The Blessing of the Qur’an

Advertisements

53 thoughts on “The Blessing of the Qur’an

    1. I swear people are becoming more stupid by the day. As opposed to quoting one hadith out of context, from my fiqh of purity class

      1. If it is changed [in taste, colour or smell3] by the Najaasah (impure substance) – there is a confirmed Ijmaa‟ (consensus) that it is unclean, whether the amount of water is little or much.
      2. If it is not changed [in taste, colour or smell] – and it is a large amount – there is Ijmaa‟ (consensus) that it retains its state of purity.
      3. If it is not changed [in taste, colour or smell] – and it is a small amount – there are two opinions:
      (A) That it retains its state of purity, which is the position of: Aboo Hurayrah, Ibn Abbass, al-Hasan al-Basaree, Ibn al-Musayyib, ath-Thawree, Daawood, Maalik and alBukhaaree. Al-Bukhaaree has listed a number of Hadeeths refuting those who held that it becomes Najas (impure).
      (B) Ibn Umar, Mujaahid, and the Hanafee, Shaafi’ee and Hanbalee Schools hold that it become Najas (impure) simply through coming into contact with impure substances – even if it does not undergo any change [in taste, colour or smell], as long as it is a small amount of water. They cite a number of evidences including the Hadeeth under discussion. Each of their evidences can be refuted.

      The first group (A) relied upon many evidences including the hadeeth reported by Aboo Daawood and at-Tirmithee who declared it to be a Hasan (good) hadeeth: “Indeed, water is pure, and nothing makes it impure.”4 Their response to the hadeeth of this section [No. 5 above] is that the prohibition mentioned in it is meant to indicate that it is detestable to use such water for drinking, not that such water becomes Najas (impure).

      The position of the first group (A) is the correct position. This is so because the basis for declaring the water impure, is its undergoing some change [in its taste, colour or smell] as a result of the impure substances (mixing with it) – no matter if its quantity is small or great. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah…

      My personal notes evidences are as followed:
      It was narrated from Aboo As-Saa’ib, the freed slave of Hishaam ibn Zuahir, that he heard Aboo Hurayrah ( ) saying: The Messenger of Allaah ( ) said, “None of you should perform Ghusl(a bath) in standing water when he is Junub (in a state of sexual impurity).” He said, “What should he do, O Aboo Hurayrah?” He ( ) said, “Let him scoop it out in handfuls.” [Saheeh Muslim, Volume 1, Book 2, Hadeeth Number 658, p. 406].

      It was narrated that Aboo Umaamah Al-Baahili ( ) said: The Messenger of Allaah ( ) said, “Water is
      not made impure by anything except that which changes its smell, taste and colour.” [Sunan Ibn Maajah) The chain is weak but is used as a supporting evidence

      It was narrated from Aboo Hurayrah that the Prophet said, “You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.”1

      In a version in, Saheeh Muslim, it says, “None of you should perform Ghusl in standing water when he is Junub (in a state of sexual impurity).”2

      If you couldn’t follow all that. “Don’t use impure water.”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Well look at that! Cerbie’s poor research was so easy to refute!

        Now Cerbie, why don’t you go find an abused Christian woman who wants a divorce and try to persuade her to stay with her husband! I’m sure you can find many.

        Like

      2. This is good.

        What you’ve demonstrated is precisely how Muslims need to rationalise the Hadith. You make conditions upon conditions. It’s hilarious! And then you even contradict your prophet. He says “nothing makes water impure”. You say the opposite!

        And strangely enough you will use weak graded hadiths as evidence to contradict your prophet!

        Like

      3. Did you see that Stew? Sheik Cerbie thinks he knows better! Never mind that hadiths need to be read in context, because Sheik Cerbie has the final say! No wonder he contradicts the “example of the church” when it suits his purpose. Sheikh Cerbie is never wrong!

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Hello Muhammadan Britney Singer.

        I find it odd that you accept a fellow Muslim contradicting your prophet, by citation of a weak hadith?

        I hope you now accept other weak grades hadiths as evidence.

