Unbelievable miracles of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ foretelling the signs of the last day. From musical instruments to television screens and satellite communication. There is no way he could have known these things, except for the fact he was the Prophet of Allah.
Watch, share and realise we are closer than ever to the end of time. May Allah protect us all.
Full lecture Hamza Yusuf “Devils Trap”.
…their heads like the swaying humps of camels – they will neither enter Paradise nor even smell its fragrance, though its fragrance can be found to a great distance.” [Sahîh Muslim (2127)]
Great cities will be ruined and it will be as if they had not existed the day before. (Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-Zaman)
In the time of Hazrat Mahdi (as), a Muslim in the East will be able to see his Muslim brother in the West…
View original post 145 more words
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
Some Hadiths mentioned are fabricated , especially those ” hadiths ” which come from of ( twelvers shia cult ) .
Be careful!
LikeLike
Paul, do you believe these prophecies?
LikeLike
If they are authentic yes. Muhammad was a prophet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are many authentic prophecies from mouth of the prophet pbuh.
We don’t need to rely on weak hadiths just becaue they match the reality today.
Some of hadiths here are authentic.
For example, the hair style of some women
LikeLike
As an Hadith scholar which hadiths in the film do you judge as false?
LikeLike
I’m not a Hadith scholar. 🙂 Let’s say I’m just a student .
However, as I know from hadith scholars that hadith about mahdi in book of (Bihar alanwar) is fabricated one since twelver shia don’t have this scince in the first place.
Another one is hadith that shykh Hamza was qouting from( Altabrani) which is long one. ( Y abn Masud ….) . This hadith is SO WEAK since it’s narrated by Syif Ibn Miskeen, one of the men in the chain. This man was not trustworthy. Ibn Haban described him as a man who came with fabricated Hadiths, and Allah knows the best .
LikeLike
Which Hadith are weak in the film?
LikeLike
I told you !
The long one that Shykh Hamza was qouting at the begining of the film.
LikeLike
Some notes :
1) Hadith at ( 4:18′ ) in the film is authentic.
2) As I said that hadith at beginning in th film is weak. However, SOME phrases and SOME meanings from it are authentic in other hadiths.
LikeLike
How do you know if the prophecies are authentic?
LikeLike
The hadith are not historically credible – so these supposed prophecies are unlikely to be authentic.
LikeLike
Frank ,
If we applied hadith science standards on your gospels, we would throw all of them.
Don’t talk about thing you have no idea about.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Abdullah
When you talk about hadith “science” do you mean that there is a method to objectively study hadith literature and compare extant, complete manuscripts with thousands of early fragments or manuscripts to assess their authenticity?
In that case, maybe you could show me a copy of Bukhari dating fro his lifetime, with his signature on it, and the thousands of manuscripts dating from the time of mohammed where he got his sources from?
Or by hadith “science” are you referring to the hearsay of writers who came hundreds of years after mohammed who decided that certain people that they could not have possibly known were reliable and honest witnesses?
LikeLike
@Frank
Concerning the Gospel & hadith sciences question, here’s an interesting excerpt from Mustafa al-A’zami’s book The History of the Qur’anic Text (p.207),
——————
Instead of languishing at the feet of the Orientalist camp, which shifts its footing regularly to suit the aim of the moment, Muslims must tread firmly along the path pioneered by the early muhaddithin. What would the outcome be if we applied our criteria to the study of the Bible? Just ponder this next example, which illustrates the brittleness of their foundations. In the Dictionary of the Bible, under the article ‘Jesus Christ’, we read: “The only witnesses of the burial [of Christ] were two women. . .” Then under ‘The Resurrection’: “There are many difficulties connected with this subject,
and the narratives, which are disappointingly meager, also contain certain irreconcilable discrepancies; but the historian who follows the most exacting rule
imposed by his scientific discipline finds the testimony sufficient to assure the facts.”
