₦airaland Forum

Ekrenji:
Please mention me when you make the post, the other person I am following advocatejare has not been active again, he was constantly complaining that they were deleting his posts too

I will follow u now

I will God willing.
These people have gone so far as to influence Google and many of the Western AI platforms only to give pro-Islam information.

But, there are still ways out to get the information they are afraid of

TenQ:
ANYTHING they consider sensitive and having tendency to expose Islam is subject to being banned either from a bot or by a human administrator.

They hate the truth like a plague!
It's their nature!

Ah, nawa o

Ekrenji:
Ah, nawa o

.You can be sure that they will pull down my post immediately they see evidences other Muslims shouldn't see.

I will do my best to code it to avoid the bots but the admins, can even be more brutal.

Ekrenji:
Oh oh, no wonder
So they know what Martin Luther actually said about Mohammed and did not want other people to know about it

Taqqiya and kitman in action😁.

The average Muslim is a Believer in Fiction rather than Truth.

Do they care for the Truth?
No!

Believing gives them a false sense of hope that Allah, Mohammed and the Qur'an will save them on the day of Judgment.

Unfortunately, God gave them the SOLUTION which they REJECT vehemently: thus, they become sincerely LOST!

TenQ:
..

The narration that brought this is not authentic according to the science of hadeeth, the same science that was used to authentic the hadeeth in Abu Daawood which you held on to is the same science of hadeeth that will be used to render this narration useless insha Allaah. And it's very very simple.

Abdullaah Al-Bahiyy who narrated this hadeeth is not a sahaabiy (companion of the Prophet), rather he is a taabi'iy (the generation after the companions), he didn't meet the Prophet alive, he didn't witness his death and he didn't tell us from whom he got this narration, so why is it binding upon us to accept what he has said especially when we have clear cut authentic sources that say otherwise?

Some of the scholars of Hadeeth even deem Al-Bahiyy to be someone we can't rely upon in narrations due to the fact that his narrations do contradict one another. From the scholars of hadeeth who said so is Abu Haatim (born 185 years after the Prophet died) said about him:

"Any of his hadeeth should not be relied upon because he is mudtaribul hadeeth (narrations from him are contradictory on the same hadeeth"

This points to weakness in his retention and we don't accept such a person in a hadeeth, how much more if he didn't mention through which sahaabiy he has narrated this.

In summary this hadeeth is weak for two reasons, the strongest reason is we don't know how he got this narration, was it another taabi'iy like himself that told him? We need to know the trustworthiness of who told him.

The second reason is, he himself is someone we can't rely upon due to weak retention as mention by Abu Haatim.

AbulAbbas:
The narration that brought this is not authentic according to the science of hadeeth, the same science that was used to authentic the hadeeth in Abu Daawood which you held on to is the same science of hadeeth that will be used to render this narration useless insha Allaah. And it's very very simple.

Abdullaah Al-Bahiyy who narrated this hadeeth is not a sahaabiy (companion of the Prophet), rather he is a taabi'iy (the generation after the companions), he didn't meet the Prophet alive, he didn't witness his death and he didn't tell us from whom he got this narration, so why is it binding upon us to accept what he has said especially when we have clear cut authentic sources that say otherwise?

Some of the scholars of Hadeeth even deem Al-Bahiyy to be someone we can't rely upon in narrations due to the fact that his narrations do contradict one another. From the scholars of hadeeth who said so is Abu Haatim (born 185 years after the Prophet died) said about him:

"Any of his hadeeth should not be relied upon because he is mudtaribul hadeeth (narrations from him are contradictory on the same hadeeth"

This points to weakness in his retention and we don't accept such a person in a hadeeth, how much more if he didn't mention through which sahaabiy he has narrated this.

In summary this hadeeth is weak for two reasons, the strongest reason is we don't know how he got this narration, was it another taabi'iy like himself that told him? We need to know the trustworthiness of who told him.