        Like

      5. The Hadith was in context. Specifically mentions drinking the water.

        But you’ll just insult and run away, like usual. Are you embarrassed by your impractical religion and the example of your prophet?

        Like

  1. No? There’s more evidence I just didn’t quote them all.

    1. Muslims can’t eat or drink impure things

    2. The hadith they quoted is referring to water as a means of purification and not a general statement. If there is a large body of water like the Nile or the great lakes for example, and someone urinated in it. It still retains its purity and can be drunk from. Hence why 90% of the people quoted above are “Disciples” of Prophet Muhammad(saw) this is NOT my personal opinion. And also why the Prophet(saw) forbid one from urinating or bathing in stagnant water because someone might wash or drink from it. If it was a general statement as you’re claiming they he would not have made any conditions.

    3. Weak hadith cannot be used as a ruling on their own but can be used as supporting evidence for things that are established and are not related to matters of belief.

    Like

    1. Indeed. But what about the second Hadith cited? It’s specifically talks about the companions refraining from drinking the water because of a dead donkey.

      Muhammad replied that “nothing makes water impure” and then “they drank from it” and gave some to their animals.

      You’ve got contradictions. Your position contradicts Muhammads and is based on a weak Hadith.

      Like

      1. Here’s the hadith quoted:
        Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated:
        “It was said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we USE the water of Buda’ah well TO PERFORM ABLUTION while it is a well in which menstruation rags, flesh of dogs and the putrid are dumped?” Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.'”

        It’s not referring to drinking it. Ablution here is the translation of wudu. Wudu is the process Muslims use to wash before prayer like Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them both). The Prophet(saw) is saying that with a large body of water (i.e. the well in this case) it does not become impure just because something that is impure touches it. That’s all the hadith means. If you think about it if this were the case humans would not be able to drink any water because animals use the restroom in our drinking water every day.

        They can think these jokes are “funny” like the nations that came before them but they’re only adding to their punishment because they mislead people without knowledge.

        Like

      2. Oh dear. Yes, that is the first Hadith. But what of the second? I guess you didn’t listen the whole way?

        The second specifically mentions drinking the water.

        Like

    1. Nevermind I found it.
      It was narrated that Jabir bin ‘Abdullah said:
      “We came to a pond in which there was the carcass of a donkey, so we refrained from using the water until the Messenger of Allah came to us and said: ‘Water is not made impure by anything.’ Then we drank from it and gave it to our animals to drink, and we carried some with us.”
      https://sunnah.com/urn/1255190

      1. Hadith is weak and cannot be used as an evidence by itself. (This is also why they didn’t show it in book format like they did with the first hadith)
      2. Even in this case, the same ruling would apply. A dead animal in a large body of water (i.e. a pond in this case) would not turn the entire pond impure. For example, I’m 2000% sure in Australia a dead animal has ended up in the sources of drinking water. That doesn’t mean the drinking water is now impure for either Wudu or consumption. Hence why all the Companions and scholars said: “Color, smell and taste is what effects water’s purity.”

      Like

      1. It’s not used on its own. It’s used as secondary evidence, exactly the same way you used a different Hadith earlier.

        Your religion is contradictory. You’ve merely picked one of the many alternatives.

        Like

      2. This is self-delusion at its finest.

        Your prophet says that “water is not impure by anything“. He was wrong.

        Like

    1. Hey period boy

      The problem you have – which is why you are running away from answering – is that your “prophet” claims that “water is not made impure by anything. Whether this refers to water for drinking, or to water for ritual bathing, it is still dangerous and based on ignorance of medieval nomads who thought it was a good idea to drink camel’s urine.

      Water can be made impure by radiation, poisoning, industrial pollution and any number of things. Regardless of whether you drink it, polluted water can introduce toxicity into the body through cuts, scratches and abrasions on the skin, through the eyes, and nose, and through inadvertent imbibing.

      Your prophet endangers his followers by teaching that these things cannot happen because “water can not be made impure by anything>/b>.

      Clearly, this is a wrong teaching for all time.

      Like

      1. Hey Coco, so you finally worked up the courage to open your mouth after such a long time! I know you were scared after taking so many beatings at BloggingTheology.

