Non-Muslims in love with ahadith - in bed with the enemy.

[shunyadragon]

Historical = What happened in the past

Than all non-Muslim and Muslim historians and academics consider the 'a hadith' to be historical, because it was written at some time in the past.

 

[firedragon]

Than all non-Muslim and Muslim historians and academics consider the 'a hadith' to be historical, because it was written at some time in the past.

So your premise is that anything that's written in the past states only historical events? No examples needed. "Ahadith!! All of them are historical because they were written in the past"? Is that your premise?

 

[loverofhumanity]

My belief is that the most historically close literature to the events in Muhammad’s Life is the Quran. It is the Word of God, hadiths are not. If a Hadith contradicts the Quran, I refer to the Quran as the truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

So your premise is that anything that's written in the past states only historical events? No examples needed. "Ahadith!! All of them are historical because they were written in the past"? Is that your premise?

No, I did not say what is recorded in history is more than that anything that's written in the past states only historical events. Written history covers events previous writings religious and secular. It includes records of people' places and things. If at one time the 'a hadith' was recorded at some time in the past it would be historical without the consideration as to whether it is true sacred scripture of Islam. Yes, some Muslims believe it is sacred scripture and some do not, but non-Muslims do not make the differentiation.

 

[firedragon]

No, I did not say what is recorded in history is more than that anything that's written in the past states only historical events. Written history covers events previous writings religious and secular. It includes records of people' places and things. If at one time the 'a hadith' was recorded at some time in the past it would be historical without the consideration as to whether it is true sacred scripture of Islam. Yes, some Muslims believe it is sacred scripture and some do not, but non-Muslims do not make the differentiation.

What do you want to argue about? Which topic?

 

[shunyadragon]

What do you want to argue about? Which topic?

The problem of defining what you call 'historical' and how non-Muslims consider the 'a hadith.'

Again . . .

No, I did not say what is recorded in history is more than that anything that's written in the past states only historical events. Written history covers events previous writings religious and secular. It includes records of people' places and things. If at one time the 'a hadith' was recorded at some time in the past it would be historical without the consideration as to whether it is true sacred scripture of Islam. Yes, some Muslims believe it is sacred scripture and some do not, but non-Muslims do not make the differentiation.

 

[firedragon]

The problem of defining what you call 'historical' and how non-Muslims consider the 'a hadith.'

Again . . .

No, I did not say what is recorded in history is more than that anything that's written in the past states only historical events. Written history covers events previous writings religious and secular. It includes records of people' places and things. If at one time the 'a hadith' was recorded at some time in the past it would be historical without the consideration as to whether it is true sacred scripture of Islam. Yes, some Muslims believe it is sacred scripture and some do not, but non-Muslims do not make the differentiation.

This is not about muslims. So, its not relevant. I am Muslim, so telling me what Muslims believe is not needed, and irrelevant. If you wish to discuss that, you could open a new thread. No Problem.

It is pretty stupid to think that just because the "putting down (writing not writings) of ahadith" is historical, that is what I mean by historical. What I mean by historical is things that actually happened in the past. Maybe you were obsessed about seeing the word "actually" in that sentence because you are not used to seeing sentences like "this happened yesterday" and thinking its just a story until you see the word "actually happened yesterday".

A historical event is something that happened in the past. Since you will not like that sentence and argue about an irrelevant precision again I will say "A historical event is something that ACTUALLY happened in the past.

Now read the OP and try and understand what someone is saying. If you wish to discuss something irrelevant, please open a new thread. If you don't understand the OP, and if you think I have not explained clearly, just say that with humility and I will explain. Its quite simple rather than being hellbent in arguing about something or trying to find hypocrisy in the person.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is not about muslims. So, its not relevant. I am Muslim, so telling me what Muslims believe is not needed, and irrelevant. If you wish to discuss that, you could open a new thread. No Problem.

It is pretty stupid to think that just because the "putting down (writing not writings) of ahadith" is historical, that is what I mean by historical. What I mean by historical is things that actually happened in the past. Maybe you were obsessed about seeing the word "actually" in that sentence because you are not used to seeing sentences like "this happened yesterday" and thinking its just a story until you see the word "actually happened yesterday".

A historical event is something that happened in the past. Since you will not like that sentence and argue about an irrelevant precision again I will say "A historical event is something that ACTUALLY happened in the past.

Now read the OP and try and understand what someone is saying. If you wish to discuss something irrelevant, please open a new thread. If you don't understand the OP, and if you think I have not explained clearly, just say that with humility and I will explain. Its quite simple rather than being hellbent in arguing about something or trying to find hypocrisy in the person.

I am not arguing about Muslims. The actual fact that the 'a hadith' was actually written in the past is a historical fact. This has nothing to do with whether it is believed or recorded in the West as sacred scripture. Non-Muslims are indifferent as to whether the 'a hadith' is sacred Islamic scripture or not.

 

[firedragon]

I am not arguing about Muslims. The actual fact that the 'a hadith' was actually written in the past is a historical fact.

Well, anything that was written in the past is a historical fact.

The Bible was written in the past. It is a historical fact that it was written in the past. Same goes to the Quran, or the ahadith.

But why would a non-muslim quote ahadith as historical fact?

Read the OP.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, anything that was written in the past is a historical fact.

The Bible was written in the past. It is a historical fact that it was written in the past. Same goes to the Quran, or the ahadith.

But why would a non-muslim quote ahadith as historical fact?

Read the OP.

The existence only of the documents are historical facts written in the past, and not believe in nor consider contents as factual or sacred. Non-Muslims would not quote the 'a hadith' nor Quran as historically factual, nor support them as sacred scripture of Islam.

 

[firedragon]

The existence only of the documents are historical facts written in the past, and not believe in nor consider contents as factual or sacred. Non-Muslims would not quote the 'a hadith' nor Quran as historically factual, nor support them as sacred scripture of Islam.

Thanks. Please open a new thread to discuss your topic.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks. Please open a new thread to discuss your topic.

This was the topic of this thread, and I presented the case that refuted your assertions and you failed to respond.

 

[firedragon]

This was the topic of this thread, and I presented the case that refuted your assertions and you failed to respond.

No its not.