Firstly, who said Fali is barely a scholar? He is on Kaarbala TV and AL Anwar and all these shia channels 24/7. I also like the way you ignored Sayed al-Qazwini and his belief in tahreef. When it comes to Al-khoei its funny how you say his book is comprehensive when he has been accused in believe in tahreef himself:
To be fair, the denial of corruption in terms of deletion can be countered by the proofs and narrations that we stated earlier and they have reached the level of Tawatur, also by adding the narrations of when the nation will be brought to the fountain(Hawd) and they will say after the Prophet SAWS asks them on what they did with the two weighty things: “As for the bigger one we burned/changed it, as for the smaller one we killed them.” and these narrations are also Mutawatir, even if we were to say that doesn’t reach Tawatur yet by adding them to the previous narrations they become Mutawatir and they would clearly prove the deletion from the Quran.
If the Quran in our hands today was the exact same as the one that was revealed from the sky without corruption or deletion, then I ask: for what purpose would they mess with it and burn it? by doing so this has become the biggest criticism against them.
You would say: “If this Quran was indeed corrupt, then how can it be permissible for us to read it? it is required that we read it the way it was revealed.”
I say: The Imams permitted us to read what is present in our hands and they did not permit us to read it the way it was revealed, one of the proofs for this is what is narrated in the Mursal hadith in al-Kafi from Sahl bin Ziad from Muhammad bin Suleiman from some of his companions from Abu al-Hassan (as) that he asked him: “May I be a sacrifice for you, we hear the verses from the Quran unlike the ones we have, and we are not able to read them in the form that reached us from you(Imams), are we sinful?”
He (as) replied: “No, recite it as you have been taught. there shall come one who shall teach you.”
And in it also is with the Isnad to Salim bin Salamah: “A man recited to abu ‘Abdullah (as) and I heard words unlike those read by the people.” He (as) told the man: “Meh! stop this recitation and recite it like the rest of the people until al-Qaem rises. When he does he shall revealed the true Quran written by ‘Ali.”
If you say: “We agree with you that it is corrupt, so why didn’t Ameer al-Mumineen (as) correct it? was he not the Caliph and there was no one to stop him?”
I say: “He (as) did not do this for the purpose of Taqqiyah, because doing so will make the first three look horrible. He also could not abolish the prayer of Duha, and was not able to establish the Mutah of Hajj and the Mutah of women. He was not able to remove Shurayh from position of Judge nor Mu’awiyah from position of Ameer…”
[Then al-Mirza says after a couple of lines]
I say: “The reason why they (as) did not reveal it is based on many points.
from them: If that book was revealed while this corrupt one was present, then there would be difference among the people and they may return to their previous state of Kufr.
from them: the hypocrites were extremely dominant at the time so if they revealed it then the hypocrites would have changed it like their leaders before them did.
from them: if it was revealed it wouldn’t spread much because of the popularity of the corrupted one, and there are many other reasons.
And no matter what the case, it is apparent and proven from all we have stated that there is no dust on the fact that the Quran is corrupted in terms of deletion.
As for the saying of corruption in terms of addition then this is not a strong opinion and is only based on a few narrations that cannot counter the consensus stated by al-Sheikh and al-Saduq and al-Tabrasi and al-Muhaqqiq al-Kathimi.”
Source: Minhaj al-Bara’ah fi Sharh Nahjul Balagha “منهاج البراعة في شرح نهج البلاغة” by al-Mirza Habibullah al-Khoei, al-Wafaa Beirut Lebanon, volume 2, pages 216 to 220.
When it comes to kufr even Shia scholars say someone who rejects something that is clear (thabit) in the Quran like Salah is a kafir. And it is clear the Quran rejects that it will be changed:
15:9 Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).
41:42 Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy.
29:47 And thus We have sent down to you the Qur'an. And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture believe in it. And among these [people of Makkah] are those who believe in it. And none reject Our verses except the disbelievers.
