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
Sign in to follow this  
Saved

Tahrif Challenge!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

I wrote the following articles to expose the hypocrisy of Efendi al-Nasibi:

Tahrif: Trapping Efendi al-Nasibi in His Own Cage!!!

Efendi al-Nasibi's Intellectual SUICIDE!!!

Efendi al-Nasibi's Intellectual SUICIDE!!! (Part 2)

Ibn Abbas' Tahrif Beliefs: A Serious Challenge to Efendi al-Nasibi!!!

There are others on that website. But the above should be enough for my purpose. I also have other Tahrif articles coming up insha Allah against Efendi.

So far, the Nasibi has been helpless.

I now CHALLENGE ibn asakir, tees maar khan and qalandar1 to help Efendi out by refuting those articles here!

But before you do that, please first state your opinion of whoever believes in Tahrif.

You never know what is gonna come next.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alhamdulilah that u opened this topic. I would satisfy you very will and will prove from your books that what was the belief of your earlier scholars.I just want a mod approval for that as i see many threads on this topic ie tehreef in Quran have been locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alhamdulilah that u opened this topic. I would satisfy you very will and will prove from your books that what was the belief of your earlier scholars.I just want a mod approval for that as i see many threads on this topic ie tehreef in Quran have been locked.

I've checked and it's not a topic that's seems to be automatically locked, there are some unlocked discussions, e.g.:

So I'd let it run, for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if we agree to the fact that our scholars have said that tahreef does exist there is no hiding from the fact that these beliefs originate from your Esteemed Personalities. lets take a few examples

It is narrated that Umar said "if i had not feared that people would Accuse that umar has made an addition to the book of Allah, I would have written this in the quran, because a verse was revealed as follows "" When old men and women commit adultery, surely you stone them to death. This is a punishment from god and god is a severe punisher"". "

Sahih Bukari, Part VIII Page 208

published by Maktabul Jamhooriyyatul Arabiyyah, Cairo 1311AH

also found in

>>Itqan by Jalaluddin Suyuti

>>Muwatta by Imam Malik

>>Musnad of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal ( 3 narrations on the same topic )

Does this not show that Umar believed that a verse was missing from the quran

Ibne Anbari and Ibne Marduyah narrate that Ummul Momeneen Ayesha Said that "there were 200 verses in sura e ahzaab during the time of the prophet (saws). When Uthman wrote the quran more than this could not be FOUND "

>>Tafseer e durre Manthur by Allamah Jalaluddeen Suyuti

>> Itqan

>>Mahazerat by Allamah Raghib Isfani

Presently only 73 verses are present. so Ayesha beleived that 127 verses of the surah are missing

So now if there is anyone who believes that ayah from the Quran are missing they are your very respected and loved Personalities

I would personally love to see a fatwa of takfir against them

Edited by Al-Ghadeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I wrote the following articles to expose the hypocrisy of Efendi al-Nasibi:

Tahrif: Trapping Efendi al-Nasibi in His Own Cage!!!

well inshallah ill give a try to the first one.. but i wont be posting the refutation here but on another forum... since i want to use the similar tone you used ..

And some day take time to refute my articles too , since i too refuted some articles(eg categorization of ahlebayt by guided) of your website in my blog though i didnt mentioned that it was a refutation to your arctile ... :)

Edited by tees maar khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP has tried to use the logic " why do you blame us for this? You believe in it as well", like if a person is cautioned about his deviant beliefs and he in turn says " what if i hold such a belief,u have the same belief as well". Its an effort like "two wrongs never make a right". From the intentions and mindset of the OP,its now well established that he believes in Tehreef e Quran and is trying to say that what if i believe in it? you believe in it as well so its like shooting oneself in his foot. I would provide some counter arguments for his claims.

Here is a shia fatwa from Ayatullat wal-Uzza Mohammad Sadiq Ruhani about the people who believe in tehreef fil Quran.

ãä یÞæá ÈÇáÊÍÑیÝ ÈÇáÒیÇÏÉ æ ÇáäÞÕÇä áÇ یÌæÒ Ñãیå ÈÇá˜ÝÑ.

"It's not permitted to accuse in disbelief person who would say that there is addition and deficiency (in Quran)".

so u cant accuse Abdullah Ibn masood Ra of infedility (maazAllah) anyways.

The first thing is that it was the Ijma of the sahaba that the copy of Quran which was documented in the time of Hadrat Uthman Ra is perfect and its the same Quran which was revealed on Prophet Mohamad PBUH. It was the Ijmaa' of the sahaba that Mashaf e Usmani is the exact form of Quran (word to word,letter to letter) as it was revealed on Prophet Mohamad PBUH. The arguments of the OP can be straight away rejected on the basis of Ijma which is an Idilaa for us.Even if we accept that Abdullah Ibn Masood Ra went against the Ijmaa' (which he did not at all),his views will become khabar e wahid and will be rejected on the basis of sticking to the Ijmaa'.

