Not a very good answer to the "manipulation" allegation. Is it?
I think Musanna doesn't understand what I was referring to. An example might help:
Read the following verse 33:32-34. They have feminine suffix ('noon') in all the aayats, but have plural suffix ('meem') only in one sentence. I have put that one sentence in bold:
(33:32)O wives of the Prophet! you are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in (your) speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word.
(33:33)And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore; and keep up prayer, and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying.
(33:34)And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the communications of Allah and the wisdom; surely Allah is Knower of subtleties, Aware.
So what could be the reason of placing that sentence in between verses talking to Prophet's wives? May be someone wanted to include wives in Ahlul Bait, even though the ahadith do not support it.
Manipulation or what?!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
*Originally posted by 1010: *
*The hatred you are showing spilling is nothing new. *
This sentence followed by...
*Everything is expected from you guys. *
Nice.. the ' You guys" bit is so classy
[/quote]
'You guys' is not a reference to all Ahle Sunnat. It is about the Wahhabi mentality, 'kill-who-doesnot-agree-with-you' kind of people.
[quote]
You can even fight with Ali, curse him from after your prayers, kill Prophet's grandson, and make Prophet's daughters your prisoners. Your history is replete with such heroics.
challo ji, one more thread where i dont need to waste my time.
[/QUOTE]
Again it is not directed towards all Ahle Sunnat.
10,
you know what, I will open for you a special playground thread, so you can post all your nonsense there, and we can see how far your knowledge reaches, but please restrict yourself to that thread and don't pop up with foolish comments on other threads that have nothing to do with the topic.
I think you still can not understand it. sigh. Ok here is the transliteration:
(33:32) Ya nisa annabi lastunNA kahadim manan nisa init taqaitunNA fala takhdaNA bilqauli fayatma'al lazi fi qalbihi maradun wa qulNA qaulam maroofa
(33:33) wa qarna fi buyootikunNA wala tabarrajna tabarrujal jahiliyyatil aula wa aqimNA salaata wa aataiNA zakaata wa aateNA allaha wa rasoolahu innama yureedullahu leyuzhiba ankUM rijsa Ahlal Baiti wa yutahhirkUM tatheera
(33:34) wazkurNA ma yutla fi buyootikunNA min aayaatillahe walhikmate inna allaha kaana lateefan khabeera
Does it fit your brain now? Or do you want more explanation? Why are the addressees changed in the middle?
This verse about Ahle Bait is clear example of deliberate misplacement of verses to give interpretations of one's own likings.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
Why don't you have access to it anymore? Don't you believe you have the Imaam's compilation. There can be no difference between Ali's one and the one of the Aimmah if you believe they are both infallible.
So why don't you follow these alleged copies in your museums?
[/quote]
There are no copies available of Ali's compilation. To say that any of its copies exist is wrong.
[quote]
Why are you relying on those who were compiled by murderers, liars, thieves, hypocrites according to your beliefs?
[/quote]
We are relying on it because this Quran compilation is also free of addition and subraction.
There were no additional or deleted verses present in that compilation.
[quote]
You don't consider it to be the same. How can a book whose sentences were misplaced be considered equal to one with the right order? It can't.
[/quote]
Why not? Even if some sentences are misplaced, the majority of them are at their original place.
[quote]
Of course not, because these compilations don't change the fact that the original was preserved and after all they were burned. So the only existent compilation is the right one by the noble Sahabah
[/quote]
Sure. Only those compiled during Usman's time are existant.
Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a al-Houda,
[QUOTE]
There are no copies available of Ali's compilation. To say that any of its copies exist is wrong.
[/QUOTE]
explain this to your fellow brother in Rafidism.
[QUOTE]
We are relying on it because this Quran compilation is also free of addition and subraction. There were no additional or deleted verses present in that compilation.
[/QUOTE]
that's not what your great scholars said, but nevertheless, bring me a single narration from your books that claims that only the order was changed not the content. Bearing in mind that there are thousands of narrations in your books that say the contrary, you surely have some narration on which you can rely to disregard all the others. So BRING IT!
[QUOTE]
Why not? Even if some sentences are misplaced, the majority of them are at their original place.
[/QUOTE]
Good, so if I took a book of your scholars and changed the order of all sentences, you would still accept it as a book without any manipulation. right?
