CariDotMy

 Forgot password?
 Register

ADVERTISEMENT

Author: crossfire

[Tempatan] Pertubuhan Gabungan Agama Bukan Islam Pula Minta Visa Zakir Naik Disekat

[Copy link]
Post time 13-3-2017 12:49 AM | Show all posts

sampai tahap ni dah?

dah hancur dah arguemnet..

belit sampai bawak sumber hadis..bila kantoi claim i pulak yang bawak..

anyway..mana surah rejam tu ..ramai hafal woooo

apasal struggle?im sure ramai nak baca surah tu

dont malu2 sipu2...dont struggle k minah

duk taip berjela tu..baik terus bagi surah rejam tu sini..


Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


Post time 13-3-2017 01:04 AM | Show all posts
Edited by mbhcsf at 13-3-2017 01:14 AM
katowjo replied at 13-3-2017 12:45 AM
ada surah kepunyaan aishah je pulak...

patut la syiah ada quran versi dia..kata turun kat fatimah ...

tu diaaa u bercelaru cakap kita pulak yg celaru

wow now tak berani kembangkan isi surah dalam cebisan kertas yg dimakan kambing

oh buat tanya tanya pulak

baik

think logically laa

kalau A'ishah RA ada parchment yg dikatakan di makan kambing dan 4 org lagi ada complete quran so

u think siapa yg ada miliki Al Quran yg lengkap

tentulah para sahabt the scribers

kan?


so nak bawa ayat lengkap semua  yg ada dalam quran tu sila rujuk semua website al quran lah logically







Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:11 AM | Show all posts
katowjo replied at 13-3-2017 12:42 AM
hahah..tetiba lak konar i bawak sumber hadis..pastu ulang tanya lagu mana i solat..hehehe..mati akal ...
ooo..surah ada kepunyaan aishah je...ku ingatkan nabi tu posmen...apa tuhan kau turun surah tu nak bagi aishah je ke pulak?

omg hilarious..
oh dah struggle

tak leh bawa isu parchment yg sumber dari hadis ? bawa isu nabi postman pulak ?

dah bawa fitnah nabi selective - then kita kata ada banyak sahabat nabi rasulullah saw tahu pun pasal surah tu then
tak bawa dah


then isu pemilikan aisyah pulak jadi hal ...

u tak tahu ke A'ishah RA perawi utama hadis sumber rujukan a lady   dalam era muslim world 7th century  lagi

bangga kan a lady figure lagi


so ? Aisyah  dah ada dia punay copy dan dimakan kambing ayat itu  tapi 4 scribers lagi  yg memang disebut hadis pun

menjawab soalan you :

Myth of Qur'anic verses eaten by a goat
Using a report from Sunan Ibn Majah the Christian missionaries allege that some verses of the Qur’an were lost as they were eaten by a goat. Let’s analyze the narration and try to find out the truth.
The narration goes as;
عن عائشة قالت لقد نزلت آية الرجم ورضاعة الكبير عشرا ولقد كان في صحيفة تحت سريري فلما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتشاغلنا بموته دخل داجن فأكلها
Reported 'Aisha (RA): ‘the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.’ (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)

1- Authenticity of the narration:
Whenever we have a narration we ought to see whether it is authentic or not? The narration infact has some problems.
The particular chain given in Sunan Ibn Majah finds one of the narrators Muhammad bin Ishaq narrating it using the word عن ('an) which is rather an ambiguous way of narration and renders the narration weak when used by a narrator known for practicing Tadlis [practice of subtly missing a link] and Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is indeed such a narrator. Thus through particular chain of narration in Sunan Ibn Majah the narration is weak and unauthentic due the above mentioned defect though it has other issues as well as mentioned in the lines to follow. This is clarified by Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Usmani in Takmala Fath Al-Mulhim 1/69 pub. Darul Ahya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut.
In Musnad Ahmad the same narration is given through the same chain but with an explicit way of narration i.e. it does not have the defect like the narration in Ibn Majah’s collection. But the narration is exposed to more criticism because many other narrators have related from 'Aisha (RA) about the suckling/breastfeeding but no one has narrated the words found in this chain even though the narrators in those cases are more reliable and consistent than Muhammad bin Ishaq. And due to thefact of these words being narrated solely by him and in defiance to other much more reliable narrators, scholars have questioned its authenticity. Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaud has classified it as Da’if in his classification of Musnad Ahmad. See Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359.
2- The narration no way questions Qur’an infallibility:
Even if the narration were authentic it no way questions the claim of Qur’an being totally preserved and here are my evidences for this;
1- One of the two allegedly lost verses as per this narration was about stoning i.e. punishment of married adulterers. But other narrations prove that a commandment was revealed about stoning but the Holy Prophet (PBUH) did not allow it to be written as a part of the Qur’an implying that it was not meant to be Qur’an integral part. Following narrations testify to this;
a-It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah say, 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)', (hearing this) Amr said,
فقال عمرو : لما نزلت أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت : أكتبها ؟ فكأنه كره ذلك