First of all, i would like to present two authentic hadiths( sunni sources are binding on him as he has tried to prove his case from sunni sources) from Hadrat Ubai bin kaa'b Ra which is ofcourse the most notable Sahaba in Quranic discourse.Both of these Hadiths will prove that the mu'awwidhtayn are a part of the Quran and the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them all) regarded and read them as a part of the Quran

Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish: I asked Ubai bin Ka'b regarding the two Muwwidhat (Surats of taking refuge with Allah). He said, "I asked the Prophet about them, He said, 'These two Surats have been recited to me and I have recited them (and are present in the Qur'an).' So, we say as Allah's Apostle said (i.e., they are part of the Qur'an)" [sahih Bukhari - 6.60.500]

Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish: I asked Ubai bin Ka'b, "O Abu AlMundhir! Your brother, Ibn Mas'ud said so-and-so (i.e., the two Mu'awwidh-at do not belong to the Qur'an)." Ubai said, "I asked Allah's Apostle about them, and he said, 'They have been revealed to me, and I have recited them (as a part of the Qur'an)," So Ubai added, "So we say as Allah's Apostle has said." [sahih Bukhari - 6.60.501]

Here i would quote Mualna madudi Ra on this issue.

"Here, the question arises: what caused Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud the misunderstanding that these two are not Surahs of the Qur'an? We get the answer to it when we combine two traditions: first, that Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud asserted that this was only a command which the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam)was given to teach him the method of seeking refuge with
Allah
; second, the tradition which Imam Bukhari has related in his Sahih, Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, Hafiz Abu Bakr al- Humaidi in his Musnad, Abu Nu'aim in his Al-Mustakhraj and Nasai in his Sunan, with different chains of transmitters, on the authority of Zirr bin Hubaish, with a slight variation in wording from Hadrat Ubayy bin Kab, who held a distinguished place among the Companions on the basis of his knowledge of the Qur'an. Zirr bin Hubaish states: "I said to Hadrat Ubayy: Your brother, Abdullah bin Mas'ud, says these things. What do you say about this view? He replied: I had questioned the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) about this. He said to me: I was told to say 'qul', so I said 'qul'. Therefore, we too say the same as the Holy Prophet said."

In the tradition related by Imam Ahmad, Hadrat Ubayy's words are to the effect: "I bear witness that the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) told me that Gabriel (peace be on him) had told him to say: Qul a'udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq; therefore, he recited likewise, and Gabriel asked him to say: Qul a'udhu bi- Rabbin-nas; therefore he too said likewise. Hence, we too say as the Holy Prophet said." A little consideration of these two traditions will show that the word qul (say) in the two Surahs caused Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud the misunderstanding that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) had been commanded to say: A'udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq and A'udhu bi-Rabbin-nas. But he did not feel any need to question the Holy Prophet about it. In the mind of Hadrat Ubbay bin Kab also a question arose about his and he put it before the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet replied: "Since Gabriel (peace be on him) had said qul, so I too say qul." Let us put it like this. If somebody is commanded and asked: "Say, I seek refuge", he will not carry out the command, saying: "Say, I seek refuge", but he will drop the work "say" and say: "I seek refuge." On the contrary, if the messenger of a superior officer conveys to somebody the message in these words: "Say, I seek refuge", and this command is given to him not only for his own person but to be conveyed to others, he will convey the words of the message verbatim to the people, and will not have the permission to drop anything from the text of the message. Thus, the fact that these two Surahs begin with the word qul is a clear proof that it is Divine Word, which the Holy Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam) was bound to convey verbatim. It was not merely a command given to him for his person. Besides these two Surahs, there are 330 other verses in the Qur'an which begin with the word qul (say). The presence of qul in all these is a proof that it is Divine Word. which was obligatory for the Holy Prophet to convey verbatim; otherwise if qul everywhere had meant a command, the Holy Prophet would have dropped it and said only that which he was commanded to say, and it would not have been recorded in the Qur'an, but, on the contrary, he would have remained content with saying only what he was commanded to say.

Here, if one considers this, one can understand fully well how unreasonable it is to regard the Companions as infallible and to make the clamor that a Companion has been defamed as soon as one hears a saying or doing of his being described as wrong. Here, one can clearly see what a blunder happened to be committed by an illustrious Companion like Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud about two Surahs of the Qur'an. If such an error could be committed by an eminent Companion like him, others also might commit an error. We can examine it in the scientific way, and describe it as wrong if a thing said or done by a Companion is proved to be wrong. But wicked indeed would be the person who went beyond describing a wrong act as wrong and started reproving and finding fault with the Companions of the Holy Prophet of
Allah
(sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi salam). Concerning the Mu'awwidhatayn the commentators and traditionists have described the opinion of Ibn Mas'ud as wrong, but no one has dared to say that by denying these two Surahs of the Qur'an, he had, God forbid, become a disbeliever."

