72 Virgins?

[Sawtul Islam]

Bismillahirrahmaanerraheem

A lot of you (okay all of you) must have heard from the media that Muslims believe they will have sex with 72 virgins after death or martyrdom.

Well first of all this is not in the Qur'an. Secondly I found that the Hadith that says it is not Authentic.

Here it is:

Hisham ibn Khalid narrated from Abu Marwan from Khalid ibn Yazid from ibn Abi Malik from his father from Khalid ibn Madan from Abi Umamah that he reported Allah's Messenger (saw) saying:

Allah will not admit anyone in paradise but Allah the Mighty and Glorious will marry him with seventy two wives. Two will be from Hooris/virgins with big eyes and seventy will be his inheritance from the people of hell fire. Everyone of them will have a pleasant vagina and he (the man in paradise) will have a sexual organ that does not bend down. (Source: Sunan ibn Majah)

It's isnad (chain of narration) has Khalid ibn Yazid who is a weak (dhaeef) narrator according to: Imam Nasai, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Dawood, ibn Jarood Sahi, ibn Mo'in and others!

So a lot of great Sunni scholars have declared this Hadith to be Weak/unauthentic which means it is almost certainly a fabrication.

Now if you read the Qur'an you will see NO EVIDENCE of sex in paradise. It's just as Adam and Eve never had sex in paradise, they only had sex AFTER THE FALL (after they listened to Iblis/Satan and came to earth). We know this because they didnt have children in paradise so they didnt have sex and there is no evidence that they did from Qur'an or Hadith.

So in conclusion there is no sex in paradise. The people of paradise would be even more pure than earthly children.

Corrections are welcome

Wassalam

[Abandoned-Mind]

Akhi, any chance your on crack?

[Abu Talhah]

err ... akhee with all due respect, the proof is irrefutable. Your argument is very, very weak. Please refer to this short book.

Maidens of Paradise (click) (http://kalamullah.com/Books/maidens.pdf)

[IbnShaykh]

Akhi, any chance your on crack?

Correct good sir...

[Sawtul Islam]

I think I gave a bad title to this thread. The point is not to refute the number of Hooris but sexual relations with them.

[Abuz Zubair]

I think I gave a bad title to this thread. The point is not to refute the number of Hooris but sexual relations with them.
Don't you think for a fraction of a second, why would God have us in pairs in paradise if there is no sexual relations involved?

And if it is something we all wish to have in this world, why can't we have it in paradise? What is so bad about it? If we can have four in this world, why can't we have 72 in the next?

[Sawtul Islam]

err ... akhee with all due respect, the proof is irrefutable. Your argument is very, very weak. Please refer to this short book.

Maidens of Paradise (click) (http://kalamullah.com/Books/maidens.pdf)

I read some parts of this book and it seems interesting, I havent read it all yet but so far I havent found anything in it from the Qur'an or Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim that say there would be sex in paradise.

The only sources I have seen so far in it are sources like "Majma al-Zawaid" and books of "ibn Hibban", which are even less authentic than Sunan ibn Majah. Ibn Hibban considered a lot of ahaadith to be authentic which other greater scholars considered to be weak or fabricated, I can give you a list.


Does the book quote any credible sources in support of "sex in paradise"??

[Sawtul Islam]

And if it is something we all wish to have in this world, why can't we have it in paradise? What is so bad about it? If we can have four in this world, why can't we have 72 in the next?

I repeat, I gave a bad title to this thread (sorry).


Im not really disputing the number of Hooris, Im just saying we wont have sex with them.

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Stop being a prude. There will be sex in Paradise, and this is the belief of Ahl as-Sunnah wa'al Jama'ah.

[Sawtul Islam]

Stop being a prude. There will be sex in Paradise, and this is the belief of Ahl as-Sunnah wa'al Jama'ah.

Im still waiting for a proper proof from Qur'an or the Sahihayn.

[Sawtul Islam]

Akhi, any chance your on crack?


It's "you're" not "your":D

[IbnShaykh]

ackhi will it have any bearing on your faith? What is the point of this thread?

[abu hafs]

<big> </big>
<big> A man will have intercourse in Paradise with his wives from among al-hoor al-‘iyn and his wives from among the people of this world, if they enter Paradise with him. A man will be given the strength of a hundred men to eat, drink, feel desire and have sexual intercourse. It was narrated from Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" --> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The believer in Paradise will be given such and such strength for sexual intercourse.” He was asked, “O Messenger of Allaah, will he really be able to do that?” He said, “He will be given the strength of one hundred (men).” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, no. 2459. He said, (it is) saheeh ghareeb).
</big>

<big></big>

<big></big>
<big> </big>
<big> It was narrated from Zayd ibn Arqam that the Messenger of Allaah <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" --> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “A man among the people of Paradise will be given the strength of a hundred men for eating, drinking, desire and sexual intercourse. A man among the Jews said, ‘The one who eats or drinks needs to excrete!’ The Messenger of Allaah <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" --> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him: ‘The excretion of any one of them will be in the form of sweat which comes out through his skin, then his stomach will reduce in size again.’” (Narrated by Ahmad, no. 18509; al-Daarimi, no. 2704)
</big>

<big></big>

<big></big>
<big>‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood and Ibn ‘Abbaas (mayAllaah be pleased with them both), and Sa’eed ibn al-Musayyib, ‘Ikrimah, al-Hasan, Qutaadah, al-A’mash, Sulaymaan al-Taymi and al-Oozaa’i said concerning the aayaah (interpretation of the meaning), </big>
<big>“Verily, the dwellers of Paradise, that Day, will be busy in joyful things” [Yaa-Seen 36:55] </big>
<big>they said, (it means) they will be busy deflowering virgins. Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said, according to a report narrated from him, that “busy in joyful things” means listening to stringed instruments. Abu Haatim said: he misheard the phrase iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins) and thought it was samaa’ al-awtaar (listening to stringed instruments). In fact the correct phrase is iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins). (Ibn Katheer, 3/564)</big>
<big>http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=10053
</big>

[KnowledgeSeeker]

<big> </big>
<big> A man will have intercourse in Paradise with his wives from among al-hoor al-‘iyn and his wives from among the people of this world, if they enter Paradise with him. A man will be given the strength of a hundred men to eat, drink, feel desire and have sexual intercourse. It was narrated from Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" --> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The believer in Paradise will be given such and such strength for sexual intercourse.” He was asked, “O Messenger of Allaah, will he really be able to do that?” He said, “He will be given the strength of one hundred (men).” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, no. 2459. He said, (it is) saheeh ghareeb).
</big>

<big></big>

<big></big>
<big> </big>
<big> It was narrated from Zayd ibn Arqam that the Messenger of Allaah <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" --> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “A man among the people of Paradise will be given the strength of a hundred men for eating, drinking, desire and sexual intercourse. A man among the Jews said, ‘The one who eats or drinks needs to excrete!’ The Messenger of Allaah <!--#include virtual="/saws.htm" --> (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him: ‘The excretion of any one of them will be in the form of sweat which comes out through his skin, then his stomach will reduce in size again.’” (Narrated by Ahmad, no. 18509; al-Daarimi, no. 2704)
</big>

<big></big>

<big></big>
<big>‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood and Ibn ‘Abbaas (mayAllaah be pleased with them both), and Sa’eed ibn al-Musayyib, ‘Ikrimah, al-Hasan, Qutaadah, al-A’mash, Sulaymaan al-Taymi and al-Oozaa’i said concerning the aayaah (interpretation of the meaning), </big>
<big>“Verily, the dwellers of Paradise, that Day, will be busy in joyful things” [Yaa-Seen 36:55] </big>
<big>they said, (it means) they will be busy deflowering virgins. Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said, according to a report narrated from him, that “busy in joyful things” means listening to stringed instruments. Abu Haatim said: he misheard the phrase iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins) and thought it was samaa’ al-awtaar (listening to stringed instruments). In fact the correct phrase is iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins). (Ibn Katheer, 3/564)</big>
<big>http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=10053
</big>

Brother, this establishes that sexual relations take place, however, do you have any narrations that support this idea of 72 virgins?

[Abuz Zubair]

I listed some narrations regarding sexual relations in paradise, but didn't mention the mutun... May be some time later I can mention the texts, too, iA.

http://talk.islamicnetwork.com/showpost.php?p=88870&postcount=30

[Abuz Zubair]

Brother, this establishes that sexual relations take place, however, do you have any narrations that support this idea of 72 virgins?
: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( للشهيد عند الله ست خصال : يغفر له في أول دفعة من دمه ، ويرى مقعده من الجنة ، ويجار من عذاب القبر ، ويأمن من الفزع الأكبر ، ويوضع على رأسه تاج الوقار الياقوتة منها خير من الدنيا وما فيها ، ويزوج اثنتين وسبعين زوجة من الحور العين ، ويشفع في سبعين من أقاربه ) رواه الترمذي ( 1663 ) وابن ماجه ( 2799 ) وصححه الألباني في صحيح الترمذي .

[Al_Zahir_Baybars]

I think it is reasonable to say sex will be permitted in the afterlife, if you are to have virgins at you beck and call I would assume this would be the case, unless I am missing something, but I cannot fully grasp the concept of heaven as there are things of more interesting aspects regarding it, such as the existance of time and space, I do not belive those rules would apply there so trying to think about that is a bit more mind boggling ain't it?

This seems a bit trivial to discuss and not to mention it'll make some fokes blush.

[Sawtul Islam]

“The believer in Paradise will be given such and such strength for sexual intercourse.” He was asked, “O Messenger of Allaah, will he really be able to do that?” He said, “He will be given the strength of one hundred (men).” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, no. 2459. He said, (it is) saheeh ghareeb).


Ok the most authentic Hadith so far is this one but it is still not good enough because firstly it is not narrated by Bukhari or Muslim, and secondly Tirmidhi himself says it is "ghareeb" (strange, singular).

[abu hafs]

Not everything has to be narrated by Bukhari and Muslim to be authentic...Its still sahih . Not to mention the sahaba's tafsir of many verses .

There is no sound basis to reject it except you are an apologetic feeling ashamed of what it is because the kuffar attack you for it .

[Abuz Zubair]

because the kuffar attack you for it .

Which they themselves claimed to have revolutionised in the 60s, 'free love, baby!'

[Sawtul Islam]

Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said, according to a report narrated from him, that “busy in joyful things” means listening to stringed instruments. Abu Haatim said: he misheard the phrase iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins) and thought it was samaa’ al-awtaar (listening to stringed instruments). In fact the correct phrase is iftidaad al-abkaar (deflowering virgins). (Ibn Katheer, 3/564)</big>
<big>http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=10053
</big>
I dont understand... Ibn Haatam said that Ibn Abbas misunderstood the Hadith he was narrating??? How did ibn Haatam "Know" this?

Anyway as far as the Ayah is concerned it doesnt say "deflowering of virgins" but says the believers would be busy doing joyful things.

