Muhammad's words apart from the Quran

The

I think it is unreasonable to suppose that Muhammad never spoke anything apart from the Quranic verses.

What do you say about the possibility that he might have commented upon or explained some verses at one point or another? I certainly do think that is a possibility, and if that is the case, would it be wrong to refer to his words regarding a verse (assuming that his words were accessible at any point in time)?

**AhmedBahgat**

**AhmedBahgat**

See bro The, this is a wise saying by Ahmed Subhy Mansour, an Egyptian who fled to the usa after he was oppressed in Egypt, he was a professor in Azhar, as well an Azhar graduate who discovered the crap in the manm ade hadith so he started attacking it, and that is why he was oppressed, see what he says below:

If you wanted to assassinate an adversary by poison, it is inconceivable that you bring him a glass full of poison and ask him to drink it. It is more reasonable that you bring him a glass of honey laced with enough poison to get the job done. This is exactly what Al-Bukhari has done. He placed his concentrated poison in the middle of thousands of harmless Hadiths, some of which say something positive, and others do not say much at all. He made sure to plant some Hadiths that praise and laud the prophet, with special attention to Hadiths narrated by Abu Hureira that urge and exhort obedience to the Sultan, any Sultan, thereby guaranteeing that his Sahih will always receive protection from governing authority, why shouldnÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?Â¢??t be so, and Al-Bukhari always warns against sedition, discord, dissension and strife against the Sultan.

The

Okay, buddy, let me try to clarify using an example. I am not sure how good an example this is, so if you find it not to your liking then let me know; I will try to come up with another.

Suppose a Muslim or a non-Muslim comes up to you and tells you that the Quran orders the killing of all non-Muslims. What will you do?

**AhmedBahgat**

The

Suppose a non-Muslim posts the following on a forum:

The following are only some of the verses in the Qur'an that can and have been used in the history of Islam in support of violence in the name of God and the glories of martyrdom in a holy war.

2:190-193 "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God ..."

How would you proceed?

**AhmedBahgat**

The

That's fine, buddy, I went through the slam dunk thread. You reply to the "allegations" and "contradictions" with something or the other. And so would anybody else.

Why should we then suppose that whenever a non-Muslim twisted a verse, or a Muslim came seeking a sincere explanation, Muhammad himself would not have done some explaining?

**AhmedBahgat**

The

I agree that fourteen hundred years later we cannot be certain of anything, and I am not talking about the ahadith books of today.

But Muhammad, in explaining the verses to Muslims or non-Muslims, and anybody who heard him and reproduced his words faithfully while engaging in an explanation/defense of the Quran, would not be in the wrong. That is what I am driving at.

**AhmedBahgat**

The

I agree. The reason I brought this up is that I run across many who call themselves "Quran Aloners" and who write tomes to justify their position, yet argue that Muhammad himself could not have spoken anything other than the Quranic verses, and that if he did then he was wrong and whatever he said is wortheless. It is hypocritical to think that a so-called "Quan Aloner" is more qualified than Muhammad to say something in explanation/defense of the Quran.

I don't agree with you about the practical inheritance, but that is another issue.

**AhmedBahgat**

The

I am aware that you don't call yourself a "Quran Aloner".

I believe in the accuracy of neither the ahadith books nor of "practical inheritance".

**AhmedBahgat**