Anti-Ahmadiyya Mullahs Altered/Corrupted Sahih Bukhari Ahadith

[aaminamj]

gr8 wrk .... thes mullah's!!!! ... may allah guide ppl who follow them to th sirat-e- mustaqeem n to th haqeeqi islam.. wch is alhamdolillah islam ahmadiyyat..ameen...

[attauls]

lanat ullah e alal qazibeen

[saldoczaidi]

Your nitpicking is futile. No prophet of any kind can come in Islam, period. You mirzai people always try to obfuscate the issue by wrong translations, changing ayat to support & by general diversion. Who cares what pigment Jesus was? The point is that mirza is not awaited Jesus nor is he awaited Imam Mehdi. He is dajjal, liar of the highest cadre. That is the point.

All other is obfuscation & divergence. Keep to the topic: mirza is not a Nabi, period.

Prove it to me from the Quran. No BS

[daielallah]

@saldoczaidi : Are you the one Who sent Prophets? Read that what Quran says about people who DECLARES that THERE COULD BE NO MORE PROPHETS.

"And Joseph did come to you before with clear proofs, but you ceased not to be in doubt concerning that with which he came to you till, when he died, you said: ‘Allah will never raise up a Messenger after him.’ Thus does Allah adjudge as lost those who transgress, and are doubters," Al-Quran 40:34

[saldoczaidi]

@daielallah

This is the REAL problem with you Mirzai. You REALLY believe that Mirza was a Nabi. Well, you are most welcome to him and his cronies and his Kh. I have nothing against that as long as you remain nonMuslim and keep your Nabi as your Nabi and don't label those who reject him as kafir.

This ayat has nothing to do with liars, cheat, fraudsters and traitors. Keep on practising your pristine faith and revel in it.

The real problem with your people is that they do not understand Arabic.

[daielallah]

@saldoczaidi : We believe Hadhrat Ahmad (as) to be a subordinate Prophet - subordinate of Muhammad (saw). This is 100% inline with Holy Quran which says that now ALL Spiritual ranks INCLUDING Prophet-hood will ONLY will granted through following Allah & Muhammad (saw). Ref 4:69

U may consider us what u want BUT don't forget that your 72 sects have nothing to do with Islam as per VERDICT of Muhammad (saw).

[saldoczaidi]

@daielallah

In all earnest, Mirza, to an outsider, appears to be a joke at the best and a nasty conspiracy at the worst. The man is not even sure of his identity let alone be a somebody. It is not mirza who baffles me, it is his supposedly intelligent followers, like you, who really baffle me. The man is not fit to be classed as a decent human being, yet, you exalt him. As someone said: Saint do not fly, their followers make them fly. You really exalt that man, a caricature of a ramshackle of a

[daielallah]

@saldoczaidi : Don't forget that your forefathers were also use to say similar things about the Prophets of the time & their followers.

Proof #1: "Even so there came no Messenger to those before them, but they said, ‘A sorcerer, or a madman!’" 51:52

Proof #2: "And if they accuse thee of lying, even so were accused of lying Messengers before thee who came with clear Signs and books of wisdom and the shining Book" 3:184

[mohammadhasan47]

@daielallah har rivayat sahi nahi quran k elawa koi bhi book authentic nahi to tm log is ko base bna k apne ahmed qadyani ko nabi nahi kah skte

[mubashir56]

No wonder most people converting to Ahmedism are blind followers of alleged prophetic sayings (Ahle Hadees). They cannot escape from what they claim to believe as equal to Word of God. God traps them in their belief system.

Back to the Qur'an as the Criterion of Right and Wrong.

[mubashir56]

This is a classical example of how following hearsay based Hadees/ history creates sects!! And yet we are told in the Qur'an not to run after what we cannot verify!! We cannot say we were not warned. Follow Muhammad? One cannot follow a messenger no longer here. We can follow what he made sure he left behind with Allah's Plan and that is the Quran which does not have a Shia or Sunni or Qadiyani or Barelvi or Deobandi or Wahabi version.

[nisar1909]

ALLAH BACHAYEE QADIYANIOO K JHOOT SEEE.......AMEENNNN

[Luqmanb04]

HUM APNA FARZ AAI DOSTO AB KAR CHUKAE ADDA ....

AB BHI AGAR NA SAMJE TO SAMJHAE GA KHUDA..