[Sawtul Islam]

Not everything has to be narrated by Bukhari and Muslim to be authentic...Its still sahih . Not to mention the sahaba's tafsir of many verses .

There is no sound basis to reject it except you are an apologetic feeling ashamed of what it is because the kuffar attack you for it .

No because I have not yet seen any strong evidence. The strongest so far has been a Hadith narrated only by Tirmidhi which he admitted was "Ghareeb".

The Qur'an goes to detail about the pleasures of paradise but never mentions sex, though it mentions eating and drinking and being served and going to beautiful places so many times...

[Abuz Zubair]

Bro... I asked you before:

Why would Allah have us all in two sexes, male and female? To play a cricket match or what?

Also:

1) Allah says in the Quran:
فِيہِنَّ قَـٰصِرَٲتُ ٱلطَّرۡفِ لَمۡ يَطۡمِثۡہُنَّ إِنسٌ۬ قَبۡلَهُمۡ وَلَا جَآنٌّ۬

"Therein are those of modest gaze, whom neither man nor jinn will have deflowered before them."

2) Allah says:
إِنَّ لِلۡمُتَّقِينَ مَفَازًا (٣١) حَدَآٮِٕقَ وَأَعۡنَـٰبً۬ا (٣٢) وَكَوَاعِبَ أَتۡرَابً۬

"Lo! for the duteous is achievement - (31) Gardens enclosed and vineyards, (32) And maidens rounded breasts"

Do you have any idea what yatmith-hunna means, or what the word kawa'ib means?

This is just from the Quran.

[abu hafs]

Why does the Qur'an specifically mention that the women are virgins with big bosoms?

Why does the Qur'an specifically mention that the women are neither "touched" by Men or Jinn ?

Why so much emphasis on all of this ...any comments ?


The hadith is not ghareeb , Its Sahih Gharib, I am not going to further comment because I do not know the exact meaning of his terminology

[Tuwaylib]

his jannah is boring....let him be bored.

[Abuz Zubair]

1) Explicit Hadeeth of Zayd b. Arqam, narrated by Ahmad al-Darimi, al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani.

جاء رجل من اليهود إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فقال: يا أبا القاسم ! تزعم أن أهل الجنة يأكلون فيها ويشربون؟ قال: "نعم؛ والذي نفسي بيده؛ إن الرجل ليعطى قوة مائة رجل في الأكل والشرب والجماع



"A man from the jews came to the Prophet - SallAllahu 'alayhi wa-sallam - and said: 'O Abul-Qasim! Do you claim that the people of paradise eat and drink therein?' The Prophet replied: 'Yes! By the one who has my soul in His Hand, one man is given the strength of a hundred men in eating, drinking and Jima' - sexual relations"

Al-Haythami says: ‘the narrators of Ahmad and al-Bazzar are the narrators of al-Sahih, except Thumama b. ‘Uqba, who is thiqa – highly trustworthy.

Ibn Hajar and al-Arna’ut both agree that thumama is thiqa.

Moreover, al-Arna’ut declares this particular hadeeth to be Sahih and quotes other shawahid, although there is no need to go into that, for we will suffice with Sh al-Tuwaijiri.

2.1) Explicit Hadeeth of Abu Huraira. It is narrated by al-Tabarani, and al-Hafidh al-Diya al-Maqdisi says about it (as reported by Ibn Kathir): ‘to me it seems authentic according to the condition of Sahih (al-Bukhari).

حديث أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه؛ قال: « قيل: يا رسول الله! هل نصل (وفي رواية: هل نفضي إلى نسائنا)؟ فقال: " والذي نفسي بيده؛ إن الرجل ليفضي في الغداة الواحدة إلى مائة عذراء


Ibn Hibban says that narrators are all the narrators of Sahih except Muhammad b. Thawab who is Thiqa

Ibn Hajar declares him Saduq, which would render this Hadeeth Hasan, but Sahih due to shawahid.

Al-Arna’ut also mentions this narration as a Shahid for the Hadeeth #1 in his verification of Musnad Ahmad.

Not to mention that al-Albani mentions it in his Sahih.

The Hadeeth is suitable for Ihtijaj and one of the strongest explicit Shahid for conjugal relations in paradise

[Sawtul Islam]

1) Allah says in the Quran:
فِيہِنَّ قَـٰصِرَٲتُ ٱلطَّرۡفِ لَمۡ يَطۡمِثۡہُنَّ إِنسٌ۬ قَبۡلَهُمۡ وَلَا جَآنٌّ۬

"[SIZE=2][COLOR=#000000]Therein are those of modest gaze, whom neither man nor jinn will have deflowered before them."



According to every single translation that I have seen including a Literal translation it means Touched.

Here are a few examples:

YUSUFALI: In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched;-
PICKTHAL: Therein are those of modest gaze, whom neither man nor jinni will have touched before them.
SHAKIR: In them shall be those who restrained their eyes; before them neither man nor jinni shall have touched them.
Translation by Farooq Malik
Therein will be bashful virgins, whom neither any man nor jinn has touched before.
Translation by Mohammad Asad:
In these [garden] will be mates of modest gaze, whom neither man nor invisible being will have touched ere then.

(there are many more)

The word TAMITH can be used for taking away virginity but it applies to any intimate thing involving a woman for the first time (such as touch, or kiss or even bleeding from the private part without sex).

And if you read the Qur'an you see that they are pure women who only look at one man (the man to whom Allah has given them) and this explains why the word Tamith is used.

The word Tamith indicates something happening for the first time but as I said it is not just for sex and the word is even used for Camels who have had a rope tied to them for the first time, or pasturing a land for the first time.

So clearly the word "Tamith" is not neccissarily sexual.

[abu_ibrahim]

Why are you so concerned with Jannah, because the believer of Wahdatul Wujood will never taste Jannah to begin with.

[Abuz Zubair]

Quote to us from Arabic lexicons directly, plz...

Tamatha refers to a woman bleeding, either due to menstruation or breaking of hymen.

I can't believe people go to such lengths to deny the obvious! You still haven't answered my question about the explicit hadeeth I mentioned, the reference to well-rounded bosoms and the fact that Allah will have us in pairs in paradise, why?!

This is really getting ridiculous :)

[Sawtul Islam]

1) Explicit Hadeeth of Zayd b. Arqam, narrated by Ahmad al-Darimi, al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani.

جاء رجل من اليهود إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فقال: يا أبا القاسم ! تزعم أن أهل الجنة يأكلون فيها ويشربون؟ قال: "نعم؛ والذي نفسي بيده؛ إن الرجل ليعطى قوة مائة رجل في الأكل والشرب والجماع



"A man from the jews came to the Prophet - SallAllahu 'alayhi wa-sallam - and said: 'O Abul-Qasim! Do you claim that the people of paradise eat and drink therein?' The Prophet replied: 'Yes! By the one who has my soul in His Hand, one man is given the strength of a hundred men in eating, drinking and Jima' - sexual relations"

Al-Haythami says: ‘the narrators of Ahmad and al-Bazzar are the narrators of al-Sahih, except Thumama b. ‘Uqba, who is thiqa – highly trustworthy.

Ibn Hajar and al-Arna’ut both agree that thumama is thiqa.

Moreover, al-Arna’ut declares this particular hadeeth to be Sahih and quotes other shawahid, although there is no need to go into that, for we will suffice with Sh al-Tuwaijiri.

2.1) Explicit Hadeeth of Abu Huraira. It is narrated by al-Tabarani, and al-Hafidh al-Diya al-Maqdisi says about it (as reported by Ibn Kathir): ‘to me it seems authentic according to the condition of Sahih (al-Bukhari).

حديث أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه؛ قال: « قيل: يا رسول الله! هل نصل (وفي رواية: هل نفضي إلى نسائنا)؟ فقال: " والذي نفسي بيده؛ إن الرجل ليفضي في الغداة الواحدة إلى مائة عذراء


Ibn Hibban says that narrators are all the narrators of Sahih except Muhammad b. Thawab who is Thiqa

Ibn Hajar declares him Saduq, which would render this Hadeeth Hasan, but Sahih due to shawahid.

Al-Arna’ut also mentions this narration as a Shahid for the Hadeeth #1 in his verification of Musnad Ahmad.

Not to mention that al-Albani mentions it in his Sahih.

The Hadeeth is suitable for Ihtijaj and one of the strongest explicit Shahid for conjugal relations in paradise

Still not good enough, remember that Sunan ibn Majah was also considered to be Authentic by its author but as I showed earlier the Hadith about sex in paradise from Ibn Majah was very weak according to many other scholars.

Im looking for a verse in the Quran, a Hadith from Bukhari or Muslim, or a Hadith that is Sahih by their condition from other books. The second Hadith you quote says ibn Kathir said "to me it seems authentic according to the condition of Sahih (al-Bukhari)."
He still had some doubt regarding the chain as he said "to me it seems". Such words clearly show that he doubted it and in cases when he and other scholars had no doubt they would just say that the Hadith is Authentic by the standard of Muslim or Bukhari without saying "to me it seems".

So the required proof is something that is 100% authentic by the standards of Imam Bukhari, Muslim or even Abu Dawood.

[Sawtul Islam]

Why are you so concerned with Jannah, because the believer of Wahdatul Wujood will never taste Jannah to begin with.


Doesnt "Wahdatul Wujood" mean those who believe everything is ONE meaning that "everything is God"????

That's what Sufis believe and Im not Sufi.

[Abuz Zubair]

The problem is not that you cannot find something authentic in the Quran or the Sunnah to substantiate sexual relations; the problem is that you are ashamed of such things existing in our sources. This is the crux of the matter.

And to this end, you would go on denying the meaning of tamatha, you would refuse to accept an authentic hadeeth that does not exist in al-Bukhari or Muslim.

Nothing is going to convince you unless it seems palatable to your colonialist masters.

I suggest you better free your mind, first!

[Sawtul Islam]

I can't believe people go to such lengths to deny the obvious! You still haven't answered my question about the explicit hadeeth I mentioned, the reference to well-rounded bosoms and the fact that Allah will have us in pairs in paradise, why?!

This is really getting ridiculous :)

For the same reason Adam and Eve were together in paradise without having sex. Women are not just for sex you know...


As for the women having such bodies, how does that mean they have sex? It's obvious that if they are women then they would have breasts and they would have the kind most men like but that doesnt prove anything about sex (babies like breasts too!)


Im just trying to make things clear, this is a good debate and we will both inshaAllah learn something through it. If Im convinced Im wrong I will admit it inshaAllah.

[IbnShaykh]

The problem is not that you cannot find something authentic in the Quran or the Sunnah to substantiate sexual relations; the problem is that you are ashamed of such things existing in our sources. This is the crux of the matter.

And to this end, you would go on denying the meaning of tamatha, you would refuse to accept an authentic hadeeth that does not exist in al-Bukhari or Muslim.

Nothing is going to convince you unless it seems palatable to your colonialist masters.

I suggest you better free your mind, first!

