Hadith Puns

I imagine it might sound something like how Shakespeare's Elizabethan English sounds to us today, only much more because of the time difference. Additionally, has the Quran and the Hadith language somehow "preserved" the older Arabic? What percentage would you subjectively say is still spoken of that Arabic?

Edit: I understand that many types of Arabic is spoken today around the many Arabic speaking countries. Just answer from your perspective, please.

Thank you!

The Prophet ﷺ said:

"There will continously remain a group from my Ummah, upon the truth, whom will overwhelm their enemy, their opposition will not be able to harm them except for some difficulties, until the command of Allāh arrives while they are like this." Sahābah رضي الله عنهم asked: "Oh Messenger Of Allāh! Where are they?" The Prophet ﷺ replied: "In Baitul Maqdis and it's surroundings."

(Musnad Aḥmad)

ill start :)

quraan telling muslims to kill disbelievers https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=191

2:191, And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- îaram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

quraan telling muslims to kill polytheists/idolaters/pagans based on their religion https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=5

9:5, And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

I’m sorry, do these people really think Israel vs Palestine only concerns Jews & Muslims? There are tons of Jews against Zionism. Palestinians can also be Jews & Christians. They sound like nut jobs. How are they justifying killing Jews ? Because of a hadith? These people are the reason why people hate Muslims. We are only supposed to kill if we’re under attack, as Allah tells us in the Quran. As for the Israeli army, they’re not going anywhere. Literally backed by the most powerful nations in the world. These people are literally so tone deaf, posting about how this conflict = dajjal is coming back in our lifetime yada yada. Um, HELLO people are dying... tell that to the little boy who just lost his father yesterday.

It’s the idiocy for me. I’m ready for my comment on Muslim lounge to get dowwwwnvoted for stating facts.

Side note: the Israeli Palestinian conflict is NOT religious, it’s political. Wackossss

Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah: When I got married, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 5080 In-book reference : Book 67, Hadith 18 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 17

Narrated Um Kulthum bint `Uqba:

That she heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."

From: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2692

Fact:

1. Hadith is meant to bring ppl together (sulh) under the leadership of 'Muhammad' (in reality, the Islamic priesthood)

2. According to THIS hadith, you CANNOT be a liar if you fulfill the above purpose.

What does this mean? The al jarh wa ta'dil system is utterly shambolic! The claim is: all hadiths are meant for good hence the narrators cannot be liars.

The system collapses with this one hadith!

Sorry it was just on my mind and I had to spill the beans on this weird pun I came across, 💯% original 😅😂👏

I’m asking for myself. I’ve seen some questionable ones and I just wanted to see if I could find more to confirm my suspicions and leave for good :))

This is a Hadith popularly used by Ahmadi apologists to misinterpret the Hadith “La Nabiyya Ba’di” and explicate Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim to be a prophet. First and foremost, this statement is inauthentic as the chain of narrators is broken and not from Aisha (ra). This is because the person who allegedly narrated from her (Jareer ibn Hazeem) didn’t even live during her time. Aisha (ra) died on the year 57 or 58 on Hijrah whereas Jareer was born in the late 80s of Hijrah. This is enough to outright reject this statement, yet the Ahmadis use it as a common defense.

Secondly, even if one was to say this narration was authentic (which it isn’t) then it would just confirm the belief that Isa (as) will descend after the prophet (PBUH) without invalidating the fact that he was the last prophet. Isa (as) continues to be alive after him until the time when he descends, therefore complying with the belief that Muhammad (pbuh) was the last prophet.

Welcome to day one of dumbest hadiths! This series will showcase the stupidest hadiths and lol at them. I won’t be going into apologist arguments because I’m just here for laughs.

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that a person came to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) and told him that his brother's bowels were loose. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: Give him honey. So he gave him that and then came and said: I gave him honey but it has only made his bowels more loose. He said this three times; and then he came the fourth time, and he (the Holy Prophet) said: Give him honey. He said: I did give him, but it has only made his bowels more loose, whereupon Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: Allah has spoken the truth and your brother's bowels are in the wrong. So he made him drink (honey) and he was recovered.

Sahih Muslim: https://sunnah.com/muslim:2217a

As we can see here, Mo prescribes HONEY for loose bowels (diarrhea most likely) even though honey actually a laxative, and would just make the problem worse. (And this actually happened evident by the guy saying that his brother just got worse diarrhea). And THEN after all that he said “Allah has spoken the truth and your brother's bowels are in the wrong.”

How arrogant can you get 🤣

I find this a really cool question.

