Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

now you are being circular. to justify your trust in shia rijal books, you are using the infallibility of imams, which is narrated to you by shia rijal, and trusting them while doing it.

but you do exactly the same. Sunni books are right because sunni scholars said so.

As I have repeatedly stated, every argument you can make about shia literature or ilm-ur-rijal can be applied right back at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

but you do exactly the same. Sunni books are right because sunni scholars said so.

As I have repeatedly stated, every argument you can make about shia literature or ilm-ur-rijal can be applied right back at you.

no. sunni rijal books HAVE to be trusted because without them, the quran would have been transmitted to us by unknown or deviated people.

if you are unaware of how the quran can have a sanad, i can explain to you, and i dont mean that in a condescending way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

no. sunni rijal books HAVE to be trusted because without them, the quran would have been transmitted to us by unknown or deviated people.

So then I can say "shia rijal books HAVE to be trusted because without them, the quran would have been transmitted to us by unknown or deviated people" OR "shia imams HAVE to be trusted because without them, the quran would have been transmitted to us by unknown or deviated people". What's the difference???

21 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

if you are unaware of how the quran can have a sanad, i can explain to you, and i dont mean that in a condescending way.

sure please go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

[Shakir 3:152] And certainly Allah made good to you His promise when you slew them by His permission, until when you became weak-hearted and disputed about the affair and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you loved; of you were some who desired this world and of you were some who desired the hereafter; then He turned you away from them that He might try you; and He has certainly pardoned you, and Allah is Gracious to the believers.

Disobeying Prophet means disobeying Allah. And that is the reason why Allah said  وَلَقَدْ عَفَا عَنْكُمْ

You're correct.  I was indeed reading this incorrectly.   If Allah made good His promise , by His permission, and disobeyed, it's to Him.  I was looking to see if Muhammad was called the Messenger here in which Case I would have agreed, but I've narrowed my vision. 

 

12 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

You should accept whatever the Messenger gives you and abandon whatever he tells you to abandon. Have taqwa of Allah... (Surat al-Hashr: 7)

No, by your Lord, they are not believers until they make you their judge in the disputes that break out between them and then do not resist what you decide and submit themselves [to you] completely. (Surat an-Nisa`: 65)

When Allah and His Messenger have decided something, no believing man or woman has a choice about [following or not following] it. Anyone who disobeys Allah and His Messenger is clearly misguided. (Surat al-Ahzab: 36)

However, Surah al Hashr: 7 is misapplied and not relevant to your point.   This is contextually during a battle/after, which we can't follow or reject what a Prophet SAW tells as, today how to apportion the spoils (orphans, family, et. etc.)  Also, Allah Calls Muhammad SAW the Messenger, in this capacity, which means a direct agent.  Muhammad isn't always the messenger to my point before, which makes sense because today, he is not here to relegate a spoils of war to us, which means he is not a messenger now for he is passed.  He WAS a messenger, but is not always A Messenger (here you and I disagree here, until I find something that refers to Muhammad as a man to be obeyed).

As for An Nisa:65, you may have a point here.   I can't see if Allah is referring to the Prophet as a Prophet or a Messenger here BUT, my same point stands because in An Nisa - 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.

Once again I can't make myself concede to your point because when Muhammad is acting as the Messenger, he must be obeyed.  I need to find evidence from Quran that when Muhammad is not referred to as the messenger, he must be obeyed.  Because every time Muhammad was referred to by name or "Prophet", it was the opposite, meaning humans had discretion and the obeying command was not applied. 

Technically, since Jibril is also a messenger, you can read this as the people coming to Muhammad, the messenger asking forgiveness, then Muhammad to Jibril, asking for forgiveness.  

Because look ---->   "... if when they wronged themselves they had come to you(Muhammad), and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them ...."<------   Muhammad and messenger are in here concurrently,

usually we would expect to see ".....they come to you (Muhammad) and asked forgiveness of Allah and he asked forgiveness for them" with he referring to Muhammad naturally.  Not that I'm concluding that's how this SHOULD be read, but I'm searching for the definitive proof here for your argument/case.

Surah Ahzab 36 (33:36)  I would argue the same. Disobeying the Messenger insinuates disobeying the message the messenger brings. and the same for 3:31, because 3:32 :

Say, "Obey Allah and the Messenger." But if they turn away - then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers.

12 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

 

23 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

No explicit way here does it say they disobeyed Allah, but it does say they disobeyed Muhammad SAW.  Then He Described to them the distinction of the love of this world vs. hereafter, explained it as the test.  Then pardoned them.

وَلَقَدْ صَدَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ وَعْدَهُ إِذْ تَحُسُّونَهُمْ بِإِذْنِهِ ۖ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا فَشِلْتُمْ وَتَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ وَعَصَيْتُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا أَرَاكُمْ مَا تُحِبُّونَ ۚ مِنْكُمْ مَنْ يُرِيدُ الدُّنْيَا وَمِنْكُمْ مَنْ يُرِيدُ الْآخِرَةَ ۚ ثُمَّ صَرَفَكُمْ عَنْهُمْ لِيَبْتَلِيَكُمْ ۖ وَلَقَدْ عَفَا عَنْكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ ذُو فَضْلٍ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

[Shakir 3:152] And certainly Allah made good to you His promise when you slew them by His permission, until when you became weak-hearted and disputed about the affair and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you loved; of you were some who desired this world and of you were some who desired the hereafter; then He turned you away from them that He might try you; and He has certainly pardoned you, and Allah is Gracious to the believers.

