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

What do you want me to respond to in all of these? You have only copy-pasted Efendi, with a few modifications, and the articles you are supposedly refuting are actually refutations of Efendi!

Moreover, this is your own claim:

Now after clearing this I would like to say that though hz abudullah ibn masood(ra) didn’t believe in tahreef, but even he didn’t accuse other sahaba(ra) for making tahreef in quran, since he considered it to be a difference in opinion that whether the last two chapters were part of quranic manuscript or not. It was his own view that the last chapters were not part of quranic manuscript(though he included those two chapters in his qiraat) but it was his error, as the majority of companions were against his view, though this was his own ijtihad but he will get a single reward for his error.

You have only confirmed my arguments!

My question to you is: is it not Tahrif to believe that Surat al-Falaq and Surat al-Nas are not part of the Qur'anic script?

You agree that Ibn Mas'ud was in error for holding such a belief. Now, let me ask: why was he in error? Is it because the two Surahs are actually part of the Qur'anic text while he rejected them?

Is that not Tahrif?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you want me to respond to in all of these? You have only copy-pasted Efendi, with a few modifications, and the articles you are supposedly refuting are actually refutations of Efendi!

well infact your refutation was regarding authenticity of narrations mine refutation to you emphasized on the issue that how should we understand those narrations...

Moreover, this is your own claim:

You have only confirmed my arguments!

not atll infact i proved that you dont even understood the issue properly.

My question to you is: is it not Tahrif to believe that Surat al-Falaq and Surat al-Nas are not part of the Qur'anic script?

nopes! when someone believes that they are the part of qiraat of quran, then only a fool will accuse him of believing in tahreef or quran..

You agree that Ibn Mas'ud was in error for holding such a belief. Now, let me ask: why was he in error? Is it because the two Surahs are actually part of the Qur'anic text while he rejected them?

Is that not Tahrif?

how can it be tahreef.. quran is kalam of Allah... not JUST words written on mushaf.. so when the kalam which was recited by ibn masood(ra) included those two surahs , then its not tahrif..

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 !!!

Is a simple explanation of what ibn abbas(ra) ment..

and I was talking about this particular narration, I you have some other ones then bring those narrations ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nopes! when someone believes that they are the part of qiraat of quran, then only a fool will accuse him of believing in tahreef or quran..

how can it be tahreef.. quran is kalam of Allah... not JUST words written on mushaf.. so when the kalam which was recited by ibn masood(ra) included those two surahs , then its not tahrif..

You have been answered sufficiently here http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=907:Efendi-al-Nasibi-s-Intellectual-SUICIDE-%28Part-2%29&catid=39:quran.

The position that he believed both surahs to be part of the qira'ah is weaker - having fewer narrations to its backing.No wonder, your greatest Hadith scholar, al-Asqalani, affirmed my position. See here http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=890:Efendi-al-Nasibi-s-Intellectual-SUICIDE&catid=39:quran

Is a simple explanation of what ibn abbas(ra) ment..

So, if a Sunni scholar says, "The Qur'an contains scribal errors" he is only referring to the lost ahruf?

I am confused, so are there verses of the quran that have been lost? do shias really believe that? Someone please let me know, I thought the Quran was complete.

Do you have a comprehension problem? The only guy who has said that is ibn asakir, a SUNNI:

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.

How can you accuse Shiites based on the claim of a Sunni?

Brother, Sunni believe that the original Qur'an was in SEVEN ahruf, while SIX of them have been LOST! Thus, Allah, according to Sunnis, FAILED to fulfil His promise to preserve the Dhikr, which was the SEVEN ahruf during the Prophet's lifetime according to Sunnis.

Edited by Saved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a comprehension problem? The only guy who has said that is ibn asakir, a SUNNI:

How can you accuse Shiites based on the claim of a Sunni?

Brother, Sunni believe that the original Qur'an was in SEVEN ahruf, while SIX of them have been LOST! Thus, Allah, according to Sunnis, FAILED to fulfil His promise to preserve the Dhikr, which was the SEVEN ahruf during the Prophet's lifetime according to Sunnis.

As i said for top class jokers it is impossible to understand the sunni science of quran.

& you misquoted my comment.

i said:

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.

^ it is clear that quran is preserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if a Sunni scholar says, "The Qur'an contains scribal errors" he is only referring to the lost ahruf?

let me tell you other way.

what is scribal error: this is the type of error which donot change the meaning of the sentence but only words seems shortened or etc. but meaning almost remains same.

eg: love you very much this would be written as LV U VRY MCH.

^ This is scribal error.

But when you don't know hard core english & any one says: I WANNA GO.

then automatically you will think he wanted to say I WANT TO GO.

But both are correct! So one will think he did scribal error.

& last but not least he didnot said you did tahreef in quran but he said it is scribal error.

& this is easily understandable by layman also.

Edited by ibn.askari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let me tell you other way.

what is scribal error: this is the type of error which donot change the meaning of the sentence but only words seems shortened or etc. but meaning almost remains same.

eg: love you very much this would be written as LV U VRY MCH.

^ This is scribal error.

