Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Did Uthman Change Quran In Anyway?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

Alot of people assume that Uthman put the final Quran together, and prior to that the Quran was spread all over.

So, people question the arrangement of the verses and the surahs.

Which makes it hard when one is trying to put things in the right context.

How can it be proven/shown that Uthman did not change the Quran?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

Firstly, it is important to note that not even the Sunis claim that he compiled the Quran - what he did was comission its collection - that is to say, he ordered for it to be compiled.

By the grace of Allah (SWT), it was a Shia of Imam Ali (as) that actually carried out the compilation of the Quran. Afterwards, Imam Ali (as) said that the compiled Quran was sufficient and that no one would be able to notice the difference. He then kept the version he personally compiled with himself, and passed it down through the Imams.

The problem, however, is that Umar faslely attributed verses to the Quran and publically spoke about them - however, these verses never actually existed in the Quran. In this way, many people doubt Umar - because he in fact was a moron.

Sahih Muslim

Book 017, Number 4194:

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him) 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.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/h...t.html#017.4194

You are free to search through your Qurans - there is no verse of "stoning" within the Quran.

-

rahat

Edited by rahat
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If unity involves giving good tidings to Uthman, who usurped Ali (may Allah bless him) and oppressed and stole from the family of the Prophet (may Allah bless them), then certainly, I doubt we will see it, but how can you preach unity and curse a brother at the same time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
If unity involves giving good tidings to Uthman, who usurped Ali (may Allah bless him) and oppressed and stole from the family of the Prophet (may Allah bless them), then certainly, I doubt we will see it, but how can you preach unity and curse a brother at the same time?

Our friend rahat works for Mossad's Internet branch, which seeks to create divisions amongst muslims.

I hope the Israeli government is paying him well, because its the only reward he will get in this life or the next

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
The problem, however, is that Umar faslely attributed verses to the Quran and publically spoke about them - however, these verses never actually existed in the Quran. In this way, many people doubt Umar - because he in fact was a moron.

Sahih Muslim

Book 017, Number 4194:

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him) 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.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/h...t.html#017.4194

You are free to search through your Qurans - there is no verse of "stoning" within the Quran.

-

rahat

But can you see how hadith like these can plant doubts in people's minds about the genuineness of the Quran we have today? Anti-Islamicsts too can use this to criticize Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

No uthman did not change the quran in anyway, regardless of what sayed sistani has issued. this is because Allah(swt) has protected the holy book from all possible alterations and it is perfect as can be. below is a answer to this question from Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Hussain Fadlullah[HA]

th_71255_fudallah_s_reply1_122_521lo.jpg

I also emailed the offices Ayatollah -Sayyid Muhammad Saeed Tabatabi Al-Hakeem[HA], and Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Fazil Lankarani[HA] who both also confirmed the perfectness of the verses of the quran and that the Allah(swt) and his messenger arranged this order during the lifetime of the Rasul

ws

th_71255_fudallah_s_reply1_122_521lo.jpg

Edited by SLAVE_OF_ALLAH
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
(salam)

No uthman did not change the quran in anyway, regardless of what sayed sistani has issued. this is because Allah(swt) has protected the holy book from all possible alterations and it is perfect as can be. below is a answer to this question from Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Hussain Fadlullah[HA]

th_71255_fudallah_s_reply1_122_521lo.jpg

I also emailed the offices Ayatollah -Sayyid Muhammad Saeed Tabatabi Al-Hakeem[HA], and Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Fazil Lankarani[HA] who both also confirmed the perfectness of the verses of the quran and that the Allah(swt) and his messenger arranged this order during the lifetime of the Rasul

ws

th_71255_fudallah_s_reply1_122_521lo.jpg

Curious,

What has Ayatollah Sistani said about the completeness of the Qur'an?

I was always told that Imam Mehdi(as) would bring the true Quran, when he arrives

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

All Shia Maraja, from Ayatollah Khomeini, Khoei, Sistani, Fadlallah, Khamanei, Najafi, Tabatabai and so forth completely and fully state that the Quran is 100% authentic and correct.

However, ALL muslims acknowledge that the Quran is not, in any way, in order of revelation. The first surah in the Quran is surah "Fatiha" yet the first verse revealed to Prophet Muhammad was "Iqra" or "Read!" as is well known in famous hadith. As such, Sura Alaq (number 96) was the first Surah revealed.

Shias believe that Imam Mahdi will bring the Quran in its original order of revelation, along with the divine Tafsir. The Quran itself however, will have no changed verses whatsoever.

-

rahat

ps ofsokuno - i provided a link to your own sahih bukhari on a sunni website. you seemed to gloss over the fact that umar was either intentionally lying about the quran or the fact that he never read it and was unfamiliar with the book of Allah. Care to explain which it was? Or have you found the elusive verse of stoning?

Edited by rahat
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
All Shia Maraja, from Ayatollah Khomeini, Khoei, Sistani, Fadlallah, Khamanei, Najafi, Tabatabai and so forth completely and fully state that the Quran is 100% authentic and correct.

However, ALL muslims acknowledge that the Quran is not, in any way, in order of revelation. The first surah in the Quran is surah "Fatiha" yet the first verse revealed to Prophet Muhammad was "Iqra" or "Read!" as is well known in famous hadith. As such, Sura Alaq (number 96) was the first Surah revealed.

Shias believe that Imam Mahdi will bring the Quran in its original order of revelation, along with the divine Tafsir. The Quran itself however, will have no changed verses whatsoever.

