The Growing Greatness of Muhammad (S+) In The Eyes of Much of The World

[Lady B]

Well, please don't make it like "egg and chicken"
The meaning of the Hadith is clear. It means, Hadithes should not be considered Autherative. Only Quran is. So, even if one chooses to use them, should use them having this in mind.

Again if you claim " Hadithes should not be considered Autherative. " should you not support this argument using Authoritive materials?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Again if you claim " Hadithes should not be considered Autherative. " should you not support this argument using Authoritive materials?

That's a good point. If I was going to debate about it, then yes. In fact, the link that I gave for the quote, goes to wikipidia, and there are verses of Quran, that claimes, Quran has all the details, if so, why need to use Hadithes?

What conclusion can you get from reading this Hadith?

Moreover, some Moslems claim that because Bible is written many years after Jesus, it is corrupted. So, the Moslem Hadithes can have the same problem by the same logic. (I don't believe Bible is corrupted though, as those Authors of Bible were inspired by God and had visions) but those who wrote the Islamic hadithes are not known to be inspired by God or had visions.

 

[Lady B]

That's a good point. If I was going to debate about it, then yes. In fact, the link that I gave for the quote, goes to wikipidia, and there are verses of Quran, that claimes, Quran has all the details, if so, why need to use Hadithes?

What conclusion can you get from reading this Hadith?

Moreover, some Moslems claim that because Bible is written many years after Jesus, it is corrupted. So, the Moslem Hadithes can have the same problem by the same logic. (I don't believe Bible is corrupted though, as those Authors of Bible were inspired by God and had visions) but those who wrote the Islamic hadithes are not known to be inspired by God or had visions.

In regards to Hadiths, some Scholars take the ' all or nothing approach' If one Hadith is unreliable and proven so, Then all Hadiths must therefore be unreliable, there is no picking and choosing which Hadiths we accept and which we do not.

for Islam I do not have this opinion simply because The Hadiths as you suggested are not inspired by God.They are first second and third party observations, Some Muslims will disagree on that argument.
However....
In your particular claim : Mohammad said to destroy all words from him and not to use them for Islam. This is using the all or nothing rule, yes? Therefore you can not use a Hadith to support your claim.

It is the same when a Muslim tells me the bible is corrupted and is not reliable and then uses that same Bible to show how Mohammad was prophesied. In this instance I will use the all or nothing rule because in my belief all of scripture is inspired by God .There is no picking and choosing to suit your argument.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It wasn't my claim it was God's. I quoted you verses that specifrically say that they sinned. It names the sin. It covers the punishment. The bible also says that any man who claims to be without sin is a liar. That includes prophets. Is there nothing so simple and plain that you will not dismiss it for the sole reason of justifying your religion?

You need to quote verse of Bible to support your claim "any man who claims to be without sin is a liar"

It does not include the Bible. Read the stories about Moses and Aaron who the rebuke was addressed to them, eventhough it was people who were transgressors.
The bible says, Noah and Job were sinless and perfect men who walked with God in all generations. It rejects your claim. As I gave you example, these Prophest are expression of their people, and Bible uses them to address the rebukes. The story of Noah getting drunk, likewise is an expression of the sin of His own people.

I do not acknowled the Qurans claims concerning biblical concepts. If you complete the verse he goes on to say only God is good. He was telling the man just who he was speaking with. This is a controversial verse but I do not value what Islam has to say on the issue.

I quoted you Baha'i scriptures, not Quran. ​

No matter what false claims of fallability you assign to the scholars they apply more so to you. When a bridge needs to be built, a disease cured, or a storm tracked they use the experts, religous texts are no different. I understand your attempted dismissal of anything you find disagreing with your religion, but calling experts valueless is desperate and will have to go on a long list of things your faith falsely forces you to reject.

Except I have shown you many times how their interpretations are wrong, and you have faild to prove my interpretations to be wrong.
You only make claimes with no proofs. You basically claim, my interpretations are not correct because you say so. How false! then why are we discussing then?

After what I have seen you get out of the bible I am not interested in what you have done to scriptures that I don't believe in to begin with. If I have a Baha'i question then I will go with you but outside that, I think you are forced by your faith to distort other religions verses.

What's the point?
So far you have failed to prove any sin or error about any Messengers including Muhammad.

I never said it was not infallable but they are infinately more qualified and likely to be true than you are. I normally only use them to confirm what I have already concluded and seldom for the interpretation themselves.

