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

Honest And Interesting Queries

Rate this topic


IbneSyed

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Salaam

ya ali madad

two new letters added at www.sdol.org

- Ali-yun Wali Allah

- Ahadith and Prophet's character Assassination, from Shaq al Sadr to the Satanic Verses

for exact links,

- Ali-yun Wali Allah

http://www26.brinkster.com/sdolshah1/qawali.html

- Ahadith and Prophet's character Assassination, from Shaq al Sadr to the Satanic Verses

http://www26.brinkster.com/sdolshah1/qahadith.html

wasalaam and good day

more letters include

Letter Exchange 10: Ali-yun Wali Allah - NEW

Letter Exchange 9: Ahadith and Prophet's character Assassination, from Shaq al Sadr to the Satanic Verses - NEW

Letter Exchange 8: Mubahila, Verse of Purity and Infallibility of the Non-Imams

Letter Exchange 7: Nomination of Ali and Refusal of Majority equals Failure of Prophet

Letter Exchange 6: Shabeehaat (Alam, Taziya), Idolworship and Bidat

Letter Exchange 5: Zanjeer, Azadari and Taqleed

Letter Exchange 4: Eulogy of the Ahlulbayt and their métier

Letter Exchange 3: Mawlayiat of Ali (as), Zaid and the Ahadith

Letter Exchange 2: Burial Next to Prophet (SAW)

Letter Exchange 1: Caliphate, Imamat and Ali's loyalty to Caliphs

www.sdol.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I have an important objection to the article on Ayat Tatheera (33:33) on that website. The correct translation is "keep away from you" instead of "remove from you".

It's important to highlight the Arabic in the translation and show why Shi'i translate it as such.

- Mansab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
(salam)

I have an important objection to the article on Ayat Tatheera (33:33) on that website. The correct translation is "keep away from you" instead of "remove from you".

It's important to highlight the Arabic in the translation and show why Shi'i translate it as such.

- Mansab

salaam bro!

point taken

i dont know arabic and i have taken shakir as a standard =/

ill edit it soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(salam)

I have not thoroughly read but you need to point out this translation is a bad translation of this verse...... properly translated it does not read..

Your friend can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue, and bow down (in prayer).

Quran [5:55]

but whould be translated....

your freind can only be Allah; His Messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue while in ruku......

it should be while not and...... huge difference.... the sunni liek to mistranslate/interpret this ayah to suit their own desires......

ma3salaama

fatema

Edited by fatima2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have pointed it out in the article

but i do not want to give sunnis the excuse of a difference in translation! bcz even that difference does not change the essence of it!! which is what i tried to do

ok......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

These translations I don't see as fitting for verse 5:55

Arabic:

ÅöäøóãóÇ æóáöíøõßõãõ Çááøåõ æóÑóÓõæáõåõ æóÇáøóÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇú ÇáøóÐöíäó íõÞöíãõæäó ÇáÕøóáÇóÉó æóíõÄúÊõæäó ÇáÒøóßóÇÉó æóåõãú ÑóÇßöÚõæäó

Translation

[Yusufali 5:55] Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship).

[Pickthal 5:55] Your guardian can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue, and bow down (in prayer).

The issue with the translations is that they repeat the occurence of prayers. First the translation mentions "those who establish worship" i.e prayers.

Then it mentions "and bow down (in prayer)." Bowing down isn't an independent form of worship, it's rather a part of prayers.

Prayers without bowing down is invalid.

And IF it is right, then should really everyone who prays be my guardian next to Allah and His messenger.

For example: My younger brother and younger sister pray. Is it then logical to translate this verse, so they are my guardians net to Allah (swt) and the Prophet (pbuh)?

that's whu SHAKIR'S translation is more logical in this case:

[shakir 5:55] Only Allah is your Vali and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.

And if the event of Imam Ali's (as) zakat during prayer is mentioned by Ammar Bin Yasir (ra), then we should all accept it, as Ammar is entering Paradise. And whoever enters paradise is a pure person, especially doesn't lie.