        I am still waiting for a logical explanation of whether Christian men can have sexual intercourse with their wives during menstruation. We know the Tanakh banned any contact during this period, but your bumbling attempts to explain the Christian position exposed the irrationality of your religion. No wonder you’ve been running for so long!

        The really hilarious thing about your rant about water is how ignorant you really are! In your attempts to make yourself sound intelligent, you actually make yourself sound stupid. The fact is that all drinking water has some level of contamination from natural sources, such as background radiation, as well as industrial pollution, such as mercury. Most government agencies, such as the EPA in the US, has set standards for maximum allowable quantities of such contaminants in the water. They also give guidelines for public consumption. For example, the CDC states that in the event of a radiation emergency, using tap water is still safe for cleaning oneself and cleaning food:

        “You can still use tap or well water for cleaning yourself and your food.
        Even if the tap water is contaminated, you can still use it for decontamination. Any radioactive material that gets into surface water or ground water sources will be diluted to very low levels by the water and will be safe to use for washing skin, hair, and clothing.”

        https://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/watersafety.asp

        Now of course, it is not recommended to drink that water. Rather, using bottled water would be a safer alternative. However, the water is still safe for other uses. So, the bottom line is that you are an ignoramus trying to masquerade as a person of intelligence. No wonder you are a Christian!

        Even radiation from nuclear testing will inevitably find its way into drinking water! But usually, the levels are tolerable and will probably not cause any longterm health effects:

        “To some extent, all drinking water obtained from surface sources will reflect contamination from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.”

        And other radioactive materials, such as those from pharmaceutical companies or medical institutions have not been found to have any health risks:

        “The release of radioactive materials in the exhaust air and liquid wastes from medical institutions has been studied many times in different locales. No evidence yet suggests a drinking-water hazard from medical effluents.”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234160/

        So all this confirms what brother Stew has said: small contamination in a large body of water does not render the water impure.

        It also confirms how desperate idiots like you are in trying to stop the relentless march of Islam and the slow death of your religion. 😜

        Speaking of the death of Christianity, see here for a small list of scientific errors in your “scriptures”: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/revisiting-the-scientific-errors-in-the-bible-christian-apologist-cerbie-digs-himself-into-a-bigger-hole/

        Like

      2. @ Joel
        I’m going to explain how you no longer have a “general statement” we have hadith where he says don’t contaminate water

        It was narrated from Aboo Hurayrah that the Prophet said, “You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.”1

        In a version in, Saheeh Muslim, it says, “None of you should perform Ghusl in standing water when he is Junub (in a state of sexual impurity).”2

        Therefore the argument that it’s a general doesn’t work because we have conditions laid. This is known as a “reading between the lines” fallacy because your attempting to add more to the text. When we were speaking of Jesus and divorce I kept asking “do you have any situations where he gives other stipulations on this rule” and you didn’t have anything. Then when the disciples asked for further clarification he is supposed to have explained it as a harsh rule.

        Next, when “the Disciples ” of the Prophet Muhammad(saw) (i.e the people who heard the rule, to begin with) were asked about this they all said: “Water is changed by color, taste and smell.” Meaning that is the context for the statement. When you couple it with the two hadith I quote above voila. This is really reaching and let’s be honest you know it is too. For you to make your argument you would have to knock down 2 authentic hadith and show why every person who heard the statement understood it in this way.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I’m still waiting aswell.

        The condition of change of colour and taste is based on a weak Hadith.

        You’ve put consensus before Hadith in your fiqh.

        Equally, we have another contradictory Hadith that encourages Muslims to drink contaminated water by a dead donkey because “nothing makes it impure”

        In other words, we have two Hadith that mention that nothing makes water impure. One sahih and one daif. One specific and one general.

        You’ve contradicted this by appeal to consensus, but as you stated, Hadith is to be accepted before consensus.

        Like

      4. LOL, the two wannabe sheikhs are still desperately trying to override centuries of scholarship and consensus on this issue with their own mediocre opinions. Despite all the evidence presented, the two losers still think their arguments have any merit. It’s the “holy spirit effect” I guess.

