-
Riwayat Used For Nazool E Masih
Hadith no. 4081 of sunan ibn majah used by ghamdi sahab to prove it was ruya of prophet saw is itself zaeef according to many muhaditheen in it sanad…and is very rarely in books of hadith…So why ghamidi sahab used zaeef riwayat to disprove sahih riwayats and prove that it was all in ruya
-
11 Replies
-
Riwayat Used For Nazool E Masih
updated 3 weeks ago
2 Members
·
11
Replies
-
The basis of Ghamidi Saheb’s argument is the word of the Quran ‘الرؤیا’. Then he accepts Ahadith which conforms to the Quranic description. A weak hadith is not necessarily untrue, similarly, a Sahih hadith does not necessarily mean true. Therefore the ultimate criterion is the Quran.
-
What i amsaying is that saying of jesus was in that ruya or not…
Is taken from this weak hadith…
Not what was actual basis of night of ascension
-
The basis of saying that even nazool e masih has basis in ruya…is only this riwayat as per my own research as well….
There is only this riwayat in whole hadith literature which says this…
Yes there are riwayats in which prophet saw jesus in ruya like circumbulating around kaaba on angles…
But that has not necessarily do something with nazool e masih….
Denying sahih hadith from bukhari and accepting shaz riwayat from sunan ibn majah…which is relatively very weak from other hadiths….seems baseless claim….
Also ghamidi sahab tell it is not a rare riwayat…but what i found it is very rare…probably only in sunan ibn majah and no where else
-
Ok, I mistook it.
Ghamidi saheb established a general idea about the prophet’s predictions that a part of them was shown to him as dreams. The description of Dajjal, Pul Sirat, and many signs of doomsday were dreams. Some narrations mention them as dreams, and others do not, but still, they are dreams as the narrator might have missed the point or understanding that they were initially narrated as dreams.
-
If we are judging it by probablity then as in case of dajjal we say that he is man…why not same here…
There is no qarina then here as well…to take it otherwise
-
The Quran already refutes the concept of Jesus’ second coming. This leaves only one plausible interpretation: that it is allegorical. Jesus himself hinted at this allegory when he warned his people that he would come to punish them. While he did not physically return, the Romans came and carried out the punishment on the Jews.
-
Even if we take it dream…
-
yes, this is what is suggested.
-
I am satisfied with his no return…
But not satisfied it was dream…
Because no strong evidence has been provided by ghamidi sahab
-
Is their any possiblity….that people were impressed by biblical narratives…as many christians had converted to islam….or kind of debates with christians incorporated it in books of hadith…
Also ghamidi sahab told these riwayats are not in muatta imam malik ra
But it seems subject of muatta is not about aqayid rather it is fiqh mainly
-
Some narrations did come from the people of book. Especially from Abu Hurairah who used to consult HR people of book and narrated from them.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