But when you don't know hard core english & any one says: I WANNA GO.

then automatically you will think he wanted to say I WANT TO GO.

But both are correct! So one will think he did scribal error.

& last but not least he didnot said you did tahreef in quran but he said it is scribal error.

& this is easily understandable by layman also.

what an excellent explanation mashallah... only a senseless creature wouldn't understand this...and till he thinks that quran is JUST a mushnaf which was revealed from Allah BUT NOT KALAM Allah...

Edited by tees maar khan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a simple explanation of what ibn abbas(ra) ment..

and I was talking about this particular narration, I you have some other ones then bring those narrations ...

Thats what I am saying, who are you to bring explanatino to what Ibn Abbas clearly said? You are rather putting words in to his mouth. Anyhow, as for more traditons then here are two:

Atta from Ibn Abbas ‘{Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche}’. He said: ‘This is a mistake by the scribe, He (Allah) is greater than to be his light as a niche, He said (that its): ‘{a likeness of the believer's light is as a niche}’’.

Tafseer Ibn Abi Hatim, Volume 8 page 2595

Now dont bring the Ahruf excuse as Ibn Abbas has clearly objected to a word and substituted a word with different meaning. He was infact objecting to the meaning of the verse we read in our Quran!!

Similarly we read in Tafsir Dur al Manthur, Surah Juma:

Abu Ubaid narrated in his (book) al-Fadhael and Saeed bin Mansur, Ibn Abi Shayba, Ibn al-Munder and Ibn al-Anbari in the Masahif (book) from Kharsha bin al-Hur that he said: ‘Umar bin al-Khatab saw me carrying a tablet written in it ‘{when the call is made for prayer on Friday, then hasten to the remembrance of Allah} (FAISAAAW ILA THIKRI Allah)’. He (Umar) asked: ‘Who dictated this to you?’ I replied: ‘Ubai bin Kaab’. He said: ‘Ubai recited the abrogated (part), he (Umar) recited it ‘FAMZO ILA THIKRI Allah

Imam AbdulRazaq Sanani records in his Musnaf:

Abdulrazaq narrated from Mu'amar and others from al-Zuhari from Salem from Ibn Umar who said: ‘Umar used to recite the verse of Juma chapter in this manner: ‘FAMZO ILA THIKRI Allah’ until he passed away’

the word we Muslims recite today is ‘FAISAAAW’ which means ‘to hasten’ but according to Umar was the what the 'correct' word and which we are supposed to write and recite is ‘FAMZO’ which means ‘to go’, that is why we read the following words of Sahabi Abdullah Ibn Masud:

Úä ÇÈä ãÓÚæÏ Ãäå ßÇä íÞÑà " ÝÇãÖæÇ Åáì ÐßÑ Çááå " ÞÇá : æáæ ßÇäÊ ÝÇÓÚæÇ áÓÚíÊ ÍÊì íÓÞØ ÑÏÇÆí

Ibn Masud used to recite 'FAMZO ILA THIKRI Allah'. He said: 'If it was 'FAISAAAW', I would walk so quickly that my cloak would fall down' Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 8 page 161

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what an excellent explanation mashallah... only a senseless creature wouldn't understand this...and till he thinks that quran is JUST a mushnaf which was revealed from Allah BUT NOT KALAM Allah...

Only a creature known as Nasibi could have supported an awful interpreation based on Qiyas by a Nasibi. You people need to realize that you may be able to bring this Ahruf excuse (though not working actually) here but there are various others type of statements implying different types of Tahrif in your authentic Hadith works such as a Sahabi stubbornly believing in words in a particular verse wihch we do not find today while or words we find today but rejected by a Sahabi etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats what I am saying, who are you to bring explanatino to what Ibn Abbas clearly said? You are rather putting words in to his mouth. Anyhow, as for more traditons then here are two:

Atta from Ibn Abbas ‘{Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche}’. He said: ‘This is a mistake by the scribe, He (Allah) is greater than to be his light as a niche, He said (that its): ‘{a likeness of the believer's light is as a niche}’’.

Tafseer Ibn Abi Hatim, Volume 8 page 2595

Now dont bring the Ahruf excuse as Ibn Abbas has clearly objected to a word and substituted a word with different meaning. He was infact objecting to the meaning of the verse we read in our Quran!!

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=25105&postcount=32

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=25108&postcount=33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i said for top class jokers it is impossible to understand the sunni science of quran.

& you misquoted my comment.

i said:

^ it is clear that quran is preserved.

Rather, I mistakenly highlighted the wrong part of your statement:

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.

My argument: The Dhikr at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) ACCORDING TO SUNNIS was SEVEN ahruf. Today, only one harf has survived. THE OTHER SIX ARE LOST. Yet, Allah has promised to protect the Dhikr in the Qur'an - meaning all SEVEN ahruf. So, can Sunnis tell us where the remaining SIX ahruf are? If they cannot, then they certainly believe in Tahrif although they are not admitting it.

Your defence: Well, as long as at least ONE harf survives, then the Qur'an has survived!

That is an implied admission that the SIX ahruf are lost!