        Like

      5. Cerbie, I’m still waiting for an identification of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel. Who were these armies that were allegedly destroyed during the time of Ezra, before the rebuilding of the temple?

        Like

      6. stew

        You are engaging in special pleading. But the spectacle of your waffling efforts to rationalize explicit contradictions in your scriptures is entertaining. The hadith make contradictory statements which shows how unreliable they are. Worse still you haven’t actually made a point – all you’ve done is waffle on quoting hadith that don;t even support your point. Even the two hadith you quoted are different to each other is – one says don’t urinate in water before bathing in it (you need allah to tell you this??!!), and the other says don’t urinate in water when sexually impure.

        Ironically, you have committed the fallacy you accuse me of since none of what you quoted says that to urinate in the water makes it impure. It just says don’t do it.

        Sadly for you, when your prophet says – unequivocally – “water CANNOT be made impure by ANYTHING”, this is a general statement, no matter how much redaction subsequent generations of muslim apologists try to make.

        Like

      7. qb

        “I am still waiting for a logical explanation of whether Christian men can have sexual intercourse with their wives during menstruation.”

        I’m still waiting for you to explain why your prophet disobeyed allah by laying his head on his wife’s lap during her menstruation when allah states clearly not to go near them.

        Anyways, while you think about that, you are having to equivocate in your response to save your prophet from being exposed. His statement was clear – “water CANNOT be made impure by ANYTHING”.

        THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!!

        Bacteria and viruses can live and propagate in water and can get into your brain – which must have happened to you – and make you sick and, in your case, dumb. Parasites in water can enter your body and make you ill. There are all kinds of issues I’ve stated before that can make water impure.

        Your prophet says this is not the case. He is wrong.

        But nice try posting a wall of meaningless text without addressing the issue.

        Like

      8. LOL, little Coco’s next pounding is about to begin and the monkey is doing his dance!

        I already answered you on the menstruation issue in Islam, you fool. After getting embarrassed, you ran away and actually started avoiding me on BloggingTheology! Poor, scared little monkey!

        Now, I am STILL waiting for an explanation on whether Christian husbands can have intercourse with their wives. But since you are so afraid to answer, let me answer for you. I looked into the early Christian attitudes regarding sex and menstruation, and it seems that there was a total disregard of the Jewish laws, including the prohibition on not having intercourse while the woman is menstruating! In the Didascalia, chapter 26. it states that there is no need for purification or to avoid having intercourse:

        “Wherefore, a woman when she is in the way of women, and a man when an issue comes forth from him, and a man and his wife when they consort and rise up one from another: let them assemble without restraint, without bathing, for they are clean. But if a man should corrupt and defile another’s wife after baptism, or be polluted with a harlot, and rising up from her should bathe in all the seas and oceans and be baptized in all the rivers, he cannot be made clean.”

        So there you go! Your church considers the menstrual blood to be “pure”, despite the fact that it is bloody tissue from the uterus! LOL!!

        Coming to your latest failure on the purity of water, I can only say…LOL!! Notice how you got blasted on the radiation issue, so now you move onto parasites, in a pathetic attempt to still sound intelligent. But unfortunately for you, you’re still screwed! HAHAHAHA!

        As has already been established, the Prophet (pbuh) differentiated between free-flowing water and standing water. Is there a difference when it comes to bacteria and viruses in these bodies of water? YES!! According to a recent study, free-flowing water slows down the growth of bacteria:

        “In a surprising new finding, researchers have discovered that bacterial movement is impeded in flowing water, enhancing the likelihood that the microbes will attach to surfaces. […]

        The study, which combined experimental observations with mathematical modeling, showed that the flow of liquid can have two significant effects on microbes: “It quenches the ability of microbes to chase food,” Stocker says, “and it helps microbes find surfaces.””

        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140224124119.htm

        So once again, little Coco gets exposed as an ignoramus, and then like a little scared monkey, avoids seeing his “scriptures” torn apart by science! Bwhahahaha!

