tintingz:
I always provide source for my arguments.

This is almost a lie, you and your allies are known for lying and twisting things either intentionally or because you lack understanding in what you're talking about.

tintingz:

Ok, me and my friends believed in Harry Potter and we compiled Harry Potter' book and said it's authentic will you believe me?

Look at this guy, yes I will believe you depending on how close you were to the writer of Harry Potter and how he trusted you with his work. Did he ever call it a book or not, was he against compiling it into a book or not? How detailed your process of documentation was and how many of your friends criticised you and did the family of Harry or anyone who knew him as much as you did challenge you, how was your integrity and how was the process of publication? If this process was met then I would believe you.

tintingz:

This need an independent investigations or confirmation.

Yes that's why I posted a link to a video explaining it. Even the Shi'a challenge Uthman R.A so I have to learn about it because they're very tricky.

tintingz:

Do you have evidence Muhammad travelled to heaven?

Yes I do, but my evidence is for people with an open mind.

tintingz:

No I don't, tell me.

Mtchw.

tintingz:

The Hadiths were written by people who believed in the Quran and Muhammad, there are no evidence to back up their claims, they can be sentimental in their claims.

Independent-investigations are needed.

The hadith was Narrated by those who had seen Muhammad S.A.W. and lived with him and interacted with him, they're not like you and I, they've seen a prophet of Allah interacted and struggled with and know how he behaved and saw his miracles, and know the consequences of lying against him and know what happens to those who lie against him and saw his prophecies come true right before their eyes. Then the disciples of the companions recorded them and those who were alive then but did not meet him, and some people also fabricated hadith especially the Jews.
People like Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal R. spent their lives fighting against fabricated narrations and they made sure to establish a strong hadith criticism. People like Imam Al-Bukhari R. sacrificed their lives to record the most authentic Hadiths. And all these works are being criticised everyday. Several Imams Like Az-zuhuri, Ashafi'i, At-Tirmidhi also dedicated their lives to this cause. You're free to carryout your independent investigation... But how? You don't even know Arabic.

najib632:
Yes of course, destiny is a complex algorithm of choices. They chose to fail and they did fail.

There's nothing complex about destiny, it's either your God knew beforehand they will fail or he did not.

Again, did Allah knew beforehand they will fail? Yes or No?

Persians or Sumerians, Babylonians, Indians, Hebrews e.t.c. Yes the message of monotheism and how to live lives of piety according to their environments and to remind them of the devil.

Where are these nations mentioned in the Quran, what's the name of their books?

Did you assume this or it's found in the Quran?

Why are you still asking about this when we have already said that they were perfect until they were modified.

Lol, so a perfect book was modified by who? all the previous books were perfect but modified?

You're talking about the Holy books then definitely messengers have to be involved. And I enjoy exposing your ignorance about Islam(Hahahahaha) and religion as a whole.

Oh yeah the books fell from the sky, hurray you win.

Who doesn't know people are involved in the written of those books?

The subject of discussion is about the books not messengers.

No dummy! New books for new situations dumb ass, I think this happened to only Hebrews and Indians, Allah knows best.

My dummy reasoning said you have fail.

- When a book is said to be perfect it mean "completeness" " free from faults" why does it need an update?

- Do you think there are no new situations after the last book?

Qur'an is the final revelation, it fits all the scenarios from the time it was revealed till the end of the world.

No no no, the Quran only fit in with the 7th century middle eastern practice.

This is 21 century, killing apostate, homosexuals, adulterers, beating your wives, slavery etc are archaic and barbaric to our time. Your Quran needs an update.

The books of Isiah A.S. are one example it is not mentioned in the Qur'an but it still exists and also the book of Zoroastra A.S are still around. The book of Ibrahim is now lost but it was mentioned in the Qur'an. And so are many books of many prophets It is an attribute of wise people to not waste words. So Allah being the Most Wise mentioned only what was relevant in the last revelation.

Ok, when did Zoroaster believed in Allah?