“Patience oh family of Yassir, for you are destined for Paradise.” (Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p233)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
These translations I don't see as fitting for verse 5:55

That's because you do not have a good grasp on the concept that Arabic words can have multiple meanings, and the selective interpretations you give do not have to be right.

The issue with the translations is that they repeat the occurence of prayers. First the translation mentions "those who establish worship" i.e prayers.

Then it mentions "and bow down (in prayer)." Bowing down isn't an independent form of worship, it's rather a part of prayers.

Prayers without bowing down is invalid.

The qualities mentioned here could have other meanings. It could mean they pray, fast and bow, bowing being specifically mentioned because it is an auspicious part of prayer. This happens again and again the Koran, for example Allah says "Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer" (2:238) and the midmost prayer is part of the prayers. More clearly He says "In them will be Fruits, and dates and pomegranates" (5:68) and the latter two are fruits. Also Allah says "Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael!" (2:98) and Gabriel and Michael are Angels. I think Ive proved my point.

Besides, even with the meaning of "and" yarka'un does not have to mean "bowing". It could mean "they are devout". That is one possible meaning. Or it could mean "they pray and fast while devout"

And IF it is right, then should really everyone who prays be my guardian next to Allah and His messenger

Only that "wali" does not have to mean guardian. "wali" can mean an ally or helper or supporter. The verse would mean only Allah, His Messenger and the Believers are our allies, not the enemies of Islam.

And if the event of Imam Ali's (as) zakat during prayer is mentioned by Ammar Bin Yasir (ra), then we should all accept it

But the chain to Ammar is bad. Not that I wouldn't have a problem in accepting this noble deed of Ali (although I have some reservations about not having due concentration in prayer), the narrations have problems as pointed out by the hadith experts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can't refer to support, help, guardian, because Angels (as) are said to be explicitly that in Quran.

It's can't refer to friends since Quran explicitly says the prohibition is regarding those who fight us only, and that it in fact is encouraged with people who don't fight us.

So we are left with Master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
It can't refer to support, help, guardian, because Angels (as) are said to be explicitly that in Quran.

It's can't refer to friends since Quran explicitly says the prohibition is regarding those who fight us only, and that it in fact is encouraged with people who don't fight us.

So we are left with Master.

It could mean "allegiance". And I don't get your first comment "It can't refer to support, help, guardian, because Angels (as) are said to be explicitly that in Quran" - just because Angels also help and support us, why can't Allah, His Messenger and the Believers too?

According to some narrations it was revealed about Ubada ibn Samit who chose to ally with the Muslims. Allegiance is different from "treaties" and being friendly/just (as in Hujurat). Allegiance is only to the Muslims; thats what the verse says (according to one interpretation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could mean "allegiance". And I don't get your first comment "It can't refer to support, help, guardian, because Angels (as) are said to be explicitly that in Quran" - just because Angels also help and support us, why can't Allah, His Messenger and the Believers too?

Again, "inama' is a restriction, so it would take Angels (as) out of the meaning of "Wali" in 5:55.

"ally" then

Angels (as) included in that, as well, it's not haram to have non-muslims as allies, this is aside from friendship and love, you can have alliance to people, how about the Christian King protecting muslims that time, wouldn't you say he was ally of muslims and Mohammad (pbuh) ?

Edited by Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angels aren't our walis then but Allah, the prophet and the believers are in the sense they support us and we take them as allies over their enemies.

Angels (as) support us, help us, etc.

You can't take them out of that meaning.