The second reason is, he himself is someone we can't rely upon due to weak retention as mention by Abu Haatim.

1. Are you saying conclusively that if ANYONE within the Isnad of a narrative is faulty either in Character or Knowledge the whole hadith should be rejected?
How about the other chains of reliable narrators?

2. Are you saying that a Daif Hadith is definitely FALSE?

3. Are you aware that the science of the Hadiths came far long after the narrations of the Hadiths: meaning that the originators of the science of the Hadiths themselves cannot vouch for the authenticity of such hadiths

4. If a known armed robbery like Lawrence Anini or Monday Osunbo told a story of President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, it is a sufficient proof to invalidate their narrative?

5. How do you account that at least four independent historical records of the early history of Islam and your prophet recorded the fact that he died and his body decayed. Till today, much of the history of Islam is from these same books you reject snippets of things that make you uncomfortable.

Note that you are not speaking to an ignorant individual on the sciences of Islam, and all your claims will be refuted one after the other with knowledge insha Allaah. Also note that, everything here is very very easy for me and I don't need long research to respond because these are things I've studied for many years.

I will worship Allaah by destroying your claims insha Allaah.

TenQ:
1. Are you saying conclusively that if ANYONE within the Isnad of a narrative is faulty either in Character or Knowledge the whole hadith should be rejected?
How about the other chains of reliable narrators?

Yes it should be rejected except if there are mutaaba'aat (the same companion was quoted but the faulty individual/individuals has/have been replaced) or shawaaid. But I doubt you know these things. You've not even provided through which companion this was narrated, this is also a serious problem.

You claim the hadeeth has chains of narration, bring them let's see them, together with the companion that mentioned it.

2. Are you saying that a Daif Hadith is definitely FALSE?

Our Prophet has told us not to accept any thing about him except we are very sure because anyone who does so is threatened with punishment after death. So Muslims will never accept any narration about the Prophet except we are able to establish it. Also, it is illogical to accept something as true just because you think it may be correct, especially when you have a clear cut evidence that points to the opposite of that supposed "truth".

3. Are you aware that the science of the Hadiths came far long after the narrations of the Hadiths: meaning that the originators of the science of the Hadiths themselves cannot vouch for the authenticity of such hadiths

This is false you lying Shaytaan, no such thing as "originators of the science" these are nothing but principles gotten from the Quran and authentic sunnah of the Prophet, and the basis for all of these is the ayah in surah hujjaraat, Allaah the Most High, the Lord of the worlds, said:

"If a rebellious (one of questionable character) comes to you with a narration, verify it..."

So we verify what is being said before accepting as Allaah has ordered us, Muslims, to do.

Before the tribulations that happened during the time of uthmaan, they did not verify since everyone was seen as trustworthy, but when these tribulations happened they would say "name us your men (those you got this narration from)" this is the statement of Ibn Sireen who met many of the companions like Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, Ali, etc. He met all of them. So this was a principle used during the times of the companions who saw the Prophet themselves. So you are lying. I've told you that you are not speaking to an ignorant individual and I'm not someone thwt doubts his religion. I am 100% sure I'm upon the correct religion, it is you I pity when you would wish you were a Muslim in this earth as Allaah said:

"(often) will those who disbelieve wish that they were Muslims [those who have submitted themselves to Allah's Will in Islam Islamic Monotheism, this will be on the Day of Resurrection when they will see the disbelievers going to Hell and the Muslims going to Paradise]."

Have a rethink before it's too late my friend.

4. If a known armed robbery like Lawrence Anini or Monday Osunbo told a story of President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, it is a sufficient proof to invalidate their narrative?

As a Muslim, I will not accept it until I verify and see that it is true by myself. Because this is what my Lord has commanded me with, if your brain tells you to accept the narration of every tom dick and harru, it shows how lowly your intellect is and that is your problem. As for me and every other intellectual individual out there, then no.

