I never said that all of Sunan Abu Dawud is not authentic.  Rather, I said that some hadiths are considered to be weak.

As a bit of an aside, how do you know which are which?

That requires some research.  As far as I know, the hadith I mentioned is considered authentic.

Can you show me some proof please? Thank you.

Ibn al-Qayyim also to my knowledge does not say that dates will not protet against poisonous substances. I didn't find anything on Islam QA saying this either.

IslamQA compares the dates to vaccines that are meant to ward off feared diseases. Would eating 7 dates a day prevent a person from catching the ebola virus? Malaria? AIDS?

The hadith does not say "disease", it says poison so comparing the 7 dates a day to a vaccination against disease isn't really addressing what Muhammad actually said.

Thanks btw for the "HealthyMuslim" site! It lists another fascinating thing Muhammad said.

Referring to eating seven Ajwa dates, the Messenger (Sallallaahu alayhi Wasallam) said, "He will not be harmed by anything until he reaches the evening." [Saheeh Muslim (2047)].

http://www.healthymuslim.com/articles/qsswx-ibn-al-qayyim-dates-are-a-nourishing-fruit.cfm

Allegedly, nothing can harm a person who eats 7 of these dates! My friend, this is not saying the dates only protect a person against some kind of toxins. Muhammad clearly stated these dates protect people from poison and magic in general, and he clearly believed this was true for most, if not all of them. More evidence below in the response.

Given the fact that healing, snake holding, speaking in tongues, everything else mentioned took place, I see no reason to assume why the poison drinking would also not have taken place.

It was actually meant to be medical advice. If there were no cases of 7 dates preventing magic, then one could argue it is useless advice because it has not been proven and there is no way to check if it is right or wrong.

Which I did not deny, but it is not what 663 and 664 states.

See above.

Which doesn't change the fact that according to the hadith eating 7 of them a day will ensure that poison or magic will not harm a person until night... this is simply not true.

The study you showed claimed that dates reduce the poison signficantly, not that they make it go away and not that whatever if left inside does not harm the rat.

:

The results showed that date seeds significantly (P<0.05) reduced liver and serum malondialdehyde (a lipid peroxidative damage product) and serum lactate dehydrogenase and creatine kinase.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21480263

But it does. Here it is again:

Volume 7, Book 71, Number 663:

Narrated Saud:

The Prophet said, "If somebody takes some 'Ajwa dates every morning, he will not be effected by poison or magic on that day till night." (Another narrator said seven dates).

Narrated Saud:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "If Somebody takes seven 'Ajwa dates in the morning, neither magic nor poison will hurt him that day." 

Number 5083 states that dates have medical benefits. Numbers 663 and 664 state that if someone eats 7 of them in the morning, he will not be hurt by poison or magic that day.

Also, do the scientific studies you show claim that the 7 dates works only until night, as Muhammad said? According to what he taught, the poison will not harm the person until night.

That's not what I asked you. The question I asked was where did Bukhari state, as you are claiming, that #663 and 664 do not mean that eating 7 dates will prevent poison from harming a person, but that Muhammad meant that dates have medicinal benefit and that's it?

There is no indication that it covered every single event that happened in the early church. 

Key word is "may". It may or may not happen still. It did happen in the early church.

Earlier I wrote "God makes things like that happen sometimes today", I will change it to may happen.

So then the hadith is mistranslated into English. A toxin is defined as a poison produced by a living organism, such as a microorganism, a plant, or an animal

Given this definition, a snake bite would be a toxin. So if a person were to eat 7 dates in the morning and a cobra were to bite him later in the day, according to the hadith he or she would be fine.

The author of "turning the tables" lists Musnad Ahmad's hadith 23592, where it is stated that in the state of fasting the dates will contain healing for all magic or toxins.

‘Aisha reported Allah’s Messenger as saying, “The ‘ajwah dates of al-‘Aliya taken as the first thing in the morning, in the state of fasting; contain healing for all (kinds of) magic or toxins.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 23592)

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/07/hadith-ajwa-dates-and-science.html

So although there may not have been Muslims who believed eating 7 dates in the morning will provide protection against all kinds of poison, some Muslims obviously  believed that it will provide protection against all kinds of toxins.

If you were MahditheSeeker, I'd encourage you to try this out and after having 7 dates in the morning to pet a cobra or play with a black widow spider. Since you did not offer the same *****ic challenge that he did, I will not.

However, here you have evidence that according to some Muslims the dates heal from all kinds of toxins (even if not poisons, which is what the translation of #663 and 664 actually says).

I initially assumed this hadith is not authentic since it is not from Bukhari or Muslim, and would anyways state that it shows that some Muslims believe 7 dates protect against any toxins.

Interestingly, however, it was regarded as very much authentic by Muslim scholars.

The Musnad of Ibn Hanbal is probably the first of the sixbooks of hadīth considered authentic by Sunni Muslims, since its authordied 15 years before the death of the senior-most of the six hadīthcompilers, Muhammad bin Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī (d. 256 AH), and62 years before the last of them, Ahmad bin Shu‘ayb al-Nasā’ī, passedaway (303 AH).  Throughout history, Sunni scholars have attached greatimportance to Ibn Hanbal’s Musnad and eulogized it. Hāfiz Abu MusāMadyanī (581 AH), writes:

This book is a great source and a reliable reference workfor researchers of hadīth. The author has selected from the bulky hadīthliterature, a large number of narrations to serve as guidelines and support forthe people so that when differences arise they take refuge in them and citethem as authentic. [3]

Shams al-Dīn Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Dhahabī (748AH) writes:

This book focuses on the hadīthof the Prophet. There are very few hadīth not included (in thiscollection) whose authenticity has been confirmed...One of the fortunate thingsabout the Musnad is that we find very few hadīth which are consideredinauthentic. [4]

Ibn al-Jazarī (833 AH) is even more ecstatic about IbnHanbal’s Musnad, and says: 

On the face of the earth no betterbook of hadīth has been compiled. [5]

Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī writes in Tajrīd Zawā’idal-Musnad al-Bazzāz:

If a hadīth is mentioned inMusnad Ibn Hanbal, other Masānīd are not cited for its sources.

Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyutī (849-911 AH) [6] says:

Even the weak hadīth found init are near to hasan (fair). [7]

http://www.al-islam.org/mot/musnad/2.htm

So not only some Muslims believed that Muhammad claimed eating 7 dates in the morning will protect against all kinds of toxins, but him saying this was included in a hadith collection which was very highly regarded.

It is up to you to show me hadith which state that 663 and 664 are reference to only some types of poisons or toxins, and that they do not mean what Muhammad said, namely that eating 7 dates in the AM will cause a person to not be harmed by magic or poison.

Originally posted by TG12345

My buddy Robert Spencer emailed them to me, and then sent me to IC to torment Muslims.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Aha!  I knew it! 

There is no evidence that 663 and 664 mean anything except what Muhammad said. And I found evidence that at least one Muslim believed it applied to all toxins. He wrote it down in a hadith collection that many scholars of the time very highly regarded.

Originally posted by TG12345

Glad to hear you aren`t trying to `atheisize me`
Salaam.

Originally posted by islamispeace

It would do you no good but would rather move you further away from salvation! 

Walaikum as-salaam.

Ibn al-Qayyim classed dried dates as a fruit, food, medicine, drink." [2]

Notice that he did not say that dates could be used to protect a person against any poisonous substance.  The reason for this is that the hadiths have not been interpreted that way.  They have always been interpreted to mean that dates have medical benefits and as such, they should be eaten on a regular basis.

If there are no such examples in Acts, then how can you claim that Mark 16 applied to the "early church"?  Was it not an unfulfilled prophecy?

As far as I can tell, there are no examples of people eating ajwa dates and being protected from magic, but then, unlike Mark 16, the hadith was not meant to be a prophecy.  Instead, it was meant to be general advice. 

You are arguing this on your merit, whereas I have shown overwhelming evidence that:

1.  Muhammad (pbuh) meant that dates have medical benefits,

2.  There is scientific proof that dates have medical benefits, and,

3.  No Islamic scholar has ever taught that Muslims can drink any poisonous substances and survive as long as they ate dates in the morning.

You have been claiming all this time that the hadiths teach that a Muslim who eats 7 ajwa dates in the morning will be protected from poison.  I have shown that it does not teach that.  Rather, I have shown that the hadiths meant that ajwa dates have medical benefits (and also has a protective effect against certain harmful substances), all of which has been scientifically validated.

As I have pointed out several times already, Imam Bukhari placed the hadiths under the "Medicine" section.  Moreover, I also showed other hadiths which state that dates have medicinal uses.

Then, you cannot prove that Mark 16 applied (in its entirety) to the early church.  Why would the Book of Acts mention the other miracles but not the miracle of drinking poison? 

But the Book of Acts does not "attest" to any examples of Christians drinking poison and surviving. 

And if you believe that "God still may make things like that happen sometimes today", then you cannot logically insist that Mark 16 only applied to the "early church".

The word used in the hadith is "summ", which has multiple meanings.  It can mean "poison", "toxin" or "venom" [3].  You could just as easily translate the word as "toxin" or "venom".  Therefore, it is clear that the hadith is not saying that dates can be used as a preemptive antidote to any poison but is making a general statement of its medicinal benefits. 

Originally posted by TG12345

My buddy Robert Spencer emailed them to me, and then sent me to IC to torment Muslims.

You responded but your response left more questions than answers. 

As for your counter-challenge, it has no logical basis as no where in the hadith did it say that dates can be used as an antidote for any poison.  You are assuming that the word "poison" can mean any poison, but there is no evidence for this. 

Originally posted by TG12345

Glad to hear you aren`t trying to `atheisize me`
Salaam.

It would do you no good but would rather move you further away from salvation! 

Walaikum as-salaam.

Volume 7, Book 71, Number 663:

Narrated Saud:

The Prophet said, "If somebody takes some 'Ajwa dates every morning, he will not be effected by poison or magic on that day till night." (Another narrator said seven dates).

Narrated Saud:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "If Somebody takes seven 'Ajwa dates in the morning, neither magic nor poison will hurt him that day."

I posted his commentary here:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24387&PN=4

If you read the commentary on verse 17 (that I coincidentally pasted as well on the above page), you will see he believed it applied to the early church. I will paste it again for your convenience.

The problem is not with the commentary, but with you looking only at its explanation of one verse, while missing the others...

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

And these signs - These miracles. These evidences that they are sent from God.

Them that believe - The apostles, and those in the primitive age who were endowed with like power. This promise was fulfilled if it can be shown that these signs followed in the case of any who believed, and it is not necessary to suppose that they would follow in the case of all. The meaning is, that they would be the result of faith, or of the belief of the gospel. It is true that they were. These signs were shown in the case of the apostles and early Christians. The infidel cannot say that the promise has not been fulfilled unless he can show that this never occurred; the Christian should be satisfied that the promise was fulfilled if these miracles were ever actually wrought, though they do not occur now; and the believer now should not expect a miracle in his case. Miracles were necessary for the establishment of religion in the world; they are not necessary for its continuance now.

In my name - By my authority, and using the power that I would in such cases, if bodily present. This was done; and in this they differed essentially from the manner in which Jesus himself wrought miracles. He did it in "his own name," and as possessing original, underived authority. See the account of his stilling the sea (Matthew 8:26, etc.); of his healing the sick Matthew 9:5-6; of his raising Lazarus, John 11. The prophets spoke "in the name of the Lord." The apostles did likewise, Acts 3:6, etc. There was, therefore, an important difference between Jesus and all the other messengers that God has sent into the world. He acted in his own name; they in the name of another. He wielded his own power; they were the instruments by which God put forth the omnipotence of his arm to save. He was therefore God; they were men of like passions as other men, Acts 14:15.

Shall they cast out devils - See the notes at Matthew 4:24. Compare Acts 16:16-18.

Shall speak with new tongues - Shall speak other languages than their native language. This was remarkably fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:4-11. It existed, also, in other places. See 1 Corinthians 12:10.

http://bible.cc/mark/16-17.htm

That drinking of poisons is not mentioned in Acts does not mean it didn't happen. The other things did, so I have no reason to assume it didn't happen at some point in the ministry of the early church.

As I said previously, it applied to the early church. I believe God still may make things like that happen sometimes today. However, the signs were meant mostly for the early believers, and as the Book of Acts attests, they did do these things.

Dates protecting against liver malondialdehyde, but not true for other poisons. If the passage said they are good for some poisons, it would be true. But it just says "poison".

The passage doesn't tell Muslims to eat 7 dates and drink poison, it tells them if they eat 7 dates in the morning they will not be harmed by poison. 

I am not arguing whether or not Islamic scholars advise Muslims to eat poison or feed poison to friends after ingesting 7 dates in the AM, that is not the issue.

The issue is that Muhammad said that after a person eats 7 awja dates in the morning, he or she will not be harmed by poison later that day. He didn`t say that these statements apply only to a certain kind of poison, he used `poison`, which is a general term.

Let`s say if a doctor gave you a prescription to take (like an antibiotic, for example) to help fight off an infection of some sort. He would tell you `take these pills 3 times a day for x number of days, and it will help with this inflammation`. That would be medically sound. If he gave you the pills and said `take these pills 3 times a day for x number of days, and disease will not harm you`, he would be an ***** and could be probably sued for malpractice. It wouldn`t matter how a person interprets or misinterprets his words, if he said the pill will ensure disease will not harm you he would be wrong, plain and simple. The pill would protect against the inflammation, but not against other kinds of disease or disease in general, which is what is understood by someone saying `if you take this disease will not harm you`.

My buddy Robert Spencer emailed them to me, and then sent me to IC to torment Muslims.

LOL no just kidding. I was reading through Sahih Bukhari (http://sahih-bukhari.com/) and came across these hadith which I found interesting to say the least. I set them aside, then I joined this site and learned of this discussion. I tried looking for them again, and found them on the site listed below.

Answered already.

Any deadly thing - Any poison usually causing death.

Shall not hurt them - There is a similar promise in Isaiah 43:2.

They shall lay hands on the sick ... - See instances of this in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 3:6-7; Acts 5:15, etc." [1]

Nothing in the commentary states that these verses only applied to the early church.  All he says was that the promise was partially fulfilled by Paul and the other apostles.  Notice also that he is silent on the "drinking poison" part.  Why was that part not fulfilled?  

So, how can you insist from Barnes' Notes that the promise of Mark 16 only applied to the early church?  Meanwhile, you also attempted to show above that some Christians in the modern world do perform these miracles (allegedly).  So which is it?  Did Mark 16 apply only to the early church or does it apply even today?

The hadiths are true, as I showed.  Dates do have a protective effect against harmful substances like liver malondialdehyde.  Your insistence that if must apply to all poisons known to man is based on your own interpretation and is not supported by Islamic sources.  I challenge you to provide one example of Islamic scholars advising Muslims to eat dates in the morning and then drink poison.  If you can provide this, then you will have proven your point.  Of course, I know that you will fail for the simple reason that Islamic scholars have never interpreted the hadiths that way.  That is your own interpretation. 

If I may ask, how did you find those hadiths?  Did you search a hadith database or did you read them on an Islamic website?

I still can't find where you pasted it, but it doesn't matter, since I have already pasted it as well.  There is nothing in the commentary to indicate that the verses only applied to the early church.  It just states that they were partially fulfilled by the apostles.  There is also the problem of one of the miracles not being fulfilled.  No where in Acts or the other books is it mentioned that an apostle drank poison and survived.  Therefore, Mark 16 was not completely fulfilled by the early church.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't want you to renounce God.  I am simply pointing out that by changing the subject from Mark 16 to the hadiths, you were not solving the problem of Mark 16. As a result, we would both need to renounce our faiths (if you were right about the hadiths).