        Like

  2. @ Paulus
    (Sigh) I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t understand my class. Please read it all and don’t skim.
    The matter of the purity of the water is not my (Stew’s) personal opinion or interpretation based on a weak hadith. The opinion on water is impure if it loses changes taste, color and smell is the opinion of the following Companions or students of Companions when they were asked about the matter:
    Aboo Hurayrah, Ibn Abbass, al-Hasan al-Basaree, Ibn al-Musayyib, ath-Thawree, Daawood, Maalik, alBukhaaree, Ibn Umar, Mujaahid, Imam Hanafee, Imam Shaafi’ee and Imam Hanbalee.

    The only thing all the men above differed on is if it’s a small body of water and still retains it’s color, taste and smell. On top of that, we have authentic hadith where the Prophet(saw) told people not to urinate or bath directly in bodies of water outside or other people might drink or wash in it which means it’s not a general statement because he(saw) placed stipulations. Following me still?

    In Islamic law, if all Companions who actually heard the hadith and are asked about a matter and no one says anything different we call this “Ijma” or a consensus. And it’s used for our understanding. Evidence in Islamic law in order of importance is Qur’an, Prophet Muhammad(saw), Consensus of the Companions(Ijma), Analogy(Qiyas) and Arabic linguistics.

    Now a weak hadith can be used as a supporting evidence(provided under certain conditions) this is why it’s a SUPPORTING evidence. So what we have in this case is ALL the Companions are saying water loses its purity if the color, smell or taste change. Then its a matter of oh we have this weak hadith that states the exact same thing they’re saying. Even if I removed the hadith the point would stand by itself. This explanation wraps up all the hadith we’ve discussed so far up in a nice little package with a bow on top (including the weak donkey hadith). Water doesn’t become impure if a small amount of filth touches it.

    So all these men are doing if they don’t repent and become Muslim is adding to their punishment because they’re purposing lying on God. And Paulus the only reason I don’t ignore you is that I do believe there’s good inside you and don’t want you to go to Hell. I don’t think there are many people who you can say are actively worried about your afterlife and are trying to keep you from the Fire. Let me ask you something why didn’t you want to answer when I asked you what do you believe God is?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Stew.

    I understand perfectly. The ijmaa, or consensus, is based on a weak Hadith. The qualifications you’ve stated several times now, change of colour, taste or smell, is exactly the qualification the weak graded Hadith made. Let me quote,

    “It was narrated that Aboo Umaamah Al-Baahili ( ) said: The Messenger of Allaah ( ) said, “Water is
    not made impure by anything except that which changes its smell, taste and colour.” [Sunan Ibn Maajah) The chain is weak but is used as a supporting evidence“

    So the consensus opinion is based on a weak Hadith.

    Look, I know you think that Islam is truth, but muhammad was a terrible example of a human and his self righteous religion full of contradictions and paganism will never be of interest to me. So I bid you goodbye.

    Like

    1. LOL, sheikh Cerbie still thinks that his opinion is worth anything!

      Look, I know you are umemployed and follow a false and irrational religion, but you will always be an idiot who will be mocked and laughed at by reasonable people. So I bid you goodbye…until you get bored again and come back next week. 🙂

      Like

      1. A muhammadan inspired tovia singer fan isn’t a reasonable person. You do know all those “academics” you appeal to when arguing with atheists are Christians, right? That there are no “rational Muslims” academics to appeal to 😂😂😂😂

        Like

      2. Bwhahaha, what a loser! Even when your “conservative” scholars are quoted, you reject them when they contradict your opinions! We have seen many examples of your inconsistency on this blog! The girls in Numbers 31:18, the church fathers on the issue of divorce and separation, etc. Face it Cerbie. You are just a loser who blindly follows his pagan cult and is too wrapped up in himself to ever admit that he is wrong about something. 😂😂😂😂

        Like

    2. That was the opinion of the Companions (i.e the people who heard the rule) when they were asked about it. I don’t need the hadith throw it out of the equation. Imagine you walked up to all 14 Companions or their students and said hey what does this rule about water mean? And they responded Color smell and taste effect it. They heard the rule and they themselves are saying this not me.

