same actions were carried out on the poor shepherd [who perhaps had no wali to forgive the culprits]).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2016 at 3:14 AM, shiaman14 said:

@aansoogas   @Bukhari8k @Fahad Sani -

1) is this hadith correct?

2) Would I be wrong to depict this in a cartoon?

@shiaman14This is for others. We already had a long discussion on that on other forum.

When you isolate and single out any hadith or verse of Quran you will never understand properly. In order to clearly understand the matter you have to read all related narrations or verses of Quran about the matter under study.
 
Here are some related ahadith to the hadith under question i.e of Bukhari, Book 76 Medicine, Hadith 9. All these are narrated by Anas bin Malik r.a.

Chapter 15:
The chapter of those who wage war from the people who are disbelievers and those turned renegades.


Narrated Anas:
Some people from the tribe of `Ukl came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet (ﷺ) sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6802, Book 86, Hadith 32.

Chapter (16):
The Prophet (saws) did not cauterize those who fought and of those who were renegades


Narrated Anas:
The Prophet (ﷺ) cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of `Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6803, Book 86, Hadith 33

Chapter (17):
No water was given to those turned renegades and fought, till they died


Narrated Anas:
A group of people from `Ukl (tribe) came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and they were living with the people of As- Suffa, but they became ill as the climate of Medina did not suit them, so they said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Provide us with milk." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, I see no other way for you than to use the camels of Allah's Apostle." So they went and drank the milk and urine of the camels, (as medicine) and became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and took the camels away. When a help-seeker came to Allah's Apostle, he sent some men in their pursuit, and they were captured and brought before mid day. The Prophet ordered for some iron pieces to be made red hot, and their eyes were branded with them and their hands and feet were cut off and were not cauterized. Then they were put at a place called Al- Harra, and when they asked for water to drink they were not given till they died. (Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder and fought against Allah and His Apostle.")
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6804, Book 86, Hadith 34

Chapter (18):
The Prophet (saws) branded the eyes of those who fought

 
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A group of people from `Ukl (or `Uraina) tribe ----but I think he said that they were from `Ukl came to Medina and (they became ill, so) the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) she-camels and told them to go out and drink the camels' urine and milk (as a medicine). So they went and drank it, and when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) early in the morning, so he sent (some) men in their pursuit and they were captured and brought to the Prophet (ﷺ) before midday. He ordered to cut off their hands and legs and their eyes to be branded with heated iron pieces and they were thrown at Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink, they were not given water. (Abu Qilaba said, "Those were the people who committed theft and murder and reverted to disbelief after being believers (Muslims), and fought against Allah and His Apostle").
‏Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6805, Book 86, Hadith 35

Chapter (2): The ruling on Muharibin and Apostates

 
Anas reported:
Eight men of the tribe of 'Ukl came to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncogenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and he said: Why don't you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels') milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Ibn al-Sabbah with a slight variation of words.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1671 b, Book 28, Hadith 13

Anas reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) pierced their eyes because they had pierced the eyes of the shepherds.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1671 h, Book 28, Hadith 19


And the punishments given to them were as per order of Allah.

Maida 33:
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fahad Sani - yes brother - we did discuss this on that 'other' site.

the main point of contention was whether the Prophet cut of the hand/legs himself or ordered someone to do it under qisas. My argument on the other site and here as well is that the Prophet did not carry out the punishment himself.

I believe we are in agreement on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

@Fahad Sani - yes brother - we did discuss this on that 'other' site.

the main point of contention was whether the Prophet cut of the hand/legs himself or ordered someone to do it under qisas. My argument on the other site and here as well is that the Prophet did not carry out the punishment himself.

I believe we are in agreement on this.

Salam brother,

I keep seeing this word, qisas. Can you please explain the meaning of qisas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BornShia said:

Salam brother,

I keep seeing this word, qisas. Can you please explain the meaning of qisas?

@Fahad Sani

@BornShia - Salaam. Qisas is basically eye4eye concept. 

For example, Ibn Muljim hit Imam Ali on his head with a sword. His death sentence by Imam Ali was also only 1 strike to the head and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2016 at 5:02 PM, shiaman14 said:

@Fahad Sani - yes brother - we did discuss this on that 'other' site.

the main point of contention was whether the Prophet cut of the hand/legs himself or ordered someone to do it under qisas. My argument on the other site and here as well is that the Prophet did not carry out the punishment himself.