5. How do you account that at least four independent historical records of the early history of Islam and your prophet recorded the fact that he died and his body decayed. Till today, much of the history of Islam is from these same books you reject snippets of things that make you uncomfortable.

As a Muslim, I don't need 4, 1 person is enough. It is never a condition for something to be true that it has to be from more than 1 source. The Messengers Allaah sent were mostly 1 except in rare cases like Musa and Haroun. Do we dismiss what these Prophets said because it's just 1 person?

Although there are many proofs for this, but I will not waste my time with an individual that does not know his Lord. If his intellect can't tell him that he should worship his true Lord, then he is a waste of time.

So it's nonsensical asking me to bring 4. The hadeeth you yourself brought from Abu Dawood is enough.

@AbulAbbas
Two of my posts have been deleted replying to your posts

@AbulAbbas
Concussion of the post

@TenQ

The way it is posted is very difficult for me to respond and remember all the point mispoints you've mentioned. But something is evident and that is you don't know what you claim you know, for instance, the Ibn Saad you mentioned his full name is Muhammad Ibn Saad, has a book called tabaqaat ibn Saad, this book is a book actually speaks about a branch of science of hadeeth which is ilm rijaal. The knowledge that speaks about trustworthy narrators and untrustworthy narrators. Like he himself is telling us those we should accept and those we shouldn't accept based on those trustworthy people who lived in the same time with them and gave us their true picture. So you see that you don't know anything about these issues?

Another example is At-Tabari you mentioned has a book called tahdheeb Al-Aathar, in this book he applied so many principles of hadeeth, for example he said:

"Abu Shurahbil Al-Himsiy told me, he said, Ismaail told us on the authority of Amr Ibn Dinaar Al-Makki....[down to where he said]...on the authority of Saeed Ibn Al-Mussayyib..."

Then he said: "This information, with us (i.e. he himself), is has a sahih chain of narration."

You can see he appliee that principle of not accepting except knowing those who narrated a particular statement so he had to mention his chain which comprises of who heard it from who down to his on time. Then he said the chain is authentic because he deems those individuals trustworthy.

So you see that you don't know what you are saying?

It's one thing to agree that you have to apply a principle, it's another thing to apply it correctly.

I will not allow you waste my time because you clearly don't know what you are saying just copy paste from either one book written by an ignoramus like yourself feigning knowledge or from google or from chat gpt. Alhamdulillaah our religion is well preserved and we have true sources which can never be infiltrated as long as the heavens and earth exists. I am 100% sure of my religion, you can only create doubts on Muslims that don't know their religion and refuse to study.

The main topic of discussion you couldn't talk about it again, and it is, provide the other chains of narration if you are truthful, else keep quiet and continue your joke of a religion until you meet your Lord on the day of judgement and wish you listened to our warnings. Allaah said in the Quran as regards disbelievers like yourself:

"And for those who disbelieved in their Lord is the punishment of Hell, and wretched is the destination.

When they are thrown into it, they hear from it a [dreadful] inhaling while it boils up.

It almost bursts with rage. Every time a company is thrown into it, its keepers ask them, "Did there not come to you a warner?"

They will say," Yes, a warner had come to us, but we denied and said, 'Allah has not sent down anything. You are not but in great error.'"

And they will say, "If only we had been listening or reasoning, we would not be among the companions of the Blaze."" [Surah Al-Mulk verses 6 to 10]

If you like listen, if you like keep deceiving yourself, it is upon me to warn and not upon me that you believe like Allaah said:

"It is only upon you to convey the message"

So if yoi later dwell in hellfire for disbelief it is not my problem but yours, but on that day you'll ask for water and you'll not be given just like Allaah said:

"And the people of fire will call upon the people of paradise: give us water or anything that Allaah had provided you with. They (people of paradise) will say Allaah has prevented it for the disbelievers, those who took religion as play and jest [you christians jest and play claiming its worship] and they allowed this worldly live deceive them. Today they shall be forsaken just as they disbelieved in this meeting (day of judgement) of theirs and because they used to deny our verses"

