I've noticed something here

[Mehdi Hassan]

huh?
I used a highly respected fatwa and a few other sources..wym?
The creator of the site, Muhammad Al-Munajjid, is a highly respected *salafi* scholar. It’s known for its bias and fatwas that have a bit of bias towards salafism.

She said don’t quote her before the entire situation, you “forgot” and quoted her, she has a bit of reason to continue with that. She only wanted you not to quote her for her own personal reasons, in which I may be wrong but I assume it’s cause she’d just rather not have their opinions and stance constantly bashed and questioned by you. No one really cares to get on someone’s nerves like that?? Lmao

Wallahi I forgot. Why does everyone think I lie all the time? I'm always honest. The amount of times I've had to say wallahi on this is beyond count. And no, she absolutely does not. I honestly forgot. She could've just ignored me then. Simple solution. And her pettiness suggests otherwise. You used Wikipedia and I used islamqa.info.

 

[a y a n]

Wallahi I forgot. Why does everyone think I lie all the time? I'm always honest. The amount of times I've had to say wallahi on this is beyond count. And no, she absolutely does not. I honestly forgot. She could've just ignored me then. Simple solution. And her pettiness suggests otherwise. You used Wikipedia and I used islamqa.info.

How’d I use wiki? Did you not see the sources I used or...?
I literally screenshotted some novels and encyclopedias that don’t have a Accessible link And one famous fatwa allowing women to be rulers and judges
pettiness in what form? Calling that out? Wouldn’t call that petty but you do you
haha

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

How’d I use wiki? Did you not see the sources I used or...?
I literally screenshotted some novels and encyclopedias that don’t have a Accessible link And one famous fatwa allowing women to be rulers and judges
pettiness in what form? Calling that out? Wouldn’t call that petty but you do you
haha

One 'famous' fatwa? You've got to be joking. And you did use Wiki. Besides Saheeh Bukhari is the highest authority. Do you not understand that? There is literally nothing more authoritative in existence. A random fatwa is nothing. And of course it received support, it serves the interest of power-hungry women. People like to bend the rules. Laugh all you like but that's the truth. And you wrote off Saheeh Bukhari like it was nothing but rush to prove your point with a fatwa and the opinion of a random non-Muslim woman, Mary Jo. Are you serious? You don't care for Saheeh Bukhari BUT you care for Mary Jo. Mary Jo. Another is the University of New Mexico. Random university. What does that leave? answering-christianity.com, pathetic.

 

[a y a n]

One 'famous' fatwa? You've got to be joking. And you did use Wiki. Besides Saheeh Bukhari is the highest authority. Do you not understand that? There is literally nothing more authoritative in existence. A random fatwa is nothing. And of course it received support, it serves the interest of power-hungry women. People like to bend the rules. Laugh all you like but that's the truth. And you wrote off Saheeh Bukhari like it was nothing but rush to prove your point with a fatwa and the opinion of a random non-Muslim woman, Mary Jo. Are you serious? You don't care for Saheeh Bukhari BUT you care for Mary Jo. Mary Jo. Another is the University of New Mexico. Random university. What does that leave? answering-christianity.com, pathetic.

huh? I do care for sahih Bukhari, but not everything it says is completely correct or believable. Twisting the rules? The Quran mentions Queen Sheba, remember? Her empire was at doom because she was female? Aisha RA led an army in the Battle of Jamel/Basra. Khadijah RA was the prophet Muhammada’ SAW chief advisor.
I used multiple sources for a reason though, a single one can not be trusted on its own

Power hungry women,
You do you though, I guess

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

huh? I do care for sahih Bukhari, but not everything it says is completely correct or believable. Twisting the rules? The Quran mentions Queen Sheba, remember? Her empire was at doom because she was female? Aisha RA led an army in the Battle of Jamel/Basra. Khadijah RA was the prophet Muhammada’ SAW chief advisor. Power hungry women,
You do you though, I guess

You bring up these other lowly sources and ignore Saheeh Bukhari, that's all.