I believe we are in agreement on this.

You are still going with this story?

Right because only kuffar are stubborn.
I have been saying all along that the Prophet would not do such a thing. For you imply that I am being stubborn may have been correct had I not known about the punishments ordered by the Prophet after wars and specifically after the Banu Qurayza incident. This event happened after all those incidents towards the tail end of the Prophet's life.
Perhaps my mistake was that I only highlighted the "he cut" narration when I should have quoted the "he ordered" narration and shown them to be different. But I am sure you would have found some syntax/linguistic/grammatical/etc argument to get around the crux of the matter.


Thanks for quoting me from beginning to end. I was going to do the same. The discussion started off with me saying the Prophet did not "cut" off someone's limbs (extremities since I have been corrected). Then we digressed into comparing the incident with the ayah and how close (or not) they were related. Then I ended with the Islam allows eye4eye punishment so cutting of their hands if that is what they did is ok, same goes for legs, eyes, etc.  I was highlighting the differences between the ayah and the narrations of the incident.
Of course, I said the Prophet was fair in his administration of the punishment of the crime. I did not say in his execution of the crime so pardon me for assuming that even the most basic Muslims knows the Prophet issued the verdicts but the execution of the verdict was carried out by Muslims.
All you have done in successfully showing is that you will dance and run around in circles rather than get to the main issue at hand - did the Prophet cut off their 'extremities' or not?
 
 


Whatever floats your boat, so you still insist that the verse is not applicable?

"even the most basic Muslims knows the Prophet issued the verdicts but the execution of the verdict was carried out by Muslims." So why did you question the narration by rejecting that the verse does not apply?

"Then I ended with the Islam allows eye4eye punishment so cutting of their hands if that is what they did is ok, same goes for legs, eyes, etc."

Right right, well unfortunately for you, feet were not cut off as retribution but as application of the verse which you questioned remember?
 

Quote
These people were not at war with the Prophet and hence this would not be applicable to them.
 

 

Quote
(6) Do you still stand by your statement that the verse does not apply to the one who steals and kills?
 
Yes.
 


 

Quote
Even though there is a clear edict to never mutilate the body of anyone including dogs, but this is in Sahih Bukhari so it must be right. What happened to the Rehmat-al-alameen?
 


I am sure you are talking about an edict only for the Prophet saws(which one btw?) and not for all muslims.

 

Quote
1) While Allah is surely Rahman and Raheem, He is also Hakam (Judge), Adl (Just), Hasib (Bringer of Judgement),  Mumit (Bringer of Death), Muntaqim (Avenger), Darr (Afflictor). The ayah is about those who fight against Allah and the Prophet and what punishment that are to receive for it. It is devoid of mercy but that does not mean Allah is devoid of mercy or the Prophet is devoid of it.
2) Yazid's example is not applicable simly because Imam Hussain had committed no crime. The Prophet was merciful to the family of the victims and at the same time Just to the criminals.
 


Going off-tangent as usual, how is one more merciful by not doing it himself.
" The Prophet was merciful to the family of the victims and at the same time Just to the criminals." So if the Prophet did it himself, he was NOT merciful to the families?? What are you even talking about?

And last but not least:

Quote
I have a problem with wrong punishment for wrong crime.
 


As I said, you dont care about the sanctity of Bukhari or al Kafi or the Prophet, all you care about is the sanctity of your ego. Wallahi, your deception is so obvious, I can't even believe you think you can pull this off. People like you who have no shame in propagating something they themselves do not believe, are also the hardest to discuss with despite their potential ignorance. But I know how to deal with your kind if you only have an atom of fear for Allah. Forget about everything I said, simply repeat this sentence:
 

Quote
May Allah curse me, ShiaMan, if I even for a split second in this discussion about this narration tried to argue that the punishment was not legitimate regardless of the punisher.
 


Let's see who is more truthful, you or Imam al Bukhari.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:

You are still going with this story?

Right because only kuffar are stubborn.
I have been saying all along that the Prophet would not do such a thing. For you imply that I am being stubborn may have been correct had I not known about the punishments ordered by the Prophet after wars and specifically after the Banu Qurayza incident. This event happened after all those incidents towards the tail end of the Prophet's life.
Perhaps my mistake was that I only highlighted the "he cut" narration when I should have quoted the "he ordered" narration and shown them to be different. But I am sure you would have found some syntax/linguistic/grammatical/etc argument to get around the crux of the matter.


Thanks for quoting me from beginning to end. I was going to do the same. The discussion started off with me saying the Prophet did not "cut" off someone's limbs (extremities since I have been corrected). Then we digressed into comparing the incident with the ayah and how close (or not) they were related. Then I ended with the Islam allows eye4eye punishment so cutting of their hands if that is what they did is ok, same goes for legs, eyes, etc.  I was highlighting the differences between the ayah and the narrations of the incident.
Of course, I said the Prophet was fair in his administration of the punishment of the crime. I did not say in his execution of the crime so pardon me for assuming that even the most basic Muslims knows the Prophet issued the verdicts but the execution of the verdict was carried out by Muslims.
All you have done in successfully showing is that you will dance and run around in circles rather than get to the main issue at hand - did the Prophet cut off their 'extremities' or not?
 
 


Whatever floats your boat, so you still insist that the verse is not applicable?

"even the most basic Muslims knows the Prophet issued the verdicts but the execution of the verdict was carried out by Muslims." So why did you question the narration by rejecting that the verse does not apply?

"Then I ended with the Islam allows eye4eye punishment so cutting of their hands if that is what they did is ok, same goes for legs, eyes, etc."

Right right, well unfortunately for you, feet were not cut off as retribution but as application of the verse which you questioned remember?
 

Quote
These people were not at war with the Prophet and hence this would not be applicable to them.
 

 

Quote
(6) Do you still stand by your statement that the verse does not apply to the one who steals and kills?
 
Yes.
 


 

Quote
Even though there is a clear edict to never mutilate the body of anyone including dogs, but this is in Sahih Bukhari so it must be right. What happened to the Rehmat-al-alameen?
 


I am sure you are talking about an edict only for the Prophet saws(which one btw?) and not for all muslims.

 

Quote
1) While Allah is surely Rahman and Raheem, He is also Hakam (Judge), Adl (Just), Hasib (Bringer of Judgement),  Mumit (Bringer of Death), Muntaqim (Avenger), Darr (Afflictor). The ayah is about those who fight against Allah and the Prophet and what punishment that are to receive for it. It is devoid of mercy but that does not mean Allah is devoid of mercy or the Prophet is devoid of it.
2) Yazid's example is not applicable simly because Imam Hussain had committed no crime. The Prophet was merciful to the family of the victims and at the same time Just to the criminals.
 


Going off-tangent as usual, how is one more merciful by not doing it himself.
" The Prophet was merciful to the family of the victims and at the same time Just to the criminals." So if the Prophet did it himself, he was NOT merciful to the families?? What are you even talking about?

And last but not least:

Quote
I have a problem with wrong punishment for wrong crime.
 


As I said, you dont care about the sanctity of Bukhari or al Kafi or the Prophet, all you care about is the sanctity of your ego. Wallahi, your deception is so obvious, I can't even believe you think you can pull this off. People like you who have no shame in propagating something they themselves do not believe, are also the hardest to discuss with despite their potential ignorance. But I know how to deal with your kind if you only have an atom of fear for Allah. Forget about everything I said, simply repeat this sentence:
 

Quote
May Allah curse me, ShiaMan, if I even for a split second in this discussion about this narration tried to argue that the punishment was not legitimate regardless of the punisher.
 


Let's see who is more truthful, you or Imam al Bukhari.

This incident is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari 11 times and it is only Anas Bin Malik who has narrated it. 10 times it says the Prophet ordered...; only once does it say the Prophet did it himself.

Cut himself:
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/76/9

Ordered:
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/24/102
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/4/100
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/56/227
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/86/34
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/86/32
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/76/8
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/76/42
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/86/35
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/64/232
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/87/38

Now, we can discuss Surah 5.33 and its relationship to this hadith all day long but first let's keep it simple for you:

A) The Prophet himself cut off the hands and feet of the people in this incident and also pierce their eyes

B) The Prophet only ordered the punishment of cutting off the hands and feet of the people in this incident and also piercing of their eyes

My contention has always been that it was definitely not A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...