Allah being the most wise should know that apostates like us will demand for the prove of other books and besides how come these books got lost when Allah is omnipotent, what was he doing when his perfect books are being lost? This is ridiculous by the way.

They're important of course, if you say they're not as important that means Allah does not take the people he sent the books to guide seriously. But the Qur'an is more important because it was sent to the whole of mankind and it's Laws are to be followed till the last day and also to expose the changes they made in those books.

Ok, the messages and laws in these books varies? Yes?

If these books are important to Allah then they shouldn't be lost, do you thought of that?

Those books are sent to fit the lives of a particular set of people but Qur'an fits the lives of everyone, from the previous generation to this generation and to the last generation. Hence it's of highest importance.

It seems you're not getting it.

There is nothing perfect when a book is not absolute, this means the previous books were not even perfect Allah had to update his books, correct?

And secondly the Quran only fit in the lives of the 7th century people the reason it's not even accepted worldwide. There's nothing new about the Quran except for the same barbaric practice of the ancient middle eastern people.

Do you expect the cultures and traditions of everyone to be the same as others, when the world was not even near globalised then and people didn't even know how about the existence of others? And also why would a people need guidance when they're not astray?

Lmao! Are you saying people didn't know the existence of other nations in the past? Where are you reading this nonsense from?

Your are just shooting yourself in the foot, if the Quran can be sent to all mankind despite the differences in all cultures in every nations how come it cannot work in the past when Allah sent the first book?

Oga, the people of the past are not worshipping Allah they don't even know Allah.

How can I be there when I wasn't born then? And correction it wasn't "rewritten" it was only compiled.

What did Uthman ordered the people to do?

All the previous holy books that still exist all of them. Especially the Bible.

Oh you mention the name of a book, we're progressing.

So can you start mentioning the modifications in the Bible?

The Bible exist before the Quran, how sure are you the Quran is not the one copying and changing things?

Do you not notice some of the explicit words used in the bible that's attributed to Suleiman A.S or the obvious grammatical errors of when you try to translate the bible back to Aramaic? Or the fairytales in the books of the Hindus about other gods and the Buddhists who replaced Allah with a man.

Are you the one to tell the Jews about the story of Solomon? The Bible has the story of Solomon in details, the Quran came saying the Jews are incorrect about the Solomon story, does the Quran have evidence to support this?

Can you read Aramaic or even Hebrew or greek, how did you know there are grammatical errors?

Lol, Hindus fairytales, what an irony, so the Quran is not a fairytale, I mean all those magical events in the Qur'an are not fairytales?

Buddhism don't have a supreme creator God from what I've read, they are more atheistic towards that, so the man who is Buddha never call himself God.

Go and bring your own university poem and let us compare.

Shakespeare is great.

The Gospel, the books of the Hindus and Zoroastrians.

Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion and has nothing to do with Allah same as Hinduism.

The Gospel is a book that talked about a Jewish deity not about Allah and I don't think Christians who follow the Gospel refer to themselves as polytheists.

You don't want to understand them, and I promise you that immediately I notice you want to start playing around I will stop arguing with you.

How can I understand them when you're giving empty claims.

najib632:
This is almost a lie, you and your allies are known for lying and twisting things either intentionally or because you lack understanding in what you're talking about.

Can you mention any of my claim without reference?

Look at this guy, yes I will believe you depending on how close you were to the writer of Harry Potter and how he trusted you with his work. Did he ever call it a book or not, was he against compiling it into a book or not? How detailed your process of documentation was and how many of your friends criticised you and did the family of Harry or anyone who knew him as much as you did challenge you, how was your integrity and how was the process of publication? If this process was met then I would believe you.

Ok, so was their criticism regarding the authenticity of the Hadiths, was there any scrutiny? If yes who did it?

Yes that's why I posted a link to a video explaining it. Even the Shi'a challenge Uthman R.A so I have to learn about it because they're very tricky.

I think the Shia have problems with the authenticity of the Sunni Hadiths.

This is the reason I said an independent scrutiny is needed, when I said independent I mean a study that won't be bias and sentimental.

Yes I do, but my evidence is for people with an open mind.