[ateeq18]

Jhoot ka dosra naam hey hee molvee,yeh loog jetna jhoot bool lian jetna such chuppa lian,such ko chuppa nhian saktay hian.yeh tu ALLAH ka wada hey juu ALLAH nay apnay peyary Nabi say keya KEH MIAN NAA PEGHAM DUNIYA KEY KENAROO TAK POHNCHAAO GAA, yeh pehlay rook pain hian juu abb rook pain gaay such ko zahir honay say

[aotule]

PLEASE ENGLISH...........

[AllahSuxDix]

Fuck off

[frontliner860]

واہ رے قادیانی - عقل کے بھی اندھے اور آنکھوں کے بھی اندھے ۔۔۔ یہاں لفظ گندمی نہیں - بلکہ گندم گون ہے ؟؟؟

[islamiminaar]

Mullahs made another change the hadith in bukhari where it is mentioned that jesus/comming mesiah will be "Imama kum minkum" meaning he will be your imam from amongst you. Mullahs changed it in english version into "and there will be an imam amongst you (another than jesus)"

[10011011110]

@islamiminaar That hadith CAN be misinterpreted, since it is 'wa imama kum minkum'. I understand that. But it is odd that they ignore a da'if hadith such as 'wa la al-mahdiyyu illa eisa ibnu maryama'' in Sunan Ibn Majah. And in the commentary by recent hadith books this fact is completely glossed over and ignored, though properly translated in the Darussalam editions. Doesn't anyone else see anything odd in this as well?

[islamiminaar]

@10011011110 in the online versions they put instead of the hadith "imama kum minkum" a hadith of fathul bari from hadjar askalani and cut this hadith absolutley out of bukhari! in some versions they wrote another translation.

[10011011110]

@islamiminaar There really should be an authentic english translation of Fathul Bari.

[frontliner860]

دوسری بات یہ کہ ، گندم گون کاانگریزی ترجمہ اگر ریڈش واییٹ نہی ہے - تو پھر اورکیا ہے ؟؟؟ اس جاہل قادیانی نے پوری وڈ یو میں کہیں نہی بتایا - کہ اس کے نزدیک صحیح ترجمہ کیا ہونا چاہییے تھا ؟؟؟؟ واہ رے قادیانی -- بڑی دور کی کوڑی لایا - کھودا پھاڑ - نکلا چوہا - وہ بھی مرا ہوا ۔

[masieha]

@frontliner860

So the color of wheat is reddish white :)

Mr Scholar! Learn about the definition of wheat color and its shades @

en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/­Wheat_(color) :)

[daielallah]

@frontliner860 : واہ رے ملا واہ ! گندمی رنگت ریڈش واییٹ ھوگی۔ اگر اپنے ملا کا مکروہ چہرہ دیکھ کر تمہارا دل نہ بیٹھ گیا ھوتا اور تم نے پوری وڈیو صحیح طرح دیکھی ھوتی تو تمہیں معلوم ھوتا کہ تمہارے ملاوں نے آنے والے عیسی کی رنگت کے بارے میں پانچ میں سے تین احادیث میں تحریف کی ھے جبکہ دو احادیث میں وہ تحریف کرنا بھول گئے اور وہاں گندمی کا ترجمہ براون کیا ھے۔

جھوٹ کے پاوں نہیں ھوتے۔ وہ پکڑا ہی جاتا ھے۔ سمجھے!!

[PROUD2BAHMADI]

@frontliner860 you need a Dr

[TheAhmadiyyatzindaba]

You Naked the Mullahs Such a Great Video

==============================­====

I request to Muslims Brothers and sister please watch this video and realize how mullah making fool the peoples on the name of Islam.....

[nabilgulshan]

Mullah = Jews

Stupid and shameless Mullah are playing their tactics with Allah.

lanatul Alkazbeen.

[agnostaxian]

I am a Christian and God, I wish all Muslims were Ahmadi. We could debate theology in peace without death threats and oppression

[Peace4everynation]

@agnostaxian : That is a very correct statement. Thank you for your frankness and good feelings. May God bless you and all those whom you love!

[agnostaxian]

@Peace4everynation Thank you! If all muslims were ahmadi, the USA would be out of the the middle east. We could trade in peace. Christians, Muslims (Ahmadi), Jews, Buddhists and Hindu's would live in peace and I bet you Islam would actually grow faster and have a great name among the nations.