And again we can have non-muslims as allies, like the Christian King who protected muslims during time of Mohammad (SaW).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Angels (as) included in that

You really are stuck either way. If we take your rigid take on "innama" then the verse refers only to Allah, the Prophet and Ali as "masters" so the other Imams can't be masters as the verse has "innama". And how are angels our allies?

it's not haram to have non-muslims as allies, this is aside from friendship and love, you can have alliance to people, how about the Christian King protecting muslims that time, wouldn't you say he was ally of muslims and Mohammad (pbuh)

Ally not in the sense of a common understanding, tolerance or treaty (like Hudaybiyya) but in terms of opting them over the enemies of Islam. The context simply says: the enemies of Islam are not your walis; only Allah, the Prophet and the Believers are your walis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really are stuck either way. If we take your rigid take on "innama" then the verse refers only to Allah, the Prophet and Ali as "masters" so the other Imams can't be masters as the verse has "innama".

Ali (as) action is referred to plural because he represents Ulil-Amri (as). Any of the Ulil-Amri (as) would've done the same thing in his situation, so they have the exact same characteristics.

Ally not in the sense of a common understanding, tolerance or treaty (like Hudaybiyya) but in terms of opting them over the enemies of Islam. The context simply says: the enemies of Islam are not your walis; only Allah, the Prophet and the Believers are your walis.

what's the word?

Your avoiding the obvious that allies can include more then that, and we ought to also prefer our allies against the enemies of Islam.

Again, the word "Wali" has some meanings, and the Inama restriction leaves it to mean Master.

Also, recall the verse of being enemies of Allah, Angels (as), Messenger (pbuh), Jibrael (as) and Mikael (as). The angels (as) are part of God's side and again are included even if it can mean "allegiance". However that is not one of the meanings to Wali.

Edited by Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

i do not have the energy to engage your wishful interpretations. The various sunni interpretations are valid. Your reasoning is convoluted and as a personal conviction which you seek to justify I can accept, but to say the other interpretations are wrong, is just downright arrogant and foolish.

Edited by Muhammadun_Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i do not have the energy to engage your wishful interpretations. The various sunni interpretations are valid. Your reasoning is convoluted and as a personal conviction which you seek to justify I can accept, but to say the other interpretations are wrong, is just downright arrogant and foolish.

It's rather unfortunate every time you get stuck you just go into denial mode and don't want to face the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Ali (as) action is referred to plural because he represents Ulil-Amri (as). Any of the Ulil-Amri (as) would've done the same thing in his situation, so they have the exact same characteristics.

See, you just compound the problem by adding your own interpretation. i could say angels are included in "those who believe, pray, give charity and bow". My interpretation is valid. You cannot prove the invalidity of the interpretation

Edited by Muhammadun_Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, you just compound the problem by adding your own interpretation. i could say angels are included in "those who believe, pray, give charity and bow". My interpretation is valid. You cannot prove the invalidity of the interpretation

You can say whatever you want, but you know it's not true.

It also used singular "Wali" because it's all about one single Mastership.

It didn't say "Awliya".

God's rule is Mohammad's (pbuh) Rule and is the 12 Imams' (as) Rule just as Musa's (as) rule was God's rule and the 12' Naqeebs (as) rule were that of God and Musa's (as) as well.

Edited by Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
You can say whatever you want, but you know it's not true.

My point simply is that, yes: I can say what I want. The simplicity of the Koran gives us that flexibility. The Koran is open to interpretation and many interpretations are valid. Your rigid select take on the verse is not binding on everybody reading the Koran - and no, i do not know it to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
That's because you do not have a good grasp on the concept that Arabic words can have multiple meanings, and the selective interpretations you give do not have to be right.

The qualities mentioned here could have other meanings. It could mean they pray, fast and bow, bowing being specifically mentioned because it is an auspicious part of prayer. This happens again and again the Koran, for example Allah says "Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer" (2:238) and the midmost prayer is part of the prayers. More clearly He says "In them will be Fruits, and dates and pomegranates" (5:68) and the latter two are fruits. Also Allah says "Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael!" (2:98) and Gabriel and Michael are Angels. I think Ive proved my point.

Besides, even with the meaning of "and" yarka'un does not have to mean "bowing". It could mean "they are devout". That is one possible meaning. Or it could mean "they pray and fast while devout"

Only that "wali" does not have to mean guardian. "wali" can mean an ally or helper or supporter. The verse would mean only Allah, His Messenger and the Believers are our allies, not the enemies of Islam.