That is an implied admission that Allah has failed to preserve the Dhikr.

That is implied Tahrif!

let me tell you other way.

what is scribal error: this is the type of error which donot change the meaning of the sentence but only words seems shortened or etc. but meaning almost remains same.

eg: love you very much this would be written as LV U VRY MCH.

^ This is scribal error.

But when you don't know hard core english & any one says: I WANNA GO.

then automatically you will think he wanted to say I WANT TO GO.

But both are correct! So one will think he did scribal error.

& last but not least he didnot said you did tahreef in quran but he said it is scribal error.

& this is easily understandable by layman also.

This is a very senseless defense (sorry for the offense). Where did you get that definition of a scribal error? Actually, a scribal error is one that occurs when a scribe, copying a document, WRITES THE WRONG WORD BY MISTAKE. Ibn Abbas (ra) is arguing that the phrase in the verse as we have it today is NOT what Allah revealed, BUT the MISTAKE of the scribe. Sometimes, the meaning may change due to a scribal error and sometimes it may not. BUT WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THE ORIGINALITY OF THE DOCUMENT BEING PRODUCED IS HARMED.

You have simply got to face these facts!

If the scribal error is one of the six LOST ahruf, Ibn Abbas (ra) would have mentioned that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather, I mistakenly highlighted the wrong part of your statement:

My argument: The Dhikr at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) ACCORDING TO SUNNIS was SEVEN ahruf. Today, only one harf has survived. THE OTHER SIX ARE LOST. Yet, Allah has promised to protect the Dhikr in the Qur'an - meaning all SEVEN ahruf. So, can Sunnis tell us where the remaining SIX ahruf are? If they cannot, then they certainly believe in Tahrif although they are not admitting it.

Your defence: Well, as long as at least ONE harf survives, then the Qur'an has survived!

That is an implied admission that the SIX ahruf are lost!

That is an implied admission that Allah has failed to preserve the Dhikr.

That is implied Tahrif!

do you find it problematic if i say: Dhikr was of 7 ways.. Allah promised to protect the dhikr..

Allah didnt promise that he will protect all the ways of dhilr, he didnt say kulli dhikr..

So even if one way of dhikr is protected.. then the promise is fulfilled.

So its not belief in tahreef..

This is a very senseless defense (sorry for the offense). Where did you get that definition of a scribal error? Actually, a scribal error is one that occurs when a scribe, copying a document, WRITES THE WRONG WORD BY MISTAKE. Ibn Abbas (ra) is arguing that the phrase in the verse as we have it today is NOT what Allah revealed, BUT the MISTAKE of the scribe. Sometimes, the meaning may change due to a scribal error and sometimes it may not. BUT WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THE ORIGINALITY OF THE DOCUMENT BEING PRODUCED IS HARMED.

You have simply got to face these facts!

If the scribal error is one of the six LOST ahruf, Ibn Abbas (ra) would have mentioned that.

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 as hz umar(ra) thought that the recitation of another man was incorrect similalry hz ibn abbas(ra) thought the other word he read was an error of scribe, but it was correct and what he recited too was correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you find it problematic if i say: Dhikr was of 7 ways.. Allah promised to protect the dhikr..

Allah didnt promise that he will protect all the ways of dhilr, he didnt say kulli dhikr..

So even if one way of dhikr is protected.. then the promise is fulfilled.

So its not belief in tahreef..

This is nothing but speculation on your part. He promised to preserve the Dhikr. The Dhikr includes ALL the SEVEN ahruf. So, you have no excuse here.

You have admitted impliedly that SIX of the seven ahruf are now lost. In other words, we do not have most of the revealed Qur'an with us today!

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 as hz umar(ra) thought that the recitation of another man was incorrect similalry hz ibn abbas(ra) thought the other word he read was an error of scribe, but it was correct and what he recited too was correct.

Yeah, Ibn Abbas (ra) was WRONG in his thought. BUT his thought was NO DOUBT tantamount to Tahrif. He is wrong like all the other believers in Tahrif.

Now that you have agreed that Sunnis and Ibn Abbas (ra) believe in Tahrif, will you give your fatwa on anyone who believes in Tahrif?

You are yet to do that!

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!!!

Narrations from fist link couldn't be a proof for shia that Quran isn't corrupted.

You said:

in Misbah al-Faqaahah, vol. 3, p. 453, records:

Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå (Ú) ÞÇá : ÎØÈ ÇáäÈí (Õ) Èãäí ¡ ÝÞÇá : ÃíåÇ ÇáäÇÓ ãÇ ÌÇÁßã Úäí íæÇÝÞ ßÊÇÈ Çááå ÝÃäÇ ÞáÊå ¡ æãÇ ÌÇÁßã íÎÇáÝ ßÊÇÈ Çááå Ýáã ÃÞáå ¡ ÇáßÇÝí - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 69 (

Abu ‘Abdullah, peace be upon him, said: The Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, delivered a sermon at Mina, and said: “O mankind! Whatsoever is narrated from me that agrees with the Qur’an is indeed my statement. But whatsoever contradicts the Book of Allah is NOT my statement.” Al-Kafi, vol. 1, p 69.