After Mushaf e Othman Ra which was sent to all parts of the Muslim world that time and which was recorded with the consensus of the sahaba ( may Allah be pleased with them all) no muslim has ever challenged the authenticity of Quran.

Just as a counter argument, i would start with an example of shia belief in tehreef.

Just to begin it in a lighter tone,here is a book of a famous shia scholar,Abdul kareem mushtaq and he says that "pakistan was mentioned by name in the orignal Quran )w00t.gif

164591_141016589289621_100001438419023_221636_1771814_n.jpg

166413_141017529289527_100001438419023_221658_4841029_n.jpg

Edited by qalandar_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mr. qalandar_1,

what is the point of the post you made?i really dont know your point.tell us in a sentance what you are trying to say.i dont find any difference in what you stated and what brother "saved" was saying explicitly without hiding.also,you should not put words into the mouth of another person.brother "saved" is only pointing out that your predecessors were the ones in doubt regarding the Quran.he did not say he believes in tahreef.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mr. qalandar_1,

what is the point of the post you made?i really dont know your point.tell us in a sentance what you are trying to say.i dont find any difference in what you stated and what brother "saved" was saying explicitly without hiding.also,you should not put words into the mouth of another person.brother "saved" is only pointing out that your predecessors were the ones in doubt regarding the Quran.he did not say he believes in tahreef.

MY only point is that one of our Adila e deen ( basics to extract the orders of religion) is Ijmaa' ie consensus. So his argument of the first thread which he has been pasted can easily be refuted by saying that the even if we accept that Abdullah Ibn masood Ra held such views then those views can be taken as his personal opinion.After Mashaf e othman Ra, there has been a complete consensus in-between the muslims that Quran is complete,perfect and free of any distortions.However, the shia scholars have been claiming tehreef fil Quran after that even. Molvi Mushtaq hussain is the latest example of the 20th century.

By the way, what would u say about a person who claims that "pakistan" has been mentioned in the original Quran?

Edited by qalandar_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before going any further, i have two questions here.

1. Whats the Shia Imami view of the person who says that tahreef has been done to the Quran?

2. Are their any extra Quranic ( other thans hadith books) books in which the shia believe? What if a person claims to have such a book which is not Quran but is from Allah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bada has two meanings in the Arabic language: The first meaning is "Appearance after hiding." For example, you say "bada" the gates of the city, or the gates of the city had appeared. The second meaning is the "origination of the new idea." For example, you say "bada" for him a matter, or he got a new idea in a matter. [Mukhtar Al-Sahhah 7/2278, Lisan Al-Arab 14/66, and Majma'a Al-Bahrain 1/45]

even if we accept that Abdullah Ibn masood Ra held such views then those views can be taken as his personal opinion.

(bismillah)

(salam)

first of all welcome back

inspite of all the word and lexicon gymnastics, the meaning is still change for us, so where do we go from here

and let us say i want to follow the star/najam abdullah ibn masud, it is perfectly acceptable, so again where do we go from here

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO SINCE YOU ARE USING IJMA (CONSENSUS) TO DEFEND THE SUNNI THAT THEY AGREE THE QURAN IS UNCHANGED,ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE SHIA DONT HAVE IJMA AND EVEN EVIDENCE (SINCE IJMA IS NOT ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE) THAT THE QURAN IS UNCHANGED?AND DO YOU THINK THERE IS NO EXCEPTION AMONG SUNNIS TO YOUR IJMA THAT GOES CONTRARY TO IT AND CLAIMS THE QURAN HAS SUFFERED CHANGE?

Edited by mehdi soldier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alhamdulilah that u opened this topic. I would satisfy you very will and will prove from your books that what was the belief of your earlier scholars.I just want a mod approval for that as i see many threads on this topic ie tehreef in Quran have been locked.

First, answer to the articles of brother Guided, then speak about shia scholars.

Ibn Masud's view on Falaq and Nas. Ibn Abbas's view on SCRIBAL ERRORS and etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO SINCE YOU ARE USING IJMA (CONSENSUS) TO DEFEND THE SUNNI THAT THEY AGREE THE QURAN IS UNCHANGED,ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE SHIA DONT HAVE IJMA AND EVEN EVIDENCE (SINCE IJMA IS NOT ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE) THAT THE QURAN IS UNCHANGED?