Bismillah

Exactly, it is what fits their intellect and the standard they like. For example the hadeeth of if a fly lands in your drink dip the other wing. Some have attempted to weaken this hadeeth because apprently modern science doesn't support it. Same here the Ahdeeth don't meet their standard or what the kuffar find acceptable so people begin to bend and twist and play around with adillah.

[Sawtul Islam]

Bismillah

Exactly, it is what fits their intellect and the standard they like. For example the hadeeth of if a fly lands in your drink dip the other wing. Some have attempted to weaken this hadeeth because apprently modern science doesn't support it. Same here the Ahdeeth don't meet their standard or what the kuffar find acceptable so people begin to bend and twist and play around with adillah.

Actually Im not against the fly Hadith and Im not trying to please the Kuffar (if I did I wouldnt be in this Forum) I just did some thinking on this after reading the Quran and the Sahihain and concluded that there is probably no sex in paradise. I could be wrong, that's why Im debating here and wrote "corrections are welcome", but as I see it the evidence in support of sex in paradise is kinda vague.

[Abuz Zubair]

From Lisan al-'Arab:
و الطمث : الدم والنكاح

و طمثت إذا دميت بالاقتضاض . و الطمث : الدم والنكاح

و طمثها يطمثها طمثا : اقتضها ، وعم به بعضهم الجماع

ال ثعلب : الأصل الحيض ، ثم جعل للنكاح

وقال الفراء : الطمث الاقتضاض ، وهو النكاح بالتدمية

أبو الهيثم : طمثت تطمث أي أدميت بالاقتضاض

From Taj al-urus:

( طَمَثَهَا يَطْمِثُها ) بالكسر ( ويَطْمُثُها ) بالضّمّ ، طَمْثاً ( : افْتَضَّها ) ، وعَمَّ به بعضُهم الجِمَاعَ .
قال ثَعلب : الأَصْلُ الحَيْضُ ، ثم جُعلَ للنِّكاحِ .
وقال الفرَّاءُ : الافْتِضاضُ ، وهو النِّكاح بالتَّدْميَة ، قال : والطَّمْثُ هو

الدَّمُ ، وهما لُغَتَانِ ، طَمَثَ يَطْمُث ويَطْمِثُ ، والقُرّاءُ أَكثَرُهم على ) لَمْ يَطْمِثْهُنَّ ( ( سورة الرحمن ، الآية : 56 ) بكسرِ الميم .
وقال أَبو الهَيْثَم : يُقَالُ : طُمِثَتْ تطْمَثُ ، أَي أُدْمِيَتْ بالافْتِضاضِ ، وقولُ الفَرَزْدَقِ :
وقعْنَ إِليّ لَمْ يُطْمَثْنَ قَبْلِي
فهُنَّ أَصَحُّ من بَيْضِ النَّعامِ
أَي هُنَّ عَذَارَى غيرُ مُفْتَرَعَاتٍ


( و ) من المجاز : ( الطَّمْثُ : المَس ) ، وذالك في كلّ شيءٍ يُمَسُّ ، ويقال للمَرْتَعِ : ما طَمَثَ ذالِكَ المَرْتَعَ قَبْلَنَا أَحَدٌ ، ومَا طَمَثَ هاذِه النَّاقَةَ حَبْلٌ قَطّ ، أَي ما مَسَّهَا عِقالٌ ، وما طَمَثَ البَعِيرَ حَبْلٌ ، أَي لم يَمَسَّهُ .
وقوله تعالى : ) لَمْ يَطْمِثْهُنَّ إِنسٌ قَبْلَهُمْ وَلاَ جَآنٌّ ( ( سورة الرحمن ، الآية : 56 ) قيل : معناه لم يُمْسَسْنَ . وقال ثعلب : معناه لم يُنْكَحْنَ والعَرَبُ تَقُول : هذا جَمَلٌ ما طَمَثَه حَبْلٌ قَطٌّ ، أَي لم يَمَسَّهُ .

al-Farahidi:

الطمث الافتضاض
وطمثت الجارية افترعتها وقول الله عز وجل ) لم يطمثهن إنس قبلهم ولا جان (
أي لم يمسسهن


Asas al-Balagha:

امرأة طامث ونساء طمث وقد طمثت وطمثت
وطمثها مسها وقيل افتضها
ولا يكون إلا نكاحا بالتدمية لم يطمثهن لم يدمهن بالنكاح عن ابن عباس وقال الفرزدق
<table align="center" border="0" width="80%"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="Shar">دفعن إلي لم يطمثن قبلي </td></tr> <tr> <td class="Shar" align="left">وهن أصح من بيض النعام </td></tr></tbody></table>
ومن المجاز ما طمث هذه الناقة حبل قط

Tahdheeb al-lugha:

طمث : قال الليث : طَمَثْتُ البعيرَ أَطْمِثُه طَمْثاً : إذا عَقَلْتَه ، وطَمَثْتُ الْجارية : إذا افترعْتَها . قال : والطَّامث في لغتهم الحائض .
وقال الله جلّ وعزّ : ) الطَّرْفِ لَمْ يَطْمِثْهُنَّ إِنسٌ قَبْلَهُمْ وَلاَ ( ( الرحمن : 56 ) ، أخبرني المنذريّ عن ابن فهم ، عن محمد بن سلاّم ، عن يونسَ أنه سأَله عن قوله : ) الطَّرْفِ لَمْ ( فقال : تقول العَرَب : هذا جَملٌ ما طمثه حَبل قَطّ ، أي : لم يمَسَّه .
قلت : ونحو ذلك قال أبو عُبيدة . قال : ( لم يطمثهنّ ) : لم يمسَسْهنّ .
سلمة عن الفرّاء قال : الطَّمْثُ : الافتضاض وهو النِّكاح بالتَّدْمية . قال : والطَّمْث : هو الدم ، وهما لُغتان : طَمَث ويطْمِثُ : والقُراء أكثرهم على ) الطَّرْفِ لَمْ ( بكسر الميم .
وقال أبو الهيثم : يقال للمرأة طُمِثَتْ تُطمَثُ ، أي : أُدْمِيَت بالافتضاض ، وطَمِثَتْ على فَعِلَتْ تَطمثُ إذا حاضت أول ما تحيض ، فهي طامث .
وقال في قول الفَرَزدق :
دفعنَ إليَّ لم يُطمثنَ قبْلِي
فهنَّ أصَحُّ من بَيْض النّعامِ
أي : هُنَّ عذارى غير مُفْتَرعَات . انتهى والله أعلم .

Mu'jam Maqayis al-lugha:

ويقال طمث الرجل المرأة مسها بجماع
وهذا في هذا الموضع لا يكون إلا بجماع وحده

[Abuz Zubair]

For the same reason Adam and Eve were together in paradise without having sex.

And what's your proof for that?

Women are not just for sex you know...

What is the wisdom in Allah creating animals in pairs? Why are some of us male and others female?

As for the women having such bodies, how does that mean they have sex? It's obvious that if they are women then they would have breasts and they would have the kind most men like but that doesnt prove anything about sex (babies like breasts too!)

Female breasts are meant to sexually attract men, are they not? Not only that the Quran mentions breasts, but it also describes them as well-rounded, telling us that they are sexually attractive and not just some Avant Garde piece of art!

Babies do not like breasts as such, they need them for feeding. Or are you suggesting that men would only need them for feeding in paradise, too?!

Im just trying to make things clear, this is a good debate and we will both inshaAllah learn something through it. If Im convinced Im wrong I will admit it inshaAllah.

Before you go on debating this, ask yourself, why the need to all of a sudden question this topic now? What is the real basis for you to discuss this? What triggered this question in your head? Why wasn't it triggered centuries before? Why now, only after colonialism?

Why didn't Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud and others have problems with the sexual relations in paradise? Why did they all interpret yatmith-hunna with literally making the virgins bleed by breaking the hymen, in accordance with how the Arabs have understood that word to be? Was it because they were never colonised, and hence, never felt embarrassed to share this knowledge with others?

If today, you are ashamed of this aspect of Islam, who guarantees that tomorrow you won't be ashamed of laa ilaaha illalAllah, because it is too barbaric and controversial in nature?

[Magoo]

i suppose you can just sit and talk to them if you get to jannah.....

[Sawtul Islam]

What is the wisdom in Allah creating animals in pairs? Why are some of us male and others female?

Eve was the comforter and companion of Adam and there is no mention of them having sex and the fact that they never had children is clear evidence of this.

They had sexual intercourse after coming down to earth and after their bodies were deformed (the Qur'an says their bodies were corrupted after eating the fruits).



Female breasts are meant to sexually attract men, are they not? Not only that the Quran mentions breasts, but it also describes them as well-rounded, telling us that they are sexually attractive and not just some Avant Garde piece of art!

Babies do not like breasts as such, they need them for feeding.


Babies do like breasts, why do you think babies bottles are made to look and feel like breasts??

And breasts are attractive to men but not just sexually just like the face and eyes (that the Hooris are best known for). The face can also be attractive both sexually and otherwise.


Before you go on debating this, ask yourself, why the need to all of a sudden question this topic now? What is the real basis for you to discuss this? What triggered this question in your head? Why wasn't it triggered centuries before? Why now, only after colonialism?

Im not centuries old and Im not saying sex in paradise would be immoral if it was true, Im saying there is not enough evidence for it. Surely even if there was sex in paradise it would be different from earthly sex (as everything else is including the women).


Why didn't Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud and others have problems with the sexual relations in paradise? Why did they all interpret yatmith-hunna with literally making the virgins bleed by breaking the hymen, in accordance with how the Arabs have understood that word to be? Was it because they were never colonised, and hence, never felt embarrassed to share this knowledge with others?

Actually one of the brothers quoted earlier that Ibn Abbas (ra) said there would be musical instruments in paradise and later ibn Haatam claimed that he had misheard it...


If today, you are ashamed of this aspect of Islam, who guarantees that tomorrow you won't be ashamed of laa ilaaha illalAllah, because it is too barbaric and controversial in nature?

First of all I dont see why anyone would think laa ilaaha illalAllah is "barbaric" and secondly I wouldnt want to please the kuffar as they are perverts and if I told them there is no sex in paradise it wouldnt really make them like Islam and if anything they would probably hate Islam even more!

[suhailp]

لايزال الناس يتساءلون حتى يقال هذا خلق الله الخلق فمن خلق الله فمن وجد من ذلك شيءا فليقل امنت بالله ورسله
متفق عليه مشكاة المصابيح تحقيق العلامة الالباني رقم 66

May Allah protect our Imaan.

[Abu_Abdallah]

لايزال الناس يتساءلون حتى يقال هذا خلق الله الخلق فمن خلق الله فمن وجد من ذلك شيءا فليقل امنت بالله ورسله
متفق عليه مشكاة المصابيح تحقيق العلامة الالباني رقم 66

May Allah protect our Imaan.

Imaan?!?!

Some lost their Islaam already, don't bother about Imaan..

[abu hafs]

Actually one of the brothers quoted earlier that Ibn Abbas (ra) said there would be musical instruments in paradise and later ibn Haatam claimed that he had misheard it...