Disobeying Prophet means disobeying Allah. And that is the reason why Allah said  وَلَقَدْ عَفَا عَنْكُمْ

You should accept whatever the Messenger gives you and abandon whatever he tells you to abandon. Have taqwa of Allah... (Surat al-Hashr: 7)

No, by your Lord, they are not believers until they make you their judge in the disputes that break out between them and then do not resist what you decide and submit themselves [to you] completely. (Surat an-Nisa`: 65)

When Allah and His Messenger have decided something, no believing man or woman has a choice about [following or not following] it. Anyone who disobeys Allah and His Messenger is clearly misguided. (Surat al-Ahzab: 36)

Say: "If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you and forgive your sins." (Surah Al `Imran: 31)


 

23 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Why would a messenger with absolute knowledge/authority need to counsel/consult with believers?  And then ask WHEN they all decided, together, to put trust in Allah with a decision collectively they made/agreed upon?

It wouldn't make literary sense if Allah commands us to counsel/consult with each other, then one person decides, but then goes back to plural ,.."Allah loves those who trust"?  The most intuitive plain, instinctive message I'm getting is, don't be harsh in speech/heart with each other, consult, then trust in Allah with whatever the decided result is.  The main point here would have been OBEY the messenger, don't disobey him,  Allah would not have hesitated to say,  Did I not command you to obey the messenger? if what you're describing is the case.

You are totally misinterpreting the verse.

فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ ۖ فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ
"Pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in affair; so when YOU have decided, then place YOUR trust in Allah"

This portion of the verse is directly addressing the Prophet as you can see "pardon them and ask pardon from them & take counsel from them". And it is the Holy Prophet (pbuh) who were told "so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah".

Here is tafseer (Agha Poya):

As an individual the Holy Prophet was always inclined to mildness. He never first withdrew his hand out of another man's palm. He never struck any one in his life. He was the sweetest and most agreeable in conversation. Those who saw him were suddenly filled with reverence; those who came near him loved him. He was generous and considerate even to his enemies, both open and hidden. He was sent by Allah as the "mercy unto the worlds". His kind and generous attitude towards his erring companions does not mean that their actual low station in the spiritual realm can be raised to the level of the true faithfuls, because they remain in the category of those described in verse 16 of al Anfal, particularly when time and again they showed the same tendency of defection and renunciation demonstrated at Uhad.

The Holy Prophet received the book and wisdom directly from Allah. He was the city of knowledge (and Ali its gate). He needed no advice from any body.

"Take their counsel in the affairs" has been mentioned in this verse to educate the companions to reflect and use their intelligence, to understand the issues which confronted them in their lives so that by consulting each other they might arrive at a rational conclusion and follow the reasonable advice. Whatever be the counsel of the companions but the Holy Prophet has been asked to put his trust in Allah and act according to his own judgement.

 

I think this is quite a stretch, in my opinion.  Muhammad SAW could decide first, but he is told to decide after the counseling, then to put trust in God.

  Muhammad is not the sole determination of decision points until he seeks counsel, then he trusts in Allah.  "needing no advice from anybody" is a misunderstanding, in my opinion, brother. I apologize I cannot see eye to eye here.

The ultimate pinnacle of unyielding trust in someone is to trust them to make a decision/command an instruction without questioning it, in which case counseling in many instances ESPECIALY WAR, is just simply not  an option, and the explanation then comes later.  Therefore I cannot see the case Agha Poya is making.  If the ultimate goal is to convey to human beings unquestioning obedience to Muhammad in all capacities, then counseling is redundant, also, speaking nicely/non-harshly to believers is also redundant and unnecessary.

If Muhammad is accepted to be the authoritarian, why counsel, trust in Muhammad then?  But even that is against the idea of trusting in Allah as mentioned directly in the verse.  And still instinctively it makes the most intuitive sense as I explained earlier @Salsabeel.  Though I understand what you're saying and where you are coming from, it is for me personally a stretch.

12 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

"Obey Allah and obey the messenger and the ulil amr (those vested with authority through His messenger)."

There are two "obey" (atee'oo)  mentioned in this verse. The obedience of Ulil Amr is the continuation of obedience to Prophet. Obeying Prophet means obeying Allah but it has been mentioned separately because no one can rule him out from the picture. The way to Allah goes through the Prophet & the Ulil Amr. Those who try to approach Allah by sidelining the commands of Prophet & Ulil Amr, will be the losers in the last day.

We know from Quran "Obey" / 3tee'oo, that two or 1 obey's are not necessary.

8:20

O you who have believed, obey Allah and His Messenger and do not turn from him while you hear [his order].

There is no special distinction with 1 or 2 3tee'oo's or Obeys in the clause.   You and I have no reconciled the meaning of Obey Allah and the messenger for me to understand Ulil Amr, because it is only once in the Qur'an you see Ulil Amr

There are so many time in the Quran we see Obey Allah and the messenger, and just one time here where you see Ulil Amr/those in authority in terms of OBEY.

There's 4:83, where you can refer to messenger and authority, but not quite obey.

4:91, Allah had to give authorization/authority to kill those who don't restrain their hands after seeking peace/&falling back into disbelief.

Sultanan is the only other word used for authority, and Amr/Ulil happens no other place.  For such a small emphasis on Ulil Amr when Allah places the most and only emphasis on Himself and obedience, there's little to no chance those in authority are the people I need to follow or else I'll become a loser on the last day.  Using Qu'ran alone I can easily come to that conclusion.

"if you should dispute in something, refer it Allah and the Messenger"

it does NOT say "refer it to Allah and the Messenger and those in authority"<------, Because then It would be consistent with your argument and I would be inclined to take your position brother.  Because those in authority have not the authority of Allah nor His messenger. QED

@Khudi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Muhammad isn't always the messenger to my point before, which makes sense because today, he is not here to relegate a spoils of war to us, which means he is not a messenger now for he is passed.  He WAS a messenger, but is not always A Messenger (here you and I disagree here, until I find something that refers to Muhammad as a man to be obeyed).