-

rahat

ps ofsokuno - i provided a link to your own sahih bukhari on a sunni website. you seemed to gloss over the fact that umar was either intentionally lying about the quran or the fact that he never read it and was unfamiliar with the book of Allah. Care to explain which it was? Or have you found the elusive verse of stoning?

(salam)

you are incorrect stating that all shias believe, that imam mahdi(as) will bring the original order of revelation, please do not take into account that all people follow sayed sistani on this board. Refer to sayed Fadlallah's answer i posted, as well as the other 2 marjas i emailed who gave the same reply, they all made it clear that the order the verses are in now, are in the order that Allah(swt) and his messenger(s) willed them to be in and this is obvious as the quran was compiled during the time of the Rasul. Sayed also confirmed that the imams(as) believed that Allah(swt) and his messenger(s) set the order of the verses.

ws

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

I cannot translate arabic, but I am sure that Ayatollah Fadlallah also believes what I have said, as it is a unanimous belief that Surah Fatiha was not the first Surah to be revealed accross all sects of Islam.

-

rahat

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Salaam,

I cannot translate arabic, but I am sure that Ayatollah Fadlallah also believes what I have said, as it is a unanimous belief that Surah Fatiha was not the first Surah to be revealed accross all sects of Islam.

-

rahat

(salam)

I am sorry but Ayatollah Fadlallah(ha) does not believe in what u have said. This is what he has said.

Allah(swt) says: We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption) (15:9). Therefore, Allah(swt) has ordered to safeguard the Quran from any change. This shows that the Quran is safe from any misinterpretation according to the Imams(as). It is commonly agreed that the Prophet (s) has taken care to ensure that the verses were put in order.

now i have posted my Arabic reply from Sayed and an English equivalent for you, i hope this is enough.

ws

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators

^

Brother SoA

I think, you misunderstood what bro Rahat said. Ask the Ayatullah if he believes in the following two historical references:

1) Surah Fatiha was not the first surah to be revealed

2) Imam Ali collected Quran in which the verses were sequenced according to their time of Nuzul.

Although I notice that the Grand scholar seems to have a lot of opinions, different to rest of the early and present day shia scholars, I am interested to know, what is His opinion in regards to the above two points.

Fi-Amanillah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
^

Brother SoA

I think, you misunderstood what bro Rahat said. Ask the Ayatullah if he believes in the following two historical references:

1) Surah Fatiha was not the first surah to be revealed

2) Imam Ali collected Quran in which the verses were sequenced according to their time of Nuzul.

Although I notice that the Grand scholar seems to have a lot of opinions, different to rest of the early and present day shia scholars, I am interested to know, what is His opinion in regards to the above two points.

Fi-Amanillah.

There is consensus among shiite scholars that the present arragement of Quran is not according to the order of revelation(ie your point no.1 is true : Surah Fatiha was not the first surah to be revealed). But there is difference of opinion among scholars regarding who arranged the order of verses of present Quran. According to Sayed Sistani order of verses (of present Quran) were arranged by companions whereas Sayed Fadhlallah beleives that Prophet (saw) himself arranged the order of verses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

salamz

thank you bro Murabit. point 1 is not debated brother, however at the same time, sayed alhumdulilah believes that all the surahs and verses have been placed in a prescribed order during the time of the Rasul(s), by Allah(swt) and his messenger(s). remmebering that this is also the view of many modern day scholars such as Sayyid Muhammad Saeed Tabatabi Al-Hakeem[HA], and Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Fazil Lankarani[HA] and im very sure it was the view of Ayatollah khomoeni(ra).

ws

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators
There is consensus among shiite scholars that the present arragement of Quran is not according to the order of revelation(ie your point no.1 is true : Surah Fatiha was not the first surah to be revealed). But there is difference of opinion among scholars regarding who arranged the order of verses of present Quran. According to Sayed Sistani order of verses (of present Quran) were arranged by companions whereas Sayed Fadhlallah beleives that Prophet (saw) himself arranged the order of verses.

Assalam u Alaikum bro Murabit,

Yes I am aware that Sayed Fadhlallah believes that the Prophet P.b.u.H Himself arranged the order of verses. This is why I wanted to know the scholar's opinion on the Quran collected by Maula Ali. Because if Sayed Fadhlallah also believes that Maula Ali collected Quran according to Tartib e Nuzuli, then I would like to question the scholar , " Why did Maula Ali collected the Quran in an order which was not set by Prophet P.b.u.H and Allah ? ". And if the Sayed believes that Maula Ali did not collect Quran according to Tartib e Nuzuli, then I would like to ask the reasoning why he doesn't believe in this historical fact which is recorded in a number of the early books of shia school of thought and acknowledged by a large number of early and present day shia scholars.

Fi-Amanillah

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Assalam u Alaikum bro Murabit,

Yes I am aware that Sayed Fadhlallah believes that the Prophet P.b.u.H Himself arranged the order of verses. This is why I wanted to know the scholar's opinion on the Quran collected by Maula Ali. Because if Sayed Fadhlallah also believes that Maula Ali collected Quran according to Tartib e Nuzuli, then I would like to question the scholar , " Why did Maula Ali collected the Quran in an order which was not set by Prophet P.b.u.H and Allah ? ". And if the Sayed believes that Maula Ali did not collect Quran according to Tartib e Nuzuli, then I would like to ask the reasoning why he doesn't believe in this historical fact which is recorded in a number of the early books of shia school of thought and acknowledged by a large number of early and present day shia scholars.