In Arabic ilm al rijal ("science of men") studies biographies of hadith narrators. There are many books which contain the biographies and I think none of them was translated to English. We don't even have some hadith collections like Musnad Ahmad translated, let alone narrator biographies.. but Wikipedia shows a list of those books so I've checked their dates. But before that it mentions that the first specialist on biographies was Shu'ba Ibn al-Ḥajjāj from the 8th century. So we definitely have nothing from the 7th century. And as it turns out ibn al-Hajjaj also didn't write anything. Even Arabic wiki doesn't mention any works from him, only a list of names of people who supposedly narrated from him. The next early specialist is Yahya ibn Sa'id al-Qattan from the 8th century who also didn't write anything. He has a page only on Arabic wiki and it contains no mention of works, only a list of people who supposedly narrated from him. Did he even exist? And then the next expert is Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ali ibn al-Madini who were born in late 8th century and then lived in the the 9th century and they finally wrote something. And 'Amr ibn 'Ali al-Fallas from the 9th century who didn't write anything. And now the books:

• The Great History by Bukhari - 9th century. So Bukhari wrote the book of hadiths and he also wrote biographies for the narrators..
• al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʻdīl by Ibn Abi Hatim - 9-10th century
• The Book of Knowledge about the Companions by Ali ibn al-Madini. - 9th century
• The Comprehensive Compilation of the Names of the Prophet's Companions by Yusuf ibn abd al-Barr. - 11th century
• [Finding the Truth in Judging the Companinons](https://en.

I am just a curious individual trying to understand the Abrahamic religions. This is not meant to be confrontational.

If the Quaran is the word of God why do they follow Hadith which are of man? Is this a bit similar to Christians following the gospels - which are not first records of what Jesus said.

So it's been about 6 months since I left Islam and ironically I keep learning more and more about it, like how some verses came to cater for horny Mo's needs, people approve 99% of what ISIS does and yet they say ISIS doesn't represent Islam. Looking into Fatwa and interpretations sites made me realize a pattern, anything that seems problematic or scientifically inaccurate is by default false and fake or they twist it around to change the meaning.

My personal life is going well I am physical and mental health are a lot better, my friends and family still don't know anything and I am not planning on telling them. I am not planning on getting married and if I did she wouldn't be a Muslim and I am most certainly not having children, don't care what everyone says about it I am not having them. Still living in a 3rd world Islamic country but I have plans to leave of course in the next year or so.

I hope everyone is doing great and staying safe and may the Dark Prince Satan watch over you,"jk".

When you ask [Sunni] Muslims what’s the purpose of Hadith (man-made books) and why is it one of the main source of Islamic rules when we already have the Quran (Allah-made book), it usually goes like:

Muslims: “hadith is needed to clarify/explain what the Quran says”

Me: “so the Quran is incomplete and leaves out important parts of Islam?”

Muslims: “no no it’s a perfect book, hadith is just extra/supplemental”

Me: “ok so we can just follow the Quran since it’s already perfect by itself?”

Muslims: “no you need to also follow hadith to practice true Islam”

So what, some of Allahs rules are in the Quran and some of his rules are from the Hadith?

Even when I was Muslim, Hadith books seemed like they were essentially treated like Quran 2.0 because there was never any clarification of whether or not we give more weight to authentic hadith or Quranic verses because “everything our Prophet tells us to do is because Allah told us in the Quran to listen to whatever the Prophet tells us to do”

When you read the Hadith, you find yourself thinking that Muhammad and his group are the bad guys.

Read : https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith

How do people believe such things!

> Ibn Abbas said, ''When the ailment of the Prophet became worse, he said, Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.' But Umar said, The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah's Book with us and that is sufficient for us.' But the companions of the Prophet differed about this and there was a hue and cry. On that the Prophet said to them, Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me.'' Ibn Abbas came out saying, ''It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise. (Note: It is apparent from this Hadith that Ibn Abbes had witnessed the event and came out saying this statement. The truth is not so, for Ibn Abbas used to say this statement on narrating the Hadith and he had not witnessed the event personally. See Fath Al-Bari Vol. 1, p.220 footnote.) (See Hadith No. 228, Vol. 4).

To me several things stand out...

• Prophet didn't how to write yet here it says prophet said I'll write for you...

• I also read prophet lived several days after this incident, if so that meant he had time to give more instructions, so claim he was prevented seem dubious. (turns out he did convey the message later on)

• Whatever prophet said was what God wanted him to say, as made clear by other Hadiths/Quran, so to claim he was "prevented" from conveying some knowledge, would mean God was prevented from saying something which doesn't make sense. (turns out he was able to convey the message, refer to prev point)

• The hadith itself says that "The truth is not so...he had not witnessed the event personally", meaning chain of transmission has broken?

Preferably an unknown hadith, sahih grading required.