This is where you're totally wrong. He is always a Rasool & Nabi, peace & blessings of Allah be upon him & his pure progeny. He has passed his whole life in the same state.

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the Last of the Prophets" (33:40)
"And Muhammad is no more than an Apostle" (3:144)

The message given by Prophet was "Qulu lailaha illallah wa tuflehu" (say there is no God but Allah & get success), so there is no point to say that some people have started worshipping Prophet Muhammad or there is any doubt that some people might start worshipping him, therefore God has revealed these verses. The point here is that "He is nothing but a messenger" and he has passed his whole life in the same status. Look at why & in which status Allah has sent him:

"O Prophet! surely We have sent you as a witness, and as a bearer of good news and as a warner, And as one inviting to Allah by His permission, and as a light giving torch" (33:45-46)

Do you think he is some times a witness & some times not, a warner some times and some times not, a light giving torch (Sirajan Muneera) which some times gives light & some times it went off? why you are limiting his role by saying that he isn't always the messenger? 

I advise you to correct your direction of thinking. He is always a messenger that's why his whole life is mentioned as an excellent exemplar.

"Certainly you have in the Apostle of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remember Allah much" (33:21)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Muhammad is not the sole determination of decision points until he seeks counsel, then he trusts in Allah.  "needing no advice from anybody" is a misunderstanding, in my opinion, brother. I apologize I cannot see eye to eye here.

How can it be a misunderstanding? Brother, there were hypocrites everywhere around him, and he knew them not (at least as per some verses of Quran, which says only Allah knows them). Do you think Allah has commanded him to take advice or council from those unknown personalities in which many are hypocrites? If he would have based his decision on the advise of any hypocrite, he would have disobeyed the command of Allah (na'uzobillah) mentioned in the verse below:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ اتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَلَا تُطِعِ الْكَافِرِينَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا
O Prophet! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and do not comply with (the wishes of) the unbelievers and the hypocrites (33:1)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

So then I can say "shia rijal books HAVE to be trusted because without them, the quran would have been transmitted to us by unknown or deviated people" OR "shia imams HAVE to be trusted because without them, the quran would have been transmitted to us by unknown or deviated people". What's the difference???

sure please go ahead.

no you cant. ill explain why. when i say sunni rijal books have to be trusted otherwise the quran would have been transmitted to us by unknown or deviated people, i mean to say that the sanad of the quran consists of people obviously. no need to explain how a sanad words. so, in order to check whether the sanad is authentic or not, we have to turn towards rijal books. if i turn towards shia rijal books, i can not authenticate the sanad, because the shia rijal books have either no mention of the people in the many sanads of the quran, or those people are mentioned as aami's i.e. sunnis who dont believe in imams i.e. deviants according to shias. so, the sanad cant be authenticated using the shia rijal books. and hence, there remains no reason to trust that the quran is the same as it was revealed. 

on the contrary, if you turn towards sunni rijal books, you will find that the sanads, pretty much all of them, can be authenticated using sunni rijal books. and that makes the sanad authentic, and the quran reliable and gives us more than good reason to believe that it is the same as that which was revealed originally. 

please understand what i am saying before saying that i am showing double standards. this is the difference between the shia rijal books and sunni rijal books. 

the sanad of the quran tells us how the prophet pbuh recited the quran. he taught someone, lets say A, who in turn taught B, and this teaching process keeps going on up until today. any proper reciter today can give you a certificate which shows you the sanad of who the person learned the quran recitation from, who his teacher learnt it from, and so on up to the prophet pbuh. an average sanad has about 30-35 people, but there do exist stronger isnaad as well, with lesser people between the prophet pbuh and todays reciter. 

and make note that just having the diacritical marks is not enough for the recitation of the quran. people even with the tajweed quran end up reciting it incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2017 at 8:36 AM, just a muslim said:

no you cant. ill explain why. when i say sunni rijal books have to be trusted otherwise the quran would have been transmitted to us by unknown or deviated people, i mean to say that the sanad of the quran consists of people obviously. no need to explain how a sanad words. so, in order to check whether the sanad is authentic or not, we have to turn towards rijal books. if i turn towards shia rijal books, i can not authenticate the sanad, because the shia rijal books have either no mention of the people in the many sanads of the quran, or those people are mentioned as aami's i.e. sunnis who dont believe in imams i.e. deviants according to shias. so, the sanad cant be authenticated using the shia rijal books. and hence, there remains no reason to trust that the quran is the same as it was revealed. 

on the contrary, if you turn towards sunni rijal books, you will find that the sanads, pretty much all of them, can be authenticated using sunni rijal books. and that makes the sanad authentic, and the quran reliable and gives us more than good reason to believe that it is the same as that which was revealed originally. 

please understand what i am saying before saying that i am showing double standards. this is the difference between the shia rijal books and sunni rijal books. 

the sanad of the quran tells us how the prophet pbuh recited the quran. he taught someone, lets say A, who in turn taught B, and this teaching process keeps going on up until today. any proper reciter today can give you a certificate which shows you the sanad of who the person learned the quran recitation from, who his teacher learnt it from, and so on up to the prophet pbuh. an average sanad has about 30-35 people, but there do exist stronger isnaad as well, with lesser people between the prophet pbuh and todays reciter. 

and make note that just having the diacritical marks is not enough for the recitation of the quran. people even with the tajweed quran end up reciting it incorrectly.