And more verses. Its funny who you are eager to defend those who attack the Quran. Would you be eager to defend those who attack the Ahlulbayt (RA). And you (SHIA) say the Quran is the more important of the 2 weighty things. How about Noori who said there are silly verses in the Quran and wrote a book "fasull khitab" attacking the Quran. Yet he is buried next to Ali (RA). If you were real followers of the Ahlulbayt (RA) you should dig up his grave.
As for being removed from the mushaf I think you forgot the Quran was complied after the Prophet (S), so their was no standard mushaf.
I will just quote some shia scholars who believe in naskh it tilawah:
Al-Rawindi said in his book (Fiqh Al-Quran) 1/204:
“… and abrogation in Islam is of three types: the abrogation of the ruling without the text (recitation), the abrogation of the text without the ruling, and the abrogation of both together”.
Al-Hili says in his book (Qawa’id Al-Ahkam) 1/210:
The Kaffir who is in a state of major impurity (Junub) has to perform Ghusl, and its condition [of acceptance] is Islam, and it [the obligation of Ghusl] does not fall by entering Islam even for an Apostate. And if a Muslim leaves Islam after his Ghusl it would not invalidate it.
It is forbidden to touch [the verses that] had only its ruling abrogated, but not what had its text abrogated”.
Al-Bahrani said in (Al-Hadaiq Al-Naddira) 2/125:
“Fifth: What is apparent the prohibition [to touch] includes what has been abrogated in ruling but not in text, since it still has its sanctity when it comes to recitation, [and still being called part of the Mushaf, the Quran and the Book – unsure I translated this correctly], as opposed to what has been abrogated in text, even if its ruling remains, it is not prohibited to touch it, (…), and I do not know any opposition to this [view]”.
Al-Naraqi said in his book (Mustanad Al-Shi’ah) 2/219:
“B: There is no prohibition to touch other then the Quran from the abrogated books, tafseer, hadith, …, or what was abrogated in recitation (Text) …, as opposed to those that were abrogated in ruling not recitation”.
As for the hadith of the goat its isnad has been rejected:
BTW where did Albani say this is Saheeh. Please reference. And guess what even if he did he makes mistakes.
Please show me where I said the 7 ahruf are the Qira't. I said the qira't are wahi as they are from Allah and if you want to go into detail you will find each qira'h with 2 narrators. So even if it has a different meaning it is still from Allah and may give us more information and another side to the verse.
Ibn Masud had a mushaf that included his tafseer it wasn't a one of the qira't.
Its funny you talk about the verse of wudhu and ignore the shia narrations about it.
…I asked Abu Abdillah (as) about the saying of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى “wash your faces, and your hands TO the elbows“… He said: This is not how it was revealed rather it was [revealed] “wash your faces, and your hands FROM the elbows“…
محمد بن الحسن وغيره، عن سهل بن زياد، عن علي بن الحكم، عن الهيثم ابن عروة التميمي قال سألت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) عن قول الله عز وجل: ” فاغسلوا وجوهكم وأيديكم إلى المرافق “ فقلت: هكذا ومسحت من ظهر كفي إلى المرفق، فقال: ليس هكذا تنزيلها إنما هي ” فاغسلوا وجوهكم وأيديكم من المرافق “ ، ثم أمر يده من مرفقه إلى أصابعه.
الكافي للكليني الجزء الثالث ص28 (باب) * حد الوجه الذي يغسل والذراعين وكيف يغسل
Al-Kafi volume 3, page 28.
Tahzib al-ahkam volume 1, page 57.
Futhermore, go to minute 51 he explains that the Qira't do not contradict.
Whats even more interesting that in tafseer Al-Mizan (the famous tafseer ) for this ayah its made clear that even if it's arjuli and not arjula it can still mean to wash. Its also funny how you reject the qira't. If they are not wahi then that means the real reaction is lost between the others. In other words believing in tahreef. Also if they were not revelation it also contradicts the Quran as we should be able to tell the diference between what is a miracle and what is not.
2:23 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful.
4:82 Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.