Sure we could debate theology but as the ahmadi say "Love for all hatred for none", Amen!

[mubashir56]

@agnostaxian Really? I thought Mr Mrza came to smash the Christians and teach them a lesson. However, you believe in taking refuge among them and hide what Mr Mirza said about them. Make up your mind peace with them or expose their beliefs?

[agnostaxian]

@mubashir56 smashing christians in debate is fine. we can debate theology but mainstream muslims persecute and kill christians, just ask copts and armenians, ahmadi dont do that

[mubashir56]

@agnostaxian Yes, but Sir when Ahmedis are asked what the mission of Mr Mirza was, they say it was to smash the cross !! Frankly speaking Ahmed Deedat did a much better job. You don't take refuge with a people who you ridicule. You don't have to kill them but as a principal you don't cosy up to them when they still believe Jesus is son of God and trinity !!! Lucky they are tolerant and these are not medieval times.

[agnostaxian]

@mubashir56 I am a Christian and believe that Jesus is the son of God and that he died on the cross for our sins. I understand ahmadi try and refute this very strongly but as long as they do it with WORDS & ARGUMENT ONLY, I do not have a problem. They can believe and preach anything they want.

Mainstream muslims try and oppress Christians through violence, ahmadi do not do that

[mubashir56]

@agnostaxian Only a small minority of Muslims in Eygpt misbehave towards the Christians. Please don't exagerate and say mainstream Muslims are violent towards Christian minorities. If you are a Christian, BTW, then behave like one and love your enemies rather than spitting on them with your tone or posts. If you are a Christian, could you refer us to the verse where Jesus said "Iam God, worship Me"

[mubashir56]

@agnostaxian Any kind of violence is bad so you won't find me as a supporter for it. Talk talk is better than fight fight!! I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of condemening a faith as God's "Messenger" and choosing to support a colonial Invader and then for his follers to choose to live among them. What kind of dichotomy is this?

[agnostaxian]

@mubashir56 colonialism is bad, european or otherwise. everything outside medina has been colonized by muslims for 1400 years, just ask the copts and armenians and greek orthodox and zoroasters. but today many many muslims are persecuting and killing people simply for their religious belief, that is wrong

[mubashir56]

@agnostaxian Please look up the definition of colonialism and then decide. No Muslim army went to parts of China, Russia, Africa, Indonesia and Philipines, so let us not even go their Sir. If we take your line of argument then Mr Mirza should have condemned colonialism; He did not. He went after Christianity while ignoring colonialism.

[agnostaxian]

@mubashir56 yes but do u are being selective with those places. what? u think the armies of the ummah entered Mecca, greater Arabia, Syria, Jerusalem, Anatolia, Egypt, N. Africa, Persia, India, Spain and lower europe with Korans in one hand and flowers in the other? please

[mubashir56]

@agnostaxian The armies of the Ummah did what they had to do and their reasons were best known to them. However, The Qur'an does not ask them to go forth and conquer the world. That is the point.

[agnostaxian]

@mubashir56 they did it for conquest and power! lol. hadith does support such conquest saying that one day even Rome will fall to Islam.

But when Muslims complain about Israel being in "occupied palestine" I say give back egypt to Copts, Turkey to Armenians and Istanbul/Constantinople back to greek orthodox or you are hypocrites, that's my point.

Yes, the last 400 years west has been kicking Muslim countries ass but the first 1000 years of Islam, Muslims kicked west ass, so 600 years left for us

[mubashir56]

@agnostaxian Again, you are equating Muslim behaviour with their theoolgy. Did Jesus ask Christians to take the Bible in one hand and go on an invasion stampede colonising the world? Why don't you disduss returning Newzealand, N and S America, Australia to the aboriginals. Post UN the rules changed and the Palestinians were not asked about their land which was partitioned. Even Israel refers to that land as occupied territories!! You need to tone down your language to a true Xtian.

[agnostaxian]

@mubashir56 major muslim brotherhood leader in egypt says hitler had right idea about jews- extermination. will u condemn his statements and death for apostasy laws in saudi arabia? yes or no

[mubashir56]

@agnostaxian I fully and unconditionally reject such statements of an organisation of humans prone to error. To me The Criterion is Qur'an. Why? Because it calls itself Al Furqan - The Criterion of right and wrong. Any statement by someone is not acceptable. Same goes for Saudi because it is against the Qur'an. So, it is a Yes without buts, and ifs and howevers !! Have a nice day!