I would like to see the evidence of such an Ijmaa' if it ever took place

(bismillah)

(salam)

first of all welcome back

inspite of all the word and lexicon gymnastics, the meaning is still change for us, so where do we go from here

and let us say i want to follow the star/najam abdullah ibn masud, it is perfectly acceptable, so again where do we go from here

(wasalam)

(wasalam), thanks for welcoming me.plz post the issues regarding Bidaa' in the relevant threads. brother why would you act on a hadith which is weak according to you?sahaba stars

First, answer to the articles of brother Guided, then speak about shia scholars.

Ibn Masud's view on Falaq and Nas. Ibn Abbas's view on SCRIBAL ERRORS and etc.

see the topic , its "tehrif challenge!" so i have the right to present the counter proofs.

brother haideriam, would u expound on this?

before going any further, i have two questions here.

1. Whats the Shia Imami view of the person who says that tahreef has been done to the Quran?

2. Are their any extra Quranic ( other thans hadith books) books in which the shia believe? What if a person claims to have such a book which is not Quran but is from Allah?

Edited by qalandar_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE QALANDAR ALSO ANSWER THE SECOND PART OF THE POST.I EDITED IT AND POSTED A 2ND QUESTION TO IT FROM THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

AS FOR YOUR REQUEST FOR IJMA TAKE THIS AS A BASIC AND ONLY ONE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY SAYING:

In the section "The Belief Concerning The Extent (Mablagh) Of The Qur'an" Abu Ja`far, the well-known Shi'ite theologian of 4th century of hijra says:

Says the Shaykh Abu Ja`far Al-Tusi: Our belief is that the Qur'an, which Allah revealed to his Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two boards (daffatayn). And it is that which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater extent than that. The number of suras as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen.

And again:

And he who asserts that we say it is greater in extent than this (the present text) is a liar.

before going any further, i have two questions here.

1. Whats the Shia Imami view of the person who says that tahreef has been done to the Quran?

2. Are their any extra Quranic ( other thans hadith books) books in which the shia believe? What if a person claims to have such a book which is not Quran but is from Allah?

1.) liars!!!

2.) it is common sense that while the Quran is the most authoritative text and the final revelation for us,we also believe in Qudsi hadith like sunnis also have them.sunnis also believe those are the words of Allah.therefore it makes no difference if any text out of the Quran exist which is believed to also be revelation from Allah.what is your point?

Edited by mehdi soldier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE QALANDAR ALSO ANSWER THE SECOND PART OF THE POST.I EDITED IT AND POSTED A 2ND QUESTION TO IT FROM THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

AS FOR YOUR REQUEST FOR IJMA TAKE THIS AS A BASIC AND ONLY ONE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY SAYING:

In the section "The Belief Concerning The Extent (Mablagh) Of The Qur'an" Abu Ja`far, the well-known Shi'ite theologian of 4th century of hijra says:

Says the Shaykh Abu Ja`far Al-Tusi: Our belief is that the Qur'an, which Allah revealed to his Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two boards (daffatayn). And it is that which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater extent than that. The number of suras as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen.

And again:

And he who asserts that we say it is greater in extent than this (the present text) is a liar.

brother , these are the words of Tusi, it cant be taken as Ijmaa,for Ijmaa u have to present the Qol of a Mujthahid who says that the scholars have been unanimous on the issue of the authenticity of Quran. I think whoever goes against Ijmaa' is kafir let alone going against the Nas of Quran so would u answer these two question in ur own words or any fatwa?

before going any further, i have two questions here.

1. Whats the Shia Imami view of the person who says that tahreef has been done to the Quran?

2. Are their any extra Quranic ( other thans hadith books) books in which the shia believe? What if a person claims to have such a book which is not Quran but is from Allah?

1.) liars!!!

2.) it is common sense that while the Quran is the most authoritative text and the final revelation for us,we also believe in Qudsi hadith like sunnis also have them.sunnis also believe those are the words of Allah.therefore it makes no difference if any text out of the Quran exist which is believed to also be revelation from Allah.what is your point?

1.so whoever says that the present Quran is not complete is just a liar and not a kafir?

2.My point was the if peson A claims that Allah had revealed certain other books besides Quran but they were not made public and were kept secret. What will u say about person A?