LOL a Ma'sum Imam who has knowledge of the unseen narrates from a sinner who no knowledge of the unseen. If your were to accept this narration it would destroy the shia aqeedah. And this argument was already tried by shias.
Also, We Muslims believe in shaafa' by the Prophet in the hereafter. Shafa' is not istigatha. I already made it clear that tawassul is something reccomended to do but in the right way not by calling upon the dead? Shias call upon other than Allah by saying Ya Ali and Allah says in the Quran they do not here your call and even if they did they wouldn't be able to answer.
35:14 If you invoke them, they do not hear your supplication; and if they heard, they would not respond to you. And on the Day of Resurrection they will deny your association. And none can inform you like [one] Acquainted [with all matters].
If Ali or the Prophet can hear me from Europe saying YA ALI or YA MUHAMMAD what is the difference between their hearing of duas and Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى hearing of duas?
Also to say there has to be an intermediate is like what Christians say that "you have to go through jesus to get to God". The Quran doesn't agree with you.
2:186 And when My servants ask you, [O Muhammad], concerning Me - indeed I am near. I respond to the invocation of the supplicant when he calls upon Me. So let them respond to Me [by obedience] and believe in Me that they may be [rightly] guided.
40:60 And your Lord says, "Call upon Me; I will respond to you." Indeed, those who disdain My worship will enter Hell [rendered] contemptible.
As for the video that is a well know sufi in the Arab world called Ali Al-Jafri so it means nothing Its likke me posting a video of a ismaili to use against a twelver. Sheikh Uthman has already destroyed his logic:
As for the verse
4:62 So how [will it be] when disaster strikes them because of what their hands have put forth and then they come to you swearing by Allah, "We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation."
4:64 And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah . And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muhammad], and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful.
4:65 But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.
If were read this Ayah with the ones before and after it it is clearly talking about the Prophet (S) during his lifetime. Like I already said ask someone who is alive to do a dua is not shirk.
There are a lot of off-topic questions that have nothing to do with Tahreef, shirk or Imammah and some trolls that I am just going to ignore.
Anyway, we Muslims accept the hadith of Harun(A) to Musa(A). But just like you read the Quran with context it was revealed the same goes for hadith.
The Prophet (S) said this when leaving to Tabuk he left Ali (RA) in charge the same way Musa (a) left Harun (a) in charge when he left for 40 days. If we want to take the hadith literally as you have done we will find that Musa (a) successor wasn't even Harun (As).
I have already explained that Ull Amr can not be as the shia explain it as the verse says return all matters to Allah (the Quran) and the Prophet (Sunnah). If it was an Imam as shias believe he should be a hujjah and his word should be final.
Anyway, some people were asking about Aisha (RA) and the wars. I would gladly answer that in a new thread because this one is a bit all over the place. I will just quote the Ayah (verse) that shows that even if two groups fight they can still be considered Mu'mins:
49:9 And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels till it complies with the Command of Allah; then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allah loves those who are equitable.
As for the calamity of Thursday I will gladly talk about that in another thread. I will just say that there is no Saheeh narration were Umar (RA) says "uhjur".
As for the verse 5:55 you have to read it within context.
The first verse on that page says:
5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust).
And the last verse on the same page (2 verses after it):
5:57 O you who believe! Take not for Auliya' (protectors and helpers) those who take your religion for a mockery and fun from among those who received the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before you, nor from among the disbelievers; and fear Allah if you indeed are true believers.
The verse 5:55 is telling use who to take as auliya. This is what I mean but shias using mutashabihat.
Ya isa? really. Can I say Ya Lat and Ya Uza as they were the names of 2 righteous Arabians. What makes you think that Isa (as) can hear your dua? Is he Allah to hear your dua?
Anyway, again you should not take hadiths out of context. Mawla is clearly love and victory. that why the prophet (s) make a dua:
O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him."
And the religion had already been completed by the revelation of verse 05:03 in arafah. The Prophet said this after a argument between Khalid and Ali in yemen.