I've an open eye, provide the evidence of Muhammad traveling to heaven.

The hadith was Narrated by those who had seen Muhammad S.A.W. and lived with him and interacted with him, they're not like you and I, they've seen a prophet of Allah interacted and struggled with and know how he behaved and saw his miracles, and know the consequences of lying against him and know what happens to those who lie against him and saw his prophecies come true right before their eyes. Then the disciples of the companions recorded them and those who were alive then but did not meet him, and some people also fabricated hadith especially the Jews.
People like Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal R. spent their lives fighting against fabricated narrations and they made sure to establish a strong hadith criticism. People like Imam Al-Bukhari R. sacrificed their lives to record the most authentic Hadiths. And all these works are being criticised everyday. Several Imams Like Az-zuhuri, Ashafi'i, At-Tirmidhi also dedicated their lives to this cause. You're free to carryout your independent investigation... But how? You don't even know Arabic.

Like I said some part of the Hadith can be historical while some parts are myths, we only need evidences to confirm the claims in the Hadiths.

Just like Alexander the great, some part of his story are historical while some are classified as myths.

Stories in those days are mostly passed on orally then later written down, this way some events can be untrue or distorted.

told u guys you would end up in long winded debate.

Empiree:
told u guys you would end up in long winded debate.

True.
The guy doesn't want evidence from the Quran, he wants to pull out evidence from his own ass.
He keeps going around and around without even understanding what Islam is.

Alhajiemeritus:
True.
The guy doesn't want evidence from the Quran, he wants to pull out evidence from his own ass.
He keeps going around and around without even understanding what Islam is.

Alhajiemeritus:
True.
The guy doesn't want evidence from the Quran, [s]he wants to pull out evidence from his own ass.[/s]

Evidence from the Quran, how?

He keeps going around and around without even understanding what Islam is.

Make me understand Islam, maybe I missed something.

Empiree:
told u guys you would end up in long winded debate.

That's why it's called a debate or argument..

tintingz:
Those books are even subjected to the ancient practice.

Allah sent the first one, sent the second one, sent the third one and sent the fourth one and this time he said this is the complete book and last one whereas centuries after that this fourth book is not updated, it's stuck to the 7th century practice, Allah need to send updated one, the one that will talk about technology, science and modern behavior because as we can see these people are behaving like 7th century desert people.

I'm not arguing for or against the perfection of these books.
The wisdom contained in ancient books is not about the functions of the material world (scientific, materialistic knowledge), but about how one should live, what to aim for and to give meaning to life it self.
Science is filled with nihilism and it does not have ethics (i.e Nazi and japanese human experiments during ww2) and it does not give meaning to life and how to act in the world.

tintingz:
How the Quran was documented and compiled can be found in the Hadiths not that there are independent source confirming this.

It's like saying the prove of documentation of Harry Potter book can be found in Harry Potter book.

This is called circular reasoning fallacy..

Humans are imperfect, you don't put your complete trust on humans.

No alternate documentation exists besides the hadiths and not unless you can provide another more accurate history. The hadiths remain valid.

tintingz:


If all the messages in the previous books were repeated in the Qur'an what then is the need of 2nd, 3rd, 4th book, can't there just be one book?

A perfect book does not need another version of it own because you will be contradicting the definition of perfect.

It depends on what you mean by perfect.
If the books were successful in what they were aimed to achieve, then yes you could say they were perfect for their specified purpose at the that place and time (to worship one God, to act in a certain way and to give meaning to life and death).
I'm sure you would call me up on a probable fallacy here

IMAliyu:

It depends on what you mean by perfect.
If the books were successful in what they were aimed to achieve, then yes you could say they were perfect for their specified purpose at the that place and time (to worship one God, to act in a certain way and to give meaning to life and death).
I'm sure you would call me up on a probable fallacy here

How was it successful when Allah had to send book 2 book 3 and book 4?