Repent my friend, if you don't then let's wait like Allaah said we should tell your likes:

"Wait, we are also waiting"

AbulAbbas:
@TenQ

The way it is posted is very difficult for me to respond and remember all the point mispoints you've mentioned. But something is evident and that is you don't know what you claim you know, for instance, the Ibn Saad you mentioned his full name is Muhammad Ibn Saad, has a book called tabaqaat ibn Saad, this book is a book actually speaks about a branch of science of hadeeth which is ilm rijaal. The knowledge that speaks about trustworthy narrators and untrustworthy narrators. Like he himself is telling us those we should accept and those we shouldn't accept based on those trustworthy people who lived in the same time with them and gave us their true picture. So you see that you don't know anything about these issues?

Another example is At-Tabari you mentioned has a book called tahdheeb Al-Aathar, in this book he applied so many principles of hadeeth, for example he said:

"Abu Shurahbil Al-Himsiy told me, he said, Ismaail told us on the authority of Amr Ibn Dinaar Al-Makki....[down to where he said]...on the authority of Saeed Ibn Al-Mussayyib..."

Then he said: "This information, with us (i.e. he himself), is has a sahih chain of narration."

You can see he appliee that principle of not accepting except knowing those who narrated a particular statement so he had to mention his chain which comprises of who heard it from who down to his on time. Then he said the chain is authentic because he deems those individuals trustworthy.

So you see that you don't know what you are saying?

It's one thing to agree that you have to apply a principle, it's another thing to apply it correctly.

I will not allow you waste my time because you clearly don't know what you are saying just copy paste from either one book written by an ignoramus like yourself feigning knowledge or from google or from chat gpt. Alhamdulillaah our religion is well preserved and we have true sources which can never be infiltrated as long as the heavens and earth exists. I am 100% sure of my religion, you can only create doubts on Muslims that don't know their religion and refuse to study.

The main topic of discussion you couldn't talk about it again, and it is, provide the other chains of narration if you are truthful, else keep quiet and continue your joke of a religion until you meet your Lord on the day of judgement and wish you listened to our warnings. Allaah said in the Quran as regards disbelievers like yourself:

"And for those who disbelieved in their Lord is the punishment of Hell, and wretched is the destination.

When they are thrown into it, they hear from it a [dreadful] inhaling while it boils up.

It almost bursts with rage. Every time a company is thrown into it, its keepers ask them, "Did there not come to you a warner?"

They will say," Yes, a warner had come to us, but we denied and said, 'Allah has not sent down anything. You are not but in great error.'"

And they will say, "If only we had been listening or reasoning, we would not be among the companions of the Blaze."" [Surah Al-Mulk verses 6 to 10]

If you like listen, if you like keep deceiving yourself, it is upon me to warn and not upon me that you believe like Allaah said:

"It is only upon you to convey the message"

So if yoi later dwell in hellfire for disbelief it is not my problem but yours, but on that day you'll ask for water and you'll not be given just like Allaah said:

"And the people of fire will call upon the people of paradise: give us water or anything that Allaah had provided you with. They (people of paradise) will say Allaah has prevented it for the disbelievers, those who took religion as play and jest [you christians jest and play claiming its worship] and they allowed this worldly live deceive them. Today they shall be forsaken just as they disbelieved in this meeting (day of judgement) of theirs and because they used to deny our verses"

Unfortunately, you wrote much but responded to NOTHING!
All you did was to claim that I didn't know what I was saying all because I didn't state the full names of Sa'ad or At-Tabari and I didn't mention the name of their books. Unfortunately, this is just an attempt for you to avoid answering any questions. How many Al-Tabari or Ibn Sa'ad wrote early Islamic historical narrative for you.