Edited by qalandar_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brother , these are the words of Tusi, it cant be taken as Ijmaa,for Ijmaa u have to present the Qol of a Mujthahid who says that the scholars have been unanimous on the issue of the authenticity of Quran. I think whoever goes against Ijmaa' is kafir let alone going against the Nas of Quran so would u answer these two question in ur own words or any fatwa?

what is the meaning of "Qol"?do you mean "qawl" as in "word" or "kul' as in "all"?

if you want to do that,i can simply gather you the many rulings and beliefs of all our maraji and all the scholars of past and you are free to examine them.the majority will tell you that the Quran is not altered.that is ijma.the few that differ are on their own and those who follow them.if Sheikh at-Tusi is speaking with "we",then why do you still think he is not talking on behalf of the remaining he knows of or the mainstream shia belief?

as far as we are concerned,no one scholar has the right to speak on behalf of all on his own alone.if you want to make your point,bring us an authentic hadith where any of the 12 Imams proclaimed tahreef.those ones do represent us in word and deed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the meaning of "Qol"?do you mean "qawl" as in "word" or "kul' as in "all"?

if you want to do that,i can simply gather you the many rulings and beliefs of all our maraji and all the scholars of past and you are free to examine them.the majority will tell you that the Quran is not altered.that is ijma.the few that differ are on their own and those who follow them.if Sheikh at-Tusi is speaking with "we",then why do you still think he is not talking on behalf of the remaining he knows of or the mainstream shia belief?

as far as we are concerned,no one scholar has the right to speak on behalf of all on his own alone.if you want to make your point,bring us an authentic hadith where any of the 12 Imams proclaimed tahreef.those ones do represent us in word and deed.

Qol =word , talk in arabic

I would present the evidence of tehreef and a shia scholar claiming that the hadiths abt Tehreef in shia books are Muthawathir. I would also present the evidence of shia belief in some extra-Quranic revelations as the thread moves on and the OP responds to my answer about Abdullah Ibn masood Ra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.so whoever says that the present Quran is not complete is just a liar and not a kafir?

2.My point was the if peson A claims that Allah had revealed certain other books besides Quran but they were not made public and were kept secret. What will u say about person A?

i am not a scholar to pass takfir on anyone.if personally i am to rule,that person is a kaffir.that is my opinion but i am not qualified.maybe someone can post a fatwa of a shia scholar that has approved takfir on those who say the Quran is not authentic.i have told you that the majority of our scholars stand against tahreef and they strongly oppose and expose anyone who claim tahreef.that is to the best of my knowledge.

as for your second question,anyone can claim anything.tell us who claimed what.dont tell me "anyone".anyone can say anything when his stomach is full!!!

as for those alleged books i have not seen them nor have i heard of them.i dont know their relation to the Quran and what is contained in them.until i am educated on that,i dont know them.i dont even know what books you are talking about seriously!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. tell me if u agree with the fatwa of Ayathullah wal Uzza Mohammad Sadiq Ruhani?

Ayatullat wal-Uzza Mohammad Sadiq Ruhani said about people who believe in tahreef:

من یقول بالتحریف بالزیادة و النقصان لا یجوز رمیه بالکفر
.

"It's not permitted to accuse in disbelief person who would say that there is addition and deficiency (in Quran)"
.

CODEhttp://www.imamrohani.com/fatwa-ar/viewtopic.php?t=3546

i am not a scholar to pass takfir on anyone.if personally i am to rule,that person is a kaffir.that is my opinion but i am not qualified.

as for those alleged books i have not seen them nor have i heard of them.i dont know their relation to the Quran and what is contained in them.until i am educated on that,i dont know them.i dont even know what books you are talking about seriously!

Thanks for a clear answer. plz stick to this thread and i shall present the evidence of those books tomorrow along with the views of famous shia scholars on Tehreef fil Quran. (p.s , I was a great admirer of the political ideology of Musa Al-sadr)(salam)

Edited by qalandar_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qol =word , talk in arabic

I would present the evidence of tehreef and a shia scholar claiming that the hadiths abt Tehreef in shia books are Muthawathir. I would also present the evidence of shia belief in some extra-Quranic revelations as the thread moves on and the OP responds to my answer about Abdullah Ibn masood Ra

i do speak arabic to some extent and i read too."qol" means "say".as in "qol huwwalahu ahad".

you can present a scholar's opinion from here or there.that will not change my mind on the Quran nor will it prove his point or prove that any change have happened.i reject that.the majority of our scholars reject that and stand against that.you cant tell me no sunni scholar have ever claimed tahreef.its not possible.a shia can possibly also bring you a sunni scholar's opinion and that takes us to square one!!!

i already gave you the words of Sheikg Tusi that we believe that there is nothing more of the Quran left aside.so it would be interesting to see where you get these so called shia evidence on extra-Quranic revelations.if you get them from our hadiths books,you have already being told that we dont deny those hadiths are present.nontheless we also dont accept those hadith.Ayatollah al-Khoei have rejected any claim of tahreef or even abrogation in the Quran.on the same idea,someone has presented hadith from sunni books claiming that a portion of the Quran was left out.what do you say to that?

P.S. tell me if u agree with the fatwa of Ayathullah wal Uzza Mohammad Sadiq Ruhani?