But the chain to Ammar is bad. Not that I wouldn't have a problem in accepting this noble deed of Ali (although I have some reservations about not having due concentration in prayer), the narrations have problems as pointed out by the hadith experts.

salaam muhammadun. nice name bro!!

i quote from the letter!!

"Why are not all Muslims our friends? Why are only those Muslims who pray namaz and give zakat (according to you) our friends, and not the rest of the Muslims, who do not have the opportunity to pay zakat because they are on the recieving end, or those who could not pray Namaz due to any scenario, lets say, menses in Muslim women. Will they not be our allies?

Thus the issue of friendship is not plausible at all. Do you see Allah as your friend or master? Do you see Muhammad (SAW) as your friend or as someone who has more right over you than you yourself? If the word wali is a friend, then we all are friends with Allah. What is so special about Ibrahim (as) who is said to be the Khalil Allah? You are also a Khalil Allah because you give zakat and pray salat.

No one is the friend of Allah or Muhammad (SAW). Both of them are our protectors and guides. Obedience to both is a must. Can you see Allah as your friend or your master? Will you talk to Rasool (SAW) as u talk to your friends or as you master?

I for one, see Allah and his Rasool (SAW) as my master. Ibrahim (as) was khalil Allah. If Allah is your wali or friend, then the whole of the ummat is khalil Allah! Does this make sense? Thus the word Wali, with reference to Allah is a master, or someone who has more authority over us.

For arguements sake, what you say is right and your ally and friend is Allah, muhammad (SAW) and Ali (as).

Only Allah, His Messenger, and those who believe and who establish Prayer, pay Zakah, and bow (before Allah) are your allies. All those who take Allah and His Messenger and those who believe as their allies, should remember that the party of Allah will be triumphant.

Quran [5:55-56]

According to Maududi, Quran tells us that only one party is the party of Allah, the party which shows it's alliance to Allah, Muhammad (SAW) and the believer, Ali (as).

Quran tells us the the party of Allah will succeed, the only party which sees Allah, Rasool (SAW) and Ali (as) as their walis.

Jamal saw Aisha fight a battle against Mawla Ali (as). Siffin saw Mawiya fight against Mawla Ali (as). Whose side will you pick, inorder to be included in the party of Allah? Should our alliance with Ali (as), make us dissociate ourselves from his enemies and from those who hated him, who fought him?

"

To repeat, 5:55 has said that your Wali is Allah, Muhammad (SAW) and certain believers. If Allah has told us to accept a "certain group of believers" as our Walis, then it is the duty of Allah to show us these "believers" also, for we might mistake some one else for these believers, as we can only see the appearances of a person, and not his intentions, actions and piety.

Did Allah show us who these believers are? If he did not, then Allah did not do justice with us. Because we are incapable of seeing. We might mistake some hypocrite as our Wali, if he pretends to establish worship, give zakat and bow down. If Allah is just, he should have shown us those group of believers, and that is the incident of Gadeer.

just my two cents

www.sdol.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
My point simply is that, yes: I can say what I want. The simplicity of the Koran gives us that flexibility. The Koran is open to interpretation and many interpretations are valid. Your rigid select take on the verse is not binding on everybody reading the Koran - and no, i do not know it to be true.

I agree. that is the miracle of quran, that in the absence of a divine interpretation (prophets/imams), new minds in new times and new generations will see quran with a new eye! a new and better interpretation of the quran will come with time. people 1000 years ago could not comprehend what solar system or galaxies or asteroids were. we can, science gives us the edge in understanding the book better than the people a thousand years ago.

human mind is "evolving" with time. we were taught in our bachelors degree wat our parents were taught in their masters. our children will be taught in their 10th grade, what we were taught in our bachelors.

having said that, whatever interpretation you tend to choose, make sure your intentions are sincere and for the guidance, because only then Allah bestows his mercy and guides men. men who lie to themselves, with fake intentions, who just like to argue, will never be guided.