A small test since you claim that Allah the four authors I mentioned used the science of the hadith in writing their book.

Question:
Do you believe everything written about events and history of Islam and Mohammed from Al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'ad, Al-Waqidi etc


I asked a Question before
Why do you reject ANY hadith from Hafs Ibn Sulyman?

AbulAbbas:
Repent my friend, if you don't then let's wait like Allaah said we should tell your likes:

"Wait, we are also waiting"

The proper name of then God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses , David is YHWH! Is ANY of the names of your God YHWH?

Islamabad is a fusion of many Deities and Religions into one such as Arabian Religion, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Sabians Religion etc
this is why Al-LAH is Ahad meaning ONE OF many Deities
Taoheed is the UNIFICATION of these many Deities.
This is reinforced why As-Samad is a COLLECTION into a unit like piggy bank.

Redefining the terms by modern Muslims doesn't change anything sir.

Can you tell me the names of the THREE Daughters of Hubal?

Is Allah Waheed or Ahad?

You are the one who should REPENT from following a DEITY you don't even know. A Deity that promised you a guaranteed stay in hell for some time before you are removed.

Quran 19:71-72
"And there is none of you except he will come to it (Hell). This is upon your Lord an inevitability decreed. Then We will save those who feared Allah and leave the wrongdoers within it, on their knees."


1. If the Truth is that you will certainly enter hell fire (even if it is temporarily), would it distress you?
2. Knowing that you will enter the fire even if it is temporary is certainly NOT Good because the time you will spend is undefined!
3. Wouldn't this knowledge help you to begin to seek for a way of avoiding this calamity?



If you are not following that God of Abraham, you are LOST sir!

TenQ:
Unfortunately, you wrote much but responded to NOTHING!
All you did was to claim that I didn't know what I was saying all because I didn't state the full names of Sa'ad or At-Tabari and I didn't mention the name of their books. Unfortunately, this is just an attempt for you to avoid answering any questions. How many Al-Tabari or Ibn Sa'ad wrote early Islamic historical narrative for you.

A small test since you claim that Allah the four authors I mentioned used the science of the hadith in writing their book.

Question:
Do you believe everything written about events and history of Islam and Mohammed from Al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'ad, Al-Waqidi etc


I asked a Question before
Why do you reject ANY hadith from Hafs Ibn Sulyman?






The proper name of then God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses , David is YHWH! Is ANY of the names of your God YHWH?

Islamabad is a fusion of many Deities and Religions into one such as Arabian Religion, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Sabians Religion etc
this is why Al-LAH is Ahad meaning ONE OF many Deities
Taoheed is the UNIFICATION of these many Deities.
This is reinforced why As-Samad is a COLLECTION into a unit like piggy bank.

Redefining the terms by modern Muslims doesn't change anything sir.

Can you tell me the names of the THREE Daughters of Hubal?

Is Allah Waheed or Ahad?

You are the one who should REPENT from following a DEITY you don't even know. A Deity that promised you a guaranteed stay in hell for some time before you are removed.

Quran 19:71-72
"And there is none of you except he will come to it (Hell). This is upon your Lord an inevitability decreed. Then We will save those who feared Allah and leave the wrongdoers within it, on their knees."


1. If the Truth is that you will certainly enter hell fire (even if it is temporarily), would it distress you?
2. Knowing that you will enter the fire even if it is temporary is certainly NOT Good because the time you will spend is undefined!
3. Wouldn't this knowledge help you to begin to seek for a way of avoiding this calamity?



If you are not following that God of Abraham, you are LOST sir!

My mission here was to refute you claim using a false hadeeth. That mission has been fulfilled, every sensible individual should know the truth on this topic by now, if he doesn't then perhaps he was meant to be astray and anyone who is destined to be astray we can't do much to help him.

So bye bye, mission completed.

AbulAbbas:
My mission here was to refute you claim using a false hadeeth. That mission has been fulfilled, every sensible individual should know the truth on this topic by now, if he doesn't then perhaps he was meant to be astray and anyone who is destined to be astray we can't do much to help him.

So bye bye, mission completed.

So, you are running away as usual of Muslims.

I thought you said I was copying from the internet!?


I have not even presented my EVIDENCES, when I do, I shall call you. All I did was to ask a question.


What if you as Muslims discovered that Mohammed's corpse decayed as all men do: what will you do?

You insinuated that I am LOST but you cannot even defend your Islam.

Check my older posts and you will understand how in error you are!

TenQ:
So, you are running away as usual of Muslims.

I thought you said I was copying from the internet!?


I have not even presented my EVIDENCES, when I do, I shall call you. All I did was to ask a question.


What if you as Muslims discovered that Mohammed's corpse decayed as all men do: what will you do?

You insinuated that I am LOST but you cannot even defend your Islam.

Check my older posts and you will understand how in error you are!

When you discuss with an illogical individual you'll definitely leave him to wallow in his ignorance just like imam shaafi said in his poetry:

"When a fool speaks do not respond to him, it is best to be silent than responding. If you respond to him you've made him happy, if you ignore him he will die out of depression"

AbulAbbas:
When you discuss with an illogical individual you'll definitely leave him to wallow in his ignorance just like imam shaafi said in his poetry:

"When a fool speaks do not respond to him, it is best to be silent than responding. If you respond to him you've made him happy, if you ignore him he will die out of depression"

Excuse to flee as usual!
Islam is NOT defendable: their cascade of lies usually collapse under scrutiny.



Invite you to the Messiah for your Salvation sir!
Without Him, there's no SALVATION!

If only you will ask yourself why Allah supposedly sent the Messiah to the earth!

AntiChristian:
Your "ifs" doesn't exist in my own Islamic traditions. I have no opinion on your quest!

No be holy spirit go teach me new things about Islam! Early historical documents can be classified as authentic, weak or fabricated if Hadith. Otherwise the documents can be an unauthenticated stories!

What is the meaning of Hadith?

TenQ:
He would feign ignorance by pretending not to see this.

Islamabad: A religion based on FALSEHOOD from beginning to the end!
SMH!

The Quran itself is Hadith. It was all the words of Mohammed that were recorded.

This is evident in the removal and replacement of ayats. Mohammed dictated all. People wrote those things he said down.

MightySparrow:
What is the meaning of Hadith?

Traditions attributed to the last Prophet of Islam.

AntiChristian:
Traditions attributed to the last Prophet of Islam.

But the Quran is a hadith isn't it?


Quran 39:23
Allah has sent down the best hadith (ٱلۡحَدِيثِ): a consistent Book wherein is reiteration. The skins shiver therefrom of those who fear their Lord; then their skins and their hearts relax at the remembrance of Allah. That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whom He wills. And one whom Allah leaves astray – for him there is no guide.

Of course you are also correct as the Quran is the words of your prophet Mohammed.

Quran 69:40
[That] indeed, the Qur'an is the word of a noble Messenger.

Mohammed is neither a Poet nor a soothsayer!


But you Muslims decided to take the hadeeth of Mohammed when Allah clearly says
Quran 77:50
Then in what hadith (after the Qur’an) will they believe?



If you don't know, Mohmd is aka Al-Makr!

AntiChristian:
Traditions attributed to the last Prophet of Islam.

Quran itself is Hadith.


Saying of the prophet.

MightySparrow:
Quran itself is Hadith.

Saying of the prophet.

Alright!

Holy spirit is inspiring you wrongly again!

AntiChristian:
Alright!

Holy spirit is inspiring you wrongly again!

Are the ayats not sayings of Mohammed?

Shameless Admins who delete posts as cowards they are.


Deleting the truth will not make it disappear. It only tells you that you have seen the truth but you don't want it.

Shameless people of the religion of piss!