As regards its authenticity, Sayyid al-Khui (ÑÍãå Çááå ÊÚÇáì) says:

ÕÍíÍÉ

Authentic

Sayyid al-Khui (ÑÍãå Çááå ÊÚÇáì) in the same reference also records:

Úä ÃíæÈ Èä ÇáÍÑ ÞÇá : ÓãÚÊ ÃÈÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå (Ú) íÞæá : ßá ÔÆ ãÑÏæÏ Åáì ÇáßÊÇÈ æÇáÓäÉ ¡ æßá ÍÏíË áÇ íæÇÝÞ ßÊÇÈ Çááå Ýåæ ÒÎÑÝ - ÇáßÇÝí - ÇáÌÒÁ : ( 1 ) - ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 69 (

Narrated Ayub ibn al-Hurr:

I heard Abu ‘Abdullah, peace be upon him, saying: “Everything is to be judged by the Book and the Sunnah. ALL Hadiths that do not agree with the Book of Allah are fabricated.” Al-Kafi, vol. 1, p. 69

Again, Sayyid al-Khui says:

ÕÍíÍÉ

Authentic

These two Hadiths are sufficient to establish the Shiite position on the Tahrif Hadiths!

Your scholar said:

And who rejected that (tahrif) show as a proof verses: “and most surely ” (41:41) it is a Mighty Book: (42) Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One”, and “(15:9) Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian”. It could be said in answer: After we would accept that verses are proof for their aims, it’s apparent from we have explained, the complete real Quran as it was revealed by Allah, protected (one is) with imam, and he inherited it from Ali (alaihi salam)..

http://gift2shias.com/2010/11/25/allama-abul-hasan-amili-answer-to-shias-who-dont-believe-in-tahrif/

And there is other quote from your book:

One important remark, here, is that, we cannot call any person (Shi'a

or Sunni) who claims Quran is incomplete, as Kafir. This is simply

because believing in the completeness of Quran is not an article of

faith, nor do we have any tradition saying that anyone who claims

Quran is incomplete, is a Kafir. Also, the verse of Quran that states

that Allah is the protector of the Reminder, can be interpreted

differently. (Logically we cannot prove the lack of alteration in

Quran by Quran!)

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter8/5.html

So those mentioned narrations couldn't be a proof for your point. Because: 1) They could refer to comparing narrations with Quran which is with 12-th imam. 2) There is another explanation from Mirza al-Khui. In his book “Minhajul baraa fi sharhil nahjul balagha” (2/206), Mirza Habibulla al-Hashimi al-Khui said:

Åäø ÇáÃÆãÉ Úáíåã ÇáÓøáÇã ÅäøãÇ ÃãÑæäÇ ÈÇáÑøÌæÚ Åáì åÐÇ ÇáßÊÇÈ ÇáãæÌæÏ ÈÃíÏíäÇ ãÚ ãÇ åæ Úáíå ãä ÇáÊøÍÑíÝ æ ÇáäøÞÕÇä áÃÌá ÇáÊÞíÉ æ ÇáÎæÝ Úáì ÃäÝÓåã æ ÔíÚÊåã

Imams (alayhuma salam) ordered to get back to this book which is present at our hands, along with things (which happen in it) from tahrif and omission, due to taqiyah, and fear for themselves and their shias”.

3) The verse in the Quran in accordance to your book couldn't be a proof that it was not altered.

As for ibn Masud and his so called rejection of surahs

http://gift2shias.com/2010/11/28/ibn-masood-and-two-last-surahs-from-quran/

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

You said it was authentic from him, we believe it wasn't authentic from him.

If the talk is about narrations we can start with narration from shia imams, which are mutawatir, and all of them testify that Quran was tampered.

Muhammad Salih al-Mazandarani in his http://gift2shias.com/2010/11/24/mazandarani-tahrif-is-mutawatir/, while he was discussing hadith from “al-Kafi” where stated that there were 17 000 verses in Quran, said:

ßÇä ÇáÒÇÆÏ Úáì Ðáß ããÇ Ýí ÇáÍÏíË ÓÞØ ÈÇáÊÍÑíÝ æÅÓÞÇØ ÈÚÖ ÇáÞÑÂä æÊÍÑíÝå ËÈÊ ãä ØÑÞäÇ ÈÇáÊæÇÊÑ ãÚäì

“Addition on that (number of verses in present Quran) which (mentioned) in hadith omitted by tahrif. And omission of some (part) of Quran and tahrif of it is established from our ways by (ahadeth) tawatur al-manawi”.