      Next, why are you saying goodbye? I find it weird you will come on and insult but when someone is actually trying to talk about God and what is the Truth concerning the path most pleasing to Him, which is what I’m assuming you’re doing this all for, you ignore it? Even if you don’t want to talk to me for arrogance sake because you don’t want to be “wrong” I want you to just look at this ayat:
      Tell them: “I advise you to do one thing only, stand before God, either in pairs or individually, and just think…”

      Tonight just stare up at the sky and think about God, not Jesus(as), God. And just think about things He does like the creation of the Heavens and Earth or the rain He sends to us or how He alone gave you life.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You do need the Hadith because as you already made clear, the chain of authority is Hadith before consensus.

        You are, strangely, though not surprisingly, now placing consensus before the Hadith.

        Argument over.

        Like

      1. And yet that man accomplished more in his life than you ever will with yours! How’s the job search going?

        Oh and I almost forgot…still waiting for you to identify Gog and Magog in Ezekiel. 😉

        Like

      2. Yea I’m going to have to be done here. If you ever want to seriously want talk about religion the door’s open. May God guide you an soften your heart. And may you come to actually follow the religion of Abraham.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Also p.s. you insulted Peter and John who were illiterate (and more than likely Jesus and the rest of the Disciples as we have no reason to believe they were literate either)

        Strangely enough, the disbelievers of their time talk a lot like you. Things that make you go hmmm….

        Liked by 1 person

  4. The consensus comes into play because
    1. Common sense states that we should probably check with the people who heard someone say something about a statements context.
    2. We have authentic hadith where he(saw) talks about contaminating water. I have no idea why this keeps being ignored.

    I am not talking about any weak hadith. This is a fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is we ‘re able to ask for an explanation from people who were there. And you’re attempting to paint this in a negative light.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “We have authentic hadith where he(saw) talks about contaminating water. I have no idea why this keeps being ignored.”

      Because when desperation sets in among Christian apologists, they don’t tend to be reasonable!

      “And you’re attempting to paint this in a negative light.”

      I wonder why? He knows he doesn’t have the same luxury with his gospels so why not try to downplay the importance of having actual eyewitnesses who would be the best authorities after the Prophet to interpret what the Prophet was saying?

      Like

      1. @ Qu’ranblog

        Exactly, I think they’re now getting confused on the evidences in question. The hadith water is pure doesn’t even discuss drinking water.

        I love how when talking about rules that Jesus(as) is supposed to have said,
        1. Adultery doesn’t mean adultery.
        2. Two unrelated matters from the OT and NT that no commentary uses can be cobbled together for evidence.
        3. Have a position completely different from the Early Church Fathers.

        However, when it’s
        1. The two related evidences about water’s contamination showing it’s not a general statement
        2. The people who heard him say it are explaining it (which for some reason he keeps thinking is a weak hadith)
        3. Scholarly commentary has never differed

        None of this counts lol. It’s really ridiculous. They’re not even addressing their opponent’s arguments they’re simply making a strawman fallacy. I don’t know what is so difficult about throw out the weak hadith my point is still thoroughly established. If they believe the consensus of the people who were there is “based off a weak hadith” they have to prove their claim.

        Like

    2. It’s not being ignored. Those Hadith simply don’t discuss drinking water, do they? The one criterion you mentioned several times, however, is a weak Hadith.

      Let’s be honest. You accept “consensus” because you have no choice. That was Islam is- obeying the leader.

      You have a contradictory alternative, based on the same, if not better, Hadith. But you reject it because imam school tells you to.

      Btw, it’s not eyewitness. It’s hearsay several centuries after the fact

      Like

      1. Paulus

        Hearsay is right. The first complete volume of bukhari appeared in the 11th century, the others came even later. HAdith are ahistorical.

        Like

      2. Hahahaha, so now the two wannabe sheikhs are experts on the historicity of the hadith? Realistically, the hadiths are far more reliable than your pathetic gospels. The gospels were written by eyewitnesses? Hahaha, talk about “hearsay”!

        Like

  5. @ Quranblog

    Ready for me to make this that much sweeter?