IMAliyu:

I'm not arguing for or against the perfection of these books.
The wisdom contained in ancient books is not about the functions of the material world (scientific, materialistic knowledge), but about how one should live, what to aim for and to give meaning to life it self.
Science is filled with nihilism and it does not have ethics (i.e Nazi and japanese human experiments during ww2) and it does not give meaning to life and how to act in the world.

Did science ever claim to teach morality or ethics?

So the Muslim terrorists are following science right?

tintingz:
How was it successful when Allah had to send book 2 book 3 and book 4?

The proceeding books were sent at different times and to different sets of people (who probably spoke different languages or dialects) thats why.

tintingz:
Did science ever claim to teach morality or ethics?

So the Muslim terrorists are following science right?

I'm pointing this out to the people that think everything in life can be discovered through science and that somehow by giving our lives to science everything would be better.
Humans tend to do bad things and are more than willing to use religion, ideology or "for the purpose of research" to do bad things in the world.

IMAliyu:

No alternate documentation exists besides the hadiths and not unless you can provide another more accurate history. The hadiths remain valid.

Do you understand what an accurate history is?

You're still committing circular reasoning fallacy.

Was the Hadiths under scrutiny to confirm the historicity and authenticity of the Hadiths claims?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hadith

IMAliyu:

I'm pointing this out to the people that think everything in life can be discovered through science and that somehow by giving our lives to science everything would be better.
Humans tend to do bad things and are more than willing to use religion, ideology or "for the purpose of research" to do bad things in the world.

For now I don't think there's other way to study the natural phenomena than using scientific methods, if you have any other methods you can present them.

IMAliyu:

I'm pointing this out to the people that think everything in life can be discovered through science and that somehow by giving our lives to science everything would be better.
Humans tend to do bad things and are more than willing to use religion, ideology or "for the purpose of research" to do bad things in the world.

You get time for this guy?. He already proved me right. It is gonna be endless debate and nothing achieved.

Regardless of evidences you presented to him, if he decides to counter you he will always find excuses. You know this is Internet age. He can type anything to get what he wants to prolong and tries to prove you wrong.

Anything you can find on the internet. If you type "I want to look stupid"...I am sure internet will guide you how. That's exactly his reality

tintingz:
For now I don't think there's other way to study the natural phenomena than using scientific methods, if you have any other methods you can present them.

I agree with the scientific method.

tintingz:
Do you understand what an accurate history is?

You're still committing circular reasoning fallacy.

Was the Hadiths under scrutiny to confirm the historicity and authenticity of the Hadiths claims?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hadith

Even if an argument contains a fallacy, it does not invalidate the argument.

There are some valid criticisms of Hadiths, but this is why some Muslim scholars set up the weak and strong Hadith classifications and the science of the Hadith.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies

Empiree:
You get time for this guy?. He already proved me right. It is gonna be endless debate and nothing achieved.

Regardless of evidences you presented to him, if he decides to counter you he will always find excuses. You know this is Internet age. He can type anything to get what he wants to prolong and tries to prove you wrong.

Anything you can find on the internet. If you type "I want to look stupid"...I am sure internet will guide you how. That's exactly his reality

I plan to stop entertaining him when he gets too far beyond reasoning.
I'm engaging him to know the limits of my own knowledge too.

IMAliyu:

No alternate documentation exists besides the hadiths and not unless you can provide another more accurate history. The hadiths remain valid.

The hadith can never be considered a book of history because it a a mere narration by people that were assumed to be close to the Islamic prophet. Pieces of disorganized narrations by about 50 people can never be used as a source of history. A material whose adherants had also graded as 'weak', 'fabricated' and 'authentic' can not be used as a source of history because of the thousands of bias it will contain.

Alhajiemeritus:
True.
The guy doesn't want evidence from the Quran, he wants to pull out evidence from his own ass.
He keeps going around and around without even understanding what Islam is.