Ayatolla Shubbar http://gift2shias.com/2010/11/23/ayatolla-shubbar-tahrif-is-mutawatir/:

æíãßä ÑÝÚ ÇáÊäÇÝí ÈÇáäÓÈÉ Åáì ÇáÃæøá: ÈÃäø ÇáÞÑÂä ÇáÐí ÃõäÒá Úáì ÇáäÈí Õáøì Çááøå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáøã ÃßËÑ ããøÇ Ýí ÃíÏíäÇ Çáíæã æÞÏ ÃõÓÞØ ãäå ÔíÁ ßËíÑ¡ ßãÇ ÏáøÊ Úáíå ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ ÇáãÊÙÇÝÑÉ ÇáÊí ßÇÏÊ Ãä Êßæä ãÊæÇÊÑÉ

“As for the first one, variance could be raised in this way: Quran which was revealed upon messenger (sallalahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam) is more than we have on our hands in this day. In accordance to countless narrations which are near level of tawatur, many things were omitted from it”.

Point to ponder.

Almost all their faith shias basing on few texts and among them hadith saqalain. From its text is clear that prophet (pbuh) left with us Quran and ahlalbayt.

If shia would see someone humiliating ahlalbayt - they would call him infidel. Why are you so scared to say that those people who humiliated Quran by saying that its corrupted are infidels also? What is more important in saqalain? Quran or ahlalbayt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nothing but speculation on your part. He promised to preserve the Dhikr. The Dhikr includes ALL the SEVEN ahruf. So, you have no excuse here.

well its a considerable answer which crushes your illogical allegation of tahreef..

Dhikr IS OF TYPES..... AND Allah PROTECTED ONE TYPE OF DHIKR WHICH MEANS HE SAVED DHIKR.. this is quite simple to understand you dont need to be a phd to understand such sim[le explanation, unless you are afraid of loosing a lost challenge.. (wink)...

Yeah, Ibn Abbas (ra) was WRONG in his thought. BUT his thought was NO DOUBT tantamount to Tahrif. He is wrong like all the other believers in Tahrif.

i dont know why when you are refuted you run in circles.. lol

being wrong means he believed in tahreef.. hahaha what a joke, brother askari was right when he talked about your joking skills..

when he believed that he knew the correct word. and still the kalam of Allah was there with him in correct and appropriate form then how can he be labelled for believing in tahreef.. really funny.

As i said that what he believed was also correct and what he considered to be error of scribe was also correct..

And the bottom line is that it is impossible to accuse a sahabi for believing in tahreef, because they learned quran from prophet(Saw).. and even if a sahabi disagrees with another sahabi on certain issue regarding quran then it will not be labelled as tahreef, because at end of the day both of them got quran learned quran from prophet(Saw) and both of them believed that they had the correct and appropriate kalam of Allah along with them.. and that there was no tahreef done in what they considered to be correct which is opposite to what shias believe.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was asked to cite proofs here in this thread thus further discussion on them shall also be here rather than directing us to another fourms.

well those links shows that the narration you produced is unacceptable .. (there were reasons mentioned there) one of them is that there are other narration from ibn abbas(ra) stating the verse in the same way as we do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather, I mistakenly highlighted the wrong part of your statement:

yes bcoz u r fallible.

My argument: The Dhikr at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) ACCORDING TO SUNNIS was SEVEN ahruf. Today, only one harf has survived. THE OTHER SIX ARE LOST. Yet, Allah has promised to protect the Dhikr in the Qur'an - meaning all SEVEN ahruf. So, can Sunnis tell us where the remaining SIX ahruf are? If they cannot, then they certainly believe in Tahrif although they are not admitting it.

Your defence: Well, as long as at least ONE harf survives, then the Qur'an has survived!

That is an implied admission that the SIX ahruf are lost!

That is an implied admission that Allah has failed to preserve the Dhikr.

That is implied Tahrif!

ya joker, one harf is present intact as reveled , then where is tahreef?

Allah said he will protect dikr & yes we have dikr with us, then what is the problem?

This is a very senseless defense (sorry for the offense). Where did you get that definition of a scribal error? Actually, a scribal error is one that occurs when a scribe, copying a document, WRITES THE WRONG WORD BY MISTAKE.

yes this is what i said

Ibn Abbas (ra) is arguing that the phrase in the verse as we have it today is NOT what Allah revealed, BUT the MISTAKE of the scribe.

this is your words not the words of ibn abbas (ra) , i even not able to see he said this is not the words of Allah!

see what u said on ur wilayat site: http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=905:Ibn-Abbas-Tahrif-Beliefs-A-Serious-Challenge-to-Efendi-al-Nasibi&catid=39:quran&Itemid=63

Al-Hakim records in his al-Mustadrak vol. 2, p. 430, Hadith 3496 (Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah):

ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ Úáí ÇáÍÇÝÙ ÃäÈà ÚÈÏÇä ÇáÃåæÇÒí ËäÇ ÚãÑæ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáäÇÞÏ ËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä íæÓÝ ËäÇ ÓÝíÇä Úä ÔÚÈÉ Úä ÌÚÝÑ Èä ÇíÇÓ Úä ãÌÇåÏ Úä ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ ÑÖí Çááå ÚäåãÇ Ýí Þæáå ÊÚÇáì áÇ ÊÏÎáæÇ ÈíæÊÇ ÛíÑ ÈíæÊßã ÍÊì ÊÓÊÃäÓæÇ ÞÇá ÃÎØà ÇáßÇÊÈ ÍÊì ÊÓÊÃÐäæÇ

Narrated Mujahid:

Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, used to say about the Word of Allah { O you who believe! Do not enter houses other than your own houses until you have asked permission [hata tastaanisoo]…} (24:27), “THIS IS A SCRIBAL ERROR. (THE CORRECT PHRASE IS) HATA TASTAAZAANOO.”