Go over and read it again ...u pick and chose


<big>‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood and Ibn ‘Abbaas (mayAllaah be pleased with them both), and Sa’eed ibn al-Musayyib, ‘Ikrimah, al-Hasan, Qutaadah, al-A’mash, Sulaymaan al-Taymi and al-Oozaa’i said concerning the aayaah (interpretation of the meaning), </big>
<big>“Verily, the dwellers of Paradise, that Day, will be busy in joyful things” [Yaa-Seen 36:55] </big>
<big>they said, (it means) they will be busy deflowering virgins.


</big>

[abdul muntaqim]

brother sawtulIslam can you bring any classical scholar who held your view? Would you not submit even if the claim of ijma was made?

It has been said due to the rejection of seeing Allah in judgement day of the mutazali belief; Allah will deny them his face. If you carry on with your strange understanding their is a good chance Allah if he wills deny you the hoor if you obtain jannah.

[Sawtul Islam]

brother sawtulIslam can you bring any classical scholar who held your view? Would you not submit even if the claim of ijma was made?

It has been said due to the rejection of seeing Allah in judgement day of the mutazali belief; Allah will deny them his face. If you carry on with your strange understanding their is a good chance Allah if he wills deny you the hoor if you obtain jannah.

I dont deny the Hoor, I just dont see enough evidence of sexual relations. And how do you know there was ijma on this?

Go over and read it again ...u pick and chose


Well there are two contradictory narrations from ibn Abbas (ra) according to that post, so we have to see which one (if any) is authentic. The same goes for others like ibn Musayyib, we must see who narrated it from them and how authentic the narrations are.

As far as I know Imam Bukhari and Muslim never considered such narrations to be authentic.

[Abu_Abdallah]

brother sawtulIslam can you bring any classical scholar who held your view?

Maybe it would be instructive to cite people like Jahm b. Safwan, Dirar b. 'Amr and other Jahmite-Mutazilite scholars of the past concerning the final absence of the physical pleasure in the hereafter?

Let me tell you of a 'salaf', in the hope some people reflect upon their deviation and in fact their - they might assume unaware - affiliation to the ideas of a group wicked people.

Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani, the heresiographer, mentioned a sub-sect of the Mu'tazilah:

The Khâbitiyyah and the Hadathiyyah

The Khabitiyyah were the followers of Ahmad b. Khâbit, and the Hadathiyyah of al-Fadl al-Hadathi. Both in turn were followers of Nazzâm and studied the works of the philosophers. They added to the teachings of Nazzam three new heresies..

now it comes, the 'salafi' doctrine similar to what we see here:

The Khatibiyyah and the Hadathiyyah also believe that there are five different worlds of which two are abodes of reward. In one of these worlds there are food, drink, consorts, gardens and rivers. In the other, which is higher than this one, there is no eating nor drinking nor consorting, but only spiritual pleasure, repose and ease, having nothing of a bodily nature..

So here you might have a salaf.

[Sawtul Islam]

Maybe it would be instructive to cite people like Jahm b. Safwan, Dirar b. 'Amr and other Jahmite-Mutazilite scholars of the past concerning the final absence of the physical pleasure in the hereafter?

Let me tell you of a 'salaf', in the hope some people reflect upon their deviation and in fact their - they might assume unaware - affiliation to the ideas of a group wicked people.

Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani, the heresiographer, mentioned a sub-sect of the Mu'tazilah:

The Khâbitiyyah and the Hadathiyyah

The Khabitiyyah were the followers of Ahmad b. Khâbit, and the Hadathiyyah of al-Fadl al-Hadathi. Both in turn were followers of Nazzâm and studied the works of the philosophers. They added to the teachings of Nazzam three new heresies..

now it comes, the 'salafi' doctrine similar to what we see here:

The Khatibiyyah and the Hadathiyyah also believe that there are five different worlds of which two are abodes of reward. In one of these worlds there are food, drink, consorts, gardens and rivers. In the other, which is higher than this one, there is no eating nor drinking nor consorting, but only spiritual pleasure, repose and ease, having nothing of a bodily nature..

So here you might have a salaf.

What does this have to do with anything that I've written?? I didnt say there is a higher place in paradise that has no sex, I said there is probably none whatsoever, if there is it would be anywhere in paradise that Allah's wishes.

And also those Jahmis or Mutazilah who quoted were not even talking about sex but eating and drinking in paradise which I never denied.

So your post is totally irrelevant.

[Abu_Abdallah]

What does this have to do with anything that I've written?? I didnt say there is a higher place in paradise that has no sex, I said there is probably none whatsoever, if there is it would be anywhere in paradise that Allah's wishes.

And also those Jahmis or Mutazilah who quoted were not even talking about sex but eating and drinking in paradise which I never denied.

So your post is totally irrelevant.

First, I didn't adress you. I don't adress sick minded people like you.

My point - for others - was to indicate a aspect of similarity between the innovative opinion of today that denies sexual pleasure, with the same denial of it (yes, together with other forms of denial) by people in the past.

So the closest 'salaf' for this denial someone aires here, is that of the Khâbitiyyah (LOL).

:D

PS: If this post isn't relevant, we still have rule 13. Off topic and pointless posts are subject to deletion. So if the moderators like to delete it, they are free to do so. I'm however happy you can't delete the Khâbit tenet of the past which is reflected in part of your belief about Jannah.

[Sawtul Islam]

First, I didn't adress you. I don't adress sick minded people like you.

My point - for others - was to indicate a aspect of similarity between the innovative opinion of today that denies sexual pleasure, with the same denial of it (yes, together with other forms of denial) by people in the past.




And my point was that there is absolutely no similarity, you're just trying to invent one as you are so obsessed with accusing me of being a "Jahmi" especially after I refuted all your posts on the other thread.

[Abu_Abdallah]

And my point was that there is absolutely no similarity, you're just trying to invent one as you are so obsessed with accusing me of being a "Jahmi" especially after I refuted all your posts on the other thread.

What a joke! :D

You know, the most funniest trait of you is to applaud yourself continually by saying 'I refuted him', 'I refuted you' or 'None refuted me'.

Instead of that laughable attitude, you could better let the public judge things. Let them see whether you refuted anyone, anything.

Let them see what is relevant or not.

[Sawtul Islam]

What a joke! :D

You know, the most funniest trait of you is to applaud yourself continually by saying 'I refuted him', 'I refuted you' or 'None refuted me'.

Instead of that laughable attitude, you could better let the public judge things. Let them see whether you refuted anyone, anything.

Let them see what is relevant or not.

First, I didn't adress you. I don't adress sick minded people like you.


It's laughable how fast you contradict yourself and how you so easily accuse people of belonging to a heretical sect without proof but are bothered so much when someone says that you've been refuted.

[Abu_Abdallah]

It's laughable how fast you contradict yourself and how you so easily accuse people of belonging to a heretical sect without proof but are bothered so much when someone says that you've been refuted.

I havent contradicted anything, sofar.

It is rather astonishing that you are the only one who seems to see that.

And nothing bothers me, really. Don't think you're that important!

It is is simply amusing to see you, alone, to applaud for your 'refutation'.. :D

Is this the way you please your ego? What a joke..

And yes, you are a Jahmite.

[Sawtul Islam]

And yes, you are a Jahmite.

If I am, then may I go to hell, and if I'm not may Allah forgive you.

Ameen

[abu_ibrahim]

If I am, then may I go to hell, and if I'm not may Allah forgive you.

Ameen

Supplicating to go to hell if you are a Jahmi lol. Also if someone gets tired of answering your posts, its because you "refuted" them. You are one funny guy.

[Sawtul Islam]

Supplicating to go to hell if you are a Jahmi lol. Also if someone gets tired of answering your posts, its because you "refuted" them. You are one funny guy.

I didn't exactly refute anyone on this thread, but on this thread http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=7796 which is the one I was referring to I did.

As far as this thread is concerned, I have seen that there is some evidence in support of "sex in paradise" but there is not enough evidence and so there is little reason to believe it as there is no clear proof.

The best evidence was from Tirmidhi's Sunan and we must remember that a significant number of narrations that Imam Tirmidhi considered to be "Sahih" were considered weak by other scholars such as Imam Bukhari.

The fact that Tirmidhi also states that the Hadith is Ghareeb and that nothing like it is narrated in the Sahihayn makes the Hadith doubtful.

[Sawtul Islam]

It was narrated from Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The believer in Paradise will be given such and such strength for sexual intercourse.” He was asked, “O Messenger of Allaah, will he really be able to do that?” He said, “He will be given the strength of one hundred (men).” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, no. 2459. He said, (it is) saheeh ghareeb).


I couldn't find this Hadith in Tirmidhi under the chaper of Shahada or under number 2459. Can you give a link to Tirmidhi directly to this Hadith?

[Sawtul Islam]

I found the Hadith in Tirmidhi:


حدثنا محمد بن بشار، ومحمود بن غيلان، قالا حدثنا أبو داود الطيالسي، عن عمران القطان، عن قتادة، عن أنس، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ‏"‏ يعطى المؤمن في الجنة قوة كذا وكذا من الجماع ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قيل يا رسول الله أويطيق ذلك قال ‏"‏ يعطى قوة مائة ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وفي الباب عن زيد بن أرقم ‏.‏ قال أبو عيسى هذا حديث صحيح غريب لا نعرفه من حديث قتادة عن أنس إلا من حديث عمران القطان

Tirmidhi says this Hadith is ONLY narrated by Imran ibn Qattan (that is why it's Qareeb). But it says the Hadith is "Sahih Qareeb" meaning it is still Sahih according to Tirmidhi but not known to be narrated by anyone else besides Imran ibn Qattan.



Now intrestingly al-Zawa'id says that Imran ibn Qattan is "Imran ibn Sawud abdul Awan al-Qattan who is a disputed narrator."

It seems among the greatest Hadith compilors only Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah considered him to be authentic, and Imam Ahmad also narrated from him but the Musnad was not meant to be all authentic.

So this Hadith which is the most authentic Hadith so far quoted in support of sex in paradise is not considered to be authentic by all and its Only narrator is disputable.

As I said earlier, the fact that Bukhari and Muslim never narrated any such thing and there is nothing authentic by their standards in support of sex in paradise and the fact that the Qur'an doesnt say it either even though it goes to some detail about Jannah, I would have to conclude that there is probably (almost certainly) NO SEX IN PARADISE!

[FlagBearer]

AsSalaamu 'Alaykum

Let me guess, next you're going to quote Mr Hanson and say the references to the hoors are 'merely allegorical', right?

The book brother Abu Talha put up deals with it well.

Wa 'Alaykum asSalaam
-FlagBearer-

[Sawtul Islam]

AsSalaamu 'Alaykum

Let me guess, next you're going to quote Mr Hanson and say the references to the hoors are 'merely allegorical', right?

The book brother Abu Talha put up deals with it well.