[QUOTE]
Sure. Only those compiled during Usman's time are existant.
[/QUOTE]
Allahu Akbar! Now please convince ravage and then tell me how you can rely on a Quraan compiled by people whom you consider to be Kuffar, Hypocrites, Nawaseb, murderers, liars, thieves, rapers...
wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
that's not what your great scholars said, but nevertheless, bring me a single narration from your books that claims that only the order was changed not the content.
[/quote]
I told you that Quran is one of our books, and it clearly says that Allah is the protector of it.
[quote]
Bearing in mind that there are thousands of narrations in your books that say the contrary,
[/quote]
No authentic narration say the contrary. Its your misinformation.
[quote]
Good, so if I took a book of your scholars and changed the order of all sentences, you would still accept it as a book without any manipulation. right?
[/quote]
Some verses are manipulated in the sense that they were put at wrong places. Hope it could fit in your hate-filled brain.
[quote]
Allahu Akbar! Now please convience ravage and then tell me how you can rely on a Quraan compiled by people whom you consider to be Kuffar, Hypocrites, Nawaseb, murderers, liars, thieves, rapers...
[/quote]
- Because there are no authentic references in our books which say that some verses were added or some deleted. Such verses are only found in authentic Ahle Sunnat books like Sahih Muslim.
- Ahle Tashayyu don't call sahabahs all the words you have used against them. It's only your hate which is spilling.
Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,
[QUOTE]
I told you that Quran is one of our books, and it clearly says that Allah is the protector of it.
[/QUOTE]
I answered this already, read more carefully:
**Because how do you know that Allah (swt) preserves His book? You will say, He says so in the Quraan. Then the question is, in which compilation? The one of the Sahabah! But if you don't trust them, then you cannot argue with the Quraan at all otherwise you would be using circular logic.
Apart from that don't forget that you don't understand the Quraan, you need the confirmation of an infallible that the Quraan is absolutely preserved by Allah (swt). But as a matter of fact such a confirmation doesn't exist in your books, but rather all narrations by your infallible state the contrary.**
Moreover you believe the order of the verses was manipulated, so how can you claim that it is preserved at the same time? What permits you to restrict the preservation only to its words, but not the order? Likewise someone else could argue, well the preservation only means that the meaning is preserved, not its words. And as a matter of fact that's what your scholars said! Fayd Al-Kashani writes that in his Safi - as far as I remember.
[QUOTE]
No authentic narration say the contrary. Its your misinformation.
[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid it's your misinformation, not mine:
BAQIR Al-MAJLISSI writes 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 NOT INFERIOR TO THE NARRATIONS ABOUT THE IMAAMAT SO HOW DO THEY PROOVE IT (THE IMAAMAT) RELIED ON NARRATIONS?"**
Read carefully how he interprets it!
And of course there are lots of similar quotes by high-ranking Rafidi scholars - as a matter of fact all of the "classic" Rafidi scholars confirmed this Kuffr except for four about whom your own scholars like Nu'matullah Al-Jaza'iri wrote that they just denied it in order to close a door for the opponents...Taqiyya.
[QUOTE]
Some verses are manipulated in the sense that they were put at wrong places.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for confirming your belief in the manipulation of the Quraan.
[QUOTE]
1. Because there are no authentic references in our books which say that some verses were added or some deleted. Such verses are only found in authentic Ahle Sunnat books like Sahih Muslim.
[/QUOTE]
There is a consensus among Ahl ul Sunnah that the one who believes in the manipulation of the Quraan is a Kaffir while you even respect such people as great scholars. As for these narrations you are referring to, they talk about the abrogation of recitation and I challenge you to bring me a single Sunni scholar who interpreted them in another way or confirmed the alleged manipulation. You will fail.
[QUOTE]
2. Ahle Tashayyu don't call sahabahs all the words you have used against them. It's only your hate which is spilling.
[/QUOTE]
Are the people who compiled the Quraan trustworthy?
wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda
I guess Im too tired to continue participating in the infinite loop of Al Muthanna.
Heres the bottom line, as far as Im concerned:
- Quran was compiled by Hazrat Ali and it survived a good period of time.
- During the time other compilations were made, Hazrat Ali's codice existed, and was thus a means of verification for the later arrivals.