You think they are qualified because they agree with you think is ture. That's all. When it comes to discussions you cannot prove any of your points.

As I said slavery was practiced in every single culture on earth at that time. It was not practicle to stop then. God did make it very humane and it was almost always voluntary (for example to pay of debts) and was more like servitude and God made them gain their freedom after 7 years unless they wanted to stay. It was in no way comparable to the diabolical slavery imposed on the Africans by the Muslims.

Ok, but, if you see the same things in another religion you take their fault, and do not accept "It was not practicle to stop then"
Basically, I am trying to show how biased you are.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

In regards to Hadiths, some Scholars take the ' all or nothing approach' If one Hadith is unreliable and proven so, Then all Hadiths must therefore be unreliable, there is no picking and choosing which Hadiths we accept and which we do not.

for Islam I do not have this opinion simply because The Hadiths as you suggested are not inspired by God.They are first second and third party observations, Some Muslims will disagree on that argument.
However....
In your particular claim : Mohammad said to destroy all words from him and not to use them for Islam. This is using the all or nothing rule, yes? Therefore you can not use a Hadith to support your claim.

It is the same when a Muslim tells me the bible is corrupted and is not reliable and then uses that same Bible to show how Mohammad was prophesied. In this instance I will use the all or nothing rule because in my belief all of scripture is inspired by God .There is no picking and choosing to suit your argument.

There are only two possibilities:
A) the Hadith we are talking about is a true hadith. Then In this case, Muhammad had indeed asked not to write Hadithes. So, the conclusion is, Hadithes are not reliable according to Muhammad.

B) This Hadith is not a true hadith. Then in this case, we can conclude the other Hadithes may not be true and reliable either. The reason is, this hadith is a Sahih Hadith, which is rated as the most reliable hadith. So, if this Sahih Hadith can be false, then all other Sahih hadithes can be false too. So, we still get the same conclusion:"The hadithes are not reliable"

Are you saying there is another posibility too?

 

[FearGod]

There are only two possibilities:
A) the Hadith we are talking about is a true hadith. Then In this case, Muhammad had indeed asked not to write Hadithes. So, the conclusion is, Hadithes are not reliable according to Muhammad.

B) This Hadith is not a true hadith. Then in this case, we can conclude the other Hadithes may not be true and reliable either. The reason is, this hadith is a Sahih Hadith, which is rated as the most reliable hadith. So, if this Sahih Hadith can be false, then all other Sahih hadithes can be false too. So, we still get the same conclusion:"The hadithes are not reliable"

Are you saying there is another posibility too?

Then how you explain the well known last sermon of the prophet by saying to his people inform the others about what i had said and let the others after you inform what i had said...etc and here it is we have his hadith till today,no muslim can deny the prophet last sermon.

 

[Lady B]

There are only two possibilities:
A) the Hadith we are talking about is a true hadith. Then In this case, Muhammad had indeed asked not to write Hadithes. So, the conclusion is, Hadithes are not reliable according to Muhammad.

B) This Hadith is not a true hadith. Then in this case, we can conclude the other Hadithes may not be true and reliable either. The reason is, this hadith is a Sahih Hadith, which is rated as the most reliable hadith. So, if this Sahih Hadith can be false, then all other Sahih hadithes can be false too. So, we still get the same conclusion:"The hadithes are not reliable"

Are you saying there is another posibility too?

Not sure If you realize you just agreed with me
If you validate one hadith that denounces all hadiths, then you cant use a hadith to support your arguments. hadith is a hadith is a hadith.

If it were me, and Thanks God it is not! I would have used the Quoran to invalidate the Hadith that says " Mohammad was the final Prophet" I would not use another Hadith since my supporting argument makes all Hadiths unreliable. Confused yet anyone

 

[Lady B]

Then how you explain the well known last sermon of the prophet by saying to his people inform the others about what i had said and let the others after you inform what i had said...etc and here it is we have his hadith till today,no muslim can deny the prophet last sermon.

This last sermon was attended and documented by a multitude, therefore it cannot be disputed, many Hadiths were writen in a he said she said narrative, they can and should be tested.

How should they be tested? by the Quoran
just my opinion....

 

[FearGod]

This last sermon was attended and documented by a multitude, therefore it cannot be disputed, many Hadiths were writen in a he said she said narrative, they can and should be tested.

