Jesus Led me to Islam

I gave you answers to all the issues you raised. The hadith I quoted from Bukhair state exactly what I have been saying,namely that only the version that differed in dialect were burnt. My posts don't have to be mile long to give them validity. The truth is sometimes very clear and plain. Only those who think that by just naming a ton of arabic names will give them more validity need 10 paragraphs to state something. :D

"Suyuty quotes the following in his book:
"Hamida the daughter of Abi Younis said, 'when my father was eighty years old, he read in the copy of Aisha,"God and His angels bless the prophet. Oh ye beleive, bless him and those who pray in the first rows." then she said "that was before Uthman changed the Quranic copies""

Where is this hadith to be found? Tell me where I can look it up from the valid sources of hadith.

"Suyuti then continues:
"Umar said to Abdul Rahman Ibn Oaf, 'Didnt you find among the verses that we received one saying, "Strive as you strove at the first?" We do not locate it anymore.' Abdul Rahman Ibn Oaf told him, this verse has been removed among those others which were removed from the Quran.'"
Note that Abdul Rahman Ibn Oaf was among the people who were noominated for the caliphate. "

Where is this hadith? What book is it in?

"ANother example:
"MAslama al-Ansar said to the companions of Muhamed. 'Tell me about two verses which have not been recorded in the Quranwhich Uthman collected'. Thhey failed to do so. Maslama said, 'Oh, ye who beleived and immigrated and fought for the cause of GOdby sacrificing your porperties and yourselves, you received the glad tidings, for you are prosperous. Also those who sheltered them, aided them and defended them, against whom God (Revealed) His wrath, no soul knows what is awaiting them as reward for what they did ''""

Where is this hadith to be found??

"Also:
I checked in Many websites for the online version of Saheeh muslim, Masnad Ahmed and other Books of Hadith but not all ahadith are translated..
But i can tell you in "Masnad Ahmed" (Book of Ahmed) that (i will not translate it might not be a perfectly right translation) but i'll tell you the content and that is that Ubayy Ibn Ka'ab one of the companions of Muhamed pbuh, said that the chapter of "Parties" (Chapter 33) used to be two hundred verses, like the Chapter Cow when read at the time of the prophet but after Uthman's collection only the current verses exist (73). These "original verses" including the verse of stoning of old people if commited adultery.
This you will also find in the Suyuti book (Itqan in the sciences of the Quran) and Al Kashaf and the book of Ibn Hazm (Al Muhallah or the Sweetest in English) "

There is no chapter in the Holy Quran called "parties", and the Surah Al BAqare (the cow) is 286 verses long, not 200. The Suyuti book is not a valid source of Islam. If you are bringing proof, you need to either cite from the holy Qur'an, or from accepted hadiths sources. You can use scholars that will interpret those, but you cannot simply say Suyuit writes this, and think that this is a valid argument.

Here is a great link with all the clarifications to many issues raised in our discussion.
iie.net/Articles/AuthenticQuran.html

"the thing is i dont always have all the arguments set right away..because i dont log on some search engine and look fr the answers, i go for the scholars and interpreters' books, may be i'll go to preists..but i'd better read some books"

Did the scholars tell you about the chapter "parties" in the Qur'an? :D

Also, could you tell me the full name of this Suyuti that you are citing. I don't know which one you are referring to if you don't tell me his whole name. So, I need his full name, and if possible the time he lived. Thank you.

Ok dear Amra seems that you havent read carefully the Quran, i mean you dont even understand the names of the Sura's, such as Al BAkarah (which means The Cow: chapter 2), Al Niisah (The Women chapter 4).I mean thats the least you need to know about your religion; Surat Al-Ahzab in that case means "Parties" (chapter 33)..so its really kind of shameful to simply say: "There is no chapter in the Holy Quran called "parties""...