- The differences in order evidently do not make a major difference, otherwise we would follow that. you will not find a single marjaa insist that there are two qurans, one better than the other
- Most of your fodder is based on out of context passages, and even those we do not take as gospel. Most of your arguments have been countered time and time again.
Im guessing you'll repaste your whole past now. Whatever tickles where you itch man, Im out of the loop.
Up to now you failed to mention a single narration from your own books that support this claim and failed to explain why the Rafida didn’t memorize it during this alleged period of time.
I refer you to your brother 10 who denied this.
Here I found one: AYATULLAH Al-HA’IRI:
http://www.shiaa.org/sound/haere.rm
He reports how Ali (ra) is supposed to have told the Sahabah that they will never see his compilation again and that this Quraan we have at the moment is “respected” but the real Quraan will be brought by the Mahdi…
Most of your fodder is based on nothing.
wa salamu 'ala man itaba’a al-Houda
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
Because how do you know that Allah (swt) preserves His book? You will say, He says so in the Quraan. Then the question is, in which compilation? The one of the Sahabah! But if you don't trust them, then you cannot argue with the Quraan at all otherwise you would be using circular logic.
[/quote]
Contrary to what you think, Shias don't consider all Companions to be liars, cheaters, rapists, etc.
Hazrat Usman did not write the Quran in his home. He collected it from various people not just from one. The only problem he had was dislike towards Ali, so he did not accept his compilation. But no where did Ali or any other Imam say that the Quran compiled during Usman's time was missing any verse.
This is one of the reasons we conclude that the Quran was compiled completely.
It is only Ahle Sunnat Sahah Satta which claim that quite a lot of verses are missing from the present Quran. One verse even says that a goat ate one of the manuscripts.
Hence you should be asking the question about Allah's promise of Quran's protection from your own ulema.
[quote]
Apart from that don't forget that you don't understand the Quraan, you need the confirmation of an infallible that the Quraan is absolutely preserved by Allah (swt).
[/quote]
We don't need confirmation for all verses. In Quran Allah tells us that there are two types of verses: muhkam and mutashabeh. Muhkam are clear verses and don't need interpretation, like Surah Ikhlas, while mutashabeh require a teacher to give explanation, for example the Prophet himself.
[quote]
But as a matter of fact such a confirmation doesn't exist in your books, but rather all narrations by your infallible state the contrary.
[/quote]
There are many verses whose interpretation are given in ahadith books.
[quote]
Moreover you believe the order of the verses was manipulated, so how can you claim that it is preserved at the same time?
[/quote]
The number of verses is preserved, but not all are in order.
[quote]
What permits you to restrict the preservation only to its words, but not the order?
[/quote]
The Quran itself. And Ali's and other Imams' acceptance regarding completion of Quran.
[quote]
Likewise someone else could argue, well the preservation only means that the meaning is preserved, not its words. And as a matter of fact that's what your scholars said! Fayd Al-Kashani writes that in his Safi - as far as I remember.
[/quote]
This was his personal opinion. None of the Imams said that.
[quote]
BAQIR Al-MAJLISSI writes 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 NOT INFERIOR TO THE NARRATIONS ABOUT THE IMAAMAT SO HOW DO THEY PROOVE IT (THE IMAAMAT) RELIED ON NARRATIONS?"**
[/quote]
As Allama said, it is only HIS opinion, not accepted by Shias in general. But in case of Ahle Sunnat there are many ahadith from the MOST AUTHENTIC ahadith books which tell us about the loss of many verses, including a surah which was comparable in length to Surah Baqara.
[quote]
And of course there are lots of similar quotes by high-ranking Rafidi scholars - as a matter of fact all of the "classic" Rafidi scholars confirmed this Kuffr except for four about whom your own scholars like Nu'matullah Al-Jaza'iri wrote that they just denied it in order to close a door for the opponents...Taqiyya.
[/quote]
WE HAD AN UNDERSTANDING, MUSANNA, THAT YOU WILL RESPECT OTHERS. IF YOU KEEP CALLING US RAFIDIS THEN YOU WILL GET THE RESPONSE YOU DESERVE. COMPRENDE?
As I said, these are the opinions of some of the scholars, not accepted by others.
[quote]
Thanks for confirming your belief in the manipulation of the Quraan.