Sometimes, the meaning may change due to a scribal error and sometimes it may not.

you claimed same thing what i said.

i said:

let me tell you other way.

what is scribal error: this is the type of error which donot change the meaning of the sentence but only words seems shortened or etc. but meaning almost remains same.

eg: love you very much this would be written as LV U VRY MCH.

^ This is scribal error.

But when you don't know hard core english & any one says: I WANNA GO.

then automatically you will think he wanted to say I WANT TO GO.

But both are correct! So one will think he did scribal error.

& last but not least he didnot said you did tahreef in quran but he said it is scribal error.

& this is easily understandable by layman also.

BUT WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THE ORIGINALITY OF THE DOCUMENT BEING PRODUCED IS HARMED.

nothing is harmed bcoz one harf is intact.

You have simply got to face these facts!

i faced all facts.

If the scribal error is one of the six LOST ahruf, Ibn Abbas (ra) would have mentioned that.

not necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the bottom line is that it is impossible to accuse a sahabi for believing in tahreef, because they learned quran from prophet(Saw).. and even if a sahabi disagrees with another sahabi on certain issue regarding quran then it will not be labelled as tahreef, because at end of the day both of them got quran learned quran from prophet(Saw) and both of them believed that they had the correct and appropriate kalam of Allah along with them.. and that there was no tahreef done in what they considered to be correct which is opposite to what shias believe.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the bottom line is that it is impossible to accuse a sahabi for believing in tahreef, because they learned quran from prophet(Saw).. and even if a sahabi disagrees with another sahabi on certain issue regarding quran then it will not be labelled as tahreef, because at end of the day both of them got quran learned quran from prophet(Saw) and both of them believed that they had the correct and appropriate kalam of Allah along with them.. and that there was no tahreef done in what they considered to be correct which is opposite to what shias believe.....

so are you accusing the Prophet (pbuh) of teaching different things (that contradict) to different people? it means the Messenger (auozubillah) was confused and he use to forget even the Quranic verses.you are defending the sahaba and denying tahreef.that is quiet alright.but while doing that,you have insulted the Prophet.so what do you saying about this confusion?

it is either one sahabi is right and another is wrong or both are wrong.the two cannot be right.

Edited by mehdi soldier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so are you accusing the Prophet (pbuh) of teaching different things (that contradict) to different people? it means the Messenger (auozubillah) was confused and he use to forget even the Quranic verses.you are defending the sahaba and denying tahreef.that is quiet alright.but while doing that,you have insulted the Prophet.so what do you saying about this confusion?

it is either one sahabi is right and another is wrong or both are wrong.the two cannot be right.

If a person is not willing to use his sense or brain then how can one help him..

anyways we are not accusing prophet(Saw) for teaching different things to sahaba(ra)... but this is to be understood in the manner that for a certain thing initially the ruling was different but later the ruling was changed.. but one sahabi knew the first rluing and the second ruling didnt reach him.. yet he cannot be blamed for following that ruling since he didnt do that from his own self but what he did was because of the teaching of prophet(Saw) he received..

So ponder on what i said being unbiased and sensible:

And the bottom line is that it is impossible to accuse a sahabi for believing in tahreef, because they learned quran from prophet(Saw).. and even if a sahabi disagrees with another sahabi on certain issue regarding quran then it will not be labelled as tahreef, because at end of the day both of them got quran learned quran from prophet(Saw) and both of them believed that they had the correct and appropriate kalam of Allah along with them.. and that there was no tahreef done in what they considered to be correct which is opposite to what shias believe.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a person is not willing to use his sense or brain then how can one help him..

anyways we are not accusing prophet(Saw) for teaching different things to sahaba(ra)... but this is to be understood in the manner that for a certain thing initially the ruling was different but later the ruling was changed.. but one sahabi knew the first rluing and the second ruling didnt reach him.. yet he cannot be blamed for following that ruling since he didnt do that from his own self but what he did was because of the teaching of prophet(Saw) he received..

So ponder on what i said being unbiased and sensible:

And the bottom line is that it is impossible to accuse a sahabi for believing in tahreef, because they learned quran from prophet(Saw).. and even if a sahabi disagrees with another sahabi on certain issue regarding quran then it will not be labelled as tahreef, because at end of the day both of them got quran learned quran from prophet(Saw) and both of them believed that they had the correct and appropriate kalam of Allah along with them.. and that there was no tahreef done in what they considered to be correct which is opposite to what shias believe.....

brother,you are dodging my question.

it is either surah al-falaq and surah an-nas are part of the Quran or they are not.

i am just taking this one instance.if one says the two surahs are,and then another one says they are not,then something is wrong.you cannot say both person heard the two views from the same man.it is either both surahs are revelation or they are not.Allah does not change His mind and the Prophet himself does not change what is revelation or what is not.