One more thing about Al Bakarah, i said explicitly that i wont be quoting "from Masnad Ahmed" (Book of Ahmed); that (i will not translate it because it might not be a perfectly right translation) but i'll tell you the content" (all i meant is that "Al Ahzab" or "the Parties" used to be at least 200 verses, almost eaual to the number of the verses in the Bakarah or "The Cow")

But then you took it literaly..and at other times in your posts you refuse that i take things literally (when we talked about God telling Mohamed to refer the Jews back to their books)..

And you say "If you are bringing proof, you need to either cite from the holy Qur'an, or from accepted hadiths sources"
When you dont know about a book or a scholar, that doesnt necesarily mean that they are unexistent; it doesnt mean there any less accredited; that they are any less known (among those who want to seek their books that is)...

If you know your religion well enough, you'd find God leaving room for "Ijtihad" (making effort in knowing and interpreting ISlam)..ANnd that is why we find books of interpretations, of History, and manyy many "accepted" hadiths sources..i.e sources other than Quran to be cited from..other books by sheikhs to be read..What i'm doing here is part of the "Ijtihad" you should be doing if you wanna know more about God and His Book...

"Did the scholars tell you about the chapter "parties" in the Qur'an?"
So its a shame your making fun of a non-Muslim who knows The names (The titles) of the Suras (and their meanings) in your Holy Book better :-)))

Suyuti's (1445-1505)full name is : Jalal El Din ABd-El-Rahman Ibn Abu Bakr Al-Suyuti
His Famous books (pro-Islam of course) it talks about the sciences of the Quran, the verses, their history, the collection, the occassion in which the verses were said.
- Al Itqan Fi Ulum Al Quran (Dont know about the spelling) but it translates to The Right in Koran's Sciences/ including the book of i'jaz Al Quran on the margin(It's like two books in one; thats was the way they used to do it)
- Asbab Al Nozoul or The reasons for the verses of the Quran.

In case you read my posts carefully i have cited a few other sources which i'd be glad to re-cite..
-Author's name: taṣnīf Abī al-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Aḥmad al-Wāḥidī al-Nīsābūrī (Wahdy in Egyptian dialect)
His Book: "Asbāb al-nuzūl" or The Reasons of the Quranic Verses including the Abrogator and Abrogated verses on the margin

- Author's name: Zamakhsharī, Maḥmūd ibn ‘Umar(1075-1144)
his book is called
"Al-Kashshāf ‘an Ḥaqā'iq Ghawāmiḍ al-tanzīl wa-‘uyūn al-aqāwīl fī wujūh al-ta'wīl"
Its basically a commentary on the Quran..Its so valuable that we cant take it out of the library... ;-))
mmm what else??oh!!
- Author:Ibn Hishām, ‘Abd al-Malik, d. 834
His Book "al-Sīrah al-Nabawīyah" or the "Life of the Prophet" known as "Siret Ibn Hisham" and its interpretation, a book called "al-Rawḍ al-unuf fī sharḥ al-Sīrah al-Nabawīyah li-Ibn Hishām" for the author (Suhaylī, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn ‘Abd Allāh, 1114 or 15-1185)...
Peace...I really hope you find good translations..

Jewels,

Islam has four sources of reference. In their order, they are:

1. The Holy Qur'an
2. hadith
3. Ijma (concensus among scholars)
4. Qiyas(analogy)

So, you have to go in this order. You cannot simply come and cite some scholar without referencing the first two preceding sources. If the scholars you are citing are using these sources, they must have referenced them in their work as well, so the reader can go back and check them. I have asked you to tell me where you have found those hadiths that you cite, and you tell me in the Suyuti book. However, as you can see above, the Suyuti book is not an acceptable source of Islam, so the hadith must be found in the acceptable books of hadith. Furthermore, the hadith cannot negate the Qur'an and it must be a saheeh hadith. Saheeh meens that it has been proven to be valid (there is a whole science behind proving which hadiths are valid and which not; there are four classification but we don't have to go into detail about this). Suyuti could be an excellent scholar, but his book cannot be used by itself as a proof for anything. You need to provide valid references, and tell me where you have found those hadiths that you cite (or where Suyuti has found those hadiths). As for Surah Al-Ahzab (33), I have never seen it translated as "parties", that is why the confusion. However, you still need to provide proof of what you are citing when you state that it used to be longer than it is.