Wa 'Alaykum asSalaam
-FlagBearer-

The book doesnt quote any narrations that are in Sahih Bukhari or Muslim or even authentic by their standards in support of sex in paradise.

The most authentic one is "disputable" and "qareeb" (it is ONLY narrated by a disputable narrator).

I have not proven that there is no sex in paradise, but I have shown that there is no clear Proof in support of it either.

I never said the Hoors are "allegorical" or anything even similair so please dont say anything unless it's worth saying.

[Abu Abdur-Rahman]

im very new to this forum and so far Alhamdulilah ive benefited alot, however i began reading this thread and after 2 pages i gave up. Akhie sawtalislam, inshaAllah if we all get there(jannah) may Allah grant it to us, i might contemplate on taking a break from the confirmed 'pleasures' just to come and visit you and check if you to found the promises of Allah and His Messenger to be true. Im sure you'll have a big smile on your face.

[mika]

Hi,

You guys seems to be really keen on this virgin-thing.

How would this really work, I mean, the girls up there would only be virgin after the first "go", after that they would not be virgins any more, what would then happen with the poor girls..
Would they "regenerate" themself back into virgins again, so you, so to say, would "recycle" them?

Also, imagine, these girls will be BUSY..., will you allow them to now and then have a breake or a minor vacation, to "recharge" the batteries?

By the way, if you muslim men are getting virgins, what is the muslim women getting in heaven will they get an endless supply of chippendale like men, standing by to "service" the muslim women day and night..........?

It is unbeliveable what Allah do to you, to try to lure into the belife of Islam.........

Mika

[abu hafs]

You Mika, has no need to know it .

[Sawtul Islam]

Hi,

You guys seems to be really keen on this virgin-thing.

How would this really work, I mean, the girls up there would only be virgin after the first "go", after that they would not be virgins any more, what would then happen with the poor girls..
Would they "regenerate" themself back into virgins again, so you, so to say, would "recycle" them?

Also, imagine, these girls will be BUSY..., will you allow them to now and then have a breake or a minor vacation, to "recharge" the batteries?

By the way, if you muslim men are getting virgins, what is the muslim women getting in heaven will they get an endless supply of chippendale like men, standing by to "service" the muslim women day and night..........?

It is unbeliveable what Allah do to you, to try to lure into the belife of Islam.........

Mika



Well if you read my posts you will see that I just showed there is not enough evidence from Islamic texts in support of the idea of "sex in paradise" and that our most authentic books of Hadith and the Qur'an never mention it.

[FlagBearer]

AsSalaamu 'Alaykum

Has anyone else noticed how the 'virgins of Jannah' is all these kuffaar can think about?

And they call the muslims who fight, 'sexually fustrated'. Ha!

Abu Hafs said it best though.

Wa 'Alaykum asSalaam
-FlagBearer-

[Abu Abdur-Rahman]

Mika eventhough others may just rightly ignore you i feel you need some advice. I dont think the confirmed 'rewards' of paradise should be important to you at the momment as you are in quite a predicament.

The pleasures of jannah are reserved for those who believe in Al-Islam, the way of life that frees man from worshipping false gods and idols so that they may turn back to The Creator of you and me.

A muslim submitts and obeys their Creator in hope of His mercy and in fear of His Punishment. How can one disbelieve when the signs of our Creator are all around us, the skies and its adornments contain so many unsolved mysteries and explanations yet the acknowledgement of the power of The One who put them there is not understood.

Our Lord created us and understands us more than we understand ourselves and independent and infinite in his wisdom and mercy. A disbeliever has to first understand this and come to the true realisation of his purpose otherwise any answer we may give you even if its agrees with your ration will be of no use.

We worship and obey none but Allah we beleive in his Lordship and affirm his perfect Names and Attributes we will live as muslims in this short journey of life and return will get our reward.

For you unfortunately you may have far greater concerns as Allah is most just and has promised you something in return for your deeds.

“This, because you took the Revelations of Allaah (this Qur’aan) in mockery, and the life of the world deceived you. So this Day, they shall not be taken out from there (Hell), nor shall they be returned to the worldly life (so that they repent to Allaah, and beg His Pardon for their sins)”

[al-Jaathiyah 45:35]

“Surely, those who disbelieved in Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), We shall burn them in Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for other skins that they may taste the punishment”

[al-Nisa’ 4:56]

contemplate and ponder upon your destination if you continue on the path your upon and know that Allah is most merciful to those who turn to Him and lest us muslims continue discussing the delights of jannah that you may never get to even smell.

[mika]

Hello again,

abu hafs, Sawtul Islam, FlagBearer and Abu Abdur-Rahman come on, you must admit that there are some practical issues that have to be solved with all these virgins, don't you agree? ;)

Abuz Zubair you seems pretty keen on this idear about an endless stream of virgins, do you agree that there is some practical problems to solve as stated in my earlier input to this thread?

To the women in here:

If the muslim men get virgins, what do you muslim women get?


Abu Abdur-Rahman wrote a long lecture to me since he felt that he needed to " advise" me.

Basically Abu Abdur-Rahmans "advise" is just one long THREAT, typically for Islam.
Abu Abdur-Rahmans threats do not work on me

Do not listen to people like Abu Abdur-Rahmans !

BR
Mika

[gag order]

come on, you must admit that there are some practical issues that have to be solved with all these virgins, don't you agree? ;) not your problem so dont worry about it....

[Umm]

I'm all for dialogue, but seriously, where will the line be drawn? Br Hamza is censored for using s-o-d and this ignorant man comes on with his fag and incest agenda, claiming Allah is a man-made concept?! Which is more serious?

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

Do not listen to people like Abu Abdur-Rahmans !


clearly, you aren't able to respond coherently to his arguments...

[Umm Ahmed]

Of course Umm , what Mika says is very serious ,but Hamza is a muslim and he has higher morals than Mika.
Mika is at the end of the rope now and knows he hasn't a foot to stand on , this is why he has finally admitted that he is an atheist . He also has repeatedly said on this forum he does not need anyone to tell him how to behave , yet he now is behaving very badly.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

Well if you read my posts you will see that I just showed there is not enough evidence from Islamic texts in support of the idea of "sex in paradise" and that our most authentic books of Hadith and the Qur'an never mention it.

hope you don't take this the wrong way... but as many have now noted, your posts are marked by a characteristic timidity in which your main focus appears to be compunctious, apologetic screeds or attempted appeasement of those who have no interest in truth.

the above post is a prime example of that.

[gag order]

As I said earlier, the fact that Bukhari and Muslim never narrated any such thing and there is nothing authentic by their standards in support of sex in paradise and the fact that the Qur'an doesnt say it either even though it goes to some detail about Jannah, I would have to conclude that there is probably (almost certainly) NO SEX IN PARADISE!the quran mentions the pairing of 'mates' as in 'mating' does it not? also just becos its not in bukhari or muslim does not necassarily mean the narrations about having the sexual strenght of a hundred men are false.

its an 'approved' tradition that is 'well known' and 'widely accepted' and is a degree less than shahih but is offset purely on the fact that it didnt satisfy bukhari and muslims criteria for transmission. those compilers who recorded it did not classify it as any of the following:

'weak'
'broken'
'isolated'
'disjointed'
'forged'
'dissaproved'
'deceptive'

[Abu Abdur-Rahman]

Hello again,

abu hafs, Sawtul Islam, FlagBearer and Abu Abdur-Rahman come on, you must admit that there are some practical issues that have to be solved with all these virgins, don't you agree? ;)

Abuz Zubair you seems pretty keen on this idear about an endless stream of virgins, do you agree that there is some practical problems to solve as stated in my earlier input to this thread?

To the women in here:

If the muslim men get virgins, what do you muslim women get?


Abu Abdur-Rahman wrote a long lecture to me since he felt that he needed to " advise" me.

Basically Abu Abdur-Rahmans "advise" is just one long THREAT, typically for Islam.
Abu Abdur-Rahmans threats do not work on me

Do not listen to people like Abu Abdur-Rahmans !

BR
Mika


1/ like i said there is no point in discussing the issues relating to the rewards of paradise as one who does not beleive in Allah will never understand or accept the 'practicality' of things.

2/ to the muslim women honoured with purity and islam, May Allah reward you for your good deeds and forgive your shortcomings, Allah swt has promised you a due reward and im sure many of you if not all are aware of what Allah swt has reserved for you..poor try mika, you are amongst those who are muwahid and obedient to their Lord so your attempt to create doubt is futile and indeed the plot of shaytaan is weak and feeble.

3/ I make no threats for i will be alone on yaumal qiyamah(day of judgement) when our enemy shaytaan will distance himself from that which he whispered to us and from whatever evil he invited us to, yet those who disbelieve will have no excuse and will be thrown into the hellfire together with the head of the shayateen. It is He who has raised the heavens and earths, it is He who gives life and takes life, it is He would created the mountains as pegs and it is He(Allah) who will destroy all of creation the way in the same ease in which he created it, who has made the threat. YOUR LORD and mine has promised you a return for your disbelief. Yet you may be guided to the truth before your end, and i ask Allah swt to guide you to the deen of truth...i will continue to remind you of these things so that you may ponder deeply, many worse in disbelief than you have turned in submission to Allah and have realised their natural dispostion(fitrah).

Mika you are on this forum spreading mischief yet your heart may not be sealed, it maybe hard but the light of islam is drawing you closer to question your beliefs and perhaps you may start to have concern over your final destination. You will only face justice and faith on this forum so if you truley hate islam, i advise you to leave as you are only increasing the iman of the believers and making us appreciate the gift we share. Or stay and let your heart be softened as it is now, the first reaction is always rejection and even hatred but the truth cannot be concealed forever.

[Sawtul Islam]

the quran mentions the pairing of 'mates' as in 'mating' does it not?

We would be paired with them the way Adam and Eve were before the fall. As I explained earlier all the evidence suggests that Adam and Eve never had sex in paradise.



also just becos its not in bukhari or muslim does not necassarily mean the narrations about having the sexual strenght of a hundred men are false.

I didnt say it's definitely false just that there is no proper proof. There is some evidence but it's not enough and as I showed the most authentic evidence is disputable and most of the greatest scholars did not consider it authentic.



its an 'approved' tradition that is 'well known' and 'widely accepted' and is a degree less than shahih but is offset purely on the fact that it didnt satisfy bukhari and muslims criteria for transmission.

There is a reason why NONE of them satisfied Bukhari or Muslim's criteria, dont you think? There is something wrong with the chains and this suggests that such narrations may be fabricated.


those compilers who recorded it did not classify it as any of the following:

'weak'
'broken'
'isolated'
'disjointed'
'forged'
'dissaproved'
'deceptive'

Well the ones who recorded it may not have but others did (read my first post on this thread on page 1)

[gag order]

We know this because they didnt have children in paradise so they didnt have sex and there is no evidence that they did from Qur'an or Hadith.they also ate but never used the toilet........!

[gag order]

Well the ones who recorded it may not have but others did (read my first post on this thread on page 1)i dont think so since we are both discussing two different traditions....