We are talking apples and oranges here. Even if we believe the Sunni account that the Quran was complied by Caliph Uthman, once it was written and spread throughout the Ummah, the issue of sanad/rijal/authencity becomes a moot point. We can discuss IF the version allegedly compiled by Caliph Uthman is authentic or not but from that point onwards, it is an exercise in futility.

If you are referring to how the Prophet recited the Quran (accent and styling) then that is a different discussion completely. Even today, you can have 2 people with the 30-35 sanad going back to the Prophet and they will recite it differently. Based on your claim, they are both right. Based on logic, one of them would be wrong. I have yet to see a single Qirat award being given to someone because they recited the Quran exactly like the Prophet.

I am truly shocked at your lack of knowledge and understanding on this topic. The entire 11 pages of this topic can be summarized by saying you believe in the Quran because someone allegedly recites the Quran like the Prophet may or may not have recited.

Fantastic!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother @just a muslim,

You have made the bold claim several times that you believe in the authenticity of the Quran based on Sunni hadith and Sunni ilm-ur-rijal.

You look at Quran in light of hadith. Based on your belief, you will reject the Quran if the sahih hadith say so.
We look at all hadith in light of the Quran. We reject all hadith that go against the Quran.

You and I will never see eye-2-eye unless you change your core belief about the Quran.

The hadith below should be sufficient to break your entire core belief system.

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
I used to teach Qur'an to 'Abdur-Rahman bin Auf. When Umar performed his last Hajj, 'Abdur-Rahman said (to me) at Mina, "Would that you had seen Chief of the believers today! A man came to him and said, "So-and-so has said, "If Chief of the Believers died, we will give the oath of allegiance to such-and-such person,' 'Umar said, 'I will get up tonight and warn those who want to usurp the people's rights.' I said, 'Do not do so, for the season (of Hajj) gathers the riffraff mob who will form the majority of your audience, and I am afraid that they will not understand (the meaning of) your saying properly and may spread (an incorrect statement) everywhere. You should wait till we reach Medina, the place of migration and the place of the Sunna (the Prophet's Traditions). There you will meet the companions of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) from the Muhajirin and the Ansar who will understand your statement and place it in its proper position' 'Umar said, 'By Allah, I shall do so the first time I stand (to address the people) in Medina.' When we reached Medina, 'Umar (in a Friday Khutba-sermon) said, "No doubt, Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed to him the Book (Quran), and among what was revealed, was the Verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning adulterers to death).'" (See Hadith No. 817,Vol. 8)
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 96, Hadith 53

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/96/53

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said:
Verily Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.
Sahih Muslim
Book 29, Hadith 21
http://sunnah.com/muslim/29/21

You have stated quite clearly that Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are 100% authentic. Every hadith in them is 100% true; there is no doubt them.

The Verse of Stoning is not in the Quran even though Caliph Umar acknowledged it to be. So which is it:

A) Quran today is altered because the verse of Stoning (Ar-Rajm) is not in it even though it was revealed as part of the Quran

B) Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are not Sahih after all.

Either option you choose breaks your core belief system. If you say the Quran is wrong, then that would mean so is Sunni hadith and ilm-ur-rijal. If you say Sahihain are wrong, then how can you trust the Quran to be true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shiaman14 The verses of "rajm" or stoning being abrogated have also been mentioned by Shia scholars.  I can share the references with you but our discussion isn't going far because the moderators on this forum are not quick enough to approve my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2017 at 7:21 AM, aqeel321 said:

@shiaman14 The verses of "rajm" or stoning being abrogated have also been mentioned by Shia scholars.  I can share the references with you but our discussion isn't going far because the moderators on this forum are not quick enough to approve my posts.

I know about the verse of rajm in Sunni and shia sources.

I am not the one saying that I believe in the Quran because of Sunni hadeeth. My reference was a simple exercise to show the brother how wrong his whole approach to Islam is.

You need to get to 25 posts so you don't need mod approval. All of us went through it.

We can discuss the verse of rajm in a separate thread. Suffice to say that Even though it was allegedly abrogated, Caliph Umar is on record saying he would add it in the Quran if he didn't fear the people.

Edited by Hameedeh
Mods read and approve the first 25 posts of new members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

We can discuss the verse of rajm in a separate thread. Suffice to say that Even though it was allegedly abrogated, Caliph Umar is on record saying he would add it in the Quran if he didn't fear the people.

im a bit busy these days. and responding to your post will take some time. but will inshaAllah do it as soon as i get the time.

in the mean while, could you provide a reference for the claim above? i am not saying it cant be true. just want a reference to check and forward to others if need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 4:08 AM, just a muslim said:

im a bit busy these days. and responding to your post will take some time. but will inshaAllah do it as soon as i get the time.

in the mean while, could you provide a reference for the claim above? i am not saying it cant be true. just want a reference to check and forward to others if need be.

No worries brother; take your time.

Here is the reference:

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbas said:
‘Umar b. al-Khattab gave an address saying: Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and sent down the Books of him, and the verse of stoning was included in what He sent down to him. We read it and memorized it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had people stoned to death and we have done it also since his death. I am afraid the people might say with the passage of time: We do not find the verse of stoning in the Books of Allah, and thus they stray by abandoning a duty which Allah had received. Stoning is a duty laid down (by Allah) for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. I swear by Allah, had it not been so that the people might say: ‘Umar made an addition to Allah’s Book, I would have written it (there).
Sunan Abi Dawud
Book 40, Hadith 68
Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani)

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/68

Along with the above, we also have my prior post:

On 11/6/2017 at 11:56 AM, shiaman14 said:

Brother @just a muslim,

You have made the bold claim several times that you believe in the authenticity of the Quran based on Sunni hadith and Sunni ilm-ur-rijal.