"When you dont know about a book or a scholar, that doesnt necesarily mean that they are unexistent; it doesnt mean there any less accredited; that they are any less known (among those who want to seek their books that is)..."

I didn't say they were nonexistent, I simply stated that they have to be an authority in Islam, and that they have to cite from acceptable sources of Islam, such as the Qur'an or hadith to support their argument. Because in your citations you never state where the hadiths come from, I am asking you to provide me that information.

"If you know your religion well enough, you'd find God leaving room for "Ijtihad" (making effort in knowing and interpreting ISlam)..ANnd that is why we find books of interpretations, of History, and manyy many "accepted" hadiths sources..i.e sources other than Quran to be cited from..other books by sheikhs to be read..What i'm doing here is part of the "Ijtihad" you should be doing if you wanna know more about God and His Book..."

Ijtihad cannot be done by everyone. ;) Also, those who do ijtihad have to support their reasonings with Qur'an and hadiths.

"In case you read my posts carefully i have cited a few other sources which i'd be glad to re-cite..
-Author's name: taṣnīf Abī al-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Aḥmad al-Wāḥidī al-Nīsābūrī (Wahdy in Egyptian dialect)
His Book: "Asbāb al-nuzūl" or The Reasons of the Quranic Verses including the Abrogator and Abrogated verses on the margin"

That is all good and nice, but these are not valid sources of Islam. If you cite these people and their books, then if they are valid and truthful, they have to provide references to whatever verse or hadith they are using in their books. If they cannot do that, then we cannot accept their argument as valid.

"What i'm doing here is part of the "Ijtihad" you should be doing if you wanna know more about God and His Book..."

Maybe you should start doing that for your own religion and provide us with some answers. ;) I mean, why is it that every time I ask a Christian about their religion, they start talking about Islam? Do you think that by proving Islam wrong, you will make your religion right? Why don't you talk to me about something you know, rather than copy and paste things that you don't fully understand? :confused:

"Islam has four sources of reference. In their order, they are:

1. The Holy Qur'an
2. hadith
3. Ijma (concensus among scholars)
4. Qiyas(analogy"

First of all when you say Quran you dont mean that i or you should go and interpret it our way for it is quite complicated and God's words are not be understood by common people such as ourselves, unless we've studied for years and years..So i also assume that some interpreters guide you. i.e you read the verses and their interpretation (by muslim scholars, people who've studied; such as)
Al JAlalayn
Al Zamakhshari
Ibn Kathiir
Al Tabary...

I assume that you're also aware that the books of ahadith do not quote dierctly from Mohamed pbuh but its like companions, who quote companions, who quote companions who finally quote the prophet. The books of ahadith do not only contain the sayings and doings of Mohamed pbuh but also the sayings and the historic accounts of his companions and MOhamed's wives as well as they give the Moslems a better and more complete idea of Mohamed whether in war, with his wives, at home etc... You can thus find campanions, quoting companions and stop at that..and find Mohamad's wives sayings; such as Aisha's sayings..You knwo that right??

Secondly you say
"I have asked you to tell me where you have found those hadiths that you cite, and you tell me in the Suyuti book. However, as you can see above, the Suyuti book is not an acceptable source of Islam, so the hadith must be found in the acceptable books of hadith."

But then i remember stating Musnad Ahmed (about the lost verses of the "Parties" or chp 33 which i told you'd find in Suyuti's book); i even translated it for you. Musnad AHmed, is a book and guess what? there are ahadith in it and they are "Saheeh" (right/ official, "acceptable") and its not i who made that up..
The books of Hadith or Sunnah are mainly 9 (9 accredited and official and "Saheeh").. Any other books than these are called Isra'elyyat (books that had Jewish intervention)and thus neither acceptable nor reliable..