Ayatullat wal-Uzza Mohammad Sadiq Ruhani said about people who believe in tahreef:

ãä یÞæá ÈÇáÊÍÑیÝ ÈÇáÒیÇÏÉ æ ÇáäÞÕÇä áÇ یÌæÒ Ñãیå ÈÇá˜ÝÑ
.

"It's not permitted to accuse in disbelief person who would say that there is addition and deficiency (in Quran)"
.

CODEhttp://www.imamrohani.com/fatwa-ar/viewtopic.php?t=3546

Thanks for a clear answer. plz stick to this thread and i shall present the evidence of those books tomorrow along with the views of famous shia scholars on Tehreef fil Quran.(salam)

i dont even know who Ayatollah Ruhani is because i dont do taqlid of him.

secondly the Ayatullah sees it from the point that what makes a muslim is the shahadatain and as maybe other beliefs like resurrection and reward in the hereafter.the belief in the Quran itself being distorted is not something that can make someone an outright kaffir.that could be his opinion.

as for me personally,i believe anyone who claims tahreef of the Quran should be ready to show us what verses were removed or what was added.if anyone cannot tell us that,then his or her belief is plain stupidity and nonsense.that is either a lie,ignorance or kufr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for a clear answer. plz stick to this thread and i shall present the evidence of those books tomorrow along with the views of famous shia scholars on Tehreef fil Quran. (p.s , I was a great admirer of the political ideology of Musa Al-sadr)(salam)

If you are referring to the Mushaf of Fatimah (as) or the Kitab of 'Ali (as),or even al-Jafr, then there are numerous posts elucidating the nature of these books, so you aren't presenting any new evidence, brother. They are not revelations of the qur'anic type, so plz don't waste your time attempting to "expose" them. Our Imams (as) have claimed to possess them, so do you intend to suggest that they are kuffar for making this claim?

Akh, your akhlaaq is good, but your literalist anthropomorphic views are far more deserving of scrutiny than the Mushaf of Fatimah (as), as is your reliance on a kadhdhab rawi like Abu Hurayra who is primarily responsible for introducing the mythical Isra'iliyyat into Islamic hadith literature. Do you seriously believe a rock stole Musa's (as) clothes and that he punched a malak in the eye? Do you believe Allah (swt) descends to the 1st heaven and calls out to His servants, and that he has hands, legs, feet, and teeth (amongst other bodily appendages)?

One who holds these heretical views is far more deserving of having the charge of kufr levelled at them than a misguided individual who believes in tahrif of the Qur'an ...

Edited by Abdul Qaim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well inshallah ill give a try to the first one.. but i wont be posting the refutation here but on another forum... since i want to use the similar tone you used ..

And some day take time to refute my articles too , since i too refuted some articles(eg categorization of ahlebayt by guided) of your website in my blog though i didnt mentioned that it was a refutation to your arctile ... :)

When I refute people, I mention it and their names. So, when you refute my articles, please always mention "Guided" or "Guided al-Rafidi" :angel: . Besides, you may notify me of your refutations at slaveofali@yahoo.com.

Inshallah, you will always get my counter-rebuttals.

The OP has tried to use the logic " why do you blame us for this? You believe in it as well", like if a person is cautioned about his deviant beliefs and he in turn says " what if i hold such a belief,u have the same belief as well". Its an effort like "two wrongs never make a right". From the intentions and mindset of the OP,its now well established that he believes in Tehreef e Quran and is trying to say that what if i believe in it? you believe in it as well so its like shooting oneself in his foot. I would provide some counter arguments for his claims.

Here is a shia fatwa from Ayatullat wal-Uzza Mohammad Sadiq Ruhani about the people who believe in tehreef fil Quran.

من یقول بالتحریف بالزیادة و النقصان لا یجوز رمیه بالکفر.

"It's not permitted to accuse in disbelief person who would say that there is addition and deficiency (in Quran)".

so u cant accuse Abdullah Ibn masood Ra of infedility (maazAllah) anyways.

The first thing is that it was the Ijma of the sahaba that the copy of Quran which was documented in the time of Hadrat Uthman Ra is perfect and its the same Quran which was revealed on Prophet Mohamad PBUH. It was the Ijmaa' of the sahaba that Mashaf e Usmani is the exact form of Quran (word to word,letter to letter) as it was revealed on Prophet Mohamad PBUH. The arguments of the OP can be straight away rejected on the basis of Ijma which is an Idilaa for us.Even if we accept that Abdullah Ibn Masood Ra went against the Ijmaa' (which he did not at all),his views will become khabar e wahid and will be rejected on the basis of sticking to the Ijmaa'.

