Interesting Hadith!

[Secundulus]

It says that the Christian guy wrote down revelations for Muhammed, it doesn't say that the Christian guy actually invented the stuff. Simple, he was one of Muhammed's many secretaries!

Secundulus, do you know who Anas ibn Malik is? One of the #¤%&@£$ companions of Muhammed, one of the most loyal Muslims of his age! Do you think he would have been that if he himself would have believed that Muhammed got his revelations from somewhere else?

It says, ""Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him."

Do I believe that Anas ibn Malik believed this guy? No. But the guy apparently existed and apparently did say this. Otherwise, why did Anas ibn Malik report it?

 

[peaceful soul]

Yep. But you have to admit, the idea that one of Muhammed's most diehard followers would freely admit that it's all a sham does smell a bit fishy?

There is reason to believe that, but we simply don't have anything else to go on at this point. One thing that is definitely a negative for Mohammad is that regardless of what we may think the passage means, it does imply that this person knew at least as much as Mohammad and that Mohammad's knowlegde of revelation is linked to what this person wrote.

 

[sur]

OP proves 2 things
(1)How to fiddle with facts to prove ur point.
(2)that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) did NOT order to kill that person, So apostates should not be given death penalty in Shariah.(My personal opinion)

Volumn 004, Book 056, Hadith Number 814.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By Anas : There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him." Then Allah caused him to die, and the people buried him, but in the morning they saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is the act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and took his body out of it because he had run away from them." They again dug the grave deeply for him, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is an act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and threw his body outside it, for he had run away from them." They dug the grave for him as deep as they could, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. So they believed that what had befallen him was not done by human beings and had to leave him thrown (on the ground).

Since apostate was speaking such a BIG lie even after knowing all, that's why earth refused to accept him..........So earth is a witness of Muhammad's being Prophet of God.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by sur

OP proves 2 things
(1)How to fiddle with facts to prove ur point.
(2)that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) did NOT order to kill that person, So apostates should not be given death penalty in Shariah.(My personal opinion)

Those two points are not proven by the OP. Your opinion, in this case, doesn't make it fact.

Since apostate was speaking such a BIG lie even after knowing all, that's why earth refused to accept him..........So earth is a witness of Muhammad's being Prophet of God.

Neither is this proven by the OP. All we know is that this supposedly happened. We have no way of knowing if it was Allah's way of showing this person's error and validating Mohammad. Please, don't try to inflate Mohammad status with this passage.

 

[sur]

The Hadith doesn't say that what he said was false. It simply claims that he said it and that he died.

BUT "THE EARTH" said apostate was FALSE.

 

[sur]

originally posted by sur



Those two points are not proven by the OP. Your opinion, in this case, doesn't make it fact.



Neither is this proven by the OP. All we know is that this supposedly happened. We have no way of knowing if it was Allah's way of showing this person's error and validating Mohammad. Please, don't try to inflate Mohammad status with this passage.

OK- NOT OP rather first 2 posts

the earth "inflate Mohammad status". His status won't be changed by mine or your comments.

 

[peaceful soul]

OK- NOT OP rather first 2 posts

the earth "inflate Mohammad status". His status won't be changed by mine or your comments.

But the truth of his errors won't either, then.

 

[Bookofknowledge]

This is straight out of the Hadith by Bukhari. It is from the database at the University of Southern California. You may view it here.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/

If you say that I am making this up, then please post what that particular Hadith actually says.

Half knowledge is far worst then having no knowledge at all.

 

[peaceful soul]

Half knowledge is far worst then having no knowledge at all.

Provide some other material that will help us to get a better context for this hadith. There is no need to charge any of us with half knowledge if all we have to use is this one piece of information. Its funny how quick you are to charge us with half knowledge when you and other Muslims are notorious in using half knowledge (that is being very generous) in speaking to us about the Bible.

 

[Bookofknowledge]

Provide some other material that will help us to get a better context for this hadith. There is no need to charge any of us with half knowledge if all we have to use is this one piece of information. Its funny how quick you are to charge us with half knowledge when you and other Muslims are notorious in using half knowledge (that is being very generous) in speaking to us about the Bible.

When the complete hadith was posted you guys should have stopped but I guess it's in the teachings of Christianity not teachings of Jesus that you speak of some one who is created by none other then God alone.

Based on my limited knowledge, the Hadith confirms Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was unable to read and write however this doesn't mean that this person was the only person in arabia who can read or write.

Secondly, if this person said a lie to impress non-believers then we wouldn't be able to confirm based on the information available on this Hadith.

