[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
Ibn Sadique,
Your first answer is something I wouldnt mind admitting, if you could provde me a reference for the dialects you speak of, apart from an article specifically geared towards rebuttal of this allegation. Btw, you seem knowledgable abt this, I'd recommend that you write a rebuttal on the chapter on answering-islam.org on tahrif in the Quran. It (fortunately for me) bases itself exclusively on sunni sources :).
I find your answer to the second hadith intruiging. Can you tell me why an ayat in the Quran would first be revealed and then be cancelled. Did Allah make a mistake when revealing it ? Or did the circumstances of the world change in a way that was beyond His knowledge when He revealed the ayat, causing Him to ordain its correction?
This is just personal musing, not the position of my sect. I was merely unaware of the concept of ayaat being cancelled/taken back.
But my purpose in posting instances from sahih bukhari were not to question Ahl-e-sunnah's belief in the integrity of the Quran. Nor were the two instances I mentioned the only ones I can find, indeed anwering-islam.org and certain shia sites as well make a living out of questionable ahadith that imply or state that the Quran is not in its original form anymore. Just do a google, and be sure to verify Bukhari snippets from USC MSA's online bukhari.
Bottom line, I do not care what you think certain shia minority segments in the past, or certain sunni minority segments in the past may or may not have believed regarding the Quran, gun to their head, ask any sunni or shia if the Quran is Allah's final word, untampered, unadulterated, and the answer would be YES, it is, simply because thats what their sect teaches them. As for your own opinion that mainstream shi'at held belief in a different Quran, I merely cite again, the copies of Quran written in our Imam's hand. It doesnt get ANY more mainstream than the imam, my friend, as far as shias go. But since you believe that thats what 'some' shias used to believe in the past, i'll even let that pass :).
We though, have the advantage that we can get rid of any traditions that go against the core of our faith, by concluding that they're unreliable. You, unfortunately, do not have that liberty.
[/QUOTE]
Ravage - Let me clarify my entry into this was purely accidental and no way to bash Shia beliefs regarding the Status of Quran. Two days ago when paid my daily ‘visit’ to Gupshup, I just clicked on ‘Who’s Online’ and saw thread ‘diffrence in shia and sunni quran’ being read by a guest.
Going through the thread I noticed PA’s erroneous post had been left unchallenged. So to put the record correct I posted here.
You must note that I did defend the Shia position regarding the Completeness of Quran. But the Shia have a historical problem that not only do the have a lot material in their hadith books which categorically states that the Quran has been tampered with or that ‘Real Quran’ does not resemble the present Quran at all but many great Ulemah of Shia have emphatically stated that the Quran has been tampered with!
I could have ‘cut & pasted’ all this from anti-Shia sites with references from the Shia books to fill up 2/3 pages of Gupshup. But I know that the Shia themselves accept the about 60% of hadith in Shia books are unreliable. And that Shia do believe that Quran to be complete in its original form.
My friend did come back to me yesterday and pointed out the all hadiths that islam.org had forwarded ‘as proof of Sunnis belief of tampering’ in the Quran come under the same category of Abrogated Verses. [Nasakh and Mansukh].
The Shias too, believe in Nasakh and Mansukh.
My friend also sent the following which sadly shows that prominent Shia Ulemah endorsing the Shia hadith of incompleteness of the Quran. I am posting it here verbatim.
“Muhammad Baqir Al-Majlissi who wrote in Maraat ul-3uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Aal Al-Rasuul, Vol. 12, P. 525, in his interpretation of the Hadith: “The Quraan which Gabriel came with to Muhammad (saws) contains 17000 verses.” He wrote: “Authenticated, and in some copies narrated through Hashim bin Salem instead of Haroon bin Salem, so the narration is AUTHENTIC. It is obvious that this narration and LOTS OF (OTHER) AUTHENTIC NARRATIONS are expressive concerning the LOSS OF QURAAN and ITS MANIPULATION, and for me the narrations in this regard are MUTAWATIRRA in their meaning (i.e. delivered by many people), AND THE REJECTION OF ALL OF THEM REQUIRES DIRECTLY NOT TO RELY ON (ANY) NARRATIONS, EVEN MORE IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE NARRATIONS IN THIS REGARD ARE NOR INFERIOR TO THE NARRATIONS ABOUT THE IMAAMAT SO HOW DO THEY PROOVE IT (THE IMAAMAT) RELIED ON NARRATIONS?”