[agnostaxian]

@mubashir56 yes, muhammad said only 1 out of 99 sects that follow him would be correct, u are in that 1. i will also work for justice and freedom for muslims as well, that is all i want. peace be upon u my muslim brother

[mubashir56]

@agnostaxian We are not sure what Muhammad said because there has a lot of controversial material reported about what he alleged to have set. These reports are man made and not the Word of God. The Qur'an says do not get divided in sects, so Muhammad is not going to make a prediction which Muslims can use as an excuse for sectarianism. They use alleged sayings of Muhammad to excuse their acts against the Qur'an. Smart Eh?

[agnostaxian]

@mubashir56 yes, my big concern is with the death for apostasy law but i read a story about muhammad where he allowed muslims to leave islam and go back to the pagan meccans, this contradicts death for apostasy

[mubashir56]

@agnostaxian Brother to learn about Islam FIRST and foremost, read the Qur'an. Don't study the behaviour of Muslims or early Muslim history of which we have several versions with sectarian slants. Read and judge Muslims by the Qur'an. Search for islamawakned on Google and read 20 plus simultaneous translations of the Qur'an, verse by verse. Once you have done that then feel free to judge the Muslims. You may even end up reminding them if they go against it !!

[agnostaxian]

@mubashir56 will do my muslim brother. thanks for ur patience and kind responses. i have read much of the koran but not an expert and there are many good teachings in there but i will research some more

[mubashir56]

Does this not show that dajjal is supposed to be a one-eyed man? How did it change to a system (Britian then, and now America)???

Now wait for a "It is a symbol" reply. But the symbol is Dajjal only while retaining Jesus as a man???

[daielallah]

@mubashir56 : For the comparison between Ahmadiyya vs non-Ahmadiyya UNDERSTANDING of Dajjal - Watch {watch?v=9SQeSibxfHk}. You will be amazed to see that how Mullahs & their Blind followers are living in Myths & Fairy tales. Rather Mullahs are living in Childish Stories like عینک والا جن

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 Ahadith mentions Dajjal and Jesus in dreams. Reason why Dajjal is a group is because of what is said in first ten verses of Surah Al Kahf "And that it may warn those who say, 'Allah has taken unto Himself a son'" which refers to the religion of the Cross. That group is the one Muslims are to safegaurd against in the latter days - to not be misled by their deceit against Islam. Dajjal and Gog and Magog are one, and Jesus has his sahaba. Thats the reality.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 You may choose to go around in intrepretive circles but the truth is that you will not find the word Dajjal in the Qur'an. If it is so important, why is it missing from The Criterion?

Sorry, I am not a big believer of ahadees (that are based on hearsay collected 220 years after Muhammad (S). So prove your case from Qur'an alone to be taken seriously. Allah did not leave Muhammad with Sunni and Shia hadees books. One sect's hades is doubtful to the other's. Strage.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 You cannot deny the Ahadith. That means that there is no basis for confirming based on the prophetic sayings that Muslims know for sure if they are doing the rites of Hajj correctly, fasting, praying, trading, marriages, etc. The Holy Quran is the Word of Allah, and His laws given to Prophet Muhammad (saw) are given in sayings of Ahadith. 'We obey Allah, and His Messenger' means this exactly. What we know follows a chain back to the Rusulallah (saw), thus the ahadith...

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 "You obey Allah and obey Bukhari Sir!!" You Obey Kafi, Sir. Which Hadith version you want to pick? Shia or Sunni? Why one and not the other? We follow rituals not be reading hadith books but by what was practiced over generations! Want to know you to pray? The Qur'an tells you to take you Salah from Maqam Ibrahim. Allah key deen mein Kahan Bukhari hai, Allah nay eik kitaab utaari hai. Stick to the Qur'an and be guided. Otherwise you will be lost in he said and she said

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 You should read up on what the ahadith are and what it means to grade a Sahih, or Hasan, Marfu', Maudu' or Da'if etc etc Ahadith. I highly doubt you ever searched for any information on it. The Ahadith are the transmitted sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), not Bukhari's, or Muslim's or Abu 'Eisa Tirimidhi's, or Abu Dawud's etc. No, it is the transmitted sayings. And a hadith is graded on its authenticity, not based on what sect it is from. That is a bogus observation.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Please be educated and learn what the term Sahih means. Hadees is not the word of Allah but narrations collected 220 years after Muhammad (hence the controverseis with Shia and Sunni collections). Graded for authenticity by the Messenger or humans prone to error and prejudice?? Search Youtube for Ghamidi - The term Saheeh used by the Muhadeeth to learn what does authentic means when referred to ahadeeth. Which Book did Allah made sure the Messenger leave behind?