Third, Even if this person wrote something which Prophet Muhammad (SAW) couldn't read again Qur'aan is recited throughout ages... people learn by reading it to each other.

Fourth, This person is accountable to God and He will be judged on the day of resurrection by none other then the one who created each and every cell in my body.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Bookofknowledge

When the complete hadith was posted you guys should have stopped

Why should we have stopped? I did explain that the hadith was ambiguous and needed more context. That is why I asked if there was more information for us to put it in context.

but I guess it's in the teachings of Christianity not teachings of Jesus that you speak of some one who is created by none other then God alone.

I don't understand what you mean; but it is totally irrevelant anyway.

Based on my limited knowledge, the Hadith confirms Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was unable to read and write

No it doesn't. It only tells us that someone wrote for Mohammad. If this text is used with other pertinent texts, it can support what you say; but it can't confirm Mohammad's illiteracy by iteself since it is quite ambiguous. The negative aspect of this hadith makes the reader think that Mohammad's knowledge about revelation somehow depended upon what someone else wrote.

however this doesn't mean that this person was the only person in arabia who can read or write.

I agree, but the hadith does not make that claim, and does not addrese the issue at all. This is irrelevant.

Secondly, if this person said a lie to impress non-believers then we wouldn't be able to confirm based on the information available on this Hadith.

I am sure that I made of point of stating that. In fact, I remember asking a question about that specifically. I am trying to stay neutral on that issue. As I have said already, the hadith is ambiguous.

Third, Even if this person wrote something which Prophet Muhammad (SAW) couldn't read again Qur'aan is recited throughout ages... people learn by reading it to each other.

All of that is based upon Mohammad's memory being infallable and whether he understood what Gabriel actually said. Remember only Mohammad got the revelation and no one else was able to hear Gabriel and confirm it. Any errors that Mohamamd could have made in the beginning would have been propagated and produced consistent errors throughout. Anyway, this is irrelevant to the hadith.

Fourth, This person is accountable to God and He will be judged on the day of resurrection by none other then the one who created each and every cell in my body.

Fair enough; but we have not established that Allah actually punished him with death because of what you purport as a lie. The hadith is too ambiguous for us to make this claim. I think that I stated this from the beginning.

Much of what you are saying is speculation. I asked for you to show me more information that will help us to understand the hadith in a broader context. I did not ask for your opinions. I already pointed out that there are multiple interpretations of what the hadith could mean, and all of the interpreatations can be viewed as equally valild unless we have more information. I don't think that anyone is trying to attack Islam or Mohammad (but I can't be 100%); so, there is no need to defend. All I ask for is more information to give us a better context.

 

[tothelight]

The true source of Mohammeds verses

Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 814:

Narrated Anas: There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him."​

First thing..There were many parts (ayaths) of Quran revealed before that Christian guy's reversion to Islam. Even the first ever companion of prophet (PBUH) embraced Islam after some Ayaths were revealed to our prophet. So how should that Christian say Mohammad doesn't have anything in his hand without what is written by that guy.

What he told is "Mohammad knows nothing but what I have written for him". The question is that why he embraced Islam first?. He started writting down revelations only after he embraced Islam, right?. It is clear from this Ayath that for some other reasons he left Islam and started to slander him. And the second post in the thread clearly says the punishment meted out to him by Allah in this world itself for those who are willing to open their eyes.

 

[anatolian]

The true source of Mohammeds verses

Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 814:

Narrated Anas: There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him."
​

Hi.Probably this man was just one of the jealous jews and christians of the time of the Prophet.They 'converted' to islam for a while to corrupte it and invented such staffs.Especially some jewish clerics did this mostly.But could they do? NEIN! Because God wants only to complete His light.

Saff:8 "Their intention is to extinguish Allah's Light with their mouths: But Allah will complete His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest ."

 

[français]

First thing..There were many parts (ayaths) of Quran revealed before that Christian guy's reversion to Islam.

Maybe that is why the style of the quran changes dramatically? I mean come on now.. surah 96 is a poetic surah, whereas in surah 2 it is like blunt and not poetic!

Certainly, if the quran were from God, all surahs would be poetic and not just a few select short ones that mohammad could have easily made.

 

[peaceful soul]

oroginally posted by tothelight

First thing..There were many parts (ayaths) of Quran revealed before that Christian guy's reversion to Islam. Even the first ever companion of prophet (PBUH) embraced Islam after some Ayaths were revealed to our prophet. So how should that Christian say Mohammad doesn't have anything in his hand without what is written by that guy.