    It was narrated from ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar that his father said:
    “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was asked about water and how some animals and carnivorous beasts might drink from it. He said: ‘If the water is more than two Qullahs, it will not become filthy.'” (Sunan an-Nasā’ī, Volume 1, Book 1, Hadith 52) Sahih

    More evidence of water’s nature can be changed

    The Well of Buda’ah mentioned in the other hadith with menstruation rages and garbage let’s look into that now shall we?
    Al-Tahawi commented that the well of Buda’ah was ‘like a river leading to a garden’. This means that the water was flowing and not stagnant.
    Regarding the purity of flowing water, Abu Dawud (a hadith compiler), who visited the well in the same state as it was during the time of the Prophet personally measured its width as 6 cubits, confirming that it was large and contained much water.

    He also said:

    I heard Qutaibah b. Sa’id say: I asked the person in charge of the well of Bud’ah about the depth of the well. He replied: “At most, the water reaches the pubes”. Then I asked: “Where does it reach when its level goes down?” He replied: “Below the private part of the body.”
    From the shallow depth of the well, it’s clear that it was a running stream rather than a deep, stagnant pool of water. It has been said that these objects entered the well after being carried by stormwater.

    Just another sign for the Muslims…

    But there are some people who trade in ‘entertaining tales’, to lead others, without knowledge from God’s path, and to hold it up to as a joke. There is a humiliating punishment for such people. When My verses are recited to them, they turn away arrogantly as if they didn’t hear them, like there’s some sort of barrier around their ears. So, announce to them a painful torment. But for those who believe and do good deeds, there will be Gardens of constant blessings for them, to live in forever. This is the promise of God in truth and He’s the Final Authority and the One to pass Judgment. (31:6-9)

    Like

    1. stew

      All I see is more contradiction. These other hadiths contradict the rasul – which is correct? Mohammed thinks that water can never be made impure, yet seems to lose faith in his own pronouncements about it. Go figure.

      Like

      1. @ Joel
        Or it’s simply a general statement? Lol.

        It’s really not that difficult. What seems more likely, that you’re wrong or the people who heard the statement within its context are wrong? How come not one of them had the same opinion you’re saying, Joel?

        Like

      2. Stew

        What is most likely is that the hadith are unreliable which is why they report contradictory teachings. Most likely later generations of muslim scholars tried to reconcile these contradictions with redactions and additions.

        Like

  6. @ Joel

    Sigh. I really don’t hope you want to do this. First off one is about taking a bath after you have sex and the other is about urination and that you shouldn’t do that so that when you leave someone else doesn’t drink or bathe in it because they don’t know you did that. As I said earlier you guys don’t even know the evidences you’re quoting. You’re just committing a strawman and assuming premises.

    Next, it is not a contradiction if things can be reconciled. If you don’t believe then you think Judas’s death is a “contradiction”
    And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and HANGED himself. (Matt 27:5)

    Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and FALLING HEADLONG HE BURST OPEN in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. (Acts 1:18)

    Now, this is not a contradiction because we reconcile the statements. Judas hung himself and his body fell off and his bowels exploded out. Now, this same methodology is being applied with the ahadith you guys don’t even remember and are confusing with one another.

    Like

    1. stew

      Sad.

      Both accounts of Judas’ death say that he died – one doesn’t say that he died while the other says he did not. They agree on the point of his death.

      On the other hand, mohammed states – again, completely unequivocally – that “water CANNOT be made impure by ANYTHING”, yet elsewhere suggests that it can, in fact, be made impure, then this is a blatant contradiction. You are allowing your faith to blind you to the obvious.

      A disagreement over details is not the same as a contradiction.

      Like

      1. LOL, obviously you didn’t understand brother Stew’s point. He was showing that the two reports of Judas’ death may seem contradictory but can actually be reconciled. I happen to agree with him, although there are still many other contradictions in the Bible. Interestingly, there were other legends about Judas’ death circulating among the Christians. We know from the fragments of Papias that Judas was allegedly run over by a chariot. This is interesting given that, according to Christian hearsay, Papias knew Matthew! But if this was true, then why did Papias disagree with his alleged teacher?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s