You look at Quran in light of hadith. Based on your belief, you will reject the Quran if the sahih hadith say so.
We look at all hadith in light of the Quran. We reject all hadith that go against the Quran.

You and I will never see eye-2-eye unless you change your core belief about the Quran.

The hadith below should be sufficient to break your entire core belief system.

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
I used to teach Qur'an to 'Abdur-Rahman bin Auf. When Umar performed his last Hajj, 'Abdur-Rahman said (to me) at Mina, "Would that you had seen Chief of the believers today! A man came to him and said, "So-and-so has said, "If Chief of the Believers died, we will give the oath of allegiance to such-and-such person,' 'Umar said, 'I will get up tonight and warn those who want to usurp the people's rights.' I said, 'Do not do so, for the season (of Hajj) gathers the riffraff mob who will form the majority of your audience, and I am afraid that they will not understand (the meaning of) your saying properly and may spread (an incorrect statement) everywhere. You should wait till we reach Medina, the place of migration and the place of the Sunna (the Prophet's Traditions). There you will meet the companions of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) from the Muhajirin and the Ansar who will understand your statement and place it in its proper position' 'Umar said, 'By Allah, I shall do so the first time I stand (to address the people) in Medina.' When we reached Medina, 'Umar (in a Friday Khutba-sermon) said, "No doubt, Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed to him the Book (Quran), and among what was revealed, was the Verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning adulterers to death).'" (See Hadith No. 817,Vol. 8)
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 96, Hadith 53

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/96/53

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said:
Verily Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.
Sahih Muslim
Book 29, Hadith 21
http://sunnah.com/muslim/29/21

You have stated quite clearly that Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are 100% authentic. Every hadith in them is 100% true; there is no doubt them.

The Verse of Stoning is not in the Quran even though Caliph Umar acknowledged it to be. So which is it:

A) Quran today is altered because the verse of Stoning (Ar-Rajm) is not in it even though it was revealed as part of the Quran

B) Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are not Sahih after all.

Either option you choose breaks your core belief system. If you say the Quran is wrong, then that would mean so is Sunni hadith and ilm-ur-rijal. If you say Sahihain are wrong, then how can you trust the Quran to be true?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 1:05 AM, shiaman14 said:

I know about the verse of rajm in Sunni and shia sources.

I am not the one saying that I believe in the Quran because of Sunni hadeeth. My reference was a simple exercise to show the brother how wrong his whole approach to Islam is.

You need to get to 25 posts so you don't need mod approval. All of us went through it.

We can discuss the verse of rajm in a separate thread. Suffice to say that Even though it was allegedly abrogated, Caliph Umar is on record saying he would add it in the Quran if he didn't fear the people.

Seems like my previous post, prior to the one regarding verse of stoning, has not been approved.  No problem!  And you do not have to speak on behalf of the admins of this forum.  I respect the rules; if I choose to be a member of this forum, I will respect, and abide by, the rules.

Regarding Umar (ra) saying that he would add it to the Qur'an, you need to understand why he said that and what he meant by it.  Narrations are like snippets; you need to understand the whole picture. 

The narration you have quoted, to accuse Umar (ra) of wanting to add the verse to the Qur'an, is also present in other texts.  It is noted that the wording mentioned in Sunan Nasai Al-Kubra Hadith 7151 is "I would have written and appended it to the Quran".

In Musnad Ahmad, it is recorded as, "Had it not been that people would say Umar has made an addition to the Book of Allah, I would have written it on the margin of the Quran."(Musnad Ahmad Hadith 151).

It is clear that Umar (ra) was referring to preserving it at the margin of the Quran or adding it as an appendix, or as a side note, or commentary to the Quran to inform future generations about the punishment of stoning so that they may not go astray.  However, his bigger concern was that his footnote addition (not part of the text of the Qur'an) would be viewed as an addition to the text of the Qur'an.

Without adding anything, you have a laundry list of accusations to level against Umar (ra); imagine what you would have said if Umar (ra) actually added the footnote.  In a crazy way, you are making his prediction come true because some people are just the way they are.  With them, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't!

Edited by Hameedeh
Mods read and approve the first 25 posts of new members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2017 at 2:21 AM, Salsabeel said:

And Quran also mentions that in verse 2:253,

تِلْكَ الرُّسُلُ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ مِّنْهُم مَّن كَلَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَفَعَ بَعْضَهُمْ دَرَجَاتٍ
"We have made some of these apostles to excel the others among them are THEY TO WHOM Allah SPOKE, and some of them He exalted by (many degrees of) rank"

Ah the translation  is misleading.

Kallam which you interpret as spoke/speak actually means  to give word, which is not the same as 4:164 where God says he gave word (kalluml to Moses with speech (takleemun) simultaneously.

we know kalm in arabic roots means to give word but it does not mean dialogue specifically.  takleeman is the ingredient. 

It seems we only can conclude from quran only Allah had a Dialogue with Adam and Musa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Ah the translation  is misleading.

:) you need to review this point. I will discuss the word "kallama", "yukallemo", "tukallemo" etc later.

2 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

It seems we only can conclude from quran only Allah had a Dialogue with Adam and Mus

Well what do you say about these two verses:

Surah As-Saaffat, Verse 104 &

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 260

Surah As-Saaffat, Verse 104:
وَنَادَيْنَاهُ أَن يَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ

And We called out to him saying: O Ibrahim!
(English - Shakir)

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 260:
وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّ أَرِنِي كَيْفَ تُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ قَالَ أَوَلَمْ تُؤْمِن قَالَ بَلَىٰ وَلَٰكِن لِّيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِي قَالَ فَخُذْ أَرْبَعَةً مِّنَ الطَّيْرِ فَصُرْهُنَّ إِلَيْكَ ثُمَّ اجْعَلْ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ جَبَلٍ مِّنْهُنَّ جُزْءًا ثُمَّ ادْعُهُنَّ يَأْتِينَكَ سَعْيًا وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

And when Ibrahim said: My Lord! show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: What! and do you not believe? He said: Yes, but that my heart may be at ease. He said: Then take four of the birds, then train them to follow you, then place on every mountain a part of them, then call them, they will come to you flying; and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise.
(English - Shakir)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2017 at 5:42 PM, aqeel321 said:

Seems like my previous post, prior to the one regarding verse of stoning, has not been approved.  No problem!  And you do not have to speak on behalf of the admins of this forum.  I respect the rules; if I choose to be a member of this forum, I will respect, and abide by, the rules.

