Jump to content

Fink

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    1,229
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Fink last won the day on August 11 2011

Fink had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Fink

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia Quranist Non- Ithna Ashari Muslim

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,354 profile views
  1. I can see why you would hold such position. But I don't believe in Imamah as twelvers do or infallibility. The story about Allah revealing the Qur'an in numerous ahruf is a fabrication and silly as these inconsistencies in text mostly arise from a single text. Meaning the collection of the Qur'an during Uthmans period into one version could've been read numerous ways. This wasn't necessarily intentional, it was as a result of primitve writing without phonetics. So you and I could read it differently and both could be sound. Furthermore I theorize that when Qur'an was distributed to various regions, it was distributed with textual differences because they didn't have printing presses at that time. Before this collection, Quranic script was written by various people and sometimes it was written differently. Uthmans move was positive because we would probably have many more textual differences today. The differences are clearly human and there is no evidence to suggest the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was receiving readings in more than one way. It's completely illogical.
  2. Salam Warilla see my post above , but to answer your question, the evidence is clear in the type of readings we have present today, some have missing or added words like هو . Both would be literary sound. Some words are changed entirely, the lack of dots in early manuscripts meant linguists had to theorize what the proper word was. So instead of يسيركم they say ينشركم - close meaning but they are two different words. Both readings are valid.
  3. Surprisingly twelver Shia Imams had numerous opportunities to address this topic but we don't have a "Jafari reading" - either because they simply didn't know or the hadith is weak it wasn't picked up. The uthmani script wasn't in a particular reading after it was written down, that would insinuate that people knew how to read it as it was intended. They didn't! The script lacked phonetics and could be read in numerous ways by people who picked up the scripts. The omissions in words and or the addition of words came after it was conanized- I personally believe due to textual differences in the Uthmani copies. They didn't have Microsoft word or any editing software so mistakes occurred. No one can say with concrete yaqeen that any one reading is more proper than the other. Salam
  4. Salam Non twelver Shia that gives Qur'an superiority over all other texts.
  5. Salam, So what level of literary perfection are we looking for? At what point would you consider it to be tahrif?
  6. That's called PICA, I'd see a behavioral therapist or a psychiatrist if such cravings persist. Salam
  7. Salam brother, As a caveat I'm probably the worst to ask about hadith but from a philosophical perspective: Given that at least some minor differences are present, would it be appropriate to shut the doors on persons that theorize bigger tahrif? At the sametime , it would be very unconvincing to argue that the Qur'an isn't complete in it's doctrine as a result of tahrif. The message is complete regardless of any level of tahrif.
  8. These textual differences are actually impressive because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) perfected the message entirely through fallible beings. The overall message of the Qur'an is well maintained despite these inconsistencies. The Sunni story about 7 ahruf is a lie, as is the Shia and Sunni story about the goat eating the verse about rajm. All lies.
  9. The differences are likely from the period of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to Uthmans period. Once Qurans were distributed to various regions it's unlikely much changed since then. You have to understand that writing was primitive when the Qur'an was collected, the sahabah were humans and made errors in their writings. The pieces were subsequently collected and the Qur'an was conanized. however because they didn't have computers and printing presses back then the various copies sent to different regions had textual differences. This led some versions to be missing words like "هو" ، but all copies were equally as good in terms of linguistics and beauty. The orginal manuscripts lacked dots and phonetics and thus a single word can be turned into an entirely different word based on the reader's addition of a single dot.
  10. Some form of tahrif can't be disputed, in some Quranic readings entire words are missing. Largely inconsequential but it's there. Now whether entire verses are missing or new verses added that's debatable. But there is definitely not one structure. In referencing tahrif I'm including intentional or non intentional. Some changes have come about naturally due to lack of dots in early manuscript. - ie jafat hafat khafat all can be written the same in early Arabic writing. All that was done were educated guesses on what the actual word should be.
  11. Point is I strongly believe Islam sought to end slavery. The God of the Qur'an clearly dislikes the practice. Human inequities won't end just because a blanket ban came from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). So things are dealt with accordingly within capacity of people.
  12. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says be kind to women, I don't think rape falls under that category. You sick men.
  13. You're mixing general slavery with captured persons in war. I've already discussed both types many times and I keep having to repeat myself. They are two different things. Slavery was a system in place before Islam and was regulated after Islam. You're asking why the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had slaves, I already answered that when I explained why slavery was not abolished explicitly, and gave you an example of what would happen to them in referencing African Americans who were freed on paper. The Prophet like everyone else dealt with this social system in place. I don't care much about this thing called ghayba as I have no such concept in my religion. There is also no such thing as offensive Jihad. They made that up like they invented many other things in Islam.
  14. The Qur'an deals with topics and their effects, there is absolutely no principle that merely regulating a fact of society equals endorsement of the practice. When the Qur'an does give an order relating to captured persons it stipulates two options, one is to free them or two ransom them as a condition of release. Regulating alchohol doesn't mean the Qur'an implicitly allows it for example. It is a fact of society and is dealt with accordingly. There are ZERO verses that say you can enslave a woman. There are ZERO verses that say you can initiate slavery in general. The Qur'an allows self defense as every single nation on Earth and consequences of war are on the aggressor. If a captured aggressor consents to marry their captor , what is the problem? the problem is when you approach the Quranic commands with an animalistic mind and believe it calls for pillaging and raping. women and men have sex as a matter of nature, it doesn't mean one can go around raping anyone they meet. Even non Islamic primitive societies regulate the act of sex.
×
×
  • Create New...