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 I am educated. And rather than watch a youtube video, maybe you should go read a proper book on the subject or read from some reliable source that explains the matter clearly. Yes, the ahadith are prone to errors, but they have to be carefully sifted so that the true sayings of the Messenger of Allah (saw) are kept, and the false ones removed. I don't doubt for a second that there are fabricated ahadith, but this is why the Holy Quran ranks above all, unadulterated.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 You say with your tongue that Qur'an is supreme Criterion of right and wrong but then you offer a but. Keep living in "He said, and She said world" of never ending controversies. One sect's authentic is another sects fabricated To you your Deen and to me mine. Have a nice day!!

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 The Quran IS supreme over all. The Ahadith are required in order to understand it. Why are you accusing me of being a certain way when you don't know me? Get off your high horse and start studying Islam a little. Why do you think there are commentaries of the Quran? If you know arabic so well, then read the Quran without translation and lets see if you get the EXACT SAME MEANING as the companions understood 1400 years ago. i'd like to see you try that.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Ahadith explain all 114 chapters of the Qur'an? Really? Which Hadees, Shia or Sunni. .If it does, why do the Ahl hadees and Ahl Sunnah not agree over major issues while claiming to follow hadees. Read different Qur'an translations (if you don't know Arabic) and then make up your mind leaving the rest to Allah. Allah did not say we are going to need Shia and Sunni versions of ahadees books to understand His Word. Rather He says it is complete and easy.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 So you are believer in Hadees. Then you must believe that the Messenger ordered assasinations of his critics,married a 6 year old, said the apostate must be killed, adulterers must be stoned, goat ate a verse of the Qur'an, monkeys stoned a monkey for adultery, Ayesha discussed intimate details of her married life with her adult "children". Want some more??

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 No. As I said, the Holy Quran reigns supreme. There are false ahadith, and there are true ahadith. You said it right earlier, there was at least a 200 year lapse before the ahadith started being collected. Obviously there were mistakes and fabrications. I believe whatever complies with the Holy Quran. Stoning is certainly not something I believe in, and you got the age of Ayesha wrong as well. But I guess you're not a fan of history.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 You realize also that historians look for written sources of information and then sift through facts right? The same goes for Ahadith. How do we know the Quran was compiled early on? Obviously through recorded history. The Ahadith are also part of the recorded history of Islam. And what is wrong with explaining the rules of husband-wife relations? Do you have any idea how badly Muslims would have went astray had they not had this guidance?

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Dear Brother, Please, please don't compare man's word (subject to error and controversy) with the Word of Allah. Allah only gave us assurance to guard His Word and not hearsay fabrications with sectarian slants taken by some as "The Most authentic" after the word of Allah. Qur'an has a guarantee of preservation; history does not therefore we have many versions of Islam based on sects reading their preferred version of reports into the Qur'an. Back to the Qur'an Bro.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 The Holy Prophet (saw) was the recipient of revelation. The Ahadith are his sayings transmitted over time. The Holy Prophet (saw) was a man, but he did not speak out of his own desire, "Your companion has neither erred, nor has he gone astray, Nor does he speak out of his own desire. It is nothing but pure revelation that has been revealed by God." (53:2-4) So are you accusing the Holy Prophet (saw) of lying? Be careful what you say.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Not really, The verse is saying that what ever the Messenger transmits as revelation is from Allah and he cannot change it or alter it for any body's sake. If the Messenger spoke everything as revelation, why then was he rebuked 6 times in the Qur'an? See The six incidents are found in 8:67-68, 9:43, 9:113-114, 33:37, 66:1 and 80:1-11. Also read 34:50 Where the Messenger clearly states he could err as human !!