Fi-Amanillah

salamz

I dont have written statements from sayed in relation to this. However let us assume, that sayed believes that the quran was not collected in order of revelation by the imam(as). sayed can easily refute these early reports on the basis that they contradict the aya 15.9 where Allah(swt) protects the quran from any change. how do you know that these reports are authentic? it is irrelevant to him whether some scholars accept these reports, as sayed is a very honest man and makes decisions based on clear facts, instead of just following what other great scholars have said, this is the greatness of islam. it is obvious from the reply he gave me, that he beleives aya 15.9 means A FULL PROTECTION as it clearly states, where some people assume there is some weird hidden meaning that it doesnt mean full. brother i would like to ask u, why r u only questioning sayed fadlallah , ive already told u ive received replys from Sayyid Muhammad Saeed Tabatabi Al-Hakeem[HA], and Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Fazil Lankarani[HA] that agree entirely with sayed Fadlallah on this issue of the order of the verses and im very sure it was the view of Ayatollah khomoeni(ra) and dont forget Ayatollah Khui(RA) who dedicated a whole book to clear doubts in relation to the perfectness of the quran. Why have they also rejected "these early" reports ? it must be that these reports are weak and unreliable or that in their view, these reports contradict what the quran says in aya 15.9.

I have personally heard, that the quran that Imam Ali(as) collected was exactly the same quran in relation to the order of the verses, but had a greater tasfir which was attached to it, which explained the ayas in full according the Prophet(s), and was later rejected by Abu bakr, have you not heard of this before?

ws

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators
I dont have written statements from sayed in relation to this. However let us assume, that sayed believes that the quran was not collected in order of revelation by the imam(as). sayed can easily refute these early reports on the basis that they contradict the aya 15.9 where Allah(swt) protects the quran from any change. how do you know that these reports are authentic?

Assalam u Alaikum bro,

I believe they are authentic because I honestly don't see them contradicting Quranic verses on the first place. Secondly, the traditions reffering to this historical event are repeatedly narrated; it's not like they have just been narrated one or twice or by one or two people. And this is why I seek to learn from the esteemed scholars (who believe that Maula Ali did not present the Quran in chronological order) how do such early reports (which they consider inauthentic) contradict the Quran ? Obviously there will be a reasoning and a reference in support of their decision. And if we get to learn the reasoning and reference, maybe people like me could correct the qibla of our beliefs.

it is irrelevant to him whether some scholars accept these reports, as sayed is a very honest man and makes decisions based on clear facts, instead of just following what other great scholars have said, this is the greatness of islam. it is obvious from the reply he gave me, that he beleives aya 15.9 means A FULL PROTECTION as it clearly states,

Brother, shed some light on full protection. Does the 'full protection' include the current order of Quran ? If so, please bring forth a reasoning as to why did Allah reveal Quran in a corrupted order ? I say this because it is agreed upon by scholars of all sects that the present order of Quran is not the same as the order in which it was revealed. Based on this fact, we have two options left. Either we believe that Allah revealed Quran in a corrupted order because it was different from the current order of Quran. Or we admit that the Quran and it's content is not caged within the limitations of order. It reveals truth and knowledge in either case.

why r u only questioning sayed fadlallah , ive already told u ive received replys from Sayyid Muhammad Saeed Tabatabi Al-Hakeem[HA], and Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Fazil Lankarani[HA] that agree entirely with sayed Fadlallah on this issue of the order of the verses and im very sure it was the view of Ayatollah khomoeni(ra) and dont forget Ayatollah Khui(RA) who dedicated a whole book to clear doubts in relation to the perfectness of the quran. Why have they also rejected "these early" reports ? it must be that these reports are weak and unreliable or that in their view, these reports contradict what the quran says in aya 15.9.

Bro I am not only questioning Sayed Fadlullah. I am just seeking a well justified reasoning from anyone who has spare time to shed some light. Even your self. And seriously, don't think, I am arguing just for the sake of argument.... In the past, I have already faced immense pressure by momineen, some of which were not even ready to discuss such sensitive topics and consequently, the results were sadening. I do not wish to make the same mistake. All I'd say is that you gather some strong information and share it with us. We don't need to argue. We can simply share information, mutually discuss the accompanied reasoning and try to reach conclusion. This will bring better results as compared to the never ending debates because while debating, sometimes our ego's come in between and our minds fail to seriously consider the quality of opponent's belief.

I have personally heard, that the quran that Imam Ali(as) collected was exactly the same quran in relation to the order of the verses, but had a greater tasfir which was attached to it, which explained the ayas in full according the Prophet(s), and was later rejected by Abu bakr, have you not heard of this before?

To be honest, I have never heard of that from any scholar. And I have never read any tradition refering to this.

Fi-Amanillah

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The following verse is enough proof that current order of Quran is not corrupted :

Åöäøó ÚóáóíúäóÇ ÌóãúÚóåõ æóÞõÑúÂäóåõ

It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it. (75:17)

Brother, shed some light on full protection. Does the 'full protection' include the current order of Quran ? If so, please bring forth a reasoning as to why did Allah reveal Quran in a corrupted order ? I say this because it is agreed upon by scholars of all sects that the present order of Quran is not the same as the order in which it was revealed. Based on this fact, we have two options left. Either we believe that Allah revealed Quran in a corrupted order because it was different from the current order of Quran. Or we admit that the Quran and it's content is not caged within the limitations of order. It reveals truth and knowledge in either case.