 

[a y a n]

You bring up these other lowly sources and ignore Saheeh Bukhari, that's all.

I used multiple, a single source like the pens I used can’t be trusted on their own. They’re all saying the same things though, brings up the chance at validity a slight bit

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

I used multiple, a single source like the pens I used can’t be trusted on their own. They’re all saying the same things though, brings up the chance at validity a slight bit

I understand that logic. But in this scenario it makes absolutely no sense to use it. This Saheeh Bukhari, the utmost authority on hadith - using sources such as Mary Jo (who nobody knows), the University of New Mexico - and answering-christianity.com is nonsensical. What about that is so difficult to comprehend? And if you don't believe Saheeh Bukhari you may as well throw out all your hadith books (that is if you have any).

 

[Addislad]

This
It’s more views aligning ngl and that nobody cares to come for someone like that, I don’t think

It is because women have basic primitive mindsets

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

I understand that logic. But in this scenario it makes absolutely no sense to use it. This Saheeh Bukhari, the utmost authority on hadith - using sources such as Mary Jo (who nobody knows), the University of New Mexico - and answering-christianity.com is nonsensical. What about that is so difficult to comprehend? And if you don't believe Sahaah Bukhari you may as well throw out all your hadith books (that is if you have any).

Do you know what saheeh means? Saheeh means correct. For any hadith to be in Sahih Bukhari it must have gone through a rigorous process of validation in the chain of narration. Essentially there must be no doubt as to it's validity. Therefore using virtually unheard of sources cited by Wikipedia is highly illogical.

 

[a y a n]

I understand that logic. But in this scenario it makes absolutely no sense to use it. This Saheeh Bukhari, the utmost authority on hadith - using sources such as Mary Jo (who nobody knows), the University of New Mexico - and answering-christianity.com is nonsensical. What about that is so difficult to comprehend? And if you don't believe Sahaah Bukhari you may as well throw out all your hadith books (that is if you have any).

Plenty of valid sources have unknown authors..read the actual content and then judge. I guess.

Do you know what saheeh means? Saheeh means correct. For any hadith to be in Sahih Bukhari it must have gone through a rigorous process of validation in the chain of narration. Essentially there must be no doubt as to it's validity. Therefore using virtually unheard of sources cited by Wikipedia is highly illogical.

I think I’ve said you do you by mow

 

[a y a n]

It is because women have basic primitive mindsets

Haha laugh funny

 

[Juke]

Maybe we should have a female president

The Messenger of God said: "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

huh? I do care for sahih Bukhari, but not everything it says is completely correct or believable. Twisting the rules? The Quran mentions Queen Sheba, remember? Her empire was at doom because she was female? Aisha RA led an army in the Battle of Jamel/Basra. Khadijah RA was the prophet Muhammada’ SAW chief advisor.
I used multiple sources for a reason though, a single one can not be trusted on its own

Power hungry women,
You do you though, I guess

Again, Saheeh Bukhari. Chief advisor is vastly different from leader. Monarchy is against Islamic teachings. So why then are you so quick to put it down and go for faulty sources instead? It's almost as if you have something to gain from doing so. And like I said before - everything in Saheeh Bukhari is correct and absolutely believable. Also was Queen Sheba even Muslim? And the fact the site's (islamqa.info) creator is a Salafi alone does not invalidate everything coming from it. By that very same logic Mary Jo is a kaffir and therefore unreliable (although there is still much more reason not to believe her). And yes, power-hungry women would like this. People like to twist things to halalify them, nobody can doubt this. Saheeh Bukhari is not just some source.

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

Plenty of valid sources have unknown authors..read the actual content and then judge. I guess.


I think I’ve said you do you by mow

You do you by now is not an argument.

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

A simple Google search of "Is Saheeh Bukhari authentic?" will render this. "Sunni Muslims view this as one of the two most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim. The Arabic word sahih translates as authentic or correct. Sahih al-Bukhari, together with Sahih Muslim is known as Sahihayn." Done now @a y a n?