We can only assume that these ‘facts’ lie above others and do not require any corroboration. What if we employ our methodology? What can we say about the story of Christ’s burial? First, who are the authors of the gospel accounts? They are all anonymous, which immediately invalidates the story. Second, who conveyed the statement of these two women to the author? Unknown. Third, what transmission details do we have? None. The entire story may as well be fabricated.
——————
In conclusion, if I was a Christian and applied the methods of the early muhaddithin, then I’m left with no Bible, no Gospel, nothing.
LikeLike
SheikhTrump,
Excellent quote from AlA’zami and great point!!
It is funny (if not sad and pathetic) how the critics mock the science of Usuul al-Hadith, and the methodology of the Muhaditheen, while their own early church fathers applied absolutely no early scientific or sound methodology of their own in validating the early Christian texts. I am sure that if the early church did apply such methods, the Christian critics would have taken such sciences more seriously. But as things stand, all they have is their own jealousy, mockery and hate.
On the other hand, if the early church fathers would have applied a more rigorous methodology in compiling their own religious texts, the church and its doctrines would have looked a lot different today, and it is highly possible that it would have more closely resembled Judaism and Islam in the core Abrahamic belief in the absolute unique unity of God, without the confusing innovate doctrine of the Trinity, and without the doctrine of Atonement by the cross and resurrection.
LikeLike
@Ibn Issam
Exactly, here’s their exact methodology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus
Seems very rigorous…
LikeLike
There is a reason that the ‘science of Hadith’ methodology is only accepted by fundamentalist Muslims. You won’t find serious ancient historians relying on this type of methodology. Azami is just a polemicist.
We all know that Muslims fabricated hundreds of thousands of Hadith during the early centuries to suit their religious and political agendas, and even today Muslim fundamentalist scholars are still debating which Hadith are sahih from the so called authentic collections.
Christians have actual data to work with- thousands of manuscripts. Muslims have hearsay and a methodology only accepted within their religion.
Which is why Paul would accept these prophecies only if they are genuine. He has no way to actually know they are such, hence his unwillingness or inability to actually commit to these teachings
LikeLike
sheikhtrump
Appeal to authority is not convincing. Even worse, the authority that you are appealing to doesn’t seem to know that we have no signed copies of any hadith from the lifetimes of the men who are supposed to have written them.
Even worse, there are no extant copies of bukhari from before the 12th century. None. There are practically no written hadith materials from the time of mohammed so practically nothing exists that proves that bukharis dating from 400-500 years after mohammed’s death accurately record eyewitness accounts from the time.
At best, we have, as your authority suggests, hearsay.
Some anonymous men (supposedly people like bukhari, but we will never know if bukhari actually composed the hadith his name is on) writing several hundred years after mohammed lived claiming and deciding that people he never knew, and who lived hundreds of miles away, were reliable.
The hadith are nothing but hearsay, that have no scientific corroboration whatsoever.
The problem remains – there are no corroborating documents that support the accuracy or truth of the hadith. They have absolutely no historical credibility.
LikeLike
The Councils contained rigorous debates, and then a vote on doctrine, creed, and canonization, but any real methodology for determining the validity of the texts themselves was obviously lacking, otherwise they would have never accepted four Gospels (among other texts) written by unknown authors.
I have never understood how Christians prefer to adopt manmade doctrines which were agreed upon by the democratic vote of a few fallible men, rather than accept and abide by the polar opposite teachings of God himself.
As for me, I will put my trust in Allah and the Qur’an.
LikeLike
You do realise that the church Fathers had criterion for determining which texts were Scripture? I guess Azami hasn’t taught you church history yet…
This is why relying on Muslim scholars always leads to misinformation
LikeLike
Most of your religion comes from a man and is not found in the quran. The sunnah and Hadith are very late and unreliable documents so it is wrong to say you follow Allah. In reality you follow a single mans interpretation as interpreted by others centuries later. And since this teaching is not consistent with the former prophets it should be rejected as unreliable and false
LikeLike
Ibn Issam
“The Councils contained rigorous debates, and then a vote on doctrine, creed, and canonization, but any real methodology for determining the validity of the texts themselves was obviously lacking, otherwise they would have never accepted four Gospels (among other texts) written by unknown authors.