I am not peaking on behalf of the admins. You were playing the victim "boo hoo my posts are not approved" so I chose to set the record straight.

On 11/12/2017 at 5:42 PM, aqeel321 said:

Regarding Umar (ra) saying that he would add it to the Qur'an, you need to understand why he said that and what he meant by it.  Narrations are like snippets; you need to understand the whole picture. 

The narration you have quoted, to accuse Umar (ra) of wanting to add the verse to the Qur'an, is also present in other texts.  It is noted that the wording mentioned in Sunan Nasai Al-Kubra Hadith 7151 is "I would have written and appended it to the Quran".

In Musnad Ahmad, it is recorded as, "Had it not been that people would say Umar has made an addition to the Book of Allah, I would have written it on the margin of the Quran."(Musnad Ahmad Hadith 151).

It is clear that Umar (ra) was referring to preserving it at the margin of the Quran or adding it as an appendix, or as a side note, or commentary to the Quran to inform future generations about the punishment of stoning so that they may not go astray.  However, his bigger concern was that his footnote addition (not part of the text of the Qur'an) would be viewed as an addition to the text of the Qur'an.

Without adding anything, you have a laundry list of accusations to level against Umar (ra); imagine what you would have said if Umar (ra) actually added the footnote.  In a crazy way, you are making his prediction come true because some people are just the way they are.  With them, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't!

I am pretty certain our esteemed sahaba would know the difference between adding a verse to the Quran and adding a sentence in the margin but then who knows how the sahaba operated.

But you missed the point. @just a muslim is certain the Quran was compiled by Caliph Uthman. verses into surahs and then the order of surahs. Based on this hadith from Caliph Umar, the Quran was already compiled.

So how about you guys come to an agreement on when the Quran was compiled before judging any shias on any issue. For us, the Quran was compiled during the lifetime of the Prophet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 11:15 AM, shiaman14 said:

I am not peaking on behalf of the admins. You were playing the victim "boo hoo my posts are not approved" so I chose to set the record straight.

I am sorry brother but you have mistaken Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah for some other group.  We are not into crying and creating an international scene.  I was merely pointing out that my replies are pending approval and at a certain point, you might have more than one to respond to which may cause you to overlook some of the points I raised in contention to some of your accusations you made in haste.

Quote

I am pretty certain our esteemed sahaba would know the difference between adding a verse to the Quran and adding a sentence in the margin but then who knows how the sahaba operated.

Of course the Sahaba (ra) knew more than you would like to admit.  As for how they operated, they were fallible beings like you and me except they knew that people (like yourself) will come along to make certain accusations which is why they made their intentions known, like Umar (ra) in the narration which you shared in vain.

Quote

is certain the Quran was compiled by Caliph Uthman. verses into surahs and then the order of surahs. Based on this hadith from Caliph Umar, the Quran was already compiled.

At the time of the Prophet (saw) was the Qur'an compiled?  Did the Prophet (saw) not refer to the "Book of Allah" in one of your favorite narrations, Hadith Thaqalayn?  Would you say that the Qur'an was compiled in a book form?  It was not, so if the Prophet (saw) can refer to the Qur'an as the "Book of Allah", why can't Umar (ra) do the same?  How you extrapolate 2 from 1 beats me!

Quote

For us, the Quran was compiled during the lifetime of the Prophet.

Really?  Then you must have a chain for it.  Do you?  Also, Shias say that Imam Ali (ra) - among the list of endless excuses - was busy compiling the Qur'an when Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and company attacked his house and Fatima (ra).  Why was Imam Ali (ra) compiling the Qur'an when it was compiled at the lifetime of the Prophet (saw)?  Maybe you need to come an agreement on when the Qur'an was compiled; honestly researching for its chain, within your own madhhab, would be a good start.  And if you find none, I assure you that you will not, a "thank you" note to us would show your appreciation for us handing you the Qur'an.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Allah in Quran says that prophet or as mushrekin(unbeliver) said the Hazrat Salman(sa) couldnt add or subtract anything to holy Quran from Themselves as you know prophet couldnt read & write if he could they would said that he reads verses from other books & copy them on Holy Quarn as many zionists & christians nowadays claims that Holy Quran copied from the two holy books of Torah & Bible  .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi in shia view the hadith from their imams (as) is a gift for them from Allah(saw)& Prophet (pbu)that they leave it for their followers when you want leave a lasting gift for others you must have at least one trustworthy people after you to preserve that gift after you there is two type of Hadiths   one of them transfered from an Imam(as) to other Imam(as) and after that to their trustworthy students & followers ,the other one is from an Imam(as) to their trustworthy students & followers although both of them have proof from holy Quran for remaining &maintaning of these Hadithes these must be preserved & narrated by trustworthy people that head of them approved by at last one of Imams(as) and they would find truthworthy people after themselves & it will be continued if as sunni Hadith narrators untrustworthy people interrupt that the chain would be broken & the Hadith disturbed & nobody couldn't  rely on that.