He could have been referring only to the parts that he wrote down for Mohammad. Really, who knows? That is why I want more information on this event. If there is any, please disclose it.

What he told is "Mohammad knows nothing but what I have written for him". The question is that why he embraced Islam first?.

I don't know, but that is irrevelant.

He started writting down revelations only after he embraced Islam, right?. It is clear from this Ayath that for some other reasons he left Islam and started to slander him.

There is nothing in the hadith that says that he slandered Mohammad. You are simply speculating.

And the second post in the thread clearly says the punishment meted out to him by Allah in this world itself for those who are willing to open their eyes.

It does not say why he died. If the hadith said that Allah caused him to die because of what he said, then it would be clear. Although you have given a reasonable explanation, the hadith does not confirm this. As pointed out earlier and several times over, the hadith is too ambiguous to draw certain conclusions.

 

[tothelight]

Maybe that is why the style of the quran changes dramatically? I mean come on now.. surah 96 is a poetic surah, whereas in surah 2 it is like blunt and not poetic!

Certainly, if the quran were from God, all surahs would be poetic and not just a few select short ones that mohammad could have easily made.

Quran is not a poem written by the poet named Allah. But, Allah has rendered the poetic qualities to Holy Quran just as to make it appear divine..

 

[tothelight]

He could have been referring only to the parts that he wrote down for Mohammad. Really, who knows? That is why I want more information on this event. If there is any, please disclose it.

I think he used the word "only" or was it like 'doesn't know anything except what is written by me" .

I don't know, but that is irrevelant.

You mean irrelevant?. It is relevant in the sense that was that the verses from the same Quran lured him to Islam?. Didn't he know about the Quran before his conversion?

There is nothing in the hadith that says that he slandered Mohammad. You are simply speculating.

I hope you know the meaning of slandering. Really he slandered or defamed the prophet by telling that prophet doesn't know anything but what is written by him.

It does not say why he died. If the hadith said that Allah caused him to die because of what he said, then it would be clear. Although you have given a reasonable explanation, the hadith does not confirm this. As pointed out earlier and several times over, the hadith is too ambiguous to draw certain conclusions.

Why and how he died are explained bit ambiguously. But the explantion of the things happened after his death are not ambiguous.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by tothelight

I think he used the word "only" or was it like 'doesn't know anything except what is written by me" .

I can accept that. But, the question is how can we clearly determine this?

You mean irrelevant?. It is relevant in the sense that was that the verses from the same Quran lured him to Islam?. Didn't he know about the Quran before his conversion?

It is not irrevelant in trying to explain the hadith. It adds no value to my understaning what the hadith means.

I hope you know the meaning of slandering. Really he slandered or defamed the prophet by telling that prophet doesn't know anything but what is written by him.

It is reasonable to make a case for slandering, but we can't make it so just because it looks like. The reason that we should not conclude that it is slader is because we don't even know enough about this hadith.. Note that the man did not claim that the revelation was false. Making statements that you find unfavorable does not constitute slander. You must prove a motive as well. There are many possible outcomes that could explain what he said that would not be classified as slander. That is why it would be much easier to decide what is true if we had more information.

Why and how he died are explained bit ambiguously. But the explantion of the things happened after his death are not ambiguous.

It is clear to see what happened to the man, but we can't say for certain that the reason for his death is specifically because of what he said. I have already agreed that this reasonable to believe, but we can't write it in stone since we are missing a lot of context. I remind you that Allah does not say explicitly that his death was because of his statement.

Again, I ask. Do you have any other information that will help us to understand this hadith. Please, no speculations. I would like documentation if it is available. If there isn't any, then we should just leave it alone. There is no need to continue discussing incomplete information and making assumption after assumption.

 

[Futuwwa]

Maybe that is why the style of the quran changes dramatically? I mean come on now.. surah 96 is a poetic surah, whereas in surah 2 it is like blunt and not poetic!

Certainly, if the quran were from God, all surahs would be poetic and not just a few select short ones that mohammad could have easily made.

And how do you know that chapter 2 is not poetic? Have you read it in the original ancient Arabic?

 

[Futuwwa]

It says, ""Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him."

Do I believe that Anas ibn Malik believed this guy? No. But the guy apparently existed and apparently did say this. Otherwise, why did Anas ibn Malik report it?

Ok, there existed a guy making claims like that. A guy who is obviously biased, having left Islam for whatever reason, and has all the motive to discredit Muhammed with slander. His testimony wouldn't be worth a gerbil's behind in a court.