How should they be tested? by the Quoran
just my opinion....

i agree with you at this point,there were many witnesses.:yes:

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Then how you explain the well known last sermon of the prophet by saying to his people inform the others about what i had said and let the others after you inform what i had said...etc and here it is we have his hadith till today,no muslim can deny the prophet last sermon.

In the cases that He asked Moslems to inform others, then Moslem should have done so. But I suppose not in every instance He said to write Hadithes.
So, there could have been some particular instances, He asked to inform others about it. So, I don't see how this should be generalized and justify writing all Hadithes.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Not sure If you realize you just agreed with me
If you validate one hadith that denounces all hadiths, then you cant use a hadith to support your arguments. hadith is a hadith is a hadith.

If it were me, and Thanks God it is not! I would have used the Quoran to invalidate the Hadith that says " Mohammad was the final Prophet" I would not use another Hadith since my supporting argument makes all Hadiths unreliable. Confused yet anyone

Ok, good point. But my experience with many Moslems is that, they rely more on Hadithes than Quran. They interprete Quran using Hadithes So, they confirm Quran using Hadithes Instead of confirming hadith using Quran.
So, when I quote verse 7:35 which says Messengers shall come. They quote hadithes, rejecting the verse of Quran, and interprete it in a different way.

 

[Lady B]

Ok, good point. But my experience with many Moslems is that, they rely more on Hadithes than Quran. They interprete Quran using Hadithes So, they confirm Quran using Hadithes Instead of confirming hadith using Quran.
So, when I quote verse 7:35 which says Messengers shall come. They quote hadithes, rejecting the verse of Quran, and interprete it in a different way.

Hmmmmm Good argument. Gentlemen?

 

[Lady B]

wait, you mean this ayah?
O children of Adam, if there come to you messengers from among you relating to you My verses, then whoever fears Allah and reforms - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.

note God says "relating to you My verses"
I read it like this: If messengers come to you and teach you my words I have given you (Quoran) and you fear me and repent you need have no fear or grief. I believe messengers does not mean a new prophet with a new message .I could be wrong, But clearly It is not making way for a new prophet with this ayah alone.

 

[Lady B]

You need to quote verse of Bible to support your claim "any man who claims to be without sin is a liar"

It does not include the Bible. Read the stories about Moses and Aaron who the rebuke was addressed to them, eventhough it was people who were transgressors.
The bible says, Noah and Job were sinless and perfect men who walked with God in all generations. It rejects your claim. As I gave you example, these Prophest are expression of their people, and Bible uses them to address the rebukes. The story of Noah getting drunk, likewise is an expression of the sin of His own people.


[ In all due respect, I would ask you to show me where this is in the Bible. on the contrary The Bible says in Romans 3:23 all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.]

I quoted you Baha'i scriptures, not Quran. ​

Except I have shown you many times how their interpretations are wrong, and you have faild to prove my interpretations to be wrong.
You only make claimes with no proofs. You basically claim, my interpretations are not correct because you say so. How false! then why are we discussing then?





What's the point?
So far you have failed to prove any sin or error about any Messengers including Muhammad.





You think they are qualified because they agree with you think is ture. That's all. When it comes to discussions you cannot prove any of your points.




Ok, but, if you see the same things in another religion you take their fault, and do not accept "It was not practicle to stop then"
Basically, I am trying to show how biased you are.

[ In all due respect, I would ask you also show me where in the Bible it says prophets had no sin."The bible says, Noah and Job were sinless and perfect men who walked with God in all generations" reference please?

On the contrary The Bible says in Romans 3:23 all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.]

 

[InvestigateTruth]

[ In all due respect, I would ask you also show me where in the Bible it says prophets had no sin."The bible says, Noah and Job were sinless and perfect men who walked with God in all generations" reference please?

On the contrary The Bible says in Romans 3:23 all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.]

The verse you have quoted, is not talking about all who ever lived on earth, and all who shall live on earth. This verse is talking about his life time. I don't see how you extend this verse and the other to all who lived before and all who live after, including prophets.

"In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness." Eccl. 7:15

regarding other references:

"This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God" Gen 6:9

 

[InvestigateTruth]

wait, you mean this ayah?
O children of Adam, if there come to you messengers from among you relating to you My verses, then whoever fears Allah and reforms - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.

note God says "relating to you My verses"
I read it like this: If messengers come to you and teach you my words I have given you (Quoran) and you fear me and repent you need have no fear or grief. I believe messengers does not mean a new prophet with a new message .I could be wrong, But clearly It is not making way for a new prophet with this ayah alone.