[Al_Zahir_Baybars]

This might be a little off topic but I just wanted to throw it out there.

I don't want this to sound the wrong way but, Is it legitamate to assume that there may be more to heaven than Castles, Fields, rivers, and virgins?, I mean is it not possible that being free of the constraints of time and space and all physical laws and parameters one could traverse the universe? While all the other rewards are great there is so much I would like to know that I could never know as a human. Or would my earthly desires be overcome by what may await? Or can this question not be answered?

[gag order]

for those who dont believe in intimate relations in paradise can always fast and lower their gaze;)

[Skillganon]

This might be a little off topic but I just wanted to throw it out there.

I don't want this to sound the wrong way but, Is it legitamate to assume that there may be more to heaven than Castles, Fields, rivers, and virgins?, I mean is it not possible that being free of the constraints of time and space and all physical laws and parameters one could traverse the universe? While all the other rewards are great there is so much I would like to know that I could never know as a human. Or would my earthly desires be overcome by what may await? Or can this question not be answered?

Well lets put it this way you would be very content there.

[Abu_Abdallah]

Well lets put it this way you would be very content there.

This made me smile :). Nicely put brother!

May Allah make us inhabitants of it.

[JayshAllah]

Well if you read my posts you will see that I just showed there is not enough evidence from Islamic texts in support of the idea of "sex in paradise" and that our most authentic books of Hadith and the Qur'an never mention it.

You have got to be kidding me... Bro, sometimes the things you say!!!

[Sawtul Islam]

You have got to be kidding me... Bro, sometimes the things you say!!!

What do you mean?

The Qur'an doesnt say it, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim dont either, there is also no Hadith authentic by their standards that says it, and the most authentic Hadith that does say it is in Tirmidhi which according to Tirmidhi is "Sahih Qareeb" meaning Authentic but singular, meaning that only one man (Imran ibn Qahtan) narrated it and this is while Imran ibn Qahtan was a Disputed narrator and very few scholars considered him to be authentic while others did not (as I showed earlier). He is known to have narrated many narrations from Qatadah that NO ONE ELSE NARRATED and so it is very likely that he fabricated Hadith.

There is also another Hadith in Sunan ibn Majah that supports sex in paradise, but according to many scholars that Hadith is WEAK (read my first post on this thread).

So we have no such narrations in Bukhari or Muslim, and in the Sahih Sittah (6 most authentic books) we have 2 and one of them is Weak and the other is DISPUTED and SINGULAR.

So in conclusion, there is not enough evidence in support of sex in paradise.

[gag order]

He is known to have narrated many narrations from Qatadah that NO ONE ELSE NARRATED and so it is very likely that he fabricated Hadith. so its sahih-gharib according to tirmidhi's reasearch but 'fabricated' according to your research? perhaps the narrators memory is disputed and not his credentials, ever thought why its declared authentic in principle but with reservations on transmission? you should really pay attention, i mentioned this already...

[Sawtul Islam]

so its sahih-gharib according to tirmidhi's reasearch but 'fabricated' according to your research? perhaps the narrators memory is disputed and not his credentials, ever thought why its declared authentic in principle but with reservations on transmission? you should really pay attention, i mentioned this already...

He is only "Sahih" according to Tirmidhi and ibn Majah among the greatest scholars of Hadith, others dont agree to his authenticity and since he narrated many ahadith from Qatadah that no one else did it is likely that he fabricated Hadith or gave wrong isnad for them.

And sorry I made a mistake he is Imran ibn Qattan (not Qahtan)

[gag order]

so, your making an assumption that even tirmizi didnt make?
(ie. likely to have fabricated it)

[Sawtul Islam]

so, your making an assumption that even tirmizi didnt make?
(ie. likely to have fabricated it)

What do you mean by "even tirmizi"?? He was one of the few people who thought it's authentic.

What Im saying is that since it is only narrated by 1 person who is a Disputed narrator and who used to narrate a lot of unknown ahadith from Qatadah that no one else narrated, then it is possible that it is fabricated.

If we are to believe in something there should be more evidence than a Weak Hadith and a Disputed and Singular Hadith. Do you base your beliefs on a few doubtful narrations?

[Scented Blood]

Some of us will be aiming even higher...

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=9A3A1541011CA51E

[alkhidr1]

assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

Sawtul Islam has good arguments and proof while for the opposite opinion, there isn't a good one.

We should follow the evidence insa'allah, and not stories we are told by our grandparents.

Besides that, it is not an important question. Allah s.w.t. has promised Jannah to the muslims and it is something that no eye has seen, no ear has heard and no heart had fealt yet. I do not need to know if it's 71, 72 or 73 women, and I don't need to know if it's about sex at all, because I trust in Allah s.w.t. and regardless if the hadeeth is true or not it would not change anything for us in Dunya.

Regarding the hadeeth, there is no reason to consider it saheeh, as the brother has already pointed out.

May Allah s.w.t. guide us the right way and keep inventions in the religion from us.

[gag order]

Sawtul Islam has good arguments and proof while for the opposite opinion, there isn't a good one.er, he doesn't have proof, its the lack of it that he is arguing...

just as there is seemingly no proof that suggests there would be intimate relations, there is also no evidence stating that there won't be any intimacy either if you get what i mean?

[Abu_Abdallah]

assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

Sawtul Islam has good arguments and proof while for the opposite opinion, there isn't a good one.

We should follow the evidence insa'allah, and not stories we are told by our grandparents.

Besides that, it is not an important question. Allah s.w.t. has promised Jannah to the muslims and it is something that no eye has seen, no ear has heard and no heart had fealt yet. I do not need to know if it's 71, 72 or 73 women, and I don't need to know if it's about sex at all, because I trust in Allah s.w.t. and regardless if the hadeeth is true or not it would not change anything for us in Dunya.

Regarding the hadeeth, there is no reason to consider it saheeh, as the brother has already pointed out.

May Allah s.w.t. guide us the right way and keep inventions in the religion from us.

Masha'Allah!

Instead of finding a support from the common Muslims who visit the forum from time to time, we have a new registered one. Welcome!

Now, hoping that beside new visitors also old ones will agree with Sawtul Kufr,

PS: don't forget to introduce yourself :D

[Sawtul Islam]

er, he doesn't have proof, its the lack of it that he is arguing...

just as there is seemingly no proof that suggests there would be intimate relations, there is also no evidence stating that there won't be any intimacy either if you get what i mean?

There is actually evidence which is the example of Adam and Eve. Of course there is no clear statement saying "there is no sex in paradise" but there's also no clear statement that "there are no horned cats with wings in paradise" either, that doesnt mean we should believe in it.

Im saying for us to believe in something there must be sufficient evidence but there certainly isnt so we dont have to believe it. There may still be a possiblity that it may be true but if it is we will see in paradise but we have no reason to believe it until then.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah

Birds of a feather....
Shaykh Abu 'Abdallah, the hadith of the khawarij continuing uptill the end of times is well known. Is there something about jahmies continuing too, or they somehow under the generality of khawarij.

PS: i know it is a stupid question...just wondering

[alkhidr1]

er, he doesn't have proof, its the lack of it that he is arguing...

just as there is seemingly no proof that suggests there would be intimate relations, there is also no evidence stating that there won't be any intimacy either if you get what i mean?

It's just that there is no real proof *for* the theory most of you are defending as far as I have seen. We do not believe in things that "might be" or "someone said" but we believe in the word of Allah s.w.t. and in the word of the prophet a.s. and this narration is not considered strong enough to be called the word of the prophet a.s. I do not say that the hadeeth is wrong but there is just no reason to accept it as completely saheeh thus there is no reason to claim "it will be that way in Jannah".

And we do not believe in things because we like it or not, but because we have proof. This whole virgin story is very common, yes. Almost everyone knows it. But does that make it true?

By the way, Allah s.w.t. sais in the Qur'an that there is no such fluids of the body which are najasah in Jannah and we consider both the male and female fluids najasah which require ghusl.

[gag order]

your argument sir, is based on assumption ie intimacy is not mentioned therefore there is no intimacy whilst my argument is based on a tradition although disputed by you, clearly suggests that there is intimacy.

so i leave it to you, my argument in favour of intimacy that is well substantiated or your argument that neither acknowledges or denies intimacy....!

[alkhidr1]

your argument sir, is based on assumption ie intimacy is not mentioned therefore there is no intimacy whilst my argument is based on a tradition although disputed by you, clearly suggests that there is intimacy.

Noone said "no intimacy at all" as far as I remember.

It's just that you can't say "there will be intimacy" for sure without any reliable evidence.

I personally do not care at all if there will be intimacy or not, I trust in Allah s.w.t. and I trust his promise that Jannah will be better than that what any eye has seen, any ear has heard, and heart has felt.

Often hadeeth just seed fitnah in the hearts of the believers because you can't tell for sure if the hadeeth is true or not. We shouldn't waste time with such valueless information, and I do not mean that jannah is valueless but the knowledge itself what jannah will exactly be like is far less important than the knowledge how to get there. Knowing in dunya if there will be 70 or 72 or 80 or 100 virgins in akhira, insa'allah, does not bring me closer to Allah s.w.t.

[gag order]

Noone said "no intimacy at all" as far as I remember.sawtul islam said that there is no intimacy at all.

It's just that you can't say "there will be intimacy" for sure without any reliable evidence.the hadith presented was declared authentic in principle by tirmizi although he was not entirely satisfied with its transmission.

We shouldn't waste time with such valueless informationtell that to sawtul islam, its his thread not mine.

[Sawtul Islam]

sawtul islam said that there is no intimacy at all.


I said there is no sex (depends on what you mean by "intimacy")

[Mazhara]

Allah will not admit anyone in paradise but Allah the Mighty and Glorious will marry him with seventy two wives. Two will be from Hooris/virgins with big eyes and seventy will be his inheritance from the people of hell fire.

This creates a mathematical problem/contradiction. In another Hadith it is stated that number of women in hell will be greater. How would you reconcile the both?
Thanks.

[Abu Ma'mar]

lol, are you serious?

Do you think the majority of mankind will be janah?

Only a few will believe so why do you automatically think there is a mathematical problem, and not just think that even if there is 72 Allah and his messenger spoke the truth and said that the majority of people in hell will be women as majority of creation will be in hell fire?

why not check your head before thinking there is something wrong with what rasul sallahu 'alayhi wa salam said?

You hadith rejectors make me sick really.

[Sawtul Islam]

You hadith rejectors make me sick really.

Do Imams Nasai, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Abdu Dawood also make you sick? Because all of these men declared the narrator of this Hadith to be WEAK/Dhaeef. A Hadith is Weak when 1 or more of the narrators are Weak.

[Abu Ma'mar]

I was talking about women being more in hellfire, and rejecting that hadith, not rejecting that hadith.

Your an idiot and i wont waste my time arguing with an argumentative kaafir like you.

[Sawtul Islam]

I was talking about women being more in hellfire, and rejecting that hadith, not rejecting that hadith.