so is it wrong for anyone to consider 2 surahs as not being part of the Quran or is it right?who is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brother,you are dodging my question.

it is either surah al-falaq and surah an-nas are part of the Quran or they are not.

i am just taking this one instance.if one says the two surahs are,and then another one says they are not,then something is wrong.you cannot say both person heard the two views from the same man.it is either both surahs are revelation or they are not.Allah does not change His mind and the Prophet himself does not change what is revelation or what is not.

so is it wrong for anyone to consider 2 surahs as not being part of the Quran or is it right?who is wrong?

firstly you are jumping to conclusions a bit very quickly.. take a long breath and try to be slow and steady so that you may understand the issue:

Secondly the answer to your question is that ibn masood(ra) did infact included those two surahs in his qiraat of quran.. as proved from mutawattir and authentic narrations, and the narrations which speak that he didnt recite them are weak..

however just for a sake of argument lets suppose that he didnt even recite because he didnt consider those to be part of kalam Allah..(its just an assumption actual answer is in point 2)

Now if you have some knowledge on this issue then you may know that:

The reason for ibn masood(ra) not including the last two surahs in quran was not because of his personal opinion but because of the teaching he got from prophet,(though he didnt knew that later prophet(Saw) said that they are part of quran)

Now he believed that what he had along with him as quran was actually kalam Allah as taught by prophet(Saw).. Correct.. So this means that he believed that the kalam of Allah is still preserved along with him in correct and appropriate form as it shoud have been..so when he believes this that quran he has is the same as what prophet(Saw) taught him , then how could he believe in tahreef of quran. Because according to him.. quran was still present in correct form along with him.

(i hope you will understand my point)

NOw lets see what is the shia belief: the shia belief of tahreef is no way comparable to what ibn masood(ra).. because ibn masood(ra) believed quran HE HAD was correct and appropriate as revealed to prophet(Saw), where as shias believe that its not the way it shoud have been. And they dont have the correct mushnaf along with him unlike ibn masood(ra). So its the classical case of comparing apples with oranges..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

firstly you are jumping to conclusions a bit very quickly.. take a long breath and try to be slow and steady so that you may understand the issue:

Secondly the answer to your question is that ibn masood(ra) did infact included those two surahs in his qiraat of quran.. as proved from mutawattir and authentic narrations, and the narrations which speak that he didnt recite them are weak..

however just for a sake of argument lets suppose that he didnt even recite because he didnt consider those to be part of kalam Allah..(its just an assumption actual answer is in point 2)

Now if you have some knowledge on this issue then you may know that:

The reason for ibn masood(ra) not including the last two surahs in quran was not because of his personal opinion but because of the teaching he got from prophet,(though he didnt knew that later prophet(Saw) said that they are part of quran)

Now he believed that what he had along with him as quran was actually kalam Allah as taught by prophet(Saw).. Correct.. So this means that he believed that the kalam of Allah is still preserved along with him in correct and appropriate form as it shoud have been..so when he believes this that quran he has is the same as what prophet(Saw) taught him , then how could he believe in tahreef of quran. Because according to him.. quran was still present in correct form along with him.

(i hope you will understand my point)

NOw lets see what is the shia belief: the shia belief of tahreef is no way comparable to what ibn masood(ra).. because ibn masood(ra) believed quran HE HAD was correct and appropriate as revealed to prophet(Saw), where as shias believe that its not the way it shoud have been. And they dont have the correct mushnaf along with him unlike ibn masood(ra). So its the classical case of comparing apples with oranges..

see the points you made:

1.) you said the hadiths that say Ibn Masood did not include the 2 surahs are weak

2.) you said again that Ibn Masood did not include the surahs because of what he learnt from the Prophet

so did he or did he not remove those surahs?you're contradicting yourself with some patchy argument.in the one hand you say the hadith is weak and on the other hand you say the event happened.

3.) you said the Prophet said later that they are part of the Quran which Ibn Masood didnt know.

this is exactly where the issue lies and you have refused to answer.why didnt the Prophet include them initially as revelation? and if Ibn Masood was not aware,then Ibn Masood got something wrong with his Quran.so how is that not tahreef?

and for a millionth time,Shia do not believe in tahreef as an aqeedah.it occurs as individual belief just as it does with sunnis.shia overwhelmingly defend the authenticity of the Quran and believe that it has not suffered any tahreef.

Edited by mehdi soldier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Islam...We follow the Quran as it is now and has been for the last 1400 Years......Whatever is between those two covers is what we follow.

There is no Modernizing or Revisionizing the Quran.....it is the HAQQ( word of truth beyond [but sometimes including] the ephemeral or physical nature of things) that is neither time nor geographically bound.

I don't even know how someone [Muslim] could propose otherwise?

:dry:

Edited by Glow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see the points you made:

1.) you said the hadiths that say Ibn Masood did not include the 2 surahs are weak

2.) you said again that Ibn Masood did not include the surahs because of what he learnt from the Prophet

so did he or did he not remove those surahs?you're contradicting yourself with some patchy argument.in the one hand you say the hadith is weak and on the other hand you say the event happened.