You must give the source.

Would be better if you give one from bukhari or muslim.

I don’t want a flood or a link to other post, i already know about HOTD.

For me it has to be sahih al-bukhari 7:62:64

Narrated `Aisha:

that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

The sheer disgust made me leave Islam. What is your's?

i hate the guy but he also dismisses Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab... he also has some abnormal neck spasm going on lol

https://youtu.be/xqXl0L3lL8w

Disclaimer: I am not here to troll or mock anyone. I know that this post may come off this way but that is not my intention. Unfortunately I cannot post this on r/Islam because of their high karma requirement.

So recently I was having a conversation with an atheist and he brought up this (hadith)[https://sunnah.com/bukhari:299] arguing that Muhammad ﷺ fondled with Aisha in a bathtub. I had no response so I decided that I would consult other experts here on their thoughts on this Hadith.

>38:29: A Book We have sent down to you, Blessed, that they may ponder over its ayat (Verses, signs) and that men endowed with intellects would remind themselves.
>
>47:29-31: Or do they, in whose hearts there is a sickness, believe that Allah will not bring their failings to light? If We were to so will, We could have shown them to you so that you would recognize them by their faces, and you would certainly know them by the manner of their speech. Allah knows all your deeds. We shall certainly test you until We know those of you who truly strive and remain steadfast, and will ascertain about you.
>
>4:82: Then do they not reflect upon the Quran? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.

Where does the Lord call the Believers to reflect on a Hadith? Where does he authorize you to analyze the words of men that most here accept are liars?

Constantly parroting Hadith for either ridicule or analysis does Satan's work for him. For those who continue to spread these lies under the pretense of discussion, I question your motivations, especially when you can discuss the Quran!

Contemplate the Quran, not the Hadiths. This is the literal point of this sub's existence! For those who insist on discussing Hadith (Taghut), we will know you by the manner of your speech!

It was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are two types of the people of Hell that I have not seen yet: men with whips like the tails of cattle, with which they strike the people, and women who are clothed yet naked, walking with an enticing gait, with something on their heads that looks like the humps of camels, leaning to one side. They will never enter Paradise or even smell its fragrance, although its fragrance can be detected from such and such a distance.” (Narrated by Ahmad and by Muslim in al-Saheeh)

This hadeeth speaks of two types of people whom the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had not seen, as they would appear after his time, and their destiny would be Hell because of their sins. The scholars regarded the appearance of these two types as one of the minor signs of the Hour. They are as follows:

1 – “Men with whips like the tails of cattle” – what is meant is that those who strike people for no legitimate reason, like the oppressive police or others, whether that is on the orders of the state or otherwise.

Al-Nawawi said:  With regard to those who would have whips, they are those who work for the police. Sharh al-Nawawi ‘ala Saheeh Muslim, 17/191.

Al-Sakhaawi said: They are now the helpers of the oppressors, and usually it refers to the worst group around the ruler. It may also apply to unjust rulers. Al-Ishaa’ah li Ashraat il-Saa’ah, p. 119.

The evidence that their appearance will be one of the signs of the Hour is a report narrated by Imam Ahmad in which it says: At the end of time there will appear men from this ummah with whips like the tails of cattle. They will go out in the morning under the anger of Allaah and will come back in the evening under His wrath.” Al-Musnad, 5/315; classed as saheeh by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak, 4/483; and by Ibn Hajar in al-Qawl al-Musaddad fi’l-Dhabb ‘an al-Musnad, p. 53-54.

The second type is “women who are clothed yet naked, walking with an enticing gait, with something on their heads that looks like the humps of camels, leaning to one side.”  Al-Nawawi said concerning the meaning of this passage: al-kaasiyaat al-‘aariyaat (translated here as “clothed yet naked”) means that they will uncover part of their bodies to show their beauty, so they will be clothed yet naked. And it was said that they will wear thin clothes which shows what is beneath them, so they will be clothed yet virtually naked. With regard to the phrase Maa’ilaa

I'm asking because it's used to prove a miracle. And if it's not, why would he say that?

Narrated Abu Sa'eed:

"On the Day of (the battle of) Badr, the Romans had a victory over the Persians. So the believers were pleased with that, then the following was revealed: Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated..." up to His saying: '...the believers will rejoice. (30:1-4)" He said: "So the believers were happy with the victory of the Romans over the Persians."

Al Tirmidhi 2935

My question is if the Romans had a win over the persians the same day as the Battle of Badr

ie there some kind of comment/post which sums up all the bad hadiths/verses anywhere? tryna get all my sources about Islam.

"The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols. And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah,each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the last of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me."

حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ أَبِي قِلاَبَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي أَسْمَاءَ الرَّحَبِيِّ، عَنْ ثَوْبَانَ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ لاَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى تَلْحَقَ قَبَائِلُ مِنْ أُمَّتِي بِالْمُشْرِكِينَ وَحَتَّى يَعْبُدُوا الأَوْثَانَ وَإِنَّهُ سَيَكُونُ فِي أُمَّتِي ثَلاَثُونَ كَذَّابُونَ كُلُّهُمْ يَزْعُمُ أَنَّهُ نَبِيٌّ وَأَنَا خَاتَمُ النَّبِيِّينَ لاَ نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ

Grade: Sahih (Dar-us-Salam)

Source: Jami'at Tirmidhi 2219.

• Sahih Bukhari, Hadith: 1393, 6516

Please don't give personal opinion.

Yesterday a "journalist" in India, know for his hatred for Muslims and a fascist enabler died. I wanted to know if it is permissible to curse him, since we do curse people like Abu Lahab, his wife, Firaun etc.

I came across this hadith:

>It was narrated that Ibn 'Umar said:

>"The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever drags his garment out of pride, Allah will not look at him.' Umm Salamah said: 'O Messenger of Allah, what should women do with their hems?' He said: 'Let it down a hand span.' She said: 'But then their feet will show.' He said: 'Let it down a forearm's length, but no more than that.'"

Source

Now, previously I saw a video of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi shared in this sub where he said that covering upto the knees is the bare minimum for women. But this hadith shows that Umm Salamah was afraid that women's feet will be shown, so the prophet told women to lengthen their garments so legs & feet get covered. & this hadith has been classified as sahih.

I checked the hijab lectures of Khaled Abou El Fadl & also checked Mufti Abu Layth’s topic index, they never addressed this. So wanted to ask it here.

Literally everyone knows about sunnah.com. It's our go-to website for looking up hadith. But did you know they make subtle changes to their translations to reinforce Islamic miracle claims?

I recently finished reading an Islamic propaganda book that I got from a dawah stall. It's called the Forbidden Prophecies and it's marketed by IERA. One of the prophecies it talks about is that the land of Arabia will turn into meadows and rivers. Now this prophecy is something I have been hearing since I was a little kid, so it's not a big deal for me because its an obvious prediction anyone can make. But this book goes further. It says the Arabic word used in the hadith means "return", so Muhammad was actually talking about a return to previous state of greenery, rather than a new state of greenery. So their claim is that Muhammad somehow knew that the middle east was once filled with forests and rivers (which has been confirmed by geology) and therefore its a miracle.

Anyone who makes this idiotic claim most probably has not read classical arabic dictionaries, because it is basic knowledge that the meanings of words change over time and the original meaning of words can be lost. For example the word 'gay' used to mean joyful/carefree, but now it mostly means homosexual although the original meaning still exists. Pretty much all arabic speakers know the root word عود means to return in modern arabic. But Islamic texts are 7th century utterings, hence we have to be translate them based on 7th century Arabic.

If you check the most popular english language dictionary of classical arabic (Lanes Lexicon), you see that the many forms of عود had a range of meanings, including 'return', but also 'to become'.

Lanes Lexicon says this:

>He, or it, came to such a thing or state or condition; syn. صَارَ إِليْهِ; (Mgh,* Mṣb;) at first, or for the first time, or originally; and also, a second time, or again

Hans-wehr says this:

>to return, come back (ل or إلى); to flow back, to go back, > >[.......] > >to become, grow (into), turn into;

So both dictionaries clearly say that return isn't the only meaning, and it can mean to become for the first time as well.

So now we know that in classical arabic the word also meant to become for the first time. But which meaning is the correct one? I'm not an Arabic expert, so obviously I can't just choose which definition suits my narrative. The solution is simple, we look at whether the major scholars of classical

Yesterday, I was reading a philosophy books about Aristotle and I was surprised by intellectual talks of Aristotle. Even though these are 2500 years ago they sound so logical than the Quran in today's standard. I even think I am insulting Aristotle's philosophy by comparing to Quran. It's like comparing ball of mud to a perfect diamond.

I have a question slightly different. I'm not ahmadi, but like every curious person I too went in great detail of all major religions of the world and sects of Islam. And Alhamdulillah I feel that what I believe today is on some firm ground basis, and since every sect has used some ahaadith and quranic verses for flourishing their views or standing a doctrine for their sects making themselves oblivious to anyother aspect or narrative. So when you quest and learn the Haq, other than financial, social and religious aspects of leaving a cult, how do you feel about your loved ones still there, oblivious and ignorant. Do you fear for them or pray or try to convince them?