Autochecked users, Bureaucrats, Editors, oversight, recentchangescleanup, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
19,746
edits
User talk:Saggy: Difference between revisions
m
→Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith: removed my comment earlier, I apologize again
(→Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith: for Saggy) |
m (→Contradictions in the Qur'an and Hadith: removed my comment earlier, I apologize again) |
||
| Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
:::::::''"My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda"'' - Again they are a minority. The other side effect is letting the rest of the Muslims know that these contradictions exist. Most Muslims view hadiths as holy. I would say that they would have to deal with the contradiction when they see it and it creates a challenge for them. | :::::::''"My point is that it ONLY benefits their propaganda"'' - Again they are a minority. The other side effect is letting the rest of the Muslims know that these contradictions exist. Most Muslims view hadiths as holy. I would say that they would have to deal with the contradiction when they see it and it creates a challenge for them. | ||
::::::: My main point here again is that cases can be argued against equally. Its a Sandbox page and people have the right to work on a Sandbox which later may or may not be approved (as long its not an obvious content violation). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 05:13, 11 April 2014 (PDT) | ::::::: My main point here again is that cases can be argued against equally. Its a Sandbox page and people have the right to work on a Sandbox which later may or may not be approved (as long its not an obvious content violation). --[[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 05:13, 11 April 2014 (PDT) | ||
::::::::You have not dealt with anything I've actually said, so no they can't be argued against equally. I've mentioned several times why I deleted that page from the sandbox but you continue acting like I never explained. If that is how you get your way in a discussion, then it's very effective. Your opinion on Bukhari's criteria is irrelevant. Mat'n is a well known thing. Hence, contradictions between the Qur'an and certain hadith will not effect mainstream Islam in the slightest. | ::::::::You have not dealt with anything I've actually said, so no they can't be argued against equally. I've mentioned several times why I deleted that page from the sandbox but you continue acting like I never explained. If that is how you get your way in a discussion, then it's very effective. Your opinion on Bukhari's criteria is irrelevant. Mat'n is a well known thing. Hence, contradictions between the Qur'an and certain hadith will not effect mainstream Islam in the slightest. [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 05:09, 11 April 2014 (PDT) | ||
:::::::::"Matn"'s definition on Wikipedia doesnt mention Bukhari or the contradiction issue, why is that? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn]. "text of the report" =matn is what I'm seeing, not a contradiction with the Quran issue. Are there are sources to support what Matn means? As I mentioned, the issue of deletion arises at the point of review when something is being considered for main space but not before that when it is in a temporary condition (in the Sandbox). Saggy knows it may or may not be approved. As for whether you're right or I'm right, I've shown that points can be made on both sides. Lets do that full debate when the time comes for a review of that piece. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 05:23, 11 April 2014 (PDT) | :::::::::"Matn"'s definition on Wikipedia doesnt mention Bukhari or the contradiction issue, why is that? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies#Sanad_and_matn]. "text of the report" =matn is what I'm seeing, not a contradiction with the Quran issue. Are there are sources to support what Matn means? As I mentioned, the issue of deletion arises at the point of review when something is being considered for main space but not before that when it is in a temporary condition (in the Sandbox). Saggy knows it may or may not be approved. As for whether you're right or I'm right, I've shown that points can be made on both sides. Lets do that full debate when the time comes for a review of that piece. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 05:23, 11 April 2014 (PDT) | ||
::::::::::To hightlight it again our page [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles] that you pointed to in the begining and you refered to it again, claims ''"His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an."'', but there's no reference for that. According to other sources Matn means "text of the hadith", not "must not be in contradiction with the Quran". Bukhari's criteria of this contradiction cannot apply to other Hadith scholars (it is his own personal opinion). And even if we were to assume such a criteria, we are faced by the question: Is a Sahih hadith being declared invalid simply because of the contradiction? Why was it considered in the first place if it was actually invalid? The hadith was considered authentic because the events narrated actually happened. | ::::::::::To hightlight it again our page [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammads_Miracles] that you pointed to in the begining and you refered to it again, claims ''"His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an."'', but there's no reference for that. According to other sources Matn means "text of the hadith", not "must not be in contradiction with the Quran". Bukhari's criteria of this contradiction cannot apply to other Hadith scholars (it is his own personal opinion). And even if we were to assume such a criteria, we are faced by the question: Is a Sahih hadith being declared invalid simply because of the contradiction? Why was it considered in the first place if it was actually invalid? The hadith was considered authentic because the events narrated actually happened. | ||