What the guy is simply asking for is a secular history to collaborate the alleged quranic evidence.

true2god:
Yes it was adulterated because Mohammed never asked his sahabas to compile his alleged 'revelations' as a single book. In fact Mohammed will be hell shocked if he wakes up and see what you guys call the Quran of today. Who created the chapters and the verses of the Quran? Who made it into 116 chapters? Who wrote al-fatiha, Mohammed, Allah or the sahabas (read al-fatiha Quran 1:1-7)? Why did Uthman ibn affan burn some copies (the original manuscripts) of the Quran? Did other sahabas agree with the 'uthmanic' version of the Quran? Are there verses in the Quran that were cancelled (sahih Bukhari 4:52:69, 3:31:170)? Why are there laws in the hadith (sunnan ibn majjah 1944) but were omitted in the Quran? etc.

Answer the questions above and tell me/us if the Quran has not been adulterated.

I don't think I have answer to that question because I'm not a Muslim

IMAliyu:

No alternate documentation exists besides the hadiths and not unless you can provide another more accurate history. The hadiths remain valid.

You base the veracity of Qur'an documentation on Hadith collections? Are you aware that the first official attempt to canonize Hadith was 85 years after Qur'an? But nothing remain of that corpus today. The earliest of Hadith corpus today is Al Muwwatta originating from about 150 years after Qur'an.

If you turn to the Book of Qur'an in Al Muwwata, it speak nothing of Qur'an documentation. This leads us to the second earliest existing corpus, Sahih Bukhari, a corpus that is at least a century later than Al Muwatta.

If you read Sahih Bukhari and later corpus, you'll turn through numerous traditions challenging Qur'an preservation, such as;

1. Two third of Chapter 33 had been lost.
2. One of Muhammad's scribes recorded 116 chapters.
3. The verse for stoning adulterers was revealed but has been lost.
4. Aisha dictated a verse (Qur'an 2:238) to her scribe with textual variation from today's text.


Instead of seeking proof from Hadith, carbon dating would be a more credible alternative.
But as carbon dating only raises more question and confusion on Qur'an preservation, Muslims have their back against the wall. All their trust in preservation of Qur'an hinges on the Qur'an itself and alternative means of validating Qur'an - Mathematical Miracle - had to be sought.

Now, this Mathematical miracle of Qur'an, sometimes called Code 19, at least seem outstanding. And for years, I was content with it as unchallengeable proof of Qur'an preservation or divinity. Code 19 may allow us to overlook the centuries of textual variances and disagreements concerning early manuscripts of the Qur'an.

A drawback though, is that Code 19 doesn't address Qur'an verses discernible as factually erroneous. And so in event of such errors, many of which have been highlighted by non-Muslims or ex-Muslims as reason for distrusting Qur'an, code 19 becomes another poor ploy to validate Qur'an.

All these considered, we cannot say for certain that Qur'an has been preserved and perfect.

Peace.

Oshin56:
I don't think I have answer to that question because I'm not a Muslim

OK.

IMAliyu:

Even if an argument contains a fallacy, it does not invalidate the argument.

There are some valid criticisms of Hadiths, but this is why some Muslim scholars set up the weak and strong Hadith classifications and the science of the Hadith.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies

This is what I've been asking, this is from your link,

Whereas traditional criticism has focused on verifying the trustworthiness of the people transmitting the hadith, matn criticism studies the contents of the hadith and compares this with the contents of other hadiths and any other available historical evidence with the aim of arriving at an objective historical reality of the event described by the the hadith.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies

Like I said earlier, some part of the Hadith maybe historical while some are fairytales/myths, the only way to confirm this is through historical evidence/archaeological evidence.

true2god:
The hadith can never be considered a book of history because it a a mere narration by people that were assumed to be close to the Islamic prophet. Pieces of disorganized narrations by about 50 people can never be used as a source of history. A material whose adherants had also graded as 'weak', 'fabricated' and 'authentic' can not be used as a source of history because of the thousands of bias it will contain.

Some of these guys don't even know how historical study works.

Your friends can't write accounts or story about you and expect it to be accepted objectively, it has to go through independent scrutiny, there must be historical and archaeological evidence to back up the story to arrive at your historical reality. Your friends maybe bias, lie, add fairytales to your biography.

IMAliyu:

I agree with the scientific method.

Ok, good.