Don't put words into my mouth. I NEVER said I believe in Tahrif. I also NEVER agree that we Shiites do. If you re-read my articles, my position is very clear. There is NO Tahrif of the Qur'an. THE SHIITE HADITHS ON THE MATTER ARE ALL WEAK FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MATN.

But then, I do not consider anyone who believes in Tahrif to be an infidel. Rather, I hold that he is only mistaken in his views.

MY only point is that one of our Adila e deen ( basics to extract the orders of religion) is Ijmaa' ie consensus. So his argument of the first thread which he has been pasted can easily be refuted by saying that the even if we accept that Abdullah Ibn masood Ra held such views then those views can be taken as his personal opinion.After Mashaf e othman Ra, there has been a complete consensus in-between the muslims that Quran is complete,perfect and free of any distortions.However, the shia scholars have been claiming tehreef fil Quran after that even. Molvi Mushtaq hussain is the latest example of the 20th century.

By the way, what would u say about a person who claims that "pakistan" has been mentioned in the original Quran?

MR. QALANDAR1, PLEASE STATE YOUR OPINION OF ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN TAHRIF!

ALSO, PLEASE STATE WHETHER OR NOT IBN MAS'UD DID BELIEVE IN TAHRIF ON ACCOUNT OF HIS VIEWS.

LASTLY, PLEASE STATE WHETHER OR NOT IBN ABBAS BELIEVED IN TAHRIF ON ACCOUNT OF HIS VIEWS.

This is all I asked from you, NOT the IRRELEVANCIES you have posted.

You know why I am bringing this up? If you agree that Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn Abbas believed in Tahrif, then why do you wail about our "alleged" Tahrif all the time?

Edited by Saved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn Abbas' Tahrif Beliefs: A Serious Challenge to Efendi al-Nasibi!!!

There are others on that website. But the above should be enough for my purpose. I also have other Tahrif articles coming up insha Allah against Efendi.

So far, the Nasibi has been helpless.

I now CHALLENGE ibn asakir, tees maar khan and qalandar1 to help Efendi out by refuting those articles here!

But before you do that, please first state your opinion of whoever believes in Tahrif.

You never know what is gonna come next.

Thanks.

As it is said:

هناك فرق بين من اعترف بالتحريف ولا يعترف بالحروف التي نزل بها القران ؟؟

لذلك كيف تبقون على هذا الدين اذا القران محرف ؟

اذا علمائك جهله لا يفهمون في القران ولا في القراءات السبع فما ذنبنا فاكثر اسباب قولهم بالتحريف لعدم وجود ايه واحده تدل على امامتكم العجيبه ؟؟؟ لذلك قالوا بالتحريف

You are not aware of 7 readings then how can you challange anyone?

This hadith of Ibn abbas (ra) is about different 7 readings.

& i prefer you will find your answers on http://www.dd-sunnah.net/forum/ , search there.

Edited by ibn.askari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it is said:

åäÇß ÝÑÞ Èíä ãä ÇÚÊÑÝ ÈÇáÊÍÑíÝ æáÇ íÚÊÑÝ ÈÇáÍÑæÝ ÇáÊí äÒá ÈåÇ ÇáÞÑÇä ¿¿

áÐáß ßíÝ ÊÈÞæä Úáì åÐÇ ÇáÏíä ÇÐÇ ÇáÞÑÇä ãÍÑÝ ¿

ÇÐÇ ÚáãÇÆß Ìåáå áÇ íÝåãæä Ýí ÇáÞÑÇä æáÇ Ýí ÇáÞÑÇÁÇÊ ÇáÓÈÚ ÝãÇ ÐäÈäÇ ÝÇßËÑ ÇÓÈÇÈ Þæáåã ÈÇáÊÍÑíÝ áÚÏã æÌæÏ Çíå æÇÍÏå ÊÏá Úáì ÇãÇãÊßã ÇáÚÌíÈå ¿¿¿ áÐáß ÞÇáæÇ ÈÇáÊÍÑíÝ

You are not aware of 7 readings then how can you challange anyone?

This hadith of Ibn abbas (ra) is about different 7 readings.

& i prefer you will find your answers on http://www.dd-sunnah.net/forum/ , search there.

You are a highly talented comedian bro! Please take a career in that field!

Well, you have created more problems for yourself!

Ibn Abbas called that part of the verse (as we have it today) a SCRIBAL ERROR! What has that got to do with any seven ahruf? You are apparently dodging my challenge.

OK, do you think Ibn Abbas was right to have called it a scribal error?

Secondly, you guys claim that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf. Fine! This tells us that what was called "the Qur'an" or "al-Dhikr" during the Prophet's lifetime were these seven ahruf TOGETHER. Allah promised to protect the Qur'an - meaning, to protect the seven ahruf.