Prophet(saw) didnt arrange Quran according to the order of revelation, but this doesnt means Quran was revealed in 'corrupted order'. Verses were not revealed in any 'order'. Verses were revealed when divine guidance was required according to the situation and circumstances. And along with the verse the divine 'placement' of the verse was also revealed to the Prophet (saw).

Like Prophet use to say :

“Place this verse in the sura in which this and this is mentioned.” (Jeffery A. , Materials for the History of the Text of the Qura'n)

Another Proof is the statement early shiite scholar, As-Sayyed Al-Murtada ‘Ali Ibn Al-Hussein Al-Mosawi Al-‘Elwi (died 436 A.H.) :

"The Qur’an was, during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him), compiled and arranged until the Prophet (peace be upon him) assigned a group of Companions (Sahaba) to memorize it. It was displayed and recited before the Prophet (peace be upon him) and some Companions as Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood and Ubai Ibn Ka’b recited the whole Qur’an many times before the Prophet (peace be upon him). All this indicates that it was compiled and arranged, neither amputated nor scattered ……. "

Abul-Qasim Ali Ibn Al-Hussein Ibn Musa Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim known as Ash-Sharif Al-Murtada (355-436 A.H.), he is one of the most prominent Shi'ite Imams, lived and died in Baghdad and has so many books discussing various topics.

===

A simple question for Bro. InshaAllah : How can one take guidance from Quran by believing that there is tahrif in arrangement , verses are jumbled and order is corrupted ?!?

wsalam

Edited by Murabit
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators
The following verse is enough proof that current order of Quran is not corrupted :

إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا جَمْعَهُ وَقُرْآنَهُ

It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it. (75:17)

A simple question for Bro. InshaAllah : How can one take guidance from Quran by believing that there is tahrif in arrangement , verses are jumbled and order is corrupted ?!?

But, my dear brother, I do not believe that current order of Quran is corrupted. Let me clarify the issue and the context of my discussion with bro SoA. The issue is that bro SoA and a number of other members ( in the past ) believe that my belief regarding current copy of Quran implies a tehreef in Quran. Whereas I say that my belief re current Quran does not imply a tehreef in the Quran.

What exactly is my belief regarding the Quran ? I believe that Maula Ali a.s had Quran in which all the verses were arranged in chronological order ( Tarteeb e Nuzul ). This is mentioned in a number of traditions and believed by a number of current and early scholars of Islam. After the death of the Prophet P.b.u.H, Maula Ali a.s took this Quran to the first Caliph, who refused to publish it. The current Quran which we have today is also the same Quran which was with Maula Ali. However it is not in chronological order which was one of the features of the copy of Quran with Maula Ali a.s and ofcourse the tafsirs are different too.

Regarding the current copy of Quran, I believe that it was compiled and published by a comittee led by Zaid Bin Thabit ( If I am not mistaken ). This is believed by a number of shia scholars and I provided a reference to support my claim in the Quran thread in the Sunni/Shia forum. And this is mentioned in the history books of Sunni Muslims too.

On the contrary, brother SoA believes that current copy of Quran ( including it's order ) was set by Prophet P.b.u.H. And to believe in the reference that Maula Ali had a Quran with chronological order indicates that Quran was tampered.

And this is where I object and ask for reasoning to show how it implies a tehreef.

Prophet(saw) didnt arrange Quran according to the order of revelation, but this doesnt means Quran was revealed in 'corrupted order'. Verses were not revealed in any 'order'. Verses were revealed when divine guidance was required according to the situation and circumstances. And along with the verse the divine 'placement' of the verse was also revealed to the Prophet (saw).

Sure. But how do you know that current order of Quran is the same as was arranged by the Prophet ?

Like Prophet use to say :

“Place this verse in the sura in which this and this is mentioned.” (Jeffery A. , Materials for the History of the Text of the Qura'n)

Another Proof is the statement early shiite scholar, As-Sayyed Al-Murtada ‘Ali Ibn Al-Hussein Al-Mosawi Al-‘Elwi (died 436 A.H.) :

"The Qur’an was, during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him), compiled and arranged until the Prophet (peace be upon him) assigned a group of Companions (Sahaba) to memorize it. It was displayed and recited before the Prophet (peace be upon him) and some Companions as Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood and Ubai Ibn Ka’b recited the whole Qur’an many times before the Prophet (peace be upon him). All this indicates that it was compiled and arranged, neither amputated nor scattered ……. "

But history also tells that the manuscript possessed by Abdullah Bin Masud was different from the current one. Infact Abdullah Bin Masud was badly beaten for keeping a separate copy of his own which He thought was in the order in which He memorised in the lifetime of the Prophet P.b.u.H and did not share it with others. History suggests, that a number of companions possessed various manuscripts or incomplete versions. Some only had certain Surahs in writing. Others had memorised some verses e.t.c So how do you prove that the current order of Quran was similar to that which was memorised by the companions like Abdullah Bin Masud and others ?

Sigh...the arguments starts once again. May I request that you go through the Quran thread in the Sunni/Shia forum. This will ensure that we don't have to repeat ourselves. The thread has some valuable references too.

Fi-AManillah

Edited by inshaAllah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
ps ofsokuno - i provided a link to your own sahih bukhari on a sunni website. you seemed to gloss over the fact that umar was either intentionally lying about the quran or the fact that he never read it and was unfamiliar with the book of Allah. Care to explain which it was? Or have you found the elusive verse of stoning?