The 9 acceptable Books i'm talkin about, you can find in ARabic countries. in your case you can look them up on the net..
The Saudi ARabia ministry of Islamic affairs has them all (mentioned it hadith.al-islam.com
In that page you will find the writing كتب السنة التسعةits the list of the 9 books...
i can list them anyways:
"Saheeh Muslim", "SAheeh Bukhari", "Sunnan Ibn Majeh", "Sunnan el Tormozi", "Musnad Ahmed", "Sunnan al NIsa'i", "Sunnan Abi Dawood", "Mawta' Malek", "Sunnan Drami"
Note that the word "Saheeh" here is the name of the Book.

Bring someone to read tehm out for you..One of those books is called Musnad Ahmed; which is one of the Books of ahadith Suyuti has been quoting from..
So i'll give you the exact quote conserning the missing verses in ("The Parties" or Chapter 33)..That is the link..
hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=6&Rec=212

You have to be aware of the person saying the statement; Ubayy Ibn Ka'ab (may God Bless him) was one of the Prophets companions (i explained to you above, that you could find some companions sayings and Aisha's sayings in ahadith books or Sunna books)

So click on it and make an Arabic reader read it out for you and explain it (you must know someone; you can give to a translator) because you see, the English version of this website and even Al-Azhar website are poor and not all ahadith are translated and when a hadith is translated,the translators do not mention the book it is taken from..

there is another one; that gives the same meaning..(that verses were lost after Uthman burned the copies that is)the missing verses talk about the law of of stoning an old couple commiting adultery..

Another missing verse i forgot to mention...
Apart from the stoning verse, is the one that talks about the "Breast feeding of the old"..The story starts as follows (first i'll point to a hadith):
It talks about Mohamed telling a woman to breast feed her older adopted son becasue her husband has grown jealous after her adopted son has become a man..
In the Hadith Book i use at home (Saheeh Moslem; thast its name; one of the 9 books im telling you about) i found the story..
But i managed to locate it for you on the Saudi website:

Aisha thus tells us the same story in Saheeh Moslem, Musnad Ahmed, Sonn EL Nisa'i, Tormozi, Sonnan Ibn Majeh, Mawta' Malek..

The verse for "Breast Feeding of the Old" was supposed to be present in today's Quran had not Uthman burnt it. We find Aisha's testimony for that in a HAdith Book (Sunan Ibn Majeh); again one of the 9 Hadith Books accredited among muslims.
It is written here:
Aisha says it:
From (Sunnan Ibn Majeh):
From Musnad Ahmed:
It basically reads that Aisha had the verses for the law of "stoning of the old" and "breast Feeding of the old" written on a paper under her bed and when the Prophet died, they got busy and a came in "Dadjen" in the other books "Dowayba" (i.e Domestic animal) and ate the papers...

let a friend translate it for you...

So i dont understand where do u read your hadiths??(is it from one condensed book called "Saheeh"??) ANyhow the rest of th ahadith you want to know, you look for them yourself..they're all there...i gave you the websites, i cited the books..
so i'll let you Do your Ijtehad..and let me do mine as you said ;-)

You say "I mean, why is it that every time I ask a Christian about their religion, they start talking about Islam?"
But then why is it every time i ask a muslim about the Abrogator and Abrogated verses, they start askin me to quote them books and books instead of doin their own research, why do they simply say "its not true"!!sounds familiar???

In many of the posts i wrote i discussed christianity..and people were participating such as Wiffl..(sorry i'll re-check your name) and dark..But i mean you cant just say "i answered all the points you raised"..

You say: "Do you think that by proving Islam wrong, you will make your religion right?"