And whatever interpretation you choose, whatever path you choose, you will not be able to seperate the ahlulbayt from the Quran. I do not say this because i earn money this way, or i like to say it this way, i say it because it is the decision of Allah, conveyed to us by Rasool (SAW).. and sunnis acknowledge that hadith.

Wali being a master or a friend, either way, your allegience and your alliance is with Ali. Why then do you not show it when talks of jamal and siffin and other conflicts come up?

According to you, mawiya also prayed namaz and gave zakat. So did Ali (as). are these both at par, with Allah and his prophet?? are both of them your allies and walis?

intellectuals will pick a side, rather than dangling in between brother.there is no inbetween, you are either with Ali (as) and rasool (SAW), or you are against them!!

Allah gave us Aql and logic. Mullahs and corrupted men and kings and caliphs gave us misinterpretations of the quran and fabricated hadith. Why do we, reject what Allah gave us, and accept what the mullahs give us?

you have liberty to choose what ever you do, side with anyone you like to, but make sure what ever you do makes sense to you.

Allah hafiz and have a good day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
My point simply is that, yes: I can say what I want. The simplicity of the Koran gives us that flexibility. The Koran is open to interpretation and many interpretations are valid. Your rigid select take on the verse is not binding on everybody reading the Koran - and no, i do not know it to be true.

Stop spreading falsehood. You can discuss, but not spread falsehood. There's no sucht thing as 'saying what you want because the Quran gives you that flexibility'. If we take that logic as being true, than why are the Ahmadi's and Submitters not considered muslim? You have some serious logic issues.

And what you're saying about the verse of 'your wali are the ones who give zakaat while bowing down' has nothing to do with its pure message. Read your own Ulema's tafseer of it. Like Al Thalabi, Tabari, Qurtubi, Suyuti, Zamakshari, Ibn Hanbal and Mutaqqi al Hindi. Please inform yourself and educate yourself before coming here and spreading false beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
having said that, whatever interpretation you tend to choose, make sure your intentions are sincere and for the guidance, because only then Allah bestows his mercy and guides men. men who lie to themselves, with fake intentions, who just like to argue, will never be guided.

I assure you my intentions are pure. I only stick to traditional sunni interpretations, those firmly grounded in narrations from the Prophet and his followers and inheritors.

Why then do you not show it when talks of jamal and siffin and other conflicts come up?

You don't know me. I haven't been to talks on Jamal and Siffin, but it's not the winning and correct side (Ali's) that we have a disagreement in, it is the defeated and incorrect side (Aishah's and Mu'awiya's) we disagree about

According to you, mawiya also prayed namaz and gave zakat. So did Ali (as). are these both at par, with Allah and his prophet?? are both of them your allies and walis?

yes.

Stop spreading falsehood. You can discuss, but not spread falsehood. There's no sucht thing as 'saying what you want because the Quran gives you that flexibility'. If we take that logic as being true, than why are the Ahmadi's and Submitters not considered muslim? You have some serious logic issues.

You misunderstand. Some of the shia claimed the verse is absolutely clear from its wordings alone and no tradition to back it up (!!). That is what I disagree with. But I agree true interpretations come from the traditional understanding of the ulema

And what you're saying about the verse of 'your wali are the ones who give zakaat while bowing down' has nothing to do with its pure message. Read your own Ulema's tafseer of it. Like Al Thalabi, Tabari, Qurtubi, Suyuti, Zamakshari, Ibn Hanbal and Mutaqqi al Hindi. Please inform yourself and educate yourself before coming here and spreading false beliefs.