The Qur'an, as we have it today, contains only ONE of these seven ahruf. Could you please kindly direct me to where the remaining SIX are?

Or, have they been lost?

Has Allah's promise failed according to you guys?

Their objections, that the reports are weak, have already been answered in those same articles you are purportedly answering! Please re-read them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody from Shia and Sunni sects can deny that their venerated Imams and Muhaddiths recorded bundles of reports and verdicts about the distortion of Qur’an .

They were the enemies of Islam , disguised under the beard and turban .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a highly talented comedian bro! Please take a career in that field!

Well, you have created more problems for yourself!

Ibn Abbas called that part of the verse (as we have it today) a SCRIBAL ERROR! What has that got to do with any seven ahruf? You are apparently dodging my challenge.

Now top class jokers claiming sunni science of quran better than sunni's.

OK, do you think Ibn Abbas was right to have called it a scribal error?

because he was not infallible.

Secondly, you guys claim that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf. Fine! This tells us that what was called "the Qur'an" or "al-Dhikr" during the Prophet's lifetime were these seven ahruf TOGETHER. Allah promised to protect the Qur'an - meaning, to protect the seven ahruf.

The Qur'an, as we have it today, contains only ONE of these seven ahruf. Could you please kindly direct me to where the remaining SIX are?

Or, have they been lost?

Has Allah's promise failed according to you guys?

not at all the quran is preserved,. quran is said to be lost when all ahruf are gone like bible's original codes etc.

still we have original words of Allah.

& this can be easily understandably by layman also.

Their objections, that the reports are weak, have already been answered in those same articles you are purportedly answering! Please re-read them.

heck.

thiqa+thiqa+thiqa+---- can't make hadith sahih in sunni hadith science.

better learn some basics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

æÞÇá ÛíÑ æÇÍÏ ãä ÇáÓáÝ Ýí Þæáå " ÃÝáã ííÃÓ ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ " ÃÝáã íÚáã ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ æÞÑà ÂÎÑæä ÃÝáã íÊÈíä ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ Ãä áæ íÔÇÁ Çááå áåÏì ÇáäÇÓ

ÌãíÚÇ æÞÇá ÃÈæ ÇáÚÇáíÉ : ÞÏ íÆÓ ÇáÐíä ÂãäæÇ Ãä íåÏæÇ æáæ íÔÇÁ Çááå áåÏì ÇáäÇÓ ÌãíÚÇ

Tafseer Ibn Kuthayr, Volume 2, Page 534

Ibn Askari, do you not find such ever so slightly problematic?

Even if we accept the Ahruf argument, does it not render Uthman ibn Affan someone who thought he had better insight than Allah (SWT) himself, due to the fact that Allah (SWT) revealed the 7 ahruf and Uthman reduced them to one. Note I'm not being rude or polemical, so I'd like a serious well-thought out answer to these 2 questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uthaman (ra) did this after consultation of other sahaba's (ra) including ali (ra) .

& all sahaba (ra) did this because peoples started deferring regarding quran.

brother better leave the discussion between us & super hero member SAVED.

Edited by ibn.askari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I refute people, I mention it and their names. So, when you refute my articles, please always mention "Guided" or "Guided al-Rafidi" :angel: . Besides, you may notify me of your refutations at slaveofali@yahoo.com.

Inshallah, you will always get my counter-rebuttals.

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=11694

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANSWER 1

ANSWER 2

Answer to Ibn Abbas's words... if you can...

well my refutation covered the response to the above two arctiles...

And regarding ibn abbas(ra)'s words then its comes under the issue of 7 ahruf...:It is possible that that was upon one of the 7 Ahruf just like how Umar(ra) denied one recitation of a man then when they came to the Prophet(saw) both recitations were approved by the Prophet. So, it seems what happened to Ibn Abbas(ra) is similar to what happened to Umar(ra).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well my refutation covered the response to the above two arctiles...

And regarding ibn abbas(ra)'s words then its comes under the issue of 7 ahruf...:It is possible that that was upon one of the 7 Ahruf just like how Umar(ra) denied one recitation of a man then when they came to the Prophet(saw) both recitations were approved by the Prophet. So, it seems what happened to Ibn Abbas(ra) is similar to what happened to Umar(ra).

Qiyas !!! Shall we accept your Aiyas or an unambiguous statement of Ibn Abbas wherein he referred the word as a 'mistake' of scribe, does at ANY point Ibn Abbas mentioned that it was because of what you bring the threory of 7 Ahruf ? If not then dont put words in Sahaba's mouth who had openly challenged the correctness of the present Quran. Remember, at times they have marked similar sort of mistakes in the Quran and have suggested an antire different word having entire different meaning, which nullifies your Qiyas of 7 Ahruf !!!

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...