As i told u b4 i'm not trying to convert people here..you attempetd to do that first and i told that here is not the place..this is just a debate..its like we're debating any topic..we're arguing..i told you b4 such arguments help me more understand both of our religions and it helps me read more and research better "more or less" more objectively because all the questions about christianity that you and Shield&Sword have brought up, i wrote them down and i'm looking for the answers; i didnt say "Its not true" because they might be true..

you finally say "Why don't you talk to me about something you know, rather than copy and paste things that you don't fully understand?"
You keep on mentioning how impotant are ahadith and you dont even know the different books of Hadiths..You didnt even "understand" the meanings of the title to the Surahs and you simply said "there's no such thing as the chapter of Parties" i assume u havent checked b4 u made such a statement...

Neither you or me are know-it all people, thast the point of the forum..At least i have
to admit it myself...As much as it uses up my energy and time; it has been a very benefitial experience ;-)
I first registered in this website to talk about Peter Pan, never thought i'd end up spending days in continuous research..

Peace to you Amra..And thanks :-))

Salam
BISm ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

I just want to give a little notice,,i noticed that some ppl use books of history to judge islam.. I want to say that some of these books contian hadeeth that is not valid and they wrote it (the writers of histroy) without controling them, coz they r not from hadeeth scholars , they r history writers if they write history books, and they write all they find in thier hands and leave the work to other scholars to decide if this is a valid hadeeth or story or not.
Even in bukhari book there is part contain ahadeeth with isnad and all islamic world agreed they all r saheeh (valid), but in part of his book called Balaghat the hadeeth that located there is not all valid, and the work of scholars to control them according to hadeeth rules and decide which is valid, but Bukhari wrote them for something called in arabic "alamana alilmia" mean the honesty of the science (i guess). If u read hadeeth of this part (part of balaghat) u see the word balaghany min ( reached me (i guess)), this mean that this hadeeth reached him like news, like he hear this news from some one, even they r called Akhbar (news) not called hadeeth with sanad (the ppl who narraited it) and matn(the containing of the hadeeth and he didnt control if they r right or wrong, but wrote them for the honesty. In islam there r 2 books called Saheh, Saheh Albukhari, Saheh Muslim. The other 6 books of hadeeth r called Sunan and they can contain not valid hadeeth and they must be controled by scholars.
Lets go back to the history books, every muslim writer write for honesty and some times he write not valid hadeeth and then he give his own opinin as its not valid hadeeth , and some times not. The question how we know the valid and not valid hadeeth in history books? when u look at hadeeth wrote in the book u see before it a few names , this is called Roah-raoi (narraiters). In islam there is part of hadeeth science called "Jarh oa ta'deel", this part control the ppl who narraited the hadeeth (there r alot of conditions to be a valid narraiter), and decide according it if sanad (goup of narraiters of hadeeth) is valid or not valid. So when u write something here and say its hadeeth u must write the names before it, if hadeeth doesnt have the group who narraited it then its not accepted, and when u write the names we can say if this is valid or not according to the validity of naraiters decided by scolars.
Hadeeth science is so big in islam, and need alot of study, and even the history writers didnt check if this hadeeth is valid or not , but for honesty they wrote it and wrote the names of narraiters to let this job to scolars. So as we see all islam things is relaited to each other, no one can write from his own mind alone and other write other thing, all must be controled, if a history man write hadeeth he leave the work of validity to hadeeth scholar if other write some thing others control, all r well comtroled and well made.

i hope u got the idea.
Alhamdo LILLAH, thank ALLAH
salam.

Assalamu aleikum Shield and Sword,

Jazzak Allah hairen for this explanation. Many people do not understand how complex Islamic law is, and how certain regulations are derived. Even though a hadith may be in those books, it may not be saheeh. A hadith cannot be interpreted on its own. It has to be interpreted within the context and it has to have the full sanad (chain of narrators), all of which have to be confirmed to have been truthful, honest people. Also, a hadith cannot negate the Qur'an. It is absurd to believe that there is a saheeh hadith stating that the Qur'an has been changed, when Allah s.v.t says Himself that the holy Qur'an will be guarded and protected. A hadith like that would be dismissed just based on this issue that it negates a Qur'anic verse. Hadiths are simply there to help us understand the Qur'an, to learn about the Prophet's life, to show us how to practice Islam. However, it can never be taken above the Qur'an, nor can any hadith negate an ayat. It is a very serious claim to state that Aisha r.a would claim that the holy Qur'an was changed, and to believe that a hadith stating just that would be considered saheeh is not logical to say the least. May Allah s.v.t save us from inventing lies on those honorable people. Amin.

Assalamu aleikum,

Assalamo alaikom
BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

Jazak ALLAH khair amra,
قيل لأحمد بن حنبل : ابن اسحاق إذا تفرد بحديث تقبله ؟ قال : (( لا ، والله إني رأيته يحدث عن جماعة بالحديث الواحد ، ولا يفصل كلام ذا من ذا )) ( تهذيب الكمال ( 24 : 422
I wanted to begin my answer to jewels with this scentence its mean: They asked Ihmad Ibn Hanbal(big scholar) (the one who narrated the hadeeth that u posted in jewels previuos answer): "Ibn Ishaq (one of the ppl that narrated this hadeeth and u can see his name in the chain of narraters before the hadeeth) if he narrated hadeeth do u accept him? he said (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal): no, i swear i saw him narrating from a group in one hadeeth, and he dont separate the talk of ppl ( i think he mean he make the talk of ppl one talk and dont separate ppl talk)". Book "tahtheeb alkamal"
If u watch the chain of narraters of this hadeeth u see 2 names between Ibn Ishq and Aisha; i mean the chain is putten in this way begining from Ibn Ishaq(where the prob is located): Muhammed Ibn Ishaq narrated from Abd ALLAH Ibn Abi Bakr from Amra from Aisha, in the second chain is putted: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq narrated from Abd ARRAHMAN Ibn Alqasem from his father from Aisha. we see that Ibn Ishaq when he narrated the hadeeth one time he said it from one and some times from other, he gathered the same hadeeth from a different narraters and this is his prob, Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is not a lier but its known about him that he mix ahadeeth (as scholars of hadeeth decided).
وقال عبدالله بن أحمد بن حنبل قيل لأبي يحتج به-يعني ابن اسحاق-قال(لم يكن يحتج به في السنن)
This sentence mean that Abd ALLAH Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbal say that his father was asked do we take his ahadeeth-mean Ibn Ishaq-he said (Ahma Ibn Hanbal) we dont accept his ahadeeth in sunan (in laws of islam).

وقال الذهبي في السير(7/41)[وأما في أحاديث الأحكام فينحط حديثه فيها عن رتبة الصحة إلى رتبة الحسن إلا فيما شذ فيه،فإنه يعد منكراً]
Athahaby (scholar) said in his book assiar: in laws his hadeeth(Ibn Ishaq) go down from saheeh to good (hasan) (levels of hadeeth-as scholars gave), only the unusual of them they r ignored (not accepted).
The accepted hadeeth of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq r these about Alaghazy (dont know in english) and seera, but his hadeeth about laws in islam is not accepted, then how if the hadeeth about Holy Quran its for sure not accepted, and the hadeeth that he narrate alone is not accepted, the prob of this man is not that he is lier but he mix things, u see him once narrate hadeeth and cancel some one from the chain of naraters.
قال السرخسي: "حديث عائشة لا يكاد يصحّ ؛ لاَنّ بهذا لا ينعدم حفظه من القلوب، ولا يتعذّر عليهم به إثباته في صحيفة أُخرى، فعرفنا أنّه لاأصل لهذا الحديث .
Assarkhasy said words above i explain them with these words:
Another prob of this hadeeth is in matn(the contain of hadeeth), coz as its known that when prophet pbuh recite the verses that He pbuh get from ALLAH not only one write them but a group of sahaba every one of them on his own paper (saheefa), and also ppl put them in thier minds (keep verses in mind and untle now we can see this in all islamic words, that they put whole Holy Quran in mind), not only papers, and if the animal ate one paper then for sure we will find the verse in other paper not only in that eaten one, so no logic here, and not valid this hadeeth.
As i posted above even Ahmad Ibn Hanbal didnt accept Ibn Ishaq always and said wht is his prob also other scholas of hadeeth especially in Jarh oa ta'deel.
As i posted in my previous answeres, i wrote that there r 2 saheeh in islam(in which all hadeeth r valid) which is saheeh Albukhari and saheeh Muslim, and all other 6 books of hadeeth is called sunan (and one from them is sunan Ibn Majeh, where this hadeeth is located) and they contain the valid and not valid hadeeth and the work of hadeeth scholars is to decide which hadeeth is right and which hadeeth is wrong.
There is hadeeth that talk about breast feeding but its in group of nasekh oa mansookh (canceling a law by other) and its talk about other thing, and perhaps Ibn Ishaq mixed things and narrated it in this form, but as he got prob we leave his hadeeth about laws, even we can see his prob so clear because of his mixing in narraters before him.
I hope i answered ur question.

Jewels i hope u read my answer that i poested before about hadeeth, and also the one before this about John (10:30) and wht happened to King James version, and the canceling is so clear u can find it by reading now adays bible and King James version.

Alhamdo LILLAH, thank ALLAH
Assalamo alaikom oa rahmato ALLAH oa barakatihi

Assalamo alaikom
BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

the smily that u see in my previous talk i didnt post it , i think it was because od puttin points and these things, only wanted to make u know this, i dont like to post them in a dialogue,

alhamdo LILLAH , thank ALLAH
Assalamo alaikom

Muslims do not believe in the Bible....whatever they you may say....the big difference between what they believe and what the Bible says is that Jesus is the son of God and that He died for our sins. That difference is everything.

As has been said before, the Bible was not tampered with by humans. It is a much more reliable documents (historically and otherwise) than the Qur'an. The Bible says nothing of Mohammad and Islam. The Qur'an was written much later than the Bible.

Make any sense?

I don't want to get involved in this debate but just wanted to put my two cents in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shield&Sword

Assalamo alaikom
BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

the smily that u see in my previous talk i didnt post it , i think it was because od puttin points and these things, only wanted to make u know this, i dont like to post them in a dialogue,

alhamdo LILLAH , thank ALLAH
Assalamo alaikom

---

Hey, great smiley! :brow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amra

Assalamu aleikum Shield and Sword,

Jazzak Allah hairen for this explanation. Many people do not understand how complex Islamic law is, and how certain regulations are derived. Even though a hadith may be in those books, it may not be saheeh. A hadith cannot be interpreted on its own. It has to be interpreted within the context and it has to have the full sanad (chain of narrators), all of which have to be confirmed to have been truthful, honest people. Also, a hadith cannot negate the Qur'an. It is absurd to believe that there is a saheeh hadith stating that the Qur'an has been changed, when Allah s.v.t says Himself that the holy Qur'an will be guarded and protected. A hadith like that would be dismissed just based on this issue that it negates a Qur'anic verse. Hadiths are simply there to help us understand the Qur'an, to learn about the Prophet's life, to show us how to practice Islam. However, it can never be taken above the Qur'an, nor can any hadith negate an ayat. It is a very serious claim to state that Aisha r.a would claim that the holy Qur'an was changed, and to believe that a hadith stating just that would be considered saheeh is not logical to say the least. May Allah s.v.t save us from inventing lies on those honorable people. Amin.

Assalamu aleikum,

---

Just because the quran says it has a certain quality does not disprove a hadith reflecting its production.

Mohammad led me to Christianity. Funny old world, isn't it?