Well, the verse uses the term "Rasoul". This is translated as Messenger. Everywhere else in Quran, when this term is used, it is in reference to a new Messenger of God who appeard among people saying the verses of God.
The meaning becomes more clear, when you read the verse before it and the verses after it. The verse before it, says, every people (ummah: a people who are followers of a Messenger) has a term, once the end of their term comes, God does not wait even 1 hour. Next verse says, then Messengers come to bring verses of God. Later verses also say the same. It talks about Messengers who came after one another.

also, Quran cannot be the last book, because of this verse:

"And if whatever trees upon the earth were pens and the sea [was ink], replenished thereafter by seven [more] seas, the words of Allah would not be exhausted. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." 31:27

There are many verses. I will quote them gradually
Moreover, even if these verses do not explicitly appear to you, that talk about other revelations and other Messengers of God, that does not mean other Messengers cannot come, unless there is a verse in Quran that says, God will never send another Messenger, and Quran is the final Book.​

 

[Lady B]

The verse you have quoted, is not talking about all who ever lived on earth, and all who shall live on earth. This verse is talking about his life time. I don't see how you extend this verse and the other to all who lived before and all who live after, including prophets.

"In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness." Eccl. 7:15

regarding other references:

"This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God" Gen 6:9

Blameless is not sinless, period. To give you evidence of how blameless is used look to Timothy, where God is setting the presidents for pastor elder deacon and says they should be blameless.
No where in the Bible does it say men were without sin, only Christ can say it and be attributed for it.

 

[Lady B]

Well, the verse uses the term "Rasoul". This is translated as Messenger. Everywhere else in Quran, when this term is used, it is in reference to a new Messenger of God who appeard among people saying the verses of God.
The meaning becomes more clear, when you read the verse before it and the verses after it. The verse before it, says, every people (ummah: a people who are followers of a Messenger) has a term, once the end of their term comes, God does not wait even 1 hour. Next verse says, then Messengers come to bring verses of God. Later verses also say the same. It talks about Messengers who came after one another.

also, Quran cannot be the last book, because of this verse:

"And if whatever trees upon the earth were pens and the sea [was ink], replenished thereafter by seven [more] seas, the words of Allah would not be exhausted. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." 31:27​

There are many verses. I will quote them gradually

Moreover, even if these verses do not explicitly appear to you, that talk about other revelations and other Messengers of God, that does not mean other Messengers cannot come, unless there is a verse in Quran that says, God will never send another Messenger, and Quran is the final Book.​

I will let our Muslim friends argue this one as I feel ill equipped.
what you are showing now with the ayah in context makes more sense though

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Blameless is not sinless, period. To give you evidence of how blameless is used look to Timothy, where God is setting the presidents for pastor elder deacon and says they should be blameless.
No where in the Bible does it say men were without sin, only Christ can say it and be attributed for it.

If you don't mind questions, how could a person be called righteous and at the same time be a sinner? Moreover the verse says he was righteous in His generations, so, this means all his time.
And if Noah was like every other person who does sin, why should he be called righteous and blameless?

If these prophets were sinners, how could the Prophet be worthy of trust, and how could He deliver the commands of God?

And what was the sin of Noah or Joseph?

 

[Lady B]

If you don't mind questions, how could a person be called righteous and at the same time be a sinner? Moreover the verse says he was righteous in His generations, so, this means all his time.
And if Noah was like every other person who does sin, why should he be called righteous and blameless?

If these prophets were sinners, how could the Prophet be worthy of trust, and how could He deliver the commands of God?

And what was the sin of Joseph?

I do not mind questions at all. However you have many presuppositions we need to tackle first. Perhaps you should tell me what sinlessness is in your religion, and then what is righteousness. I believe there is a difference. The righteousness in he bible is imputed righteousness. Meaning it is nothing the man did or did not do to earn this, it is a gift from God. In the new testament Christians are called righteous also, does this mean we are sinless? Of course not, it means God has imputed to us what we did not deserve through Christ the righteous.

As for listing and analizing the sins of each prophet, I decline to do so in this thread, perhaps we can debate this topic on its own? we continue to take this mans thread off-topic and I tire from apoligizing lol