'When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.'
(Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih)
b- About this 'verse' Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:
يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال فأتيته فذكرته قال فذكر آية الرجم قال فقال يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال لا استطيع ذاك
"'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity)
Had it meant to be a part of the Qur’an why would Holy Prophet (PBUH) dislike its being written and who could stop him from doing it?
2- The second allegedly lost verse was about suckling of an adult ten times but in this case too we have other narrations which categorically say that the verse was abrogated. And interestingly those narrations come through 'Aisha (RA) only. In Sahih Muslim we read;
عَنْ عَائِشَةَ أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ يُحَرِّمْنَ ثُمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ فَتُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهُنَّ فِيمَا يُقْرَأُ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings ... (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2634)
This narration explicitly says that verse about ten sucklings was abrogated. For further queries about this issue and the narration from Sahih Muslim see THIS.
Having known that neither of them was meant to be part of the Qur’an; even if we accept the narration in question we will have to say that perhaps 'Aisha (RA) had kept them with her as a historical record and nothing more. Thus even if the goat actually ate them up no part of the Qur’an was lost.
Moreover 'Aisha (RA) lived through the whole period of Qur’an compilation during the time of Abu Bakr (RA) and Usman (RA) while she was unanimously considered an authority for herself so if she had any thought about some verses missing she would have brought it to attention of other Companions of the Prophet (PBUH). Infact we have evidence of Usman (RA) making special endeavor of consulting 'Aisha (RA) and her records for verifying the official compilation. See Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh Al-Madina p.997. Despite all this she never raised the issue supporting our conclusion that no part of the Qur’an was lost even if the narration is considered reliable.
Indeed Allah Knows the best!


so  kalau awak bawa hujah : GUNA  SUBER HADIS

again i akan  TANYA : sekarang mahu percaya hadis pulak ye? so selective

dan kenaa tak ada dalam quran  ? tu dah diterangkan pun...

so ternyata fitnah awak yg nabi tak sampikan wahyu tu tak benar
ternyat afitnah awak yg quran tu disamoikan even ayat rejam tu  dah sahabat tahu maksudnya high transparenycy  and tak ada pun rasulullah sembunyikan pun

why tak ada dalam quran sebab ada ayat yg dinasakhkan dan mansukh

sebab tu tak payahlah tunjuk pandai ...











Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:12 AM | Show all posts
mbhcsf replied at 13-3-2017 01:04 AM
tu diaaa u bercelaru  cakap kita pulak yg celaru

wow now tak berani kembangkan isi s ...
now tak berani kembangkan isi surah dalam cebisan kertas yg dimakan kambing
mana nye?...bak mai baca sini..apasal struglle.mengelupur?
think logically laa

kalau A'ishah RA ada parchment yg dikatakan di makan kambing dan 4 org lagi ada complete quran so

u think siapa yg ada miliki Al Quran yg lengkap

tentulah para sahabt the scribers

kan?


so nak bawa ayat tu sila rujuk semua website al quran
logically...mana surah tu?

bak mai baca..you sendiri tak guna kal logic..

4 orang ada quran lengkap..so..bawak mai..pasal hilang dimakan kambeng...apasal duk belit 2...bawak mari terus...kalau you tu benar..
ni duk pusing strugle belit tanya bab solat...
memalukan..pathetic..

setakat ni takde lagi..ramai tunggu ni surah ghoib dimakan kambeng ni...




Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:15 AM | Show all posts
Edited by katowjo at 13-3-2017 01:16 AM
Aisyah  dah ada dia punay copy dan dimakan kambing ayat itu  tapi 4 scribers lagi  yg memang disebut hadis pun

akhirnye ngaku dimakan kambeng je...

takde la mukjizat quran tu...

tapi sempat konar..ade orang hafal..

habis tu ..buat ape pakai hadis lagi..
ooo...ayat bold tu...disebut dalam hadis je..

maknanye sampai la ni la surah tu hilang..prfhht..checkmate lagi

bak mai baca je surah tu sini...jangan keling keling lagi..


Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:19 AM | Show all posts
katowjo replied at 13-3-2017 01:12 AM
mana nye?...bak mai baca sini..apasal struglle.mengelupur?
logically...mana surah tu?

Myth of Qur'anic verses eaten by a goat
Using a report from Sunan Ibn Majah the Christian missionaries allege that some verses of the Qur’an were lost as they were eaten by a goat. Let’s analyze the narration and try to find out the truth.
The narration goes as;
عن عائشة قالت لقد نزلت آية الرجم ورضاعة الكبير عشرا ولقد كان في صحيفة تحت سريري فلما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتشاغلنا بموته دخل داجن فأكلها
Reported 'Aisha (RA): ‘the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.’ (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)

1- Authenticity of the narration:
Whenever we have a narration we ought to see whether it is authentic or not? The narration infact has some problems.
The particular chain given in Sunan Ibn Majah finds one of the narrators Muhammad bin Ishaq narrating it using the word عن ('an) which is rather an ambiguous way of narration and renders the narration weak when used by a narrator known for practicing Tadlis [practice of subtly missing a link] and Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is indeed such a narrator. Thus through particular chain of narration in Sunan Ibn Majah the narration is weak and unauthentic due the above mentioned defect though it has other issues as well as mentioned in the lines to follow. This is clarified by Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Usmani in Takmala Fath Al-Mulhim 1/69 pub. Darul Ahya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut.
In Musnad Ahmad the same narration is given through the same chain but with an explicit way of narration i.e. it does not have the defect like the narration in Ibn Majah’s collection. But the narration is exposed to more criticism because many other narrators have related from 'Aisha (RA) about the suckling/breastfeeding but no one has narrated the words found in this chain even though the narrators in those cases are more reliable and consistent than Muhammad bin Ishaq. And due to thefact of these words being narrated solely by him and in defiance to other much more reliable narrators, scholars have questioned its authenticity. Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaud has classified it as Da’if in his classification of Musnad Ahmad. See Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359.
2- The narration no way questions Qur’an infallibility:
Even if the narration were authentic it no way questions the claim of Qur’an being totally preserved and here are my evidences for this;
1- One of the two allegedly lost verses as per this narration was about stoning i.e. punishment of married adulterers. But other narrations prove that a commandment was revealed about stoning but the Holy Prophet (PBUH) did not allow it to be written as a part of the Qur’an implying that it was not meant to be Qur’an integral part. Following narrations testify to this;
a-It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah say, 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)', (hearing this) Amr said,
فقال عمرو : لما نزلت أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت : أكتبها ؟ فكأنه كره ذلك

'When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.'
(Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih)
b- About this 'verse' Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:
يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال فأتيته فذكرته قال فذكر آية الرجم قال فقال يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال لا استطيع ذاك
"'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity)
Had it meant to be a part of the Qur’an why would Holy Prophet (PBUH) dislike its being written and who could stop him from doing it?
2- The second allegedly lost verse was about suckling of an adult ten times but in this case too we have other narrations which categorically say that the verse was abrogated. And interestingly those narrations come through 'Aisha (RA) only. In Sahih Muslim we read;
عَنْ عَائِشَةَ أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ يُحَرِّمْنَ ثُمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ فَتُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهُنَّ فِيمَا يُقْرَأُ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings ... (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2634)
This narration explicitly says that verse about ten sucklings was abrogated. For further queries about this issue and the narration from Sahih Muslim see THIS.
Having known that neither of them was meant to be part of the Qur’an; even if we accept the narration in question we will have to say that perhaps 'Aisha (RA) had kept them with her as a historical record and nothing more. Thus even if the goat actually ate them up no part of the Qur’an was lost.
Moreover 'Aisha (RA) lived through the whole period of Qur’an compilation during the time of Abu Bakr (RA) and Usman (RA) while she was unanimously considered an authority for herself so if she had any thought about some verses missing she would have brought it to attention of other Companions of the Prophet (PBUH). Infact we have evidence of Usman (RA) making special endeavor of consulting 'Aisha (RA) and her records for verifying the official compilation. See Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh Al-Madina p.997. Despite all this she never raised the issue supporting our conclusion that no part of the Qur’an was lost even if the narration is considered reliable.
Indeed Allah Knows the best!




eh you KAN kata u dah percaya hadis ...so sekarang ni nak  bawa sumber hujah awak pasal cebisan tu kan ?

sedar tak awak actually baed on sumber hadis

dan hadis yg awak tak percaya tu ?


adakah fitnah awak tu berasas? nabi muhammad saw pepilih?
adakah awak faham maksud nasakah dan mansukh TIDAk
adakah nabi muhammadsaw menyembunyikan dari sahabat srah itu tidak


so sekarang ni awak  yg strugle ...

oh ya hujah i based on hadis

so awak tak percaya hadis tapi ego punya pasal suber hadis pun awak ambil ye?