Hadith of Golden Chain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_Golden_Chain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, aqeel321 said:

I am sorry brother but you have mistaken Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah for some other group.  We are not into crying and creating an international scene.  I was merely pointing out that my replies are pending approval and at a certain point, you might have more than one to respond to which may cause you to overlook some of the points I raised in contention to some of your accusations you made in haste.

My bad. ASWJ aka Muawiyans (since he coined this phrase) are not into crying and creating international scenes. ASWJ are into suicide bombing and international terrorism. If bombings were not enough, now ASWJ are into driving over normal, innocent people.

I havent made any accusations in haste. I am merely trying to understand how the ASWJ based their believe in the Quran on the hadith while we accept/reject hadith based on the Quran.

17 hours ago, aqeel321 said:

Of course the Sahaba (ra) knew more than you would like to admit.  As for how they operated, they were fallible beings like you and me except they knew that people (like yourself) will come along to make certain accusations which is why they made their intentions known, like Umar (ra) in the narration which you shared in vain.

So then surely they would not get confused between what is in the margin and what is inserted into a surah. Why would they accuse Caliph Umar of editing the Quran.

17 hours ago, aqeel321 said:

At the time of the Prophet (saw) was the Qur'an compiled?  Did the Prophet (saw) not refer to the "Book of Allah" in one of your favorite narrations, Hadith Thaqalayn?  Would you say that the Qur'an was compiled in a book form?  It was not, so if the Prophet (saw) can refer to the Qur'an as the "Book of Allah", why can't Umar (ra) do the same?  How you extrapolate 2 from 1 beats me!

The surahs were compiled hence the reluctance of Caliph Umar to add anything to it. Most sunnis believe Caliph Uthman did the compiling of verses into Surahs.

To be clear, the surahs were compiled. All Caliph Uthman did was organize then in order of length.

17 hours ago, aqeel321 said:

Really?  Then you must have a chain for it.  Do you?  Also, Shias say that Imam Ali (ra) - among the list of endless excuses - was busy compiling the Qur'an when Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and company attacked his house and Fatima (ra).  Why was Imam Ali (ra) compiling the Qur'an when it was compiled at the lifetime of the Prophet (saw)?  Maybe you need to come an agreement on when the Qur'an was compiled; honestly researching for its chain, within your own madhhab, would be a good start.  And if you find none, I assure you that you will not, a "thank you" note to us would show your appreciation for us handing you the Qur'an.

The surahs were already compiled. What Imam Ali (as) did was work on a detailed tafseer of the Quran - every ayah when it was revealed, for whom it was revealed, etc.

Unlike ASWJ, we do not give credit of compiling of surahs to anyone including Imam Ali (as). That was solely the Prophet's responsibility. ASWJ like to think Caliph Uthman did that. Nope!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2017 at 10:35 PM, shiaman14 said:

We are talking apples and oranges here. Even if we believe the Sunni account that the Quran was complied by Caliph Uthman, once it was written and spread throughout the Ummah, the issue of sanad/rijal/authencity becomes a moot point. We can discuss IF the version allegedly compiled by Caliph Uthman is authentic or not but from that point onwards, it is an exercise in futility.

If you are referring to how the Prophet recited the Quran (accent and styling) then that is a different discussion completely. Even today, you can have 2 people with the 30-35 sanad going back to the Prophet and they will recite it differently. Based on your claim, they are both right. Based on logic, one of them would be wrong. I have yet to see a single Qirat award being given to someone because they recited the Quran exactly like the Prophet.

I am truly shocked at your lack of knowledge and understanding on this topic. The entire 11 pages of this topic can be summarized by saying you believe in the Quran because someone allegedly recites the Quran like the Prophet may or may not have recited.

Fantastic!!!

 

On 11/6/2017 at 10:56 PM, shiaman14 said:

Brother @just a muslim,

You have made the bold claim several times that you believe in the authenticity of the Quran based on Sunni hadith and Sunni ilm-ur-rijal.

You look at Quran in light of hadith. Based on your belief, you will reject the Quran if the sahih hadith say so.
We look at all hadith in light of the Quran. We reject all hadith that go against the Quran.

You and I will never see eye-2-eye unless you change your core belief about the Quran.

The hadith below should be sufficient to break your entire core belief system.

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
I used to teach Qur'an to 'Abdur-Rahman bin Auf. When Umar performed his last Hajj, 'Abdur-Rahman said (to me) at Mina, "Would that you had seen Chief of the believers today! A man came to him and said, "So-and-so has said, "If Chief of the Believers died, we will give the oath of allegiance to such-and-such person,' 'Umar said, 'I will get up tonight and warn those who want to usurp the people's rights.' I said, 'Do not do so, for the season (of Hajj) gathers the riffraff mob who will form the majority of your audience, and I am afraid that they will not understand (the meaning of) your saying properly and may spread (an incorrect statement) everywhere. You should wait till we reach Medina, the place of migration and the place of the Sunna (the Prophet's Traditions). There you will meet the companions of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) from the Muhajirin and the Ansar who will understand your statement and place it in its proper position' 'Umar said, 'By Allah, I shall do so the first time I stand (to address the people) in Medina.' When we reached Medina, 'Umar (in a Friday Khutba-sermon) said, "No doubt, Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed to him the Book (Quran), and among what was revealed, was the Verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning adulterers to death).'" (See Hadith No. 817,Vol. 8)
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 96, Hadith 53

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/96/53

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said:
Verily Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.
Sahih Muslim
Book 29, Hadith 21
http://sunnah.com/muslim/29/21

You have stated quite clearly that Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are 100% authentic. Every hadith in them is 100% true; there is no doubt them.