I have never understood how Christians prefer to adopt manmade doctrines which were agreed upon by the democratic vote of a few fallible men, rather than accept and abide by the polar opposite teachings of God himself.
As for me, I will put my trust in Allah and the Qur’an.”
WHo wrote the quran? What were their names? How do you know that what these anonymous authors put on paper is what mohammed actually said? Let’s say that even if the quran’s were written in front of mohammed, he could not read so he could not corroborate what was being written.
As for the hadith – where are the signed maunscripts of, let’s say Bukhari, that date from his lifetime? We don’t know if what was written in the copies from centuries after his death accurately reflect what he is supposed to have written in his lifetime. Bukhari could have been heavily redacted by anonymous authors in the decades and centuries after his death and we could not know what part of his hadith, if any, were actually composed by him.
Some, most or all of bukhari could be made up.
LikeLike
@ Paulus & Frank
All of your accusations about Hadith, and especially about Qur’an are weak and baseless. These old and tired arguments have been refuted time and time again, and yet, people like yourself keep dragging the same argument out of the trash and throwing it back on the table. When will you come up with something new?? I won’t waste time explaining to you as you two will never seem to get it. But for those seekers of truth who are interested I post the following links:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/10/13/are-there-any-hadith-collections-from-early-islam/
http://www.islam101.com/quran/source_quran.html
Allah promised in the Quran that He would take on the responsibility of protecting His final word from loss. He said, “Verily I have revealed the Reminder (Quran), and verily I shall preserve it.” (Surah al-Hijr (15):9)
There is no such promise of textual preservation in the Bible. Instead we see this:
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. ~Jeremiah 8:8
LikeLike
@ Paulus & Frank
Your accusations towards Hadith and Qur’an are weak and baseless. They have been refuted repeatedly. The basic doctrines of Islam are more consistent with previous prophets than the innovated manmade doctrines of the Church.
https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/10/13/are-there-any-hadith-collections-from-early-islam/
See discussion thread below, for early dating of Imam Malik’s Muwatta, while earliest NT 400 years after Jesus death.
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/18/preservation-of-quran-part-2/
The Qur’an was written and recited in front of Muhammad. Qur’an is the only holy book which was verified and holds the veritable “stamp of approval” authentication of a Prophet of God. It is good for you that Jesus did not live to proofread the NT, otherwise you may have had nothing to differ with Muslims about.
Allah promised to preserve the textual revelation of the Qur’an
“Verily, We have revealed the Reminder, and verily We shall preserve it.” (Quran 15:9)
Unfortunately – there is no such promise in the Bible – which tells us the exact opposite:
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie. Jeremiah 8:8
LikeLike
Christians preach about methodology while they have no clue of who wrote their scriptures!
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
Abdullah
“Christians preach about methodology while they have no clue of who wrote their scriptures!”
Who wrote the quran? Where are the signed copies of hadith from the lifetimes of the men who wrote them? Where are the signed copies of the source materials these hadith were taken from?
They don’t exist – you are putting your faith in an illusion.
LikeLike
@Frank
The manuscripts for books like al-Bukhari and their transmission are vastly known, in many editions they mention the differences (if any) between each manuscript in the footnotes; And this is not just for hadith collections, for most of the books that are published and edited.
As for the Bible, hmm… let’s just not start…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus
Seems very rigorous…
LikeLiked by 1 person
sheikhtrump
“The manuscripts for books like al-Bukhari and their transmission are vastly known, in many editions they mention the differences (if any) between each manuscript in the footnotes; And this is not just for hadith collections, for most of the books that are published and edited.”