[/quote]
Sure, the order of Quranic verses has been manipulated, not there number. But in contrast, Sunnis believe that the many verses are missing from Quran. For example:
"It has been narrated by Abu 'Ubayy in al-Faza'il and by ibn Al- Anbari and Ibn Marduwayh from 'A'ishah that she said: 'The Surah al-Ahzab was recited in the days of the Prophet (SAW.) two hundred verses, but when 'Uthman wrote the Qur'an, he was unable to find more than what is there at present.
But there are only 73 verses in this surah
Ref: Al-Itqan Vol. 2, p. 32; Ad-Durru 'I manthur, Vol. 5, pp. 170-180
Read this one also. It is reported in MANY sunni books, including Sahih Bukhari:
The Sahih Of Al-Bukhari:
Al-Bukhari recorded in his Sahih (authentic), part eight, pages 209-210, that Ibn 'Abbas reported that 'Umar bin al-Khattab said in a discourse which he delivered during the last year of his caliphate:
"Certainly Allah sent Muhammad with the truth, and revealed to him the Book. One of the revelations which came to him was the verse of stoning. We read it and understood it.
"The Messenger of God stoned and we stoned after him. I am concerned that if time goes on, someone may say, 'By God, we do not find the verse of stoning in the Book of God;' thus, the Muslims will deviate by neglecting a commandment the Almighty revealed.
"Stoning is in the Book of God. It is the right punishment for a person who commits adultery if the required witnesses are available, or there was pregnancy without marriage or adultery is admitted."
Again, we used to read in the what we found in the Book of God:
"Do not deny the fatherhood of your fathers in contempt because it is disbelief on your part to be ashamed of the fatherhood of your fathers."
Similar reports were recorded by Imam Ahmad in part one of his Musnad (in the Musnad of 'Umar under the caption of the Hadith al-Saqifah, pages 47 and 55). Ibn Hisham recorded similar things in his Seerah of the Prophet. part 2, page 658 (second printing, 1955).
Sahih (Authentic) Of Muslim.
So it is actually Sunnis who believe in Quran being incomplete.
[quote]
There is a consensus among Ahl ul Sunnah that the one who believes in the manipulation of the Quraan is a Kaffir while you even respect such people as great scholars.
[/quote]
They don't say it for "manipulation". It is only another one of your lies. They say it for "tehreef". And based on their consensus, they should call Bukhari and others to be kaafir, because they reported ahadith which claim that Quran is incomplete.
[quote]
As for these narrations you are referring to, they talk about the abrogation of recitation and I challenge you to bring me a single Sunni scholar who interpreted them in another way or confirmed the alleged manipulation. You will fail.
[/quote]
Give interpretation of the above two ahadith I quoted.
Some other ahadith from Sunni books claiming Quran to be incomplete
Musanna, do take time to go through them.
Muslim in the seventh part of his Sahih (commentary of al-Nawawi) in the Book of al-Zakah, about the virtue of being satisfied with whatever God gives and about urging people to have that virtue, pages 139-140, reported that Abu al-Aswad reported that his father said:
" Abu Musa al-Ash'ari invited the Qur'an readers of Basra. Three hundred readers responded to his invitation. He told them: You are the readers and the choice of the people of Basra. Recite the Qur'an and do not neglect it. Otherwise, a long time may elapse and your hearts will be hardened as the hearts of those who came before you were hardened.
" 'We used to read a chapter from the Qur'an similar to Bara'ah in length and seriousness, but I forgot it. I can remember from that chapter only the following words:
" 'Should a son of Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he would seek a third valley, and nothing would fill Ibn Adam's abdomen but the soil.
" 'We used to read a chapter similar to Musabbihat and I forgot it. I only remember out of it the following:
" 'Oh you who believe, why do you say what you do not do? Thus a testimony will be written on your necks and you will be questioned about it on the Day of Judgment.' "
It is obvious that these words, which Abu Musa mentioned are not from the Qur'an, nor are they similar to any of the words of God in the Qur'an.
Al-Hakim al-Nisaburi in his book al-Mustadrak in the book of commentary on the Qur'an, part two, page 224, reported that Ubay bin Ka'b (whom the Prophet called the leader of al-Ansar), said that the Messenger of God said to him:
"Certainly the Almighty commanded me to read the Qur'an in front of you, and he read 'The unbelievers from the people of the Book and the pagans will not change their way until they see the evidence. Those who disbelieve among the people of the scripture and idolaters could not change until the clear proof came unto them. A Messenger from Allah, reading purified pages ...'"