The Verse of Stoning is not in the Quran even though Caliph Umar acknowledged it to be. So which is it:

A) Quran today is altered because the verse of Stoning (Ar-Rajm) is not in it even though it was revealed as part of the Quran

B) Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are not Sahih after all.

Either option you choose breaks your core belief system. If you say the Quran is wrong, then that would mean so is Sunni hadith and ilm-ur-rijal. If you say Sahihain are wrong, then how can you trust the Quran to be true?

salam.

you are slightly mistaken about the way sunnis view the quran and abrogation. there are 3 types of abrogations: 1. verse and ruling both abrogated. 2. verse abrogated but ruling stays. 3. verse stays but ruling abrogated. the third kind remain in the quran today as well ofc, for example the verses of khumr being permissible under certain conditions. the first and second types are the ones that are mentioned in the ahadith. but this conversation has slightly derailed. i hope you dont mind my going back to the original point.

question was, how can we trust the shia narrators/versions of ahadith? i will do you one good. i will stop presenting the sanad argument. and even though you said i believe in the quran because of sunni hadith, i dont. ofc not. anyway, i will ask the same question about the sunni narrators. how can we trust them? so that we have no reason to trust either of the narrators. fair enough? all we have and believe in is the quran.

so the next questions that comes up are two: 1) which version should we trust and accept, the sunni or the shia? and 2) without relying on either shia or sunni hadith, how can we justify different variants of the quran available today or how do we know which is the actual quran? 

i know you might think i am repeating myself. but i am not. also, i want to outline one possible response from you before hand. you might say that the quran itself says that Allah wants to rid the ahlul bayt of rijs. to purify them. and the ahlul bayt tell us that the quran which is prevalent among the masses is the actual quran. but the problem with that answer is that the verse of purification is for the 5, or the ahlul kisa, not for the remaining imams. and the only way you know that the remaining imams are included in this verse is because of ahadith narrated by shia narrators. which we decided, along with sunni narrators, cant be trusted. and hence this response to the second question doesnt hold.

P.S. i dont believe uthman arranged the order of the surahs. i believe the order of the surahs was decided by the prophet pbuh, not by the companions. as for the hadith in abu dawud and tirmidhi which basically says uthman placed surah taubah and anfal together of his own, it is a weak hadith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, just a muslim said:

salam.

i know you might think i am repeating myself. but i am not. also, i want to outline one possible response from you before hand. you might say that the quran itself says that Allah wants to rid the ahlul bayt of rijs. to purify them. and the ahlul bayt tell us that the quran which is prevalent among the masses is the actual quran. but the problem with that answer is that the verse of purification is for the 5, or the ahlul kisa, not for the remaining imams. and the only way you know that the remaining imams are included in this verse is because of ahadith narrated by shia narrators. which we decided, along with sunni narrators, cant be trusted. and hence this response to the second question doesnt hold.

Brother, Have you tried to verify the hadiths with the verses of quran by some research? or  Do you like to reject he authentic hadith like hadith rejecter?

The verification of the hadith of the prophet saaw in the light of verses of quran through the research has already been conducted as mentioned in the thread the  link is given below:

This efficiently provides  the evidences for confirmation of the fact that the verse of purification covers the prophet saww his daughter, and 12 Imams. ie 14 persons. The saved sect 1 out of 73 as per hadith of the prophet saaw follows his purified progeny.

wasalam

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

Brother, Have you tried to verify the hadiths with the verses of quran by some research? or  Do you like to reject he authentic hadith like hadith rejecter?

The verification of the hadith of the prophet saaw in the light of verses of quran through the research has already been conducted as mentioned in the thread the  link is given below:

This efficiently provides  the evidences for confirmation of the fact that the verse of purification covers the prophet saww his daughter, and 12 Imams. ie 14 persons. The saved sect 1 out of 73 as per hadith of the prophet saaw follows his purified progeny.

wasalam

which ahadith are you talking about? and how do i verify them in light of quran?

 

also, with all due respect and no offense, your post in the link you shared is absolute non-sense. i say this because if this is how the quran portrays its miracle, then i would recommend you to look into the number 19 instead of 14, and then come and tell me that the muslim brotherhood is not false, because they have much stronger "miracles" and "proofs" in the quran like what you showed in your post.

if you are referring to something other than your argument for number 14 in your post, please enlighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi its based on reading of it on quran this vers recitetes in two parts

وَقَرْ‌نَ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّ‌جْنَ تَبَرُّ‌جَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُولَىٰ ۖ وَأَقِمْنَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتِينَ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَ اللَّـهَ وَرَ‌سُولَهُ ۚ

Waqarna fee buyootikunna walatabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati al-oola waaqimnaassalata waateena azzakatawaatiAAna Allaha warasoolahu 

And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. 

 

after "waraoolahu" in Arabic text is a ج sign on  "hu" that means you can stop there a second that 

 

لَهُ ۚ

and "waraoolahu" recites  (-U) "waraoolah"

& then you continue

إِنَّمَا يُرِ‌يدُ اللَّـهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّ‌جْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَ‌كُمْ تَطْهِيرً‌ا

innama yureeduAllahu liyuthhiba AAankumu arrijsa ahlaalbayti wayutahhirakum tatheera

Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification

 

that divide this verse in two part 

the first part is about wives of Prophet(pbu) 

second part refers to 5 (as)

that pause is optional but meaning of the verse wether you recite it continuous or with that pause  is same

 

image.png.f72093bdd346714cb338a68e96f74f26.png

the dot after 'Messenger" in meaning shows that verse contains to parts that not attached to each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_verse_of_purification

but unfortunately some guys mix this two part and deceive that  verse as one part

this signs shows at end of book after ُSura of Nas & explains but them hide it from people.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×