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 Obviously he was just a human. A human cannot see the future. Only Allah transmits the information from the unseen to us. Many Ahadith are about what the Holy Prophet (saw) saw of the unseen. The Holy Quran contains the revelations, but the Holy Prophet (saw) explained visions that he had as well which are seen in the ahadith. Read 81:24, where it clearly states that he discloses the unseen. This referred to the Isra, where he described it fully, in the ahadith.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 If those visions were exremely important to know Allah would have explained them for us. That was an incident between a Prophet and His Lord. We can't deal with many versions of "details of that vision" found in hadees books. Sorry, deen cannot be based on conjecture.

[mubashir56]

@mubashir56 Allah says what ever was to be revealed for Mankind has been done in His Book and he calls it easy to understand and detailed. Conflicting stories about the Messengers dreams should not be made part of religion. What ever was important was included in His Book.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 The Isra is only explained in the ahadith. In fact, the full significance of the Isra is only known through the ahadith. But honestly, why do you deny the ahadith when the Holy Quran does not tell you how many rakats are in the prayers, what the exact hajj ceremony is, etc.? Don't you get it yet? What do you pray then? If you doubt ahadith, then surely you doubt your parents who taught you prayers as well. Then those who taught you how to pray are liars according to you.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 So, the Muslims were lost for 220 years without hadees books and did not know how to do their rituals? As I told you before, we have been following rituals as practices handed down over generations not by reading tons of sectarian hadees books. As for Salat, the Qur'an says take your salat from Maqam Ibrahim. So perform it as it is being done at Mecca. I thing wer are going around in circles so let us disagree and wish each other well and move on.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 Muslims were not lost. My point is that the Muslims WERE following those who they saw performing prayers as they learned from those who learned before them from the Holy Prophet (saw). It was the exact same things for ahadith. There is little difference in the actions passed down as opposed to the words passed down. I think you just don't realize there is no difference. The words were about those actions, and they were in agreement. How much more clear can that be?

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Please try and understant the difference between Ahl Hadees and Ahlee Sunnah. Ahle Sunnah believe in unbroken practice for 1400 years. However, if you find anything that anybody does in any sect which is against the Qur'an then that practice is open to question. The Shias and Sunnis both claim to follow unbroken practices but they differ in many, many areas. So? Back to Al Furqan!!

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 And you DO agree, since you agree that you have to learn salat from others. OTHERS knew. What difference does it make when that is a saying as opposed to actions? Nothing. The Arabs were great orators and great at memorization. A society which thrived on oral transmission of knowledge and is known for it is then trustworthy in transmitting knowledge orally. I think you just have to get over that knowledge was passed down by word and not writing in the beginning.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Great at memorisation, Eh? So you must believe what the same Arabs report about Omar and Abu Bakr who are (God Forbid) accused of hurting Fatima! No, you will tell me, we don't believe that. Why not? Why pick and choose. Believet the story about the closest companions at daggars drawn soon after the Messenger passed away? No, that is a fabrication, you will. Say. So not you will pick and choose from the great memories of the Arabs? Give me a break!!

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 Thats great that you give the benefit of the doubt to the Sahaba. But you are a very avid denier of history. I don't think you know the meaning of the recording of history. You are a very ignorant man who knows nothing of arab history and ahadith. Learn something before trying to argue something based on an opinion based on a hunch. I think you've no sense at all. The Quran is not a book that you, who is not a scholar, can understand on your own.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 And no, people were not without salat for the first 220 years without ahadeeth. You're just confusing my point. Oral transmission is NOT EVIL. You have denied ALL of the piety of the first four Khalifas, the tabi'in and ALL the other scholars who looked at ahadeeth. You have no respect for the first generations of righteous Muslims. Does it make sense that what the Holy Prophet (saw) said would not be recorded by ANYONE? His visions and dreams at least?

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 Don't confuse the ahadith with the Qur'an. I am not saying it is equal. But this hostile attitude of yours is dangerous. Bukhari did not make anything up, there is a reason why Sahih Bukhari is a 'collection' of transmitted sayings of the Holy Prophet (saw). Again, I advise you to read up on the Ahadith and how they are collected, graded and judged. Nothing supercedes the Holy Quran, but we Muslims are to abide by the instructions of the Holy Prophet (saw).