There are no extant bukhari manuscripts dating to his lifetime – the earliest we have dates from the 11th century and 500 years after mohammed. There is no evidence that he actually wrote his hadith of hearsay except for more hearsay and tradition. That is about as circular as it gets.
And there is no proof that whoever wrote the quran actually recorded what mohammed wanted recorded – its authors were anonymous.
LikeLike
Have you heard of the Muwatta by Imam Malik and its use by al-Bukhari
LikeLike
Paul;
Mailk was born over a century after mohammed’s death and there are no extant copies of his hadith from his lifetime – so again, it is only hearsay that Malik actually authored his hadith. A bigger problem is hadith inflation – bukhari somehow came up with around 4 times the number of traditions from sources whose authenticiy cannot be verified.
LikeLike
Frank you are wrong. Iman Maliks dates are 711–795 CE. He was born just 79 years after Muhammad who died 632 CE.
Malik’s chain of narrators was considered the most authentic and called Silsilat ul-Dhahab or “The Golden Chain of Narrators” by notable hadith scholars including al-Bukhari. The ‘Golden Chain’ of narration (i.e., that considered by the scholars of Hadith to be the most authentic) consists of Malik, who narrated from Nafi’, who narrated from Ibn Umar, who narrated from Muhammad.
Malik composed the ‘Muwatta’ over a period of forty years to represent the “well-trodden path” of the people of Medina. Its name also means that it is the book that is “many times agreed upon”- about whose contents the people of Medina were unanimously agreed. Its high standing is such that people of every school of fiqh and all of the imams of hadith scholarship agree upon its authenticity.
The Muslim Jurist, Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i famously said, “There is not on the face of the earth a book – after the Book of Allah – which is more authentic than the book of Malik.”
Over one thousand disciples of Malik have transmitted this work from him. This has resulted in differences in the text in various instances. There are thirty known versions of the work of which the most famous is the one transmitted by Yahya al-Laithi.
source
LikeLike
Paul
There are no extant complete copies of mailk’s work. It doesn’t matter what hearsay supposedly authenticates it – it is still just hearsay.
LikeLike
I have noticed that it is characteristic of you on this blog to make assertions and claims without any evidence whatsoever.
Up your game.
LikeLike
Paul
You’re the one who claimed mailk’s work solves the problem of the dearth of extant manuscripts of bukhari from his lifetime, and that malik’s work is authentic. I don;t know of any copies of his work form his lifetime – so I don’t believe there are any. Do you have any evidence to support your claims?
LikeLike
Frank makes a claim:
“There are no extant complete copies of mailk’s work.”
I ask him for some citation from a historian or scholar knowledgeable in the field who agrees with him.
Frank (radmod), a genius, replies:
“I don;t know of any copies of his work form his lifetime – so I don’t believe there are any.”
LOL that’s funny.
You are ignorant about something therefore you conclude it does not exist. Did you even go to school?
LikeLike
Paul
I’ll take that viciousness as an indication that you know that none of malik’s work from his lifetime exists.
LikeLike
lol
Bobby Boy
either put up or shut up. You are making even trolls look bad lol
LikeLike
Oh God…!
Chritians still have problem with hadith science !
Excuse me, but who are you? You are the people who believe in a book as words of God just becuase an anonymous person worte it!
I’ve watched Micheal Licona’s lecture about what the criteria why these anonymous books – which you have no idea who wrote them- got cannonized, one of which is how it’s relevent !
For example, the book of hebrew is so relevant to what Christians had already adopted and believed, so they decided for that book to be ( the word of God) !
After that, christians complain why you muslims have a science which questions vigorously which saying is correctly attributed to the prophet!
I’ll give an analogy about how vigorius scince of hadith could be :
If we found a manuscript of John’s gospel identical of what we have today word by word dated in the 1st century – which is NOT the case of your gospel in the reality and even in the dreams- that and according to scholars of Hadith is not enough for them to say these sayings is authentic to be attributed to Jesus as long as we we don’t know who the person who wrote it is, what is his status, and whether he met the disciples of Jesus or not.