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

A simple Google search of "Is Saheeh Bukhari authentic?" will render this. "Sunni Muslims view this as one of the two most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim. The Arabic word sahih translates as authentic or correct. Sahih al-Bukhari, together with Sahih Muslim is known as Sahihayn." Done now @a y a n?

I think it's now my turn to say you do you though if you insist on disagreeing. Believe in Mary Jo, the University of New Mexico, and answering-christianity.com then. Fools will be fools.

 

[a y a n]

Again, Saheeh Bukhari. Chief advisor is vastly different from leader. Monarchy is against Islamic teachings. So why then are you so quick to put it down and go for faulty sources instead? It's almost as if you have something to gain from doing so. And like I said before - everything in Saheeh Bukhari is correct and absolutely believable. Also was Queen Sheba even Muslim? And the fact the site's (islamqa.info) creator is a Salafi alone does not invalidate everything coming from it. By that very same logic Mary Jo is a kaffir and therefore unreliable (although there is still much more reason not to believe her). And yes, power-hungry women would like this. People like to twist things to halalify them, nobody can doubt this. Saheeh Bukhari is not just some source.

You do you by now is not an argument.

Never said it was. Agree to disagree, I’m not going to change my stance on the subject, noting that your first and only source was islamqa and repeating that you’re logical

I think it's now my turn to say you do you though if you insist on disagreeing. Believe in Mary Jo, the University of New Mexico, and answering-christianity.com then. Fools will be fools.

I never believed in it. Who said that? I never said it was the best source either. I guess.

A simple Google search of "Is Saheeh Bukhari authentic?" will render this. "Sunni Muslims view this as one of the two most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim. The Arabic word sahih translates as authentic or correct. Sahih al-Bukhari, together with Sahih Muslim is known as Sahihayn." Done now @a y a n?

The spam of this stuff is cool, especially noting that I even said that I respect sahih B U T we all know that there is a little bit of messed up stuff in Bukhari, so you always have to be careful.

 

[KobeBryant]

You missed out a year ago. Every post was slander against Somali men. I only made an account because reading Knowles @Muji posts gave me high blood pressure

 

[Mehdi Hassan]

Never said it was. Agree to disagree, I’m not going to change my stance on the subject, noting that your first and only source was islamqa and repeating that you’re logical

I never believed in it. Who said that? I never said it was the best source either. I guess.

The spam of this stuff is cool, especially noting that I even said that I respect sahih B U T we all know that there is a little bit of messed up stuff in Bukhari, so you always have to be careful.

Agree to disagree? I'm sorry but that's not how Islam works. It isn't a matter of opinion. My source was islamqa, as it is a highly regarded and reputable source. How about Mary Jo though? And I only said that once if I remember correctly. (I don't think you'll accuse me of not caring enough or respecting myself if I don't though. What spam? I'm just laying here the cold facts. It's up to you to take it or leave it. And the sources I listed out were the ones you cited, all three of them. If you don't believe them then the default is Saheeh Bukhari, the widely-accepted and highly-regarded highest authority on all hadith. And if that wasn't the best source (and it wasn't) then what source better than Saheeh Bukhari do you have? If you have four people, one is unknown, the other is likely biased, and another is probably lying - but the fourth is known to be truthful and well-known, who will you believe? Also keep in mind those were the only three citations you provided. If you truly respect Sahih Bukhari, then I'd expect you to believe it. If you don't believe it then don't claim to respect it. And what exactly do you mean by the 'little messed up stuff in Bukhari'? I can also make vague, broad statements without evidence to 'prove a point'. And, "so you always have to be careful". I wouldn't call placing my trust in New Mexico and Mary Jo very careful, these two could very well have an agenda - and likely do. Saheeh Bukhari on the other hand is the highest authority in Islam. So whose the illogical one here? The one who entrusts in such people? Or the one who believes Sahih Bukhari?

 

[Basra]

But f*ck all this gender war bullcrap.. I see you all somali girls as my sisters and you deserve to be treated with respect.