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Bukhari was not a saint neither a Prophet; he was a human prone to error. You just said you don't believe in many ahadees of Bukhari, like The Messenger marrying a child, ordering assinations, killing the apostate, What else do you reject from Bukhari? How about a hadith that says "There will be no Nabi after me?". Oh, that needs to be interpretted right? Now we need a tafsir of Hadees. Islam can only be undestood after reading 150 Books? Is it?

I give up, Sir.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 I do not blindly reject ahadith. The ahadith have their understanding in Islamic history (as with wars, stoning, killing). And no, there was no such thing as assassinations. The ahadith on nubuwwat are very clear when they are understood from the Holy Quran. And yes, the ahadith need tafsir because the early arabs spoke differently than later Arabs. Tell me if you know Shakespeare first reading it without interpretation. No idiot can claim that, and you know it.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 No. Islam does not need "150" books to understand. This is why you go to imams to ask them questions about Islam to clear up matters. If you reject the ahadith, then you reject everything that companions did, the four Khulafa-e-Rashideen, everything. All you have is the Holy Quran which has no history, no explanation. But DO tell me, is it possible to read shakespeare's books and understand them? No. The Holy Quran is much more complicated. It has some historical background.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Allah says the Book is easy to understand, but you have another opinion. Yes you can read several translations and make up your own mind. Allah knows the Messnger is not here as arbitrator and that is bound to happen. What about those who read hadees books and tafaseers but still differ over major points? Here is what Allah says: "We have made it (the Quran) easy to understand and in your own tongue (language) may you take heed." 44:58.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 I want to know if you know arabic. And if that arabic is classical arabic. Do you understand arabic the way it was 1400 years ago? If you do, then I can safely say that studying the Quran on its own is fine. No problem. But this is a requirement. So do you or do you not? If not, then you HAVE to rely on tafsir. The translation won't be enough. And again, if you rely on tafsir, remember that the tafsir is also based on ahadith.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Brother I don't think we can have an agreement so do you mind if we close this discussion with poise and grace? I read multiple translations of the Qur'an and seek clarification from Arabic speaking brothers whose character and knowledge of Qur'an I trust and those who do not base their Deen on conjecture. At the end of the day I am responsible to understand it from my own self and cannot get away on the DOJ by saying but Maudoodi, or Ibn Kasir said this!

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 It looks like you REALLY don't get it. Modern arabic doesn't work. The Quran is of a different time. Modern arabic is NOT the quranic arabic. And the knowledge of the Quran requires intricate knowledge of arabic. It is revealed in a clear arabic language that the arabs of their time knew very well. You need the historical facts to get that. Translations are not enough. If you think they are, then you are REALLY going off track. Opinion is not the same as knowledge.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Oh, Puleeze!! Do not, repeat, do not dare to compare man's word with Allah's Word that came with His assurance of preservation. Brother, Mother Ayesha was not explaining husband wife relations with her adult sons. She was discussing intimate details of her sex life. Which mother would do that and how dare we propose that she did that. Do we have no shame?? Once I was like you Brother, but I snapped out of

Al Hamdu Lillah when I studied the Qur'an alone. Try it please!!

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 How do you even know Hazrat Ayesha existed? First of all, if you reject ALL classical works of Islam except the Holy Quran, then you don't have the right to say "Mother Ayesha". So don't argue based on what you personally don't believe in. Hazrat Ayesha explained that so that husbands and wives would know how to control their lust. She explained that the Holy Prophet (saw) controlled his lust, and that he took it upon himself to always spend time with his wives.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 The Quran talks about the wives of the Messenger so obviously she existed as one of them. Stories about her spread far and wide with Sunni and Shia versions? Who knows?!! Can you swear upon the Qur'an they are true? Mothers don't explain most intimate details of their sexual lives to their adult sons, Sir. If there was a need the Messenger would have explained them. Sometimes it is good to use common sense and a sense of decency as well. To you yours, to me mine.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 Yes, but how do you know one of their names was Ayesha? I know the Quran mentions he had wives. Thanks for stating the obvious. The Holy Quran mentions that wives are a tilth for their husbands (2:222), and it mentions the 'gushing fluid' and that mankind was made from semen. And yes, the Holy Prophet (saw) explained menstruation to explain the Quran, so did Ayesha. She also explained intimacy which is to explain the Quran as well. How can you deny any of this?

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 No Sir. Ayesha RA did not explain the process of human birth. It was much more than that which no mother in her right sense would discuss with her adult sons. Would you ask you mother to detail her sexual life with you for you to "learn" something??? For God's sake don't be a blind follower and use your basic sense of right and wrong.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 you reject the fact that Hazrat Ayesha (ra) explained matters of sex because she was a mother most likely based on your own experiences. I honestly think you are forcing your own interpretation on things. If parents don't explain sex, how can their children know what is rigth and wrong about it? Are you going to say that anal sex is ok with women? She said what she said to teach, because when it comes to truth, you have to be firm and explain it. Its a mother's duty.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Brother please....please. Where is the protocol here? Why could not the women go to Mother of the believers and ask for guidance over sexual matters? Anal sex is a no no per Qur'an. You are so lost that it is not even funny. This is what happens when you wander away from His Book. Stop and think please.

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 How can you study the Quran alone when you have no tafsir to rely on (because you reject it), and you don't have ahadith and historical sources (so you don't know why verses were revealed)? You can't. You are just reading it. Unless you get revelations directly from Allah, then you don't know squat about the Holy Quran by simply relying on yourself. Read verse 3:7. It speaks of those men of knowledge. You have accused very holy men of being liars. i hope you understand that.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 Sir, The Qur'an asks us to study the Book. As the Messenger is no longer with us to guide us to it's true interpretation, then we must study it starting with a clean slate and a sincere attitude. Guidance is upto Him and He knows fully well we may not all agree (with or without hadith) in interpreation but as long as our intentions are sincere, leave it upto Him to judge. Men of knowledge are those whose verdicts can be verified by the Criterion. Leave the dead to Allah

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 Yes, and in order to know it, you must also refer to the tafsir. Even the Arabs need to use the dictionaries, tafsirs and ahadith in order to understand the Book. If you aren't even Arab, then I will cease talking to you because then if your thought is to rely on translations only then you will go very far off. The Holy Quran requires tafsir, and tafsir is based on the ahadith. Even tafsirs are transmitted too in their own way from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Ikrimah, Al-Suddi, etc.

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 You must be joking!! Where does Allah says in order to know this book you must read Shia Sunni Barelvi, Deobandi, Wahabi, Salafi Tafseer. Often one tafsir does not agree with another. You can read all the tafseer you want. For my the Word of My Lord and His command is enough. Keep wandering in the woods of tafsirs that dont' agree with each other, Sir. You worship ancestors, that is your choice. I respect them and keep them at the human level

[mubashir56]

@10011011110 My dear Brother. My last word: Let us agree to disagree with grace. Should you ever get tired of "He heard from her, and she heard from him" business, then please search net for islamawakened where you will find 20 plus simultaneous translations (including Ahmedi Author/s) and then giver yourself permission to decide. As for the truth about Ahmediyyat I beg you to search youtube for Ghamidi on Ahmediyya Prophethood Claim. Accept what matches His word and reject what does not. Bye!!

[10011011110]

@mubashir56 Yes, judgements ARE based on the Holy Quran, but tell me, can you honestly say that you know the classical Arabic and arabian history without the ahadith? No. Islamic history was transmitted just like the ahadith. Verdicts were made based upon quranic verses with historical situations. How would you know what verses referred to certain battles and certain historical encounters? The Holy Quran explains itself, but you have allowed opinion to step in, which is wrong.

[MrAhmadimuslim]

@mubashir56 donn`t get mislead and forget the point translantion is being alter. we are not speaking of interptaions.

[islamiminaar]

Holy Prophet (s) said he saw "a man" and asked "who is he?" this shows the prophet did not recognise the man as Jesus ibn Maryam who he saw in his miraj but a STRANGE MAN who he never see before or did not knew him. this clearly shows that this man was absolutley different than the jesus sawn in miraj.

[Peace4everynation]

@islamiminaar : How true. That is a very good point. JazakAllah.

[shanishahable]

KHUDA in ko b smjh ata krey

[Mitho366]

jazakallah,,,thanks brother

[KAFFIREAZAM]

Good work sir. Thank you.

[abdulhayee786]

Dear Sarmad Sb.

keep it up exposing Mullahs

JazakAllah

[PROUD2BAHMADI]

Mullah's Reality

============

Sarmad Bhai Mullah can change every thing mullahs changed the Islam I saw the video where mullah changed his father that is real face of mullah

[TheWegweiser]

nice Video, MashAllah