However, christians as blink of eye decided that goseol is ( word of God) himself while the case of that gospel is dramatically different from this analogy.
I hope that I will never hear a word of complaining about hadith scince in the future especially that you have no idea about it.
LikeLike
If Muslims accept the Hadith as authentic, then they have no recourse whatsoever to reject the New Teatament since the latter is much better attested and earlier than the latter pertaining to the events they detail.
Muslims only show their hypocrisy and bias by rejecting the New Testament and their unwillingness to be consistent to historical methodology, preferring rather inferred acceptance of fundamentalist Muslim ideals
LikeLike
and the earliest complete copies of the NT in existence are from the 4th century!
LikeLike
Rather we have every reason to question the NT. Hadith scicne has been established before more than 1200 years ago. There’s no hypocrisy here in any kind. Then which kind of historical method is that you request? Do you want us to accept what a christian said about the prophet pbuh in some part of the world as some ” scholars” did ?
Regrading the ” historical method” , how do apply it on the (torah) which is -as you claim – the base for your religion ?
LikeLike
Frank is nothing but a funny ignorant, i’m planning to study incha’allah hadith studies at the university of Lodon (or Toronto, i still don’t know) and it took me 5 seconds to remember that a manuscript of malik’s muwatta’ was discoverd and DATE TO HIS OWN LIFE TIME!! I’ve been studying orientalism and islam for many years now and needless to says that when it comes to generale knowledge and analytical depth, christian misionaries are the worst!!
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/PERF731.html
Date
Second half of 2nd century of hijra. This papyrus fragment is dated to Mālik’s (d. 179 AH / 795 CE) own time.
Manuscript Number
PERF No. 731
Script
Early book hand carefully executed, especially on the recto. Note the angularity of the letters and the use of very early forms for some of them, such as the nūn in min of recto 2, the final qāf with slight double loop of recto 5, the extended initian ʿayn of verso 5 and 12, and the haʾ with beam, which is the characteristics of its sister forms, as in recto 8 and 14 and verso 3. Diacritical points are used rather freely. The alif of prolangation is generally omitted. The vowels and hamzah are indicated on in recto 9. A circle is used for punctuation; and a dot within the circle indicates collation.[1]
Recto has the contents of Bāb al-Targib fī-Sadaqah.
Location
Austrian National Library, Vienna.
References
[1] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri: Qur’anic Commentary And Tradition, 1967, Volume II, University of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 114.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the Austrian National Library, Vienna, for providing us the manuscript.
And Allah knows best!
LikeLiked by 1 person
WOW! I had no idea! Great find!
LikeLike
Yes, Great find!
LikeLike
“Christians have actual data to work with- thousands of manuscripts.
“thousands of manuscripts”
quote:
3. Counting Manuscripts Is as Useless as Counting Xeroxes
Finally, the third thing to know, is that the number of manuscripts we have of the NT is largely useless. It allows us to see through some of the distorting filters of the Middle Ages. But it doesn’t help us with the crucial two to three first centuries of the text’s transmission, because the text was so hugely subject to distorting pressures (being perpetually at the center of a propaganda war), transmitted unprofessionally, and all textual traditions preceding the single manuscript of the C150 archetype are lost. Their numerical count today is zero. And yet those are the manuscripts we most desperately need to see to establish what the original authors wrote.
end quote
RIP
LikeLike
“thousands of manuscripts”
quote
The fact that manuscripts from the Middle Ages have variant readings that can be found in papyri from, say the 3-4th centuries simply shows that Medieval scribes were not interested (for the most part) in changing the text themselves. They were interested in preserving textual variants that were already in the textual tradition. But that tells us *nothing*, precisely nothing, about what scribes in, say, the first and second centuries were doing, or what their interests or proclivities were. It simply tells us how scribes in the 7-15th centuries operated.