Reply

Use magic Report

Follow Us
Post time 13-3-2017 01:20 AM | Show all posts
katowjo replied at 13-3-2017 01:15 AM
akhirnye ngaku dimakan kambeng je...

takde la mukjizat quran tu...

see? masih incoherent - bawa sumber idea hujah dari hadis ? sedangkan tak percaya hadis?

nabi muhammda saw dah transparent  pun .

ayat rejam tu dimansukhkan - sebab ru kena belajar

bukan pakai hentam je


Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:24 AM | Show all posts
mbhcsf replied at 13-3-2017 01:19 AM
Myth of Qur'anic verses eaten by a goatنشرت بواس&# ...

ni bukan surah ni merapu...sumber mulah2 setan..hahaha..u tau ke apa you copy paste ni...benda sama kat thread quran hour..benda sama yang kantoikan kan..no hujah baru..omg...u really are ......

semua sumber hadis...mana surah tu..kata dihafal..tak  hilang...no beating around the bush anymore

prove it...bak mai surah rejam tu sini...duk kata quran tak berubah dipelihara...last2 dia jugak bawak mai semua hujah yang kata quran dah berubah dimakan kambeng je...

omg...still mo smaa hujah sama yang kantoikan hujah sendiri..lawyer isle ape ntah..

just bring the evidence..mai tepek surah rejam dimakan kambeng yang KAU claim tak hilang tu...period!
Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


Post time 13-3-2017 01:25 AM | Show all posts
katowjo replied at 13-3-2017 01:15 AM
akhirnye ngaku dimakan kambeng je...

takde la mukjizat quran tu...

i percaya hadis sebab tu i gun hadis

tapi the FUNNIEST thing is  

YOU TOLAK HADIS

TAPI GUNA IDEA PARCHMENT dari sumber hadis


katowjo

kenalah terima kenyataan yg awak tu bukan penerima wahyu ye
penerim wahyu thank god was not you kalau tak celaru dunia

so u tak ada hak pun nak komen apa apa TENTANG CREDIBILITY RASULULLAH SAW dalam menyampaikan mesej wahyu

you fitnah je pandai

you tak faham konsep nasakh dan manskuh tapi still mahu cakap banyak
tak percaya hadis  tapi ambil sumber hadis





Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:26 AM | Show all posts
katowjo replied at 13-3-2017 01:24 AM
ni bukan surah ni merapu...sumber mulah2 setan..hahaha..u tau ke apa you copy paste ni...benda sam ...

see masih bawa idea sumbernya hadis

tak malu ke

u sedar tak u highlight the word traditions  masa thread quran hour and you tak mampu jawab

tapi u see?

U GUNA SUMBER HADIS untuk tegakkan  hujah you

tak malu ke?


hahahahaa
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:27 AM | Show all posts
mbhcsf replied at 13-3-2017 01:20 AM
see? masih incoherent - bawa sumber idea hujah dari hadis ? sedangkan tak percaya hadis?

nabi m ...
see? masih incoherent - bawa sumber idea hujah dari hadis ? sedangkan tak percaya hadis?
dey...u bawak hujah guna hadis...dah la hadis bengong macam ......

last2 malu bila orang point out kelemahan kebodohan hadis tu..malu konar kata i bawak..i just ambik n quote balik apa u paste..just to point out your stupidity...

mana surah?...apasal struggle?dah kata ada..tunggu ape lagi?
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:28 AM | Show all posts
katowjo replied at 13-3-2017 01:24 AM
ni bukan surah ni merapu...sumber mulah2 setan..hahaha..u tau ke apa you copy paste ni...benda sam ...

u tak faham ke i bawa artcile kat atas tu explaining the myth  quran tu dimakan kambing?

maksud quran tu ape?adakah ia maksud tuilisan? atau bacaan  reciting?

bagaimana anda solat kalau based on quran ?


see? punyalah tolak hadis sampai tak nak jawab cara solat dan guna isu parchment DARI HADIS

tak malu ke?

relying on sumber hadis bagi org yg macam you yg tolak hadis?



Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:31 AM | Show all posts
katowjo replied at 13-3-2017 01:27 AM
dey...u bawak hujah guna hadis...dah la hadis bengong macam ......

last2 malu bila orang poin ...

isk personal attacking kesian

guna isu parchment tu dari awal samnpai ke saat ini dari idea sumber hadis
TAPI TAK NAK PERCAYA HADIS yg terangkan cara solat ibadat
dan hadis menyokong ap ayg ada dalam kalamullah

see? senang kan i - i tak tolakhadis and quran

so i bagije jawapan

u tak leh baw ahujah kambing sebab i tahu u tolak hadsi even quran

so why bother


tapi since you excisted surah rejam tu SOKONGLAH RUU 355

yes?

kalau tak sokong kang you ni kira berpura pulah ...konon nak tegakkan kebenaran sedangkan nasakh dan manskuh yg kekalkan HUKUM tapi mansukhkan ayat tu pun u tak nak terima...ke?
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:33 AM | Show all posts
katowjo replied at 13-3-2017 01:27 AM
dey...u bawak hujah guna hadis...dah la hadis bengong macam ......

last2 malu bila orang poin ...

u tak faham ke

Myth of Qur'anic verses eaten by a goat
Using a report from Sunan Ibn Majah the Christian missionaries allege that some verses of the Qur’an were lost as they were eaten by a goat. Let’s analyze the narration and try to find out the truth.
The narration goes as;
عن عائشة قالت لقد نزلت آية الرجم ورضاعة الكبير عشرا ولقد كان في صحيفة تحت سريري فلما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتشاغلنا بموته دخل داجن فأكلها
Reported 'Aisha (RA): ‘the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.’ (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)

1- Authenticity of the narration:
Whenever we have a narration we ought to see whether it is authentic or not? The narration infact has some problems.
The particular chain given in Sunan Ibn Majah finds one of the narrators Muhammad bin Ishaq narrating it using the word عن ('an) which is rather an ambiguous way of narration and renders the narration weak when used by a narrator known for practicing Tadlis [practice of subtly missing a link] and Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is indeed such a narrator. Thus through particular chain of narration in Sunan Ibn Majah the narration is weak and unauthentic due the above mentioned defect though it has other issues as well as mentioned in the lines to follow. This is clarified by Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Usmani in Takmala Fath Al-Mulhim 1/69 pub. Darul Ahya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut.
In Musnad Ahmad the same narration is given through the same chain but with an explicit way of narration i.e. it does not have the defect like the narration in Ibn Majah’s collection. But the narration is exposed to more criticism because many other narrators have related from 'Aisha (RA) about the suckling/breastfeeding but no one has narrated the words found in this chain even though the narrators in those cases are more reliable and consistent than Muhammad bin Ishaq. And due to thefact of these words being narrated solely by him and in defiance to other much more reliable narrators, scholars have questioned its authenticity. Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaud has classified it as Da’if in his classification of Musnad Ahmad. See Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359.
2- The narration no way questions Qur’an infallibility:
Even if the narration were authentic it no way questions the claim of Qur’an being totally preserved and here are my evidences for this;
1- One of the two allegedly lost verses as per this narration was about stoning i.e. punishment of married adulterers. But other narrations prove that a commandment was revealed about stoning but the Holy Prophet (PBUH) did not allow it to be written as a part of the Qur’an implying that it was not meant to be Qur’an integral part. Following narrations testify to this;
a-It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah say, 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)', (hearing this) Amr said,
فقال عمرو : لما نزلت أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت : أكتبها ؟ فكأنه كره ذلك

'When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.'
(Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih)
b- About this 'verse' Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:
يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال فأتيته فذكرته قال فذكر آية الرجم قال فقال يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال لا استطيع ذاك
"'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity)
Had it meant to be a part of the Qur’an why would Holy Prophet (PBUH) dislike its being written and who could stop him from doing it?
2- The second allegedly lost verse was about suckling of an adult ten times but in this case too we have other narrations which categorically say that the verse was abrogated. And interestingly those narrations come through 'Aisha (RA) only. In Sahih Muslim we read;
عَنْ عَائِشَةَ أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ يُحَرِّمْنَ ثُمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ فَتُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهُنَّ فِيمَا يُقْرَأُ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings ... (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2634)
This narration explicitly says that verse about ten sucklings was abrogated. For further queries about this issue and the narration from Sahih Muslim see THIS.
Having known that neither of them was meant to be part of the Qur’an; even if we accept the narration in question we will have to say that perhaps 'Aisha (RA) had kept them with her as a historical record and nothing more. Thus even if the goat actually ate them up no part of the Qur’an was lost.
Moreover 'Aisha (RA) lived through the whole period of Qur’an compilation during the time of Abu Bakr (RA) and Usman (RA) while she was unanimously considered an authority for herself so if she had any thought about some verses missing she would have brought it to attention of other Companions of the Prophet (PBUH). Infact we have evidence of Usman (RA) making special endeavor of consulting 'Aisha (RA) and her records for verifying the official compilation. See Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh Al-Madina p.997. Despite all this she never raised the issue supporting our conclusion that no part of the Qur’an was lost even if the narration is considered reliable.
Indeed Allah Knows the best!

