Tweet
Exposing the Rafidi " کیش "
This Rafidi bragged about his education of Islamic history by posting a few sloppy quotes from wikipedia, shiite books and a few books authored by orientalists in support of his slander and backbiting against Companions of Prophet Muhammad sal allahu alayhi wasalam.
His standard for reliable sources in Islam when it serves his rafidi agenda is lowered to books of orientalists and shi'ite books that narrate from a donkey
But when anything is posted in this forum that is against his malicious agenda, he denounces it as unreliable and fabricated. He argues that only Bukhari and Muslim are authentic and everything else is fabricated or unreliable source for information.
What the rafidi fails to mention is that both Bukhari and Muslim have their criteria to classify a narration as Sahih. SInce their criteria are the strongest naturally all hadith scholars agree that their authentic collections are the most reliable among all others.
This is what is typical for rafida zanadiqah and munafiqeen. Throwing sand in to peoples eyes.
Every person blessed with common sense realizes that the critical conditions set by Bukhari in order to add a narration to his Sahih, can likewise by applied to Abu Dawud or any other hadith collections. If the hadith meets Bukhari's conditions, then the hadith, even if it is not mentioned in Bukhari is equal in value.
After all, Bukhari did not invent the ahadith, he merely set a number of criteria, and then embarked on a journey to collect only those ahadith that meet his strict criteria.
Therefore, any narration with weak links, dubious narrators, etc can be examined in the books of rijaal. There is a whole science called Jarh wa ta'deel which is a part of hadith sciences.
How can a rafidi zindeeq claim to know facts when he accepts stories and fairytales from Shiite books and orientalist propaganda, and yet claim to only consider Bukhari and Muslim as authentic?
His standard for reliable sources in Islam when it serves his rafidi agenda is lowered to books of orientalists and shi'ite books that narrate from a donkey
But when anything is posted in this forum that is against his malicious agenda, he denounces it as unreliable and fabricated. He argues that only Bukhari and Muslim are authentic and everything else is fabricated or unreliable source for information.
What the rafidi fails to mention is that both Bukhari and Muslim have their criteria to classify a narration as Sahih. SInce their criteria are the strongest naturally all hadith scholars agree that their authentic collections are the most reliable among all others.
This is what is typical for rafida zanadiqah and munafiqeen. Throwing sand in to peoples eyes.
Every person blessed with common sense realizes that the critical conditions set by Bukhari in order to add a narration to his Sahih, can likewise by applied to Abu Dawud or any other hadith collections. If the hadith meets Bukhari's conditions, then the hadith, even if it is not mentioned in Bukhari is equal in value.
After all, Bukhari did not invent the ahadith, he merely set a number of criteria, and then embarked on a journey to collect only those ahadith that meet his strict criteria.
Therefore, any narration with weak links, dubious narrators, etc can be examined in the books of rijaal. There is a whole science called Jarh wa ta'deel which is a part of hadith sciences.
How can a rafidi zindeeq claim to know facts when he accepts stories and fairytales from Shiite books and orientalist propaganda, and yet claim to only consider Bukhari and Muslim as authentic?
Comment