Just to make sure I’m stating this clearly: Just because a scribe living in the year 1150 chose not to alter the text he was copying unless he know of a textual variant from other manuscripts that he was familiar with does not mean that a scribe in the year 150 felt and acted the same way. In fact, evidence from this later scribe and his later period has zero relevance for what was happening in another time and place, hundreds of years earlier before later scribal practices were established. Let me stress: zero evidence.
end quote
LikeLike
“thousands of manuscripts”
graphs speak louder than words
quote
As can be seen, the vast majority of these texts date to after the 9th century [A.D.], which was a time when Christian monks were dominating the apparatus of textual transmission in Europe. It is thus not surprising that more copies of the New Testament were produced than other literary works during this period. If one excludes later medieval manuscripts, Wallace notes that only approximately 124 manuscripts “come within the first 300 years,” which is a considerably smaller number. [Credit to Bob Seidensticker for supplying the chart.]
RIP
quote
And all of those manuscripts come from Egypt, a single province and region of the Roman Empire. More importantly, almost every single one of those manuscripts is not really a Bible or even a book, but just a fragment, often just a tiny shred, in some cases containing hardly even a single whole word. For example, the earliest fragment, P52, now dated to around 150 A.D. (and thus possibly from the first run of the C150 edition), is a tiny rip of papyrus, barely the size of a credit card, containing only 31 words (front and back)—and apart from “and,” “the,” “from,” “so,” “that,” and “him,” only two of those words appears complete, the words “said” and “anyone.” Not exactly a bonanza of evidence. As you can see for yourself, not a single manuscript from before the time of Eusebius contains even a whole book, other than P46 (and it only has some of the Epistles, many still damaged or fragmentary) and P66 (most of the Gospel According to John), both dated to around 200 A.D., and P87 (just the paltry Epistle to Philemon), dating to about 250 A.D. Of anything like near complete Bibles, only a handful predate the Middle Ages.
In fact, let’s fully consider what that “5,800 manuscripts” really means (and thus how it’s a scam to cite it as if it meant anything):
Nearly five thousand of those are actually copies of manuscripts we already have, and are therefore useless. Since we actually have the originals they copied from, so we don’t need them. This is akin to xeroxing an existing manuscript of Tacitus a million times and claiming we have “a million manuscripts of Tacitus, which is totes more than the Bible!” Although unlike xeroxing, we can use those otherwise superfluous hand-copied manuscripts to study the rate and nature of errors and alterations in transmission, akin to studying the distortions caused by the Xerox machine; but they don’t tell us anything useful at all about the one Eusebian manuscript we are able to try and reconstruct from its surviving descendants. So we shouldn’t even be counting them.
When we look at the thousand or so remaining manuscripts, nearly all of them are from the Middle Ages, in fact most by far are eight or more centuries later than the original texts they purport to contain. All they show us is how the text was transformed by error and alteration in the Middle Ages, representing the stabilization of the text that medieval Christendom wanted, rather than any effort at determining their accuracy in respect to the originals. Some of those medieval manuscripts will by accident preserve early readings, which makes them at least useful as a check against some of the errors and meddlings of all the others, but again, only in respect to dermining what the text looked like in that one single late 2nd century manuscript created and edited for propaganda purposes. Though it’s theoretically possible some preserve corrections to that text in later copies against earlier copies, but that’s both unlikely and impossible to ever determine has happened.
That leaves us with that paltry 124 manuscripts that are not Medieval and not copies of manuscripts we already have. So we’ve gone from nearly six thousand to barely more than a hundred
And almost all of those are just tiny random scraps, not full manuscripts of even a single book. Some of these (the smallest at least) could derive from pre-C150 edition manuscripts (as does, for example, the aberrant Egerton Gospel, which may be an earlier version of John: OHJ, p. 492, n. 217), but there is no way to tell, and they contain too little information to be of much use even if they did.
LikeLike