Your an idiot and i wont waste my time arguing with an argumentative kaafir like you.


You were responding to this post:

This creates a mathematical problem/contradiction. In another Hadith it is stated that number of women in hell will be greater. How would you reconcile the both?
Thanks.


You then attempted to refute the poster by claiming that there is no contradiction between the "sex in paradise" hadith and the one about there being more women in hell than men.



Your an idiot and i wont waste my time arguing with an argumentative kaafir like you.

Ibn `Umar reported that the Prophet (saw) said: Any person who calls his brother: "O Kafir!" this would return to one of them. If it is true, (then it is) as he asserted, (but if it is not true), then it returns to him (and thus the person who made the accusation is a Kafir).
[Sahih Muslim]

[islamic@rebel]

A Hadith is Weak when 1 or more of the narrators are Weak.

Not necessarily. A hadith's weakness can be rectified when there are witnessing or corroborative reports, as with the hadith of Anas which is witnessed by the hadith of Zaid bin Arqam.

A hadith might have a weak narrator in it, but the hadith itself might not be weak. Moreover, Ibn Hajr classified Al-Qattan to be Saduq yahim, which means that he can be used as hujjah if there are shawahid or mutaba'at reports. Suffice for us that Imam Al-Albani has authenticated this hadith, alongside other people. Give us one name of an expert in hadith who has weakened this hadith brother.

Anyway you still haven't answered Abuz Zubair. I believe he has answered you sufficiently. I didn't want to prolong this thread, but for Allah's sake I didn't want you to walk away thinking you're right after Abuz Zubair showed that you're in error. And by the way, Imam Ahmad did not weaken Al-Qattan.

And to add to that, you should really learn the names of the narrators properly. It makes you less qualified to discuss about the authenticity of a hadith when you don't know their names.

Originally Posted by Mazhara
This creates a mathematical problem/contradiction. In another Hadith it is stated that number of women in hell will be greater. How would you reconcile the both?
Thanks.

That hadith (i.e 2 + 70) has been declared weak by Al-Albani.

[Sawtul Islam]

You are confusing a lot of things here.

Not necessarily. A hadith's weakness can be rectified when there are witnessing or corroborative reports, as with the hadith of Anas which is witnessed by the hadith of Zaid bin Arqam.

I was talking about the Hadith of Abu Umamah in Sunan ibn Majah, not the one from Anas in Tirmidhi.

Also for a weak Hadith to be rectified there must be 100% authentic narrations that narrate the same Hadith not a bunch of other weak and disputed narrations.


And by the way, Imam Ahmad did not weaken Al-Qattan.


I said he declared Khalid ibn Yazid to be weak, I never said he declared Qattan to be weak.



A hadith might have a weak narrator in it, but the hadith itself might not be weak. Moreover, Ibn Hajr classified Al-Qattan to be Saduq yahim, which means that he can be used as hujjah if there are shawahid or mutaba'at reports. Suffice for us that Imam Al-Albani has authenticated this hadith, alongside other people. Give us one name of an expert in hadith who has weakened this hadith brother.

According to al-Zawaid al-Qattan is a disputed narrator whom very few scholars considered to be authentic, however it does not mention those who did not, so I dont know if others declared him Dhaeef or Munkar or Mawdoo, all I know is that most scholars did not consider him authentic and that explains why Sahih Bukhari and Muslim and most other authentic books do not mention this hadith.



Anyway you still haven't answered Abuz Zubair. I believe he has answered you sufficiently.
Which post are you referring to??




And to add to that, you should really learn the names of the narrators properly. It makes you less qualified to discuss about the authenticity of a hadith when you don't know their names.

I wrote the name right the first time then later made a mistake on another post and then corrected it, what's the problem? It was just a small mistake which I pointed to myself, Im not infallible.

[islamic@rebel]

I may be confused, but you might be mistaken.

was talking about the Hadith of Abu Umamah in Sunan ibn Majah, not the one from Anas in Tirmidhi.

Firstly, no one is disputing that hadith is weak. Weakening that hadith doesn't serve any purpose here.

Also for a weak Hadith to be rectified there must be 100% authentic narrations that narrate the same Hadith not a bunch of other weak and disputed narrations.

Akhi who taught you that? Which book of Mustalah that you learn that from? Haven't you heard of Hasan li ghairih? Do not make things as you go along.

According to al-Zawaid al-Qattan is a disputed narrator whom very few scholars considered to be authentic, however it does not mention those who did not, so I dont know if others declared him Dhaeef or Munkar or Mawdoo, all I know is that most scholars did not consider him authentic and that explains why Sahih Bukhari and Muslim and most other authentic books do not mention this hadith.

Akhi so you did not open a book of rijal to find out? Ibnu hajr declared him to be saduq yahimu. So did Al-Bukhari. And some considered him to be thiqah. And what do you mean most other authentic books? He is a narrator of the books of Sunan.

wrote the name right the first time then later made a mistake on another post and then corrected it, what's the problem? It was just a small mistake which I pointed to myself, Im not infallible.

It just goes to show that you are not acquainted with the whole thing. It might be a small thing to you, but not knowing or mispelling a narrators name gives the impression to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

Which post are you referring to??

To be frank, all of his posts.

So my final points are:
1)The hadith found in Tirmidhi has been declared authentic by experts, barakallahu feek :).
And secondly, you do not know anything about mustalah.

[islamic@rebel]

Akhi so you did not open a book of rijal to find out? Ibnu hajr declared him to be saduq yahimu. So did Al-Bukhari. And some considered him to be thiqah. And what do you mean most other authentic books? He is a narrator of the books of Sunan.

Ok to be fair, and just on a side note, Arna'ut disagreed with ibnu hajr and considered al-qattan to be dha'if.

[Sawtul Islam]

Firstly, no one is disputing that hadith is weak. Weakening that hadith doesn't serve any purpose here.

Yeah but my point was you were responding to my post about that weak hadith.



Akhi who taught you that? Which book of Mustalah that you learn that from? Haven't you heard of Hasan li ghairih? Do not make things as you go along.




He is a narrator of the books of Sunan.

But not the Sahihayn.



My point is, there is not enough evidence. Looking at the Sahih Sittah we have none from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawood, and 1 from Tirmidhi which is at the very least Disputed And singular and another from Sunan ibn Majah which is weak.

Other narrations are from books like ibn Hibban and al-Zawaid which have a lot of weak ahadith and are not the best Hadith books.

So there is obviously no proof that there will be sex in paradise and my personal opinion also is that there isnt and have no reason to believe it.

[alkhidr1]

Suffice for us that Imam Al-Albani has authenticated this hadith, alongside other people. Give us one name of an expert in hadith who has weakened this hadith brother.

[..]

That hadith (i.e 2 + 70) has been declared weak by Al-Albani.

Albaanee was ridiculous, 1400 years after the words were spoken out which we read now in hadeeth books, he just came up and picked some out which he thought were saheeh and some which he thought were daeef.

How can he come up now 1400 years later and judge which person living at that time was credible and which was not.

He was a worker for the apostate Saudi regime, nothing more. They needed some people with hadeeth knowledge for faking. You will hardly find a book of hadeeth today which was not "abrogated" or at least commented by one of those servants of the Saudi Tawagheet.

There are big books about Albaanees mistakes, he did many of them.

We can talk about anything but please not Albaanee. The last thing we need today is this murjia dhalaal.

[Abuz Zubair]

Albaanee was ridiculous, 1400 years after the words were spoken out which we read now in hadeeth books, he just came up and picked some out which he thought were saheeh and some which he thought were daeef.

How can he come up now 1400 years later and judge which person living at that time was credible and which was not.

He was a worker for the apostate Saudi regime, nothing more. They needed some people with hadeeth knowledge for faking. You will hardly find a book of hadeeth today which was not "abrogated" or at least commented by one of those servants of the Saudi Tawagheet.

There are big books about Albaanees mistakes, he did many of them.

We can talk about anything but please not Albaanee. The last thing we need today is this murjia dhalaal.

lol.... sorry, who did you say was ridiculous?

When firing a gun, the barrel has to be aimed at the enemy, not against your own head. That's called suicide :)

[Abu Ma'mar]

LOL......

Ive never met a takfeeri who disagrees with ahadith on pleasure with hoori's in janah.

So are you a soofi takfeeri??

And one question: is it easier for someone to give a correct grading on a hadith in those times or someone today who has all the books of jarh wa ta'deel in front of him and has all the opinions of all the scholars at his disposal???

What a joker

[alkhidr1]

Think about it before crying "takfeeri".

Real knowledge is the knowledge of tawheed, and everyone who understood tawheed rejects the tawagheet of today like the Saudi ones.

The people of knowledge said that knowledge is not knowing many hadeeth but Taqwah but this Albaanee did not have taqwah he obeyed the taghoot.

Abdullah ibn Masood said:
Knowledge is not knowing many hadeeth; without a doubt, only Tawah is knowledge.

Imaam Malik said:
Knowledge is not to know many concerns.

Thus, Albaanee was not a scholar and he did not have knowledge. He memorized many hadeeth but he was in the service of Iblees. There are kaafir "orientalists" who know better arabic than some muslim scholars, there are kaafir "islam scientists" who know more hadeeth and more tafseer than many muslims in this forum here. So what do you want to proof with your claim "Albaanee knew many books"?

You don't even know what takfeeri means in Arabic, thats why you call me one. And you talk about knowledge?

[Abu Ma'mar]

LOL @ your whole post.


If i keep on saying im on the moon , i still wont be on the moon. Likewise the more you say your not a takfeeri still wont change the fact that you are a hardcore takfeeri.


Ajeeb.... a takfeeri who rejects relations with hoor al-'ayn !?!? Never thought i would see that.

Dont you wach jihadi video's ? Thats their biggest selling point for the youth.

[Umm]

Thus, Albaanee was not a scholar and he did not have knowledge. He memorized many hadeeth but he was in the service of Iblees.

That's a very evil statement to make, especially in one of the inviolable months.

[Abuz Zubair]

Dont you wach jihadi video's ? Thats their biggest selling point for the youth.

Jelly beans?

http://www.4jellybean.com/images/jelly_beans/jelly_beans_250x251.jpg

[alkhidr1]

I named the servants of Iblees and of the Saudi tawagheet that what they are, so I have to be a takfeeri now? :rolleyes:

Please learn some arabic and learn the basics of Islaam, read books of the scholars of Islaam and then we can talk again insa'allah.

In your posts here you use words you don't understand and you make false assumptions, it is a waste of time to talk without until you don't have knowledge of tawheed and until you are able to recognise the dalaal.

[alkhidr1]

That's a very evil statement to make, especially in one of the inviolable months.

Especially in the blessed months we speak out the truth! It is not evil, it is just truth you do not want to hear!

[Abuz Zubair]

alkhidr, do you have any idea how idiotic you sound by questioning how Sh al-Albani can authenticate narrations transmitted by men died thousands of years ago. Do you have slightest of idea?

[alkhidr1]

Maybe it sounds idiotic to you because you absorbed their propaganda.