And of the very excellent part of it "Should Ibn Adam ask for a valley full of wealth and I grant it to him, he would ask for another valley. And if I grant him that, he would ask for a third valley. Nothing would fill the abdomen of Ibn Adam except the soil. God accepts the repentance of anyone who repents. The religion in the eyes of God is the Hanafiyah (Islam) rather than Yahudiyyah (Judaism) or Nasraniyyah (Christianity). Whoever does good, his goodness will not be denied."
Al-Hakim said:
"This is an authentic hadith but the two shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) did not record it. Al-Dhahabi also considered it authentic in his commentary (on al-Mustadrak)."
Al-Hakim reported also that Ubay Ibn Kabb used to read:
"Those who disbelieved had set up in their hearts the zealotry of the age of ignorance; and if you had had a similar zealotry, the Sacred Mosque would have been corrupted, and God brought down His peace of reassurance upon His Messenger."
When this reading was conveyed to 'Umar, he became very angry with Ubay. He sent for him while he was treating his she-camel with tar. He also invited other companions, including Zayd Ibn Thabit. Ubay came to him. 'Umar asked: "Who among you would read the chapter of al-Fatah (victory)? Zayd Ibn Thabit read the chapter the way we read it now. 'Umar spoke to Ubay angrily. Ubay said 'Shall I speak?' 'Umar said 'Speak out.' Ubay said 'You know that I used to enter the house of the Prophet, and he used to teach me the reading of the Qur'an while you and others were by the door.'"
"If you want me to teach people the way the Prophet taught me, I will teach them; otherwise, I will not teach them one letter ever."
'Umar said to him: "Continue teaching people how to read."
Al-Hakim said this is authentic according to the standards of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim). However, they did not report it.
Al-Dhahabi also considered it authentic in his Commentary on al-Mustadrak, part two, pages 225-226.
NAOOZOBILLAH.
Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,
[QUOTE]
Contrary to what you think, Shias don't consider all Companions to be liars, cheaters, rapists, etc. Hazrat Usman did not write the Quran in his home. He collected it from various people not just from one. The only problem he had was dislike towards Ali, so he did not accept his compilation.
[/QUOTE]
lol, and I thought dislike towards Ali (ra) means you are a Nasibi, the worst form of a Kaffir. So is a Nasibi trustworthy in your sect?
[QUOTE]
But no where did Ali or any other Imam say that the Quran compiled during Usman's time was missing any verse.
[/QUOTE]
There are hundreds of narrations that say exactly the contrary! While there is not even a single tiny one which confirms what you are claiming. Rather it is reported that your Aimmah allegedly advised you to stick to this Quraan as an interim solution until the real one will be brought by the Mahdi.
I challenge you to bring me a single narration from your books that confirm the Quraan was not content-wise manipulated.
[QUOTE]
It is only Ahle Sunnat Sahah Satta which claim that quite a lot of verses are missing from the present Quran. One verse even says that a goat ate one of the manuscripts.
[/QUOTE]
Didn't I challenge you to mention just a single scholar who said there are missing verses in the Quraan? The incident you are referring to is about abrogated verses, I challenge you to bring me a single Sunni scholar who denied this.
[QUOTE]
We don't need confirmation for all verses. In Quran Allah tells us that there are two types of verses: muhkam and mutashabeh. Muhkam are clear verses and don't need interpretation, like Surah Ikhlas, while mutashabeh require a teacher to give explanation, for example the Prophet himself.
[/QUOTE]
See my response in the other thread, that's not what for instance Al-Tussi says.
[QUOTE]
There are many verses whose interpretation are given in ahadith books.
[/QUOTE]
I asked you for a confirmation by an Infallible that the present Quraan is accurate, at least as far as his content is concerned with no missing verses.
[QUOTE]
The number of verses is preserved, but not all are in order.
[/QUOTE]
That's getting funny now. Ravage first claimed that the "SURAS" were perserved, and only the order of them was changed. Then he retracted this statement and agreed that your sect believes the order of the VERSES was manipulated.