Gosh Islamica's been quite since you've been on vacation :!!!:

By the way nice story about the lucrative Imam Ali Quran...tell me did Amazon's stock of lucrative Imam Ali Quran's run out? I've been trying to get my hands on one :angry:

Err...sorry man but you always had a bad poker face when it came to your nefarious habit of cursing the sahabah, too bad the secret is out...May Allah withhold his mercy from you and put you to disgrace, & deprive you of Rasuallah (pbuh) 's intercession Ameen Ameen Thumma Ameen! Its because idiots like you that innocent shia blood has stained sectarian torn Pakistan. But anyways the answer to your question :

The qur'an is clear that certain verses were abrogated during the life of the Prophet: 002.106

YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

The reason for this is that immediate and sweeping reforms and rules would have been much too difficult for the jahili Arabs to understand and follow. So for example, in the beginning, the early Muslims were allowed to drink, but told not to approach the prayer while drunk. This was later followed up by the complete abolishment of drinking in the 5th year of hijri.

In the case that youve cited here, there must have been a specific ayah that talked about stoning in detail, and its importance must have been stressed to the early Muslims to highlight the forbiddance of adultery, something that was so ingrained in the jahili Arabs' lives. Perhaps a specific ayah was given to highlight the importance of this prohibition, as if to really drive the point home, and then when the message was clear, it was no longer necessary to have that verse in there, and it was abrogated and replaced with a verse that was intended for the long-term.

We freely admit that abrogations were made, but they were all made in the lifetime of the Prophet, such that when he passed away, the entire Qur'an was preserved in its present form most importantly in the hearts of the huffaz Companions, and secondly in various manuscripts/parchments that were then matched up against the mushaf of Hafsa ® [The same lady you curse before your gluttonous ass goes to bed.]

btw- You need to stop your selective denial of sunni hadith. I mean it doesn't take a Brain Surgeon to understand the fact that you cant accept one thing and reject the other in the same context. You can't reject Newton's 1st law of motion and accept his other 2, you being a former Pre-Medical student should know better.

Edited by ofoshoukno
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Interesting excuse: except that its wrong.

The whole thing about such things as alcohol being allowed is ridiculous:

017.077

YUSUFALI: (This was Our) way with the messengers We sent before thee: thou wilt find no change in Our ways.

Second, if you look at the actual hadith, it was during the Caliphate of Umar:

Sahih Muslim

Book 017, Number 4194:

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him) 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.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/h...t.html#017.4194

And so, while your abrogation theory might be applicable if such a hadith was reported during the Prophets lifetime, it is completely false when applied something like 10 years after the Prophet died.

To summarize:

1. Shias reject full abrogation of verses, we only believe in partial abrogation of the meaning of a particular verse.

2. Since the hadith is in reference to some time period after the Prophet's death, and Umar is publically referring to how he hopes that no one forgets that verse.

3. Umar is advocating stoning as a Quranic edict, however if such a verse was entirely deleted - then such an edict would not be applicable.

4. The Sunni response is to insist that the Quran itself must be wrong, rather than accept that Umar was wrong.

-

rahat

Edited by rahat
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
Interesting excuse: except that its wrong.

The whole thing about such things as alcohol being allowed is ridiculous:

017.077

YUSUFALI: (This was Our) way with the messengers We sent before thee: thou wilt find no change in Our ways.

Second, if you look at the actual hadith, it was during the Caliphate of Umar:

Sahih Muslim

Book 017, Number 4194:

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him) 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.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/h...t.html#017.4194

And so, while your abrogation theory might be applicable if such a hadith was reported during the Prophets lifetime, it is completely false when applied something like 10 years after the Prophet died.

To summarize:

1. Shias reject full abrogation of verses, we only believe in partial abrogation of the meaning of a particular verse.

2. Since the hadith is in reference to some time period after the Prophet's death, and Umar is publically referring to how he hopes that no one forgets that verse.

3. Umar is advocating stoning as a Quranic edict, however if such a verse was entirely deleted - then such an edict would not be applicable.

4. The Sunni response is to insist that the Quran itself must be wrong, rather than accept that Umar was wrong.

-

rahat

Do not modifiy the quran/hadith to fit your ideology because trust me it wont fit. This hadith was narrated during the time of the Prophet, by talking about Umar sitting on the pulpit in no way proves that this was after the time of the Prophet, plz stop with your hallucinations.

Also if you claim Imam Ali is so brave and bold, where was he and his Zulfiqaar if he saw a non-Banu Hashim Caliph sitting on the pulpit of Rasuallah? Surely Ali was known for his bravery but if he knew Umar was wrong and was usurping something of his right, surely he would do something about it.

this leaves us with 2 conclusions

1) Umar wasn't wrong & Ali was cool with it(more likely)

2) or Ali is a coward(very unlikely)

pick your poison

Edited by ofoshoukno
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Islamic culture:

No one, but the highest authority in power, sat in the seat of the Prophet. As such, during the Prophet's lifetime no one, not abu bakr, not uthman, not umar, not imam ali - no one at all sat in the Prophet's pulpit. (Seriously, think about it - who would lecture to the Prophet? Who would have enough intelligence or whathaveyou to get on the Prophet's pulpit and preach to him? Answer: No one. And no one would think to do so either).

following this tradition, during abu bakrs caliphate, all else but abu bakr himself were prevented from sitting, during umar's the same, during uthmans, the same and so forth. although only imam ali was legitimately allowed to sit on the pulpit after the prophet, you can see it was the tendency of your caliphs to fashion themselves to the Prophet's pulpit.

As for your Imam Ali/Zulfiqar rant: We Shia do not believe that violently murdering people is the solution to our Islamic delimmas, that is strictly a Sunni attribute - as can be seen throughout the last thousand years of history.