Read some books about the shobohaat of Al Albaanee then we can talk again insa'allah.

Do you know how idiotic it is to claim one could judge the credibility and character of persons who he never talked to and does not know more about them than some hadeeth?

Have you ever thought about it?

Al Albaanee was not a sheikh he was a kaafir and servant of the deen of Abu Jahl.

Is it so hard to you to understand that he was just a servant of the saudi government?

[waziri]

Al Albaanee was not a sheikh he was a kaafir and servant of the deen of Abu Jahl.



Fear Allah

[alkhidr1]

I do thats why I speak the truth insa'allah.

[gag order]

considering the topic has been exposed for its erroneous conclusions i see no reason as to why it should continue in the direction it is?

[Abuz Zubair]

Do you know how idiotic it is to claim one could judge the credibility and character of persons who he never talked to and does not know more about them than some hadeeth?

Have you ever thought about it?

Fools like you are a rarity. You have described the entire science of hadeeth as idiotic. Now this is a kufr you should worry about.

[Abu_Abdallah]

I do thats why I speak the truth insa'allah.

I knew it.

You and Sawtul Kufr are the same time of people..

Well, let us wait on the third Fitna-maker with idiotic statements and beliefs.

[Sawtul Islam]

If i keep on saying im on the moon , i still wont be on the moon. Likewise the more you say your not a takfeeri still wont change the fact that you are a hardcore takfeeri.

You don't even know what takfeeri means in Arabic, thats why you call me one. And you talk about knowledge?

Al Albaanee was not a sheikh he was a kaafir and servant of the deen of Abu Jahl.




You guys are taking the thread off topic and bashing eachothers sects and madhabs. Abdlhakim and alkhidr1, you have both done takfir without proof on this thread. I am not taking sides here, the Salafis are our brothers except those who do takfir on Muslims as that is proof of their own kufr and the same applies to members of other madhabs.


considering the topic has been exposed for its erroneous conclusions i see no reason as to why it should continue in the direction it is?

how has it been "exposed", how does the topic or anything Ive said had anything to do with what these guys are arguing about? They suddenly started calling eachother names and insulting certain scholars. I tried to respect everyone even after they called me a kafir and insulted me for no reason.

[alkhidr1]

Well it seems the only thing you can do is call others "fool", "idiot" and other insults.

I am glad you show your lack of knowledge so straight and don't even try to discuss about topics you don't have knowledge of.

Edit: This post is a reply to the 2nd and 3rd post before this one, not to Sawtul Islams one.

[Abu_Abdallah]

Well it seems the only thing you can do is call others "fool", "idiot" and other insults.

I am glad you show your lack of knowledge so straight and don't even try to discuss about topics you don't have knowledge of.

Edit: This post is a reply to the 2nd and 3rd post before this one, not to Sawtul Islams one.

You are an idiot. FULL STOP.

Trust me. If we ask all the registered users here whether you are an idiot or not, 9 out of 10 would say: YES.

Why?

Just re-read your posts.

Beside, you cite Malik and others. Tell us, why do you cite statements of people who lived almost a 1000 years ago? How can you verify their reliability?

Some questions:

Why did you sign on this forum?
Where are you from? Nationality, country of origin?
Are you a Kafir?

[alkhidr1]

Trust me. If we ask all the registered users here whether you are an idiot or not, 9 out of 10 would say: YES.


Audhubillah you are even a democrat.

Allah s.w.t. sais in the Qur'an, most people are misguided. So why should I care what "9 out of 10 people" would say in your phantasy?

Yet no faith will the greater part of mankind have, however ardently thou dost desire it.
And no reward dost thou ask of them for this: it is no less than a message for all creatures.
And most of them believe not in Allah without associating (other as partners) with Him!

So you follow the 9 of 10?

[alkhidr1]

You are an idiot. FULL STOP.


:)

You're proving your own wrongness. Please continue writing so your dalaal becomes even clearer :) with every sentence you type, showing off your jahiliyya.

[Abuz Zubair]

Allah s.w.t. sais in the Qur'an, most people are misguided.

Well, you seem to be included in the 'most'... Especially if you claim that the science of hadeeth is idiotic.

[alkhidr1]

Especially if you claim that the science of hadeeth is idiotic.

Where did I say that?

I talked about Albaanee who was a an enemy of Islaam, not about science of hadeeth which is a part of Islaam.

[Abu_Abdallah]

Where did I say that?

I talked about Albaanee who was a an enemy of Islaam, not about science of hadeeth which is a part of Islaam.

You are an enemy of Islam. You prove that to 9 out of 10 here.

If I'm deluded or misguided, I'm happy that my misguidance does not make me an enemy of Islam as your misguidance surely does.

And answer my questions, even though I think you would lie.

[alkhidr1]

You are an enemy of Islam.

And you call me takfiri? :)


You prove that to 9 out of 10 here.


You are the first takfiri democrat I have encountered :)

To quote IA:

"They (the "Salafis", defenders of Kuffaar like Ibn Baz, Albaanee and the rest of the employees of the saudi tawagheet) are Khawarij with regards to the du'at (preachers); Murji’a with regards to the rulers; Rafida with regards to the jamaa'at (Islamic groups); and Qadariya with regards to the Jews, Christians, and infidels."

[Abuz Zubair]

Do you know how idiotic it is to claim one could judge the credibility and character of persons who he never talked to and does not know more about them than some hadeeth?

Here, you declared the entire science of hadeeth to be idiotic.

[alkhidr1]

Do you know when Bukhaaree lived?

[abu_ibrahim]

I wonder if this fool is a follower of that deviant Abdullah al-Habashi from Ethiopia who comes out with crazy stuff like this.

[Abu Ma'mar]

Sawtul-kufr , your such a silly person. Read what ibn hajr says about that hadith about making takfeer of someone and the kufr coming back.

And even if your wrong interpretation was correct nothing would come back to me as you are really sawtul-kufr as your new nick name suggests.


Khidr the Takfeeri who thinks relations with hoor al-'ayn is icky and not nice for the jews and christians to hear, but has no problem with attacking the whole science of hadith ,


please answer his questions

Why did you sign on this forum?
Where are you from? Nationality, country of origin?
Are you a Kafir?

[Abuz Zubair]

Do you know when Bukhaaree lived?
Do you know when al-Mizzi lived?!

[islamic@rebel]

Khidr you're a nasty person with a foul mouth. There are no salams for you.

Someone should poke you in the neck with their index.

Also for a weak Hadith to be rectified there must be 100% authentic narrations that narrate the same Hadith not a bunch of other weak and disputed narrations.

Sawt, care to explain? If you can't respond to Abuz Zubair's posts, then you must humble yourself to the fact that there is jima' in jannah.

[islamic@rebel]

Sawt, I was skimming through some of the threads on the aqeedah section and I must say that you're in over your head with kufri beliefs. Looking at your arguments in those threads and the methods you use to employ it, my humble advice is that you unlearn yourself.

Its like Maths. If you learn the wrong formula to an equation you won't get the correct answer. Thats what you're giving out mate, the wrong answers.

[islamic@rebel]

Sawt, heres the 101 on Sciences of Hadith. Let me break it down for you, on the things which you are confused about, by Allah!

1) Dha’if
There are two types of dha’if hadith in respects to the level of its weakness. One whose weakness is not too weak; wherein if other narrations just like it or stronger supports it, its weakness becomes rectified and its ruling is elevated to the station of Hasan Li-Ghairihi. This weakness could be:-
a) due to narrators who are weak, yet their hadith are considered- but they are not to be used as proof when they are alone in narrating a particular hadith;
b)or that there is a disconnection in the chain due to irsal or tadlis;
c) or if a thiqah makes ikhtilot.
d) or others which I can’t think of now.

The other type of dh’aif is when the weakness is too strong. The narrators of this type of hadith are either classified as liars, or accused of being liars, or abandoned because of bad memory or making too many mistakes, or are unknown.

So when a weak hadith that is not too weak combines with a hadith similar to it, or stronger, then the two hadiths would support each other and raise them to a level of Hasan Li Ghairih. And it is Hasan not because of the one route, but by combining both.

2) Ghareeb. It is not qareeb. Qareeb is a relative. Please transliterate according to what it closely resembles to. A Ghareeb hadith is a hadith which its narrators are sole in narrating it. It could happen either in its text or its chain. A sahih hadith is a hadith which satisfies the five known criterias.
So when a hadith is classified as sahih gharib, it means that it has fulfilled the conditions of a sahih hadith coupled with the fact that its narrators are alone in narrating the hadith, whether in the text or the chain.

You may ask for examples.

3) Mutaba’at and Shawahid.
In brief, Mutaba’at is when a narrator finds corroboration in other narrators reports. It could happen at the start of the chain, or at the end of it.

Take the hadith of Qutaibah narrating from Sufyan, who narrates from Az-Zuhri, who narrates from Abu Salamah, who narrates from Abu Hurairah, who narrates from the Prophet (saw). So if Qutaibah narrates from other than Sufyan this same hadith, from lets say Malik, then this is called Mutaba’ah. Similar to that if Sufyan narrated from other than Az-Zuhri this same hadith, for example if he narrated from Abiz Zinad, then this is Mutaba’ah. And this could go all the way up to the sahabi. And if no one is to be found corroborating this report from the bottom until all the way up, then this hadith is classified as ghareeb.

And shawahids are reports which share the same meaning. Take for example the above chain. If another narration is reported from a different Sahabi with the same meaning, then it becomes a shaahid for the hadith of Abu Hurayrah. Apply that principle to the hadiths of Anas and Zaid.

[Sawtul Islam]

So when a weak hadith that is not too weak combines with a hadith similar to it, or stronger, then the two hadiths would support each other and raise them to a level of Hasan Li Ghairih. And it is Hasan not because of the one route, but by combining both.
Firstly the Hadith in Sunan ibn Majah is declared weak by many scholars and
secondly it is not exactly the same as the one in Tirmidhi. The overall idea ("Sex in paradise") is the same but the details are different, so it's not the same Hadith narrated by two different chains. It may be that two different people were fabricating Hadith in support of sex in paradise, as the two narrations are very different, so the weak one in Sunan ibn Majah doesnt back the singular and disputed one in Tirmidhi.




A sahih hadith is a hadith which satisfies the five known criterias.
So when a hadith is classified as sahih gharib, it means that it has fulfilled the conditions of a sahih hadith coupled with the fact that its narrators are alone in narrating the hadith, whether in the text or the chain.

But it is not considered authentic by all and is a disputed narration. Some say it's Sahih, others say it's not, and it's only narrated by 1 chain so it is a suspicious narration.


Sawt, I was skimming through some of the threads on the aqeedah section and I must say that you're in over your head with kufri beliefs. Looking at your arguments in those threads and the methods you use to employ it, my humble advice is that you unlearn yourself.

Its like Maths. If you learn the wrong formula to an equation you won't get the correct answer. Thats what you're giving out mate, the wrong answers.

Appl