I have and the interpretation of Ali giving sadaqa while in ruku' is only one of the many interpretations found in the books of the tafsir. There are other interpretations, the most famous being that it was revealed about Ubadah ibn Samit or about all of the Believers. The chains of narration about the Ali tradition are weak according to ibn Kathir and others, but if they were accurate I would have no problem accepting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
You misunderstand. Some of the shia claimed the verse is absolutely clear from its wordings alone and no tradition to back it up (!!). That is what I disagree with. But I agree true interpretations come from the traditional understanding of the ulema

Do you have evidence to support your disagreement? From the Quran itself? Apart from the interpretations of the ulema? You can interpret the Quran through hadith and seerah, but also through the Quran itself. That's why we say the verse is absolutely clear. If you compare verse 5:55 with all other surah's that discuss the properties of a believer, you see that this verse is quite different because it excludes all believers by saying 'giving zaka WHILE in sujud'. And compare it with verses that talk about an Imam or Wali, Allah never utters in the Quran the word 'wali' as meaning 'friend' when talking about Himself. And compare it with the verse of Ulul 'Amr and Aya Tatheer.. than you can be absolutely sure that the one being talked about is inside the Ahlul Bayt (as) and is infact Imam Ali (as).. I can't put it quite nicely as some of us can, so i'll refer you to Al Mizan..

Read this please.. http://www.almizan.org/Tafseer/Volume11/11Maida1.asp

I have and the interpretation of Ali giving sadaqa while in ruku' is only one of the many interpretations found in the books of the tafsir. There are other interpretations, the most famous being that it was revealed about Ubadah ibn Samit or about all of the Believers. The chains of narration about the Ali tradition are weak according to ibn Kathir and others, but if they were accurate I would have no problem accepting.

Now see that's the exact problem. If you look at the Quran only, you can only take the hadith of Ali (as) as being true, since Ubadah (ra) said to the the Prophet (pbuh) that he would never take Jews as allies over Allah or Him (pbuh). And since the verse does not talk about allies or friends, this hadith can not be regarded as having a link with this verse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Do you have evidence to support your disagreement? From the Quran itself? Apart from the interpretations of the ulema? You can interpret the Quran through hadith and seerah, but also through the Quran itself. That's why we say the verse is absolutely clear. If you compare verse 5:55 with all other surah's that discuss the properties of a believer, you see that this verse is quite different because it excludes all believers by saying 'giving zaka WHILE in sujud'. And compare it with verses that talk about an Imam or Wali, Allah never utters in the Quran the word 'wali' as meaning 'friend' when talking about Himself.

A few verses before, the Koran says "Do not take Jews and Christians as Walis" - what does wali mean there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few verses before, the Koran says "Do not take Jews and Christians as Walis" - what does wali mean there?

What is the verse before taking about?

It's talking about Allah's (swt) rule being the rule for people who are sure, right?

Before that, Mohammad (saw) rulership and Shariah discussed, and before that Isa (as) Shariah and Rule by revelation, and before that Musa (as) Shariah and rule by revelation.

Now "Awliya" is said in that context, if you recall the verses after the verse telling us to Obey the Messenger (as) and the Possessors of the Authority among us (as), it talks about people who didn't refer to the Active leader of that time for ruling their differences but to others as people who to ruling from the "Taghoot" despite them being commanded to disbelieve in the "Taghoot", ie. reject it completely and only believe in God Authority and Guidance. "Taghoot" is false authority, and so here, it is re-emphasizing not to take any authority besides God, and not to refer to rule with regards to any differences, with regards to anything, from the people of the book, the only acceptable rule is that of Mohammad (pbuh). The phrases after that is said in continuous logic showed before that verse and in that verse.

Edited by Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also recall the verse 2:57, it says "and the disbelievers their Awliya are the Taghut" while for believers says "Allah is the Wali of the believers".

We know through other verses Mohammad (SaW) is assigned to bring people out of darkness to the light and 2:257 has been mentioned after the Talut (as) verses which shows Allah's (swt) is The True authority and gives his authority to whom he pleases and also showed characteristics of those who Possess that Authority.

The same truth is repeated through out the Quran and they link with another with the way they are structured, they explain each other and re-emphasize the truth and the Quran itself protects it's Taweel.

Edited by Link
Link to comment
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...