And now you claim that, well at least the number of the verses was preserved, but you know I hate to disappoint you here. Weren't you the one who shouted that clearly 33:33 was misplaced? Well unfortunately the part that you have in mind here is not even a VERSE! But rather a part of a verse! So there is no way to believe in this and at the same time to claim that you believe the number of the verses was preserved except for if you look for another verse that was "cut" into many verses. By this it becomes obvious that you are just playing and in fact believing in the alleged manipulation of the Quraan.
The next step would be to claim that the words were misplaced, yet the total of each word was preserved...I'm waiting for that.
[QUOTE]
The Quran itself. And Ali's and other Imams' acceptance regarding completion of Quran.
[/QUOTE]
How does the Quraan permit the manipulation of the order of the verses? Bring me a single narration from your books that allows you to do this Tafsir. Where did an infallible Imaam say that "preserved" doesn't include the order? Remember you aren't allowed to do Tafsir EXCEPT with such a narration.
And again I say, how can you trust it if it was compiled by people whom you don't consider to be trustworthy? As for Ali (ra) and the other Aimmah, then didn't they have their own compilation? Isn't this what your sect claims?
[QUOTE]
As Allama said, it is only HIS opinion, not accepted by Shias in general.
[/QUOTE]
The one who believes in the manipulation of the Quraan is a Allama for you? Allahu Akbar!
Thanks for showing us how much you respect the Book of Allah (swt).
Anyway, he is not simply talking about his personal opinion, he is clearly stating that this Hadeeth about the 17000 verses is AUTHENTICATED. And that its meaning is OBVIOUS about the LOSS and MANIPULATION of Quraan.
Moreover he is posing a great problem for your sect because he is saying that if you reject these narrations (as you did), you can't rely on ANY narrations anymore since they have the same level of authenticity.
[QUOTE]
But in case of Ahle Sunnat there are many ahadith from the MOST AUTHENTIC ahadith books which tell us about the loss of many verses, including a surah which was comparable in length to Surah Baqara.
[/QUOTE]
Al-Kafi is your MOST AUTHENTIC book and contains tens if not hundreds of such narrations.
Anyway, concerning your claim then I have a surprise for you. Your great Abu Ali Al-TABRASSI confirmed the abrogation of recitation and as an example he mentioned the very same matter you were referring to, namely that Sura Al-Ahzab was comparable in length to Sura al-Baqara (see Majma' Al-Bayan, Vol. 1, P. 409). The same was expressed by Abu Ja'far Al-TUSSI in his Tibyan, Vol. 1, P. 394.
So they believed in the manipulation of the Quraan, right?
[QUOTE]
1. WE HAD AN UNDERSTANDING, MUSANNA, THAT YOU WILL RESPECT OTHERS. IF YOU KEEP CALLING US RAFIDIS THEN YOU WILL GET THE RESPONSE YOU DESERVE. COMPRENDE?
[/QUOTE]
Rafida is a praise in your sect recommended by your "infallibles". Blame them if you don't like it, not me.
[QUOTE]
2. As I said, these are the opinions of some of the scholars, not accepted by others.
[/QUOTE]
Some? It is all except for four who were using Taqiyya according to your own scholars!
[QUOTE]
They don't say it for "manipulation". It is only another one of your lies. They say it for "tehreef". And based on their consensus, they should call Bukhari and others to be kaafir, because they reported ahadith which claim that Quran is incomplete.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah sorry, these scholars didn't speak English. How could I forget.
And no there is no need to call Imaam Bukhari a Kaffir for all these narrations refer to the DIVINE abrogation of verses which your own scholars confirmed. Sorry to disappoint you.
As for all the narrations you quoted, I invite you to open a new thread, and I will be more than happy to explain every single narration to you and show you that your own scholars confirmed them.
wa salamu 'ala man itab'a Al-Houda
I would like to reply to each of Musanna's comments, but why has Musanna skipped reports of incompletion of Quran from Sunni ahadith books?
Musanna should first explain his position on those authentic ahadith of his before alleging somebody else.
Assalam o Alaikum
Can any one tell me about the shia stand on those people who belive that quran is tehreef shuda......
we muslims consider them as kaffir..what about shia ...** do they consider those ppl kaffir who have written in thier books that quran is tehreef shuda **
jazkalah khair........
aap ka piyarra :)
BAo bihari
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 1010: *
I would like to reply to each of Musanna's comments, but why has Musanna skipped reports of incompletion of Quran from Sunni ahadith books?