-

rahat

Edited by rahat
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salam aleikum:

salamz

thank you bro Murabit. point 1 is not debated brother, however at the same time, sayed alhumdulilah believes that all the surahs and verses have been placed in a prescribed order during the time of the Rasul(s), by Allah(swt) and his messenger(s). remmebering that this is also the view of many modern day scholars such as Sayyid Muhammad Saeed Tabatabi Al-Hakeem[HA], and Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Fazil Lankarani[HA] and im very sure it was the view of Ayatollah khomoeni(ra).

ws

Sayyed Ali Khamenai Q/A http://www.islam-pure.de/imam/fatwas/furth...m#completequran

Subject: About how complete the Holy Qur'an is 7912e

Date:

Question: I have heard from some Shia Ulema and some other Shia Momineens that the Quran Shareef which we have got today is not complete and a hidden part of it is in the hand of Imam Mahdi (as) who will bring it back when he appears. Is it true that Umar (LA) and Usman (LA) burnt many ayahs of Quran and Imam Ali (as), seeing this, hides a part of it? It is hard for me to understand this, because Allah (swt) himself claims in Quran, that he is the protector of it and he alone will save it from altration. I hope to get an answer for this important question soon, if you dont mind, please give also an evidence of your answer.

Answer: Bismihi Ta`ala The present Qur'an in our hands will never be changed even in the time of Imam Zaman (aj.) reappearance (May my soul be a sacrificed to the sand under his feet).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Islamic culture:

No one, but the highest authority in power, sat in the seat of the Prophet. As such, during the Prophet's lifetime no one, not abu bakr, not uthman, not umar, not imam ali - no one at all sat in the Prophet's pulpit. (Seriously, think about it - who would lecture to the Prophet? Who would have enough intelligence or whathaveyou to get on the Prophet's pulpit and preach to him? Answer: No one. And no one would think to do so either).

following this tradition, during abu bakrs caliphate, all else but abu bakr himself were prevented from sitting, during umar's the same, during uthmans, the same and so forth. although only imam ali was legitimately allowed to sit on the pulpit after the prophet, you can see it was the tendency of your caliphs to fashion themselves to the Prophet's pulpit.

As for your Imam Ali/Zulfiqar rant: We Shia do not believe that violently murdering people is the solution to our Islamic delimmas, that is strictly a Sunni attribute - as can be seen throughout the last thousand years of history.

-

rahat

Actually Abu Bakr(as) was a mufti during the time of the Prophet(pbuh). Perhaps you should read more Sunni Hadith, regarding the subject. Abu Bakr(as) used to judge amongst them and issue fatwas to them based on what he found in the Qur’aan and hadeeth. If he could not find an answer, he would go out and ask the Muslims, saying, “Such and such an issue has been referred to me, do you know whether the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) passed a judgement concerning such a matter?” Then perhaps a group of them would come to him, all of them saying that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had passed a judgement on it. Then Abu Bakr would say, “Praise be to Allaah Who has caused there to be among us those who memorized things from our Prophet.” And if he was unable to find any Sunnah narrated from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he would gather the leaders of the people and the best among them and if they agreed on something he would pass judgement according to that.

This was a tradition carried by all 4 caliphs.

Your version of history makes no sense. Tell me Rahat, when a smoker wants to quit smoking, why do you give him a nicotene patch? Why are there 3 levels (the third being the one with the highest percentage of nicotene, and 1 being the lowest?) So that you may gradually differentiate yourself from the wicked habit of smoking. This is no different than the prescription Allah handed down. The jahili arabs of the time were addicted to alcohol, so to tell them randomly one day to stop drinking would be illogical. It was a gradual approach where the first command was to not to come to prayer drunk, then not to drink in your houses and then finally not to drink at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Actually Abu Bakr(as) was a mufti during the time of the Prophet(pbuh). Perhaps you should read more Sunni Hadith, regarding the subject. Abu Bakr(as) used to judge amongst them and issue fatwas to them based on what he found in the Qur’aan and hadeeth. If he could not find an answer, he would go out and ask the Muslims, saying, “Such and such an issue has been referred to me, do you know whether the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) passed a judgement concerning such a matter?” Then perhaps a group of them would come to him, all of them saying that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had passed a judgement on it. Then Abu Bakr would say, “Praise be to Allaah Who has caused there to be among us those who memorized things from our Prophet.” And if he was unable to find any Sunnah narrated from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he would gather the leaders of the people and the best among them and if they agreed on something he would pass judgement according to that.
What kind of crazy revisionist history is this? First you say that Abu Bakr spent 100% of his time with the Prophet until the Prophet died, and now your claiming that he randomly used to go pass judgements and be so far away from the Prophet that he had to ask other people about the Sunnah?

Thats so ridiculously obvious as a lie that I don't even know what to say to you.

This was a tradition carried by all 4 caliphs.

Your version of history makes no sense. Tell me Rahat, when a smoker wants to quit smoking, why do you give him a nicotene patch? Why are there 3 levels (the third being the one with the highest percentage of nicotene, and 1 being the lowest?) So that you may gradually differentiate yourself from the wicked habit of smoking. This is no different than the prescription Allah handed down. The jahili arabs of the time were addicted to alcohol, so to tell them randomly one day to stop drinking would be illogical. It was a gradual approach where the first command was to not to come to prayer drunk, then not to drink in your houses and then finally not to drink at all.

While they may have been addicted to alcohol - it was always forbidden, from every Prophet leading up to Prophet Muhammad and immediately during his life time.

There are other examples of things we believe were gradually eliminated, but in specific regards to alcohol - it was always forbidden.

Since you used a medical example: you should realize, the most advanced medical treatments in the world for treating alcoholism, involve completely eliminating alcohol and promoting abstinence. Furthermore, in the most serious of treatments, there is a detoxification procedure where alcohol is filtered out of hte bloodstream. I have never heard of any treatment plan for alcoholism where the treatment plan is gradual elimination.

-

rahat

Link to post
Share on other sites
it was always forbidden, from every Prophet leading up to Prophet Muhammad and immediately during his life time.

There are other examples of things we believe were gradually eliminated, but in specific regards to alcohol - it was always forbidden.

Qur'anic example:

Shakir (Shi'a translator): O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say, nor when you are under an obligation to perform a bath-- unless (you are) travelling on the road-- until you have washed yourselves; and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving. (4/43)

So from above, the early prohibition was against coming to the prayer drunk. Later it was changed to (keep in mind that the laws concerning rib'a -usury- undergone the same thing):

O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you may be successful. O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you may be successful. Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if ye do turn back, know ye that it is Our Messenger's duty to proclaim (the message) in the clearest manner.

(5/91-93)

From ahadith:

Anas b. Malik reported: I was standing amongst the uncles of my tribe serving them Fadikh while I was the youngest of them, when a person came and said: Verily the use of liqour has been prohibited. They said: Anas, spill it away. So I spilt it. He (one of the narrators. Sulaiman Taimi) said that he asked Anas what that was (the Fadikh). He said: It had been prepared from unripe and ripe dates. Abu Bakr b. Anas said: It was their liquor in those days. Sulaiman said: A person narrated it to me from Anas b. Malik that he had said so.

(23/4884)

Anas b. Malik reported I was serving wine to Abu Talha, and Abu Dujana. and Mu'adh b. jabal admidst a group of Ansar when a visitor came to us and said There is a fresh news; the (verses) concerning the prohibition of liquor have been revealed. So we spilt it on that day; and it was a mixture of dry dates and fresh dates. Anas b. Malik said: Whil Khamr was declared unlawful, the common liquor of theirs was then a mixture of dry dates and fresh dates.

(Sahih Muslim 23/4886)

WaallahuAlam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

Shakir, while respectable, was not a Shia individual, but a member of Ahlul Sunna Wa Jamaa i.e. he was a Sunni. As was the compiler of Sahih Muslim.

If you are going to refer to the Quran to make your point, this is a great idea! However, my counterpoint proves the point, unless you want to prove to me which Prophet allowed alcohol...

017.077

YUSUFALI: (This was Our) way with the messengers We sent before thee: thou wilt find no change in Our ways.

-

rahat

Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam,

Shakir, while respectable, was not a Shia individual, but a member of Ahlul Sunna Wa Jamaa i.e. he was a Sunni. As was the compiler of Sahih Muslim.

If you are going to refer to the Quran to make your point, this is a great idea! However, my counterpoint proves the point, unless you want to prove to me which Prophet allowed alcohol...

017.077

YUSUFALI: (This was Our) way with the messengers We sent before thee: thou wilt find no change in Our ways.

-

rahat

Sahih Muslim was compiled by Ahlus Sunnah, I didn't say otherwise. But as for Shakir, he is a Shi'a, and I have never once seen any reputable site calling him as Ahlus Sunnah and it's rather obvious from his translations if you know Arabi:

"For example, the Shia doctrines are fully reflected in accompanying commentaries of the following books: S.V. Mir Ahmad Ali, The Holy Qur'an with English Translation and Commentary, according to the version of the Holy Ahlul Bait includes 'special notes from Hujjatul Islam Ayatullah Haji Mirza Mahdi Pooya Yazdi on the philosophical aspects of the verses' (Karachi, 1964); M.H. Shakir, Holy Qur'an (New York, 1982); Syed Muhammad Hussain at-Tabatabai, al-Mizan: An Exegesis of the Qur'an, translated from Persian into English by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi (Tehran, 198~). So far five volumes of this work have been published."

Translating the Untranslatable: A Survey of English Translations of the Quran

Similarily see:

al hafeez

"Shakir's translation is from a Shia viewpoint."

----

017.077 YUSUFALI: (This was Our) way with the messengers We sent before thee: thou wilt find no change in Our ways.

Out of context. And I'll use Shakir:

And surely they purposed to unsettle you from the land that they might expel you from it, and in that case they will not tarry behind you but a little. (This is Our) course with regard to those of Our messengers whom We sent before you, and you shall not find a change in Our course. And during a part of the night, pray Tahajjud beyond what is incumbent on you; maybe your Lord will raise you to a position of great glory. And say: My Lord! make me to enter a goodly entering, and cause me to go forth a goodly going forth, and grant me from near Thee power to assist (me). (76-80)

And I don't need to show that a prophet(as-saw) permitted drinking, since it is held that anything which wasn't forbidden is halal. You need to show that every single prophet did indeed prohibit drinking and this is simply not possible since the Qur'an and ahadith do not contain these details (to support your earlier idea).

"...leading up to Prophet Muhammad and immediately during his life time."