atau nak elak jawab

bagaimana you solat ? kalau tak percaya hadis tapi idea ayat tentan rejam yg dimakan kambing tu dari hadis u nak sangat juangkan

how selective?

so semua tuduhan you amat tak berasas.








Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:33 AM | Show all posts
article u semua tu..u tau ke isinye.?

-isinye tetap kata surah dimakan kambeng
-surah dihafal kononya
-tidak mau dimasukkan dalam quran
-tapi hukum rejam nak guna
-masukkan dalam hadis 200 years later..

so ape yang you berjaya buktikan?

1-quran tak complete..surah still hilang,,kalau tak bawak mai sini
2-quran tak berjaya dipelihara seperti dicalim quran..kalau mengikut cerita hadis kebnagga u
3-word of god bercanggah ngan words in hadis
4-mana satu yang betul?
5-mana boleh keduanya betul sedangkan ia bercanggah
6-sebab itu ada possiblity 2 buku dah jadi unreliable..boleh di claimed man made dah..hasil tangan u n mullah...tahniah

satu car anak lepas dari problem ni ialah bawak je mai surah rejam dimakan kambeng tapi kau claim ade dihafal etc2..

bak mai...tunggu ape lagi
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:36 AM | Show all posts
katowjo replied at 13-3-2017 01:27 AM
dey...u bawak hujah guna hadis...dah la hadis bengong macam ......

last2 malu bila orang poin ...

kebodohan hadis tu ? eh tengok thread quran hour  

idea sapa dulu yg bawakan isu kambing makan cebisan kertas bertulisna ayat mengandungi hukuman rejam?

you

then i tanya soalan dari mula : bagaimana anda solat

you struggle until now

so - ni takut nak jawab cara solat ke?

tapi kan  inampak  still guna hujah kambing tu dari idea sumber hadis kira you ni tak konsisten la kan
u anti hadis tapi guna hadis isk isk....tak konsisten

isk isk

Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


Post time 13-3-2017 01:37 AM | Show all posts
dari kau duk ulang tepek hadis merapu tanya solat semua tu

baik terus kau tepek surah rejam original kau tu...struggle much?
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:38 AM | Show all posts
mbhcsf replied at 13-3-2017 01:36 AM
kebodohan hadis tu ? eh tengok thread quran hour  

idea sapa dulu yg bawakan isu kambing makan  ...

ni bukan surah rejam

malu la tu...tak mampu bawak bukti
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:39 AM | Show all posts
katowjo replied at 13-3-2017 01:33 AM
article u semua tu..u tau ke isinye.?

-isinye tetap kata surah dimakan kambeng

see bawa idea hadis lagi ? hadis ?

yes


hahahaha u cant run away from using hadis

so u ngaku tak sumber hadis itu valid as hujah and dalil?


yesssssssss

u inadvertently  recognised hadith kan?


u tolakhadis tapi isu parchment you asyik quite hadis tu kan


my god

how imprudentlt selectve you are


hahahaha


would u believe this?

Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 13-3-2017 01:40 AM | Show all posts
wow alhamdulillah katowjo realised  yg dia tak dapat tidak terpaksa  guna idea hadis. tapi anti hadis

dan hujah dia semua dipatahkan dah.

now latching on idea yg sumbernya hadith



Reply

Use magic Report

You have to log in before you can reply Login | Register

Points Rules

 

ADVERTISEMENT



 

ADVERTISEMENT


 


ADVERTISEMENT
Follow Us

ADVERTISEMENT


Mobile|Archiver|Mobile*default|About Us|CariDotMy

21-9-2024 10:57 PM GMT+8 , Processed in 0.085537 second(s), 29 queries , Gzip On, Redis On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2021, Tencent Cloud.

Quick Reply To Top Return to the list