Musanna should first explain his position on those authentic ahadith of his before alleging somebody else.
[/QUOTE]
Why don't you read:
"concerning your claim then I have a surprise for you. Your great Abu Ali Al-TABRASSI confirmed the abrogation of recitation and as an example he mentioned the very same matter you were referring to, namely that Sura Al-Ahzab was comparable in length to Sura al-Baqara (see Majma' Al-Bayan, Vol. 1, P. 409). The same was expressed by Abu Ja'far Al-TUSSI in his Tibyan, Vol. 1, P. 394.
So they believed in the manipulation of the Quraan, right?"
and
"And no there is no need to call Imaam Bukhari a Kaffir for all these narrations refer to the DIVINE abrogation of verses which your own scholars confirmed. Sorry to disappoint you.
As for all the narrations you quoted, I invite you to open a new thread, and I will be more than happy to explain every single narration to you and show you that your own scholars confirmed them."
It's not a good sign if you just skip over my posting and don't read it.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by bao bihari: *
we *muslims consider them as kaffir..what about shia ...** do they consider those ppl kaffir who have written in thier books that quran is tehreef shuda **
[/QUOTE]
- Sorry to disappoint you bihari, but shias are also muslims. ;)
- Do Ahle Sunnat REALLY consider people with tahreef-narrations kafir? But don't they have such narrations in their own books? So do you consider yourself kafir?
- I believe that Ahle Sunnat don't take those narrations from their books authentic. Because if they do then they would have to impose their own fatwa on themselves. Am I wrong?
Allah hum teri panah mangtay hain ****aan mardood say, or waswason say, or uss kay shar say, Allah nahi hay koi mabood teray siwa, or tu hi hay jo dilon ko phir dayta hay bhalaii ki taraf. ...... (Ameen)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
"concerning your claim then I have a surprise for you. Your great Abu Ali Al-TABRASSI confirmed the abrogation of recitation and as an example he mentioned the very same matter you were referring to, namely that Sura Al-Ahzab was comparable in length to Sura al-Baqara (see Majma' Al-Bayan, Vol. 1, P. 409). The same was expressed by Abu Ja'far Al-TUSSI in his Tibyan, Vol. 1, P. 394.
So they believed in the manipulation of the Quraan, right?"
[/quote]
Why don't you read:
"As Allama said, it is only HIS opinion, not accepted by Shias in general."
[quote]
"1. And no there is no need to call Imaam Bukhari a Kaffir
2. for all these narrations refer to the DIVINE abrogation of verses which your own scholars confirmed. Sorry to disappoint you.
[/quote]
- Who the hell called Imam Bukhari kafir?
- The DIVINE abrogation you are talking about was concerning Prophet alone, not about everyone. But all the ahadith I quoted are about some verses being destroyed one way or the other. And not ALL of those verses are lost. There are still some verses present in Bukhari which were not able to be added in the Quran. Why don't you include them today? After all, they are not lost!!
For example the following hadith. You have to include the verse it quotes in your next edition of Quran.
Muslim: Book Al-Zakah
" Abu Musa al-Ash'ari invited the Qur'an readers of Basra. Three hundred readers responded to his invitation. He told them: You are the readers and the choice of the people of Basra. Recite the Qur'an and do not neglect it. Otherwise, a long time may elapse and your hearts will be hardened as the hearts of those who came before you were hardened.
" 'We used to read a chapter from the Qur'an similar to Bara'ah in length and seriousness, but I forgot it. I can remember from that chapter only the following words:
" 'Should a son of Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he would seek a third valley, and nothing would fill Ibn Adam's abdomen but the soil.
" 'We used to read a chapter similar to Musabbihat and I forgot it. I only remember out of it the following:
" 'Oh you who believe, why do you say what you do not do? Thus a testimony will be written on your necks and you will be questioned about it on the Day of Judgment.' "
These verses are still in record, hence they are not abbrogated.
[quote]
As for all the narrations you quoted, I invite you to open a new thread, and I will be more than happy to explain every single narration to you and show you that your own scholars confirmed them."
[/quote]
As I said earlier, some of our scholars confirming them is not the proof that ALL scholars confirm them.
[quote]
It's not a good sign if you just skip over my posting and don't read it.
[/QUOTE]
I did read them. It's only you who is skimming over my posts. Otherwise I wouldn't have to repeat my answers.