Also, if drinking was impermissable from the start as you said. Than why the Qur'an had only spoken against drinking before going to the Musjid? Rather than about drinking (in general) until a later verse. Now I did not mention this one earlier but it will be of interest:

They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit. And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say: What you can spare. Thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, that you may ponder (2/219)

As the verse shows, Allah(swt) did not arbitrarily reveal the verse concerning drinking. Instead, the verses began as a response to questions in religon posed by the Muslims (i.e. "Is such and such halal?" "what about such and such") and Allah(swt) revealed them in response. So it isn't possible that it could've been revealed from the immediete starting point of revelation.

As to evidence showing that drinking has not always been forbidden, the Qur'an nor ahadith are a repository of alcohol history. So you won't find in either a comprehensive list of which prophets (as-saw) prohibited drinking. For that you'd need to consult the books of our predecessors, and if you will take it as an evidence than I can point those out.

Waallahu Alam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Sheikh Mohammed Shakir b. Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Qadir was born in 1282 Hijri/1866 CE in Jirja, a city in Upper Egypt. He studied and graduated from Al Azhar University. He died in 1358 Hijri/1939 CE in Cairo.

His son, Sheikh Ahmad Mohammed Shakir, wrote his biography in a treatise entitled Mohammed Shakir ‘Alam min A‘lam al-‘Asr.

Positions

* Sudan's Supreme Judge for four years (1890-1893)

* Dean of Alexandria's Scholars

* Al-Azhar Secretary General ("Wakil") and a member of its board of directors

* Member of Al-Azhar Corps of High Scholars

* Member of Al Azhar legislative Society ("al-Jam‘iyya al-Tashri‘iyya")

Works

* "Al-Durus al-Awwaliyya fi al-‘Aqa’id al-Diniyya"

* "Al-Qawl al-Fasl fi Tarjamat al-Qur’an al-Karim"

* "Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya"

English translation controversy

Mohammed Habib Shakir has been stated by many internet sources as "a well known translator of the Qur'an into English." He has been associated with the translator M. H. Shakir of the translation published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an [1]. However this idea is contradicted by two pieces of evidence that have now come to light:

1. There is strong evidence that Mohammed Habib Shakir was against the translation of the Qur'an and considered the rendering of the Arabic into any other language unlawful [2].

2. There is strong evidence that M. H. Shakir, the translator, is actually a pen name for Mohammedali Habib Shakir the son of Habib Esmail of The House of Habib.

Most obviously he was a Sunni. For him to be Shia would be fine, as I am Shia and like Shias, I would not insult any Shia by referring to them as Sunni - but the fact of the matter is that he was a Sunni.

As for the argument at hand, I shall respond tonight.

As a brief summary:

The verse you indicated shows no mention of alcohol being gradually forbidden. The only basis of your belief that alcohol was once allowed is the fact that Umar ibn Khattab drank alcohol 'in the early days'.

Allah is very clear on the nature of Alcohol, and given His strong words on the topic, I cannot fathom how you would think that Allah allowed drinking for 123,999 Prophets, but "gradually" over 20something years forbade it during the time of the Prophet.

005.090

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.

I mean this is very strong and direct.

005.091

YUSUFALI: Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?

Such things are the tool of Shaitan, and since Allah is so strongly condemning them, it is not logically feasible that drinking was allowed for any moment in time during the history of Islam.

If we continue we see that Allah is excusing Jahilliya:

005.093

YUSUFALI: On those who believe and do deeds of righteousness there is no blame for what they ate (in the past), when they guard themselves from evil, and believe, and do deeds of righteousness,- (or) again, guard themselves from evil and believe,- (or) again, guard themselves from evil and do good. For Allah loveth those who do good.

But not against those after the advent of Islam. Then there is blame - and thus sin - for them

Its a little sad when sunni writers are abandoned by Sunnis and deemed heretics. If your beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny, please don't take it out on your own scholars.

-

rahat

Edited by rahat
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Assalam u Alaikum bro,

I believe they are authentic because I honestly don't see them contradicting Quranic verses on the first place. Secondly, the traditions reffering to this historical event are repeatedly narrated; it's not like they have just been narrated one or twice or by one or two people. And this is why I seek to learn from the esteemed scholars (who believe that Maula Ali did not present the Quran in chronological order) how do such early reports (which they consider inauthentic) contradict the Quran ? Obviously there will be a reasoning and a reference in support of their decision. And if we get to learn the reasoning and reference, maybe people like me could correct the qibla of our beliefs.

Brother, shed some light on full protection. Does the 'full protection' include the current order of Quran ? If so, please bring forth a reasoning as to why did Allah reveal Quran in a corrupted order ? I say this because it is agreed upon by scholars of all sects that the present order of Quran is not the same as the order in which it was revealed. Based on this fact, we have two options left. Either we believe that Allah revealed Quran in a corrupted order because it was different from the current order of Quran. Or we admit that the Quran and it's content is not caged within the limitations of order. It reveals truth and knowledge in either case.

Bro I am not only questioning Sayed Fadlullah. I am just seeking a well justified reasoning from anyone who has spare time to shed some light. Even your self. And seriously, don't think, I am arguing just for the sake of argument.... In the past, I have already faced immense pressure by momineen, some of which were not even ready to discuss such sensitive topics and consequently, the results were sadening. I do not wish to make the same mistake. All I'd say is that you gather some strong information and share it with us. We don't need to argue. We can simply share information, mutually discuss the accompanied reasoning and try to reach conclusion. This will bring better results as compared to the never ending debates because while debating, sometimes our ego's come in between and our minds fail to seriously consider the quality of opponent's belief.

To be honest, I have never heard of that from any scholar. And I have never read any tradition refering to this.

Fi-Amanillah

you can say many things, which will not contradict the Quran but still be false in stating

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...