3.) you said the Prophet said later that they are part of the Quran which Ibn Masood didnt know.

this is exactly where the issue lies and you have refused to answer.why didnt the Prophet include them initially as revelation? and if Ibn Masood was not aware,then Ibn Masood got something wrong with his Quran.so how is that not tahreef?

and for a millionth time,Shia do not believe in tahreef as an aqeedah.it occurs as individual belief just as it does with sunnis.shia overwhelmingly defend the authenticity of the Quran and believe that it has not suffered any tahreef.

lol , its apparent that you dont have comprehension understanding skills... anyways someone good in it will surely understand inshallah..

however just for a sake of argument lets suppose that he didnt even recite because he didnt consider those to be part of kalam Allah..(its just an assumption actual answer is in point 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a shia explain verse 3:7 to me? Or summarize Tabatabai's explanation of this verse in Tafseer-e-Meezan

åõæó ÇáøóÐöíó ÃóäÒóáó Úóáóíúßó ÇáúßöÊóÇÈó ãöäúåõ ÂíóÇÊñ ãøõÍúßóãóÇÊñ åõäøó Ãõãøõ ÇáúßöÊóÇÈö æóÃõÎóÑõ ãõÊóÔóÇÈöåóÇÊñ ÝóÃóãøóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó Ýí ÞõáõæÈöåöãú ÒóíúÛñ ÝóíóÊøóÈöÚõæäó ãóÇ ÊóÔóÇÈóåó ãöäúåõ ÇÈúÊöÛóÇÁ ÇáúÝöÊúäóÉö æóÇÈúÊöÛóÇÁ ÊóÃúæöíáöåö æóãóÇ íóÚúáóãõ ÊóÃúæöíáóåõ ÅöáÇøó Çááøåõ æóÇáÑøóÇÓöÎõæäó Ýöí ÇáúÚöáúãö íóÞõæáõæäó ÂãóäøóÇ Èöåö ßõáøñ ãøöäú ÚöäÏö ÑóÈøöäóÇ æóãóÇ íóÐøóßøóÑõ ÅöáÇøó ÃõæúáõæÇú ÇáÃáúÈóÇÈö
(3:7)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well those links shows that the narration you produced is unacceptable .. (there were reasons mentioned there) one of them is that there are other narration from ibn abbas(ra) stating the verse in the same way as we do...

Simple denial will not work here, there should be specefic reason to reject the statement of Ibn Abbas under discussion. Existence of another tradition from Ibn abbas will not render the one under discussion void!

And the bottom line is that it is impossible to accuse a sahabi for believing in tahreef, because they learned quran from prophet(Saw).. and even if a sahabi disagrees with another sahabi on certain issue regarding quran then it will not be labelled as tahreef, because at end of the day both of them got quran learned quran from prophet(Saw) and both of them believed that they had the correct and appropriate kalam of Allah along with them.. and that there was no tahreef done in what they considered to be correct which is opposite to what shias believe.....

Stupid logic based on a concocted belief 'all sahaba are aadil'. !! A Sahabi is adamant not to accept the 'wordings' of Quranic verse used by another Sahaba and the former insists that it was revealed in that very wordings, amounts to Tahrif !! And that is the bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple denial will not work here, there should be specefic reason to reject the statement of Ibn Abbas under discussion. Existence of another tradition from Ibn abbas will not render the one under discussion void!

lol so he believed in both contradictory narrations ,lol .. the narration you quoted is weak , if for sake of argument not weak then atleast shaadh..

Stupid logic based on a concocted belief 'all sahaba are aadil'. !! A Sahabi is adamant not to accept the 'wordings' of Quranic verse used by another Sahaba and the former insists that it was revealed in that very wordings, amounts to Tahrif !! And that is the bottom line.

lol, first understand what is tahrif.. and then after that you will neeed to use your brain..atleast once. to understand what i said..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol so he believed in both contradictory narrations ,lol .. the narration you quoted is weak , if for sake of argument not weak then atleast shaadh..

ll, the traditino is not weak :P

lol, first understand what is tahrif.. and then after that you will neeed to use your brain..atleast once. to understand what i said..

Dont worry, I kow Tahrif's definion, Oh I forgot, I need to accept your definition of Tahrif according to which 'marking a mistake' in Quran and suggestig the 'correct' word is not Tahrif :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol , its apparent that you dont have comprehension understanding skills... anyways someone good in it will surely understand inshallah..

no problem.you can say that again and again and again.

but please if i dont have the skills to understand,you that have them should please go ahead and answer the questions put to you.you enlighten us since you can.dont just run away because i am an idiot.teach me if you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i think I have given suffiicent info to show that what sahaba(ra) believed in no way can be labbeled as tahreef from a sane person and i proved it in a logical and simple manner.. and if someone still accuses them falsely just inorder to defend this madhab then he is just deceiving his ownself...

Thus I leave it with the audience to judge ... since we proved that what sahaba(ra) believed was i noway comparