nothing wrote: Those were just statement, not an action.

It was obviously a prayer, addressed to Muhammad.  That's not shirk?

Ghazzali wrote: "Narrated By Abu Huraira : I said to the Prophet "May my parents be sacrificed for you!" (Bukhari vol.1, book 12, hadith 711)

There is a world of difference between sacrificing oneself (but not volunteering one's parents -- that is twisted!) to protect the life of one's Prophet and commander, versus sacrficing oneself for someone already dead.

Firstly, it's a cultural thing among arabs. They make this statement to show respect to someone.

You mean they are being insincere?

Secondly, sacrificing life or family or wealth for Rasul Allah (pbuh) is ultimately sacrificing for Allah.

Only if you see Muhammad as a partner to Allah.  As I keep reminding Muslims, Muhammad (peace be upon him) is dead.  He can no longer be offended, and does not need protection.

It is Allah's command to be at Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) 's service So, it is not shirk.

While he was alive may have been true, but common sense should tell you that one cannot provide service to a dead man.

Mr. Ron Web, Br. Ghazzali is correct, attack on Muhammad (S) integrity is attack on Allah�s Deen (Islam) that is why Nasrullah says: �are for your [Muhammad (s)] dignity, veneration and honor�. He is defending Allah�s Deen (Islam) by scarifies every thing that Allah (S) give him to defend Muhammad�s (S) integrity and not Muhammad (S); they knew he is dead. The Prophet (S) said: �If you obey me you already Obey Allah (S)� In other words, he leave a message (Islam...God�s laws) to live by and in following it is following him because he was an exemplar of Islam; His wife describe him as the walking Qur�an. Nasrallah and others knew of the campaign the Masons are waging against Islam so that their call.

TNC

TNC, you're really just illustrating my point.  An attack on Muhammad (oh sorry, Muhammad's integrity) is an attack on Allah's Deen, and is defended with the same often deadly fervour, often with deadly consequences.  Sacrifices for Muhammad are in reality sacrifices for Allah.  Obedience to Muhammad is obedience to Allah, and the words of Muhammad have the same kind of authority as the words of Allah.  And now, apparently even prayer to Muhammad is excused somehow, presumably as a proxy appeal to Allah.

Honestly, I don't see any practical difference between (many) Muslims' relationship with Muhammad and their relationship with Allah.  You may claim that you're not actually worshipping Muhammad, but you behave in every way exactly as if you were.

Ron Webb wrote: It was obviously a prayer, addressed to Muhammad.  That's not shirk?

Ron Webb wrote: There is a world of difference between sacrificing oneself (but not volunteering one's parents -- that is twisted!) to protect the life of one's Prophet and commander, versus sacrficing oneself for someone already dead.

Dignity, veneration and honor were the words used by Hassan Nasrallah. He never said he wants to protect the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He would sacrifice to protect his dignity, veneration and honor. As a humanist who does not believe in life after death, you personally might not have any respect for a dead man, but as muslims, we always have respect for dead people, more so for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Ron Webb wrote: You mean they are being insincere?

Do you mean to disrespect Arab culture?

Ron Webb wrote: Only if you see Muhammad as a partner to Allah.  As I keep reminding Muslims, Muhammad (peace be upon him) is dead.  He can no longer be offended, and does not need protection.

All the time you are interpreting Sharia through humanism. According to Sharia, obeying Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not partnering to Allah. Full stop.

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) does not need anything from any human being. Allah is enough for him. We are just performing our responsibility, for our benefit. And for your information, Prophets and martyrs remain alive in their graves.

Ron Webb wrote: While he was alive may have been true, but common sense should tell you that one cannot provide service to a dead man.

Common sense should tell you that a man might be dead, but his commands might not be. If your dad told you, "Son, after I die, never rape a woman", then even after his death, his command remains.

I guess it just bares open the hypocrisy of humanists. What a nice name they found out for themselves. Humanists! Ha ha, as if they are only ones who love humans. And all the love vanishes to thin air the moment a human being dies. It becomes a piece of garbage. And they still call themselves humanists.

Ghazzali wrote: Dignity, veneration and honor were the words used by Hassan Nasrallah. He never said he wants to protect the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He would sacrifice to protect his dignity, veneration and honor. As a humanist who does not believe in life after death, you personally might not have any respect for a dead man, but as muslims, we always have respect for dead people, more so for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

I can have respect for the memory of a dead man; but yes, I value life more than death.  I would never sacrifice a human life (my own or anyone else's) for the sake of a dead man.

All the time you are interpreting Sharia through humanism. According to Sharia, obeying Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not partnering to Allah. Full stop.

So what do you think it would mean to make Muhammad a partner of Allah?  If you believed that, would you live your life any differently?  Would you pray differently?  Would you obey Muhammad any differently?  Would your understanding of Sharia be any different?

Common sense should tell you that a man might be dead, but his commands might not be. If your dad told you, "Son, after I die, never rape a woman", then even after his death, his command remains.

I don't need my dad to tell me not to rape, and neither do you.  You can find such basic principles of natural justice in the Quran, and I can derive them from my faith in the inherent worth of humanity.  But try to think of a command that a father might give his son, which is not a matter of natural law, but would still apply a thousand years later.  You can't, can you?  There is no such thing.

Ghazzali wrote: This topic is about whether Hassan Nasrallah has done shirk. If you want to discuss about the effect of making Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) a partner to Allah, start another topic, and we can discuss it there. Please don't put all eggs in one basket.

Quite right, the topic is whether Nasrallah has done shirk, i.e. whether he is treating Muhammad as a partner to Allah.  You say he has not.  I am asking how you can tell.  It certainly looks to me exactly like the kind of prayer one would offer to a partner of Allah, and not to any mortal man.  If he had treated Muhammad as a partner to Allah, then what might he have said or done differently?

The example itself has drawn your attention more than the reason for which it was used. Concentrate on the reason Mr. Ron, not the example. A man might die, his ideas don't necessarily. A leader might die, but his teachings don't have to. These ideas and teachings can be applied for thousands of years. Confucius told that the elderly should be respected. It still holds true, and it will hold true as long as there are elderly people in any society.

I am indeed concentrating on the reason.  The reason that we respect our elders is not because Confucius said it, but because anyone who ponders how best to meet the needs of humanity will conclude that the elderly should be respected.  If Confucius had taught that grass is green, then grass would continue to be green for thousands of years -- not because Confucius commanded it, but because it is universally and objectively true. 

Ghazzali wrote: Ron Webb wrote: If he had treated Muhammad as a partner to Allah, then what might he have said or done differently? 1. He would have drawn a picture of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and hung it in every mosque in Lebanon. 2. He would have made sculptures of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and installed them in every major intersection in Beirut. 3. He would have made idols of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and would have prostrated before it five times a day. 4. He would have issued a fatwa that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is the second son of God, after Jesus (peace be upon him).

Thank you, that is a helpful answer.

The first three examples are much the same, in that they all involve artistic representations of Muhammad.  Of course, nothing in the Quran says you can't have a picture of Muhammad.  The Quran only says you can't have idols, which by definition are representations of gods.  If that's your reason to forbid pictures of Muhammad, then you have already committed shirk, with or without the actual picture.  (It's ironic that Nasrallah has no problem with putting http://www.nationalgeographicstock.com/ngsimages/explore/explorecomp.jsf?xsys=SE&id=1162687 - his own picture all over Lebanon.  I wonder why that isn't considered shirk.  Or maybe it is, I don't know.)

The fourth is essentially a verbal declaration of the divinity of Muhammad.  Pretty straightforward.

So from your examples, it seems that there are essentially two ways to commit shirk: to create a physical depiction of Muhammad, or to actually say that Muhammad is a partner to Allah.

Okay, suppose that a Muslim said the following: "O Confucius, my blood, family, wealth and everything I was given by God are sacrifices to your dignity, veneration and honor. Let the whole world hear these words, O Confucius, we die for you, my soul and my blood are at your service. Allah is a witness to what we say, the blood of our martyrs, the wounds of our injured, our demolished homes all witness, we will sacrifice everything for your sake O Confucius."

You say that, and again you start talking about Confucius. It's not about Confucius. It's not about the father or the son. The point I am trying to make is that everything is not over for a dead man. A dead man can still have a lasting effect on human civilization. This is what we are debating about. By always reminding muslims that Muhammad(pbuh) is dead, Muhammad(pbuh) is dead, you are trying to say that he has lost his relevance to muslims.

Obviously Muhammad has had a lasting effect on civilization, but I'm saying he has lost his relevance as a teacher and as a leader.  Teachers need to interpret the subject matter for a particular audience or apply it to a particular situation, and be available to answer questions from their students.  Leaders need to show how to respond to current events and adapt a strategy as events progress.  Muhammad can do none of those things.  All we have is his words and deeds, frozen on a printed page.  It is a sequel to the Quran, i.e. a "partner" to the Quran written by a different author.  IMHO it is shirk.

honeto wrote: Addressing the Prophet (pbuh) as if he is listening is not right and that's the impression I get when I read: "O Prophet" . He seem to address the prophet, and I guess that's where I see wrong. It reminds me of our Shia brothers who call upon Ali(RA) as if he can hear them.

Addressing a prayer to the Prophet is certainly the most glaring issue, but isn't there a similar problem with the whole idea of "serving" Muhammad?  I thought the duty of all Muslims is to serve Allah and only Allah.  Some might argue that to serve Muhammad is indirectly to serve Allah, but the same argument could be made that a prayer to Muhammad is indirectly a prayer to Allah.  Allah does not want or need intermediaries or "partners", whether for prayer or allegiance.  Certainly if the goal of all Muslims is to emulate Muhammad, then one could hardly imagine Muhammad praying to himself or pledging allegiance to himself.

honeto wrote: Obeying the prophets is of course not the same. Obeying the prophet is like obeying the law, the authority. The prophets were the authority, the law installed by God on earth.

Obeying the prophet is like obeying the law only if the prophet is (or is like) the law.  But only Allah is the law, and there is no other like Him.  To believe otherwise is shirk.

By following Newton's law of motion or gravity, no one is worshiping Newton, while according to your argument they are!

According to my argument, Newton was merely the "messenger" for the law of gravity.  The universe obeys the law of gravity, not the law of Newton.

Br. Hasan, I thing we have already explained the Islamic position on what is shirk; what you are doing now is giving Ron WEBB a plat form for what he is here for.

   Let me explain what is going on if you didn�t recognize it yet. The Masons is preparing an all out attack on ISLAM. They already got all their Military in position for this event. If you notice they already launch of poster in the subway, and the cartoon and now the movie; the reason for that is before they launch an all out attack they first defame Islam so when we cry for the world to help no one will listen to us. Next, the turn Salafies against Shia to help them achieve their goal in wining with less booth on the ground like they did in Afghanistan and Iraq, what is important to know is both Sunny ans Shia is going down; they are preparing a mass murdering. Do you notice on the news the �SARS� VIRUS APPEARS IN SAUDI? COINCIDENT? NO! When the would have launch the war on Iran most likely they will release an airborne strain of the SARS in Saudi and blame it on �MUTATION OF THE VIRUS� WHICH WOULD BE AN ALL OUT WAR ON ISLAM; TRUST ME BROTHER, THESE PEOPLE ARE SATAN WORSHIPER. ROM WEBB IS A MOUTH PEACE FOR THEM (I MEAN NO OFFEND TO HIM).

Br. Zainool

honeto wrote: I am not sure if you are serious about this, you give me impression that you are not.

I am serious, but I don't think you understand me.  I'm talking about the hadith, not the Quran.

Of course the laws are from God. Ten commandments of 'Moses' are not actually his, they were given to him by God. He is gone but every follower of the OT still live by them. And by following those commands you are telling me that those people are worshiping Moses? Are you out of your mind?

Of course the Quran is from God (or at least that is the claim).  So were the Ten Commandments (again, allegedly).  But the hadith are the words of Muhammad, not God.  Allah said many times that the Quran is the best http://www.progressive-muslim.org/quran-and-fake-hadith.htm - Hadith , and the only one you need.  It should not have a "partner" text of human words and deeds, compiled by other humans.  Even Muhammad himself instructed his scribes not to write down his own words.

Really, this is so obvious I have a hard time understanding why so few Muslims see it.  Muhammad says, "don't write any of this down" -- and the scribes dutifully write, "And Muhammad said, 'don't write this down.'"  It's like a silly joke.

You responded above: "The universe obeys the law of gravity, not the law of Newton." Right, but when someone studies and applies that law (Newton's law)in everyday science, according to you they are worshiping Newton. That's what you are saying.

No, I'm saying it's as if Newton's students had said to themselves, "This Newton guy is so smart about science that I'm going to mimic everything he ever says and does in his entire life" -- from his clothing choices to his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynophobia - cynophobia to how he goes to the bathroom, for heaven's sake! It's !

Four blind people went to visit zoo. They move around all over the zoo and guide was telling them that how all the animals� looks like. These all animals were inside the security fence. At end of the visit, guide took all of the four blind persons near to the elephant and told them (blind persons) that this is elephant and since elephant is not inside the fence, you all got the chance to touch him as well. They all made use of this opportunity.

Once these blind persons went home, they were discussing about their trip of zoo with each other. One who touches the leg of elephant, telling that entire elephant is like straight thin stick. The other blind person who touches the head of elephant said no, you are wrong, elephant is like a huge foodball.The third blind person who touches tail of the elephant he was not convince with other two person�s statements and so the forth one as well. Only a person who has the eyes can correctly answer that how an elephant look like because he is able to see the complete elephant.

People who are not Muslim and not just that but for years of their study and discussions they are not able to recognize their creator and does not have command over the Quran and Sunnah, if they thought that Muslims are not correctly following their religion and they are wrong on some places than they are doing the same mistake as the four blinds are doing in above story.

Usmani

Abu Loren wrote: Yes, you are right when you say that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) said not to write down anything of what he says. However, it seems that he changed his mind because of the following hadith.

Ah, "he changed his mind."  So the things that Muhammad said are changeable and not intended to apply for all time.  Thank you for illustrating my point.

As you probably know the Hadiths are not in any chronological order and from an uninitiated eye it does seem to have contradictions.

Not "seem" to have contradictions.  They do have contradictions, and lots of them.  You just mentioned one.  I won't belabour the point, but I'm sure you know it's true.

Without these Hadiths the Muslims wouldn't know how to pray or what to say on prayers, they wouldn't know how to perform ablution and they wouldn't have known the meaning to many Qur'anic verses.

If Allah didn't tell you how to pray or what to say, perhaps that is because He doesn't care how you pray or what you say, as long as you are sincere.  In fact, perhaps He'd rather that you decide for yourself.  When you express your love for your wife, does she have to tell you what to say or how to say it?

You'd probably think that all of this is from his own whims and desires but the truth is that Archangel Gabriel (AS) was in constant contact with the Prophet (pbuh) and it was indeed Archangel Gabriel (AS) who showed Muhammed (pbuh) everything.

Or so it says in the hadith, right?

For your information I used to be a doubter of Hadiths too until I started reading them. In my honest opinion, what is contained therein, a normal human being cannot possibly produce these works and explain what has been achieved by the Prophet (pbuh). Have you read them at all?

I have read enough of them to see that they are contradictory, unreliable and frankly unworthy to be considered holy scripture.  (Do we really need to know how Muhammad urinated?  Seriously??)

honeto wrote: Ron, for a Muslim the Quran is the Word of God, never to be rewritten changed or altered. On the other hand Hadith is word of men about what the prophet did or said. It has to be verified. If a Hadith negates the Quran it cannot be a true Hadith.

And what if it cannot be verified?  If this information is essential to Islam and obligatory for all Muslims, but it is not found in the Quran, then doesn't that by definition make the Quran incomplete?

Is it not more likely that these things are not essential?  If Allah omitted something, it could not have been by accident.  He must have done so intentionally.  Perhaps He truly doesn't care, or perhaps He appreciates the diversity of our individual choices, or perhaps it is better for us to use our own judgement according to the circumstances.  Whatever the reason, surely it is not for any man, including Muhammad, to add essential elements to Allah's religion.  Only a partner to Allah could have the authority to do that.

The Prophet (pbuh) was an excellent Muslim. I, like any Muslim would love to copy that excellent example, only then we can become like him, a good Muslim.

Modern washrooms have facilities far beyond anything Muhammad could have imagined.  Even hand soap was probably unknown to him.  He cleaned himself with three stones, not because stones are superior to toilet paper, but because toilet paper did not exist at the time.  Ditto for indoor plumbing and bidets and hand sanitizer and deodorant and pH-balanced shampoo and electric toothbrushes and fluoride toothpaste and dental floss.

Oh my, I certainly seem to have touched a nerve here.  I do apologize to all for having inadvertently caused offense, but the facts are the facts.

Abu Loren wrote: How dare you twist my words and use it against me? I said the Prophet (pbuh) did not perform ablution every time he went to the toilet, where did I say that he did not wash his hands? Do you know the difference between ablution and washing one's hands?

I did not intend to twist your words.  If you had used the word "wudu", I would have understood that you were referring to the Islamic ritual; but the English word "ablution" is just a fancy word meaning to wash or rinse one's body, so from my point of view there really is no difference.  And just for the record, the hadith in question makes it clear that Muhammad saw no need to use water (to wash himself ritually or otherwise) after urinating:
"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) urinated and Umar was standing behind him with a jug of water. He said: What is this, Umar? He replied: Water for you to perform ablution with. He said: I have not been commanded to perform ablution every time I urinate. If I were to do so, it would become a sunnah."  http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/001-sat.php - Sunan Abu-Dawud , Book 1, Number 0042.

honeto wrote: The Laws, for example here in the US are written in form of books. Why do we need judges, lawyers and experts in the legal system? Do you question why there are these people needed while we already have the law?

Judges are needed to settle disputes between litigants.  Other legal experts are useful in answering legal questions and explaining how the law might apply in particular contexts.  In both cases, the interaction, with the litigants or with the questioners, is an essential element to their function.  The plaintiff states his case, the defendent gives his rebuttal, and the judge decides whose argument shall prevail; or the client describes his situation, poses a particular question, and the legal expert offers his opinion as to the legal aspects.  This cannot happen after the judges and/or legal experts are dead.

If, according to you the Quran, or in this case the book of law has everything in it no further explaining needed, why do we need these highly educated and learned men and women explaining, defending, cross examining, questioning the understanding of what the law in the book means and how it applies!

Indeed, there is value in imams and priests and clerics of all kinds who can answer questions and help interpret scripture for the lay person.  However, again the interaction is the crucial element that makes them valuable.  You can't ask Muhammad a question; and even if you could, his answer cannot take into account your particular circumstances.

Somehow you claim to know information about the prophet that I am not aware of like the three stone you claimed he cleaned himself with. Did you pick up those stone and put them in you pocket so you still have their count? Disgusting and disrespectful, you are really getting low Mr. Ron.

Disgusting, I agree, and unworthy to appear in a holy scripture, but there it is:
"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When any of you goes to relieve himself, he should take with him three stones to cleans himself, for they will be enough for him." http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/001-sat.php - Sunan Abu-Dawud , Book 1, Number 0040.  (See also http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/004-sbt.php - Sahih Bukhari , Book 4, Numbers 157, 158, 162 and many others.)

let me ask you: You do not wipe with a paper if poop touched your hand, or do you? Why would you do that to your bottom. It is still part of your body, unless you think it is not part of your body?

Elsewhere I have to settle for toilet paper, but that is still better than stones.  And I always wash my hands afterwards, with soap (which Muhammad apparently did not use); or where even soap is unavailable, I normally carry a small bottle of hand sanitizer. So yes, I believe I am cleaner than any eighth century Muslim -- not meaning any disrespect for Muhammad or his contemporaries, who did the best they could with the resources available to them.

It s not defamation to point out that Muhammad was human, and fallible, not above criticism and not a demi-god to whom it is appropriate to pray, as Nasrallah clearly did.

If soap had been available in the 600s then Muhammad would undoubtedly have used it, and it would have been part of wudu.  In 2012 it should be part of any hand-washing regimen.  IMHO Allah did not mention the details of wudu in the Quran because He expected Muslims to use some common sense and wash their hands properly, using whatever facilities are available at the time -- not just to slavishly follow what Muhammad did.

Abu Loren wrote: Now are you implying that Muslims do not wash their hands with soap?

No, I'm implying that Muhammad is no longer an "excellent example" of how to wash one's hands.  But I think most Muslims already know this.  They just won't admit it.

honeto wrote: Those who made the constitution and many of the laws we follow are dead now. We still follow them, and in case we need interpretation or explanation we have experts who know and believe in them.

We -- or rather you (I'm Canadian) -- don't follow the Constitution because Jefferson and Adams said so.  You follow it because it continues to have the broad support of the American people, but it is not cast in stone.  On the contrary, it has been amended twenty-seven times since it was enacted a bit more than two centuries ago.  After fourteen centuries, how much more amendment might be needed for the hadith?

The Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) brought us laws, he is not with us but those laws are. Knowledgeable and educated experts can help us in light of those laws and their guidelines when we have a question or explanation or for something that is new to us. Like the constitution and the laws, their makers have long gone, but we have judges,lawyers and experts doing the explaining and interpreting where necessary.

As I said, living experts can be helpful, but they are less so after they die, and the longer they remain dead the less relevant their opinions become.

First, Islam is a complete way of life, and that is a proof of that. No issue that affects a person's daily life is missed, yes even cleaning after one's self.

I'd be interested in the Quran's discussion of cell phone etiquette.

Second, you fail to understand that there is a difference between the Holy Quran which is directly from God, and Hadith which is word of men.

On the contrary, that is the whole reason for this discussion!  See below.

Also people who refuse to accept Quran, how would Hadith will make any difference for them? So they take both as a mockery.

As I've said many times, although I do not personally believe in the Quran, I can certainly defend it as a worthy example of holy scripture.  I cannot say the same for the hadith.  Much of the criticism and hatred (and yes, ridicule) of Islam is due to the hadith.  Much of the intolerance and extremism among Muslims also seems to stem from the hadith.  IMHO Islam would be a much better religion if Muslims would abide only by the words of God and not "partner" them with the words of men.

Fourteen hundred year ago Muslims were washing after going to the bathroom as they were commanded in the Quran, ...

Where exactly is it commanded to wash your hands after going to the bathroom?  The Quran quote you offered (5:6) is about washing your hands before prayer, not necessarily after every trip to the bathroom.  We already have a hadith ( http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/001-sat.php - Sunan Abu-Dawud , Book 1, Number 0042) which shows that Muhammad did not regard handwashing as compulsory after urinating.

... what you missed and others are pointing out to you is if there is no water available what do you do to keep cleaner.

I use a gel-based hand sanitizer.  You really think that rubbing your hands in "clean sand" ( http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/articles/2012/Digging_in_beach_sand.html - whatever that is ) or dirt () is going to make them cleaner?

He is here for years, instead for getting light of Islam from here on islamicity, he is getting more towards darkness.Hidaya comes from God Almighty alone and when any body talks bad about someone to whom God loves too much how can he will get the light. See what Allah says in Quran to the companion of Prophet (peace and mercy of Allah upon Him)

O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds should be rendered fruitless while you perceive not.(  سورة الحجرات  , Al-Hujraat, Chapter http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=49&translator=5 - #49 , Verse http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=49&translator=5#2 - #2 )

Abu Loren wrote: I've finally realised that it's not worth engaging with this Ron Webb character. He twists everything we say to suit his atheist and scientific belief and he will lead the believers away from the Straight Path.

That's actually pretty funny.  If I wanted to suit my "atheist and scientific belief" I would reject both the hadith and the Quran.  Instead, for the purposes of discussion I am setting aside my atheism, and assuming that the fundamental premises of Islam are true, i.e. that Muhammad was truly the Prophet of God, through whom the Quran was revealed.

With that assumption, the Quran itself makes it clear that it alone is the "Straight Path": complete and perfect, neither requiring nor accepting a "partner" text compiled by men.
 

He is stealthily making fun of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and Islam as a whole.

Not at all; but if that were my goal, I would simply quote the http://biblical-islam.blogspot.ca/2010/11/ikhwan-series-4-some-ridiculous-bukhari.html - hadiths themselves .
 

My advise for everybody is to just ignore him.

Yup, just run away.