2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. ² Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. ³ They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. ⁴ All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tonguesa]">[a] as the Spirit enabled them.

⁵ Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. ⁶ When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. ⁷ Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? ⁸ Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? ⁹ Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,b]">[b] ¹⁰ Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome ¹¹ (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” ¹² Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

And these signs - These miracles. These evidences that they are sent from God.

Them that believe - The apostles, and those in the primitive age who were endowed with like power. This promise was fulfilled if it can be shown that these signs followed in the case of any who believed, and it is not necessary to suppose that they would follow in the case of all. The meaning is, that they would be the result of faith, or of the belief of the gospel. It is true that they were. These signs were shown in the case of the apostles and early Christians. The infidel cannot say that the promise has not been fulfilled unless he can show that this never occurred; the Christian should be satisfied that the promise was fulfilled if these miracles were ever actually wrought, though they do not occur now; and the believer now should not expect a miracle in his case. Miracles were necessary for the establishment of religion in the world; they are not necessary for its continuance now.

In my name - By my authority, and using the power that I would in such cases, if bodily present. This was done; and in this they differed essentially from the manner in which Jesus himself wrought miracles. He did it in "his own name," and as possessing original, underived authority. See the account of his stilling the sea (Matthew 8:26, etc.); of his healing the sick Matthew 9:5-6; of his raising Lazarus, John 11. The prophets spoke "in the name of the Lord." The apostles did likewise, Acts 3:6, etc. There was, therefore, an important difference between Jesus and all the other messengers that God has sent into the world. He acted in his own name; they in the name of another. He wielded his own power; they were the instruments by which God put forth the omnipotence of his arm to save. He was therefore God; they were men of like passions as other men, Acts 14:15.

Shall they cast out devils - See the notes at Matthew 4:24. Compare Acts 16:16-18.

Shall speak with new tongues - Shall speak other languages than their native language. This was remarkably fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:4-11. It existed, also, in other places. See 1 Corinthians 12:10.

http://bible.cc/mark/16-17.htm

On the topic of poisons, what do you think of this hadith?

Volume 7, Book 71, Number 663:

Narrated Saud:

The Prophet said, "If somebody takes some 'Ajwa dates every morning, he will not be effected by poison or magic on that day till night." (Another narrator said seven dates).

Narrated Saud:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "If Somebody takes seven 'Ajwa dates in the morning, neither magic nor poison will hurt him that day."

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/071-sbt.php#007.071.582

If you were to eat 7 dates tomorrow morning, and then later that day bite down on a cyanide capsule or two or drink a cup of bleach or gasoline or eat some rat poison, would you not be harmed?

Of course I am not advocating you do this. But what do you think would happen?

Would it fair or reasonable of me to demand of Muslims to do the above, since if I am not mistaken you are called to listen to the teachings of Muhammad and he clearly said it that poison will not harm you during that day as long as you have seven dates in the morning?

Are you a `pretend believer` because of the fact (I hope!) you are not going to eat 7 dates tomorrow morning and then a few hours later swallow a spoonful of rat poison or down a cup of bleach or insecticide? *

*again, please don`t!!!!

Thanks and may God lead us all to the truth.

"Greetings islamispeace,
It is not contradiction, but qualification.There are actually many Christians who report witnessing miracles in parts of the world where peoples minds are still very open to belief.  In my part of the world... not so much.  So personally, I see that the greater part of the world has drifted away and abandoned God as central to life, and the kind of belief needed is not there. "

"anyone can make up a "report" that they "witnessed" something unusual.  That does not mean it is true. "

"you stated that these miracles occurred in the time of the "Apostles" only. "

"I do not believe anybody today has the kind of belief it would take.  The early Apostle's were able to do these things, but people today have more belief in themselves than in the power of God... i.e., the supernatural."