“One of the most famous and respected Shi'ite scholars, from Najaf, Mirza Husain bin Muhammad Taqi An-Nawari At-Tabarsi, wrote in 1292 A.H. [1875 AD] the book faslul-Khitaab fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaab Rabbil-Arbaab (The Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book of the Lord of Lords). In this book he compiled hundreds of texts written by Shi'ite scholars in different eras alleging that the Qur'an has been tampered with, that there have been both additions to it and omissions from it.
At-Tabarsi's book was printed in Iran, in 1298 A.H., [1880 AD] and its appearance attracted much attention, frustrating the intention of certain Shi'ites that their doubts about the authenticity of the Qur'an should be restricted to the elite of religious scholars and personalities. They preferred that these allegations not be brought together in a single volume, and widely disseminated, as it could be used as a proof against them by their opponents.
When the scholars made public their criticism, At-Tabarsi responded with another book entitled Raddu ba'dush-Shubahaati `an Faslil-Khitaabi fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaabi Rabbil-Arbaab (Refutation of Some Specious Arguments Regarding the Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book of the Lord of the Lords). He wrote this defense of his original book two years before his death.”
..and if you need more let me know ;)
[QUOTE]
if you could provde me a reference for the dialects you speak of
[/QUOTE]
I copied this from the Net. If you search for Seven Qiraats in Google you will find many sites ‘selling’ Seven Qiraat Quran CDs.
Question : ……….Nowadays only to ways of reading are in use, Warsj of Nafi' and Hafs of 'Asim.
Could you tell me more about these different ways of reading? Are there ahadieth about this?.
Answer :
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly :
You should note, may Allaah bless you that the Qur’aan was revealed in one style at the beginning, but the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) kept asking Jibreel (as) until he taught him seven styles, all of which were complete. The evidence for that is the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas who narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Jibreel taught me one style and I reviewed it until he taught me more, and I kept asking him for more and he gave me more until finally there were seven styles.”
(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3047; Muslim, 819)
Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?
The best of the scholarly opinions concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction.
Thirdly:
Some of the scholars said that what was meant by ahruf was the dialects of the Arabs, but this is far-fetched, because of the hadeeth of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab who said: “I heard Hishaam ibn Hakeem reciting Soorat al-Furqaan in a manner different from that in which I used to recite it and the way in which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught me to recite it. I was about to argue with him whilst he was praying, but I waited until he finished his prayer, and then I tied his garment around his neck and seized him by it and brought him to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, I heard this man reciting Soorat-al-Furqaan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.’ The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him, ‘Recite it,’ and he recited it as I had heard him recite it. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ Then he said to me, ‘Recite it,’ so I recited it and he said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ This Qur'aan has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”
(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2287; Muslim, 818)
It is known that Hishaam was Asadi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani Asad in Quraysh) and ‘Umar was ‘Adawi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani ‘Adiyy in Quraysh). Both of them were from Quraysh and Quraysh had only one dialect. If the difference in ahruf (styles) had been a difference in dialects, why would two men of Quraysh have been different?
The scholars mentioned nearly forty different opinions concerning this matter! Perhaps the most correct is that which we have mentioned above. And Allaah knows best.
s go out to Ibn Sadique for a fantastic explanation…That was very informative and wonderfully explained…
but was mistakenly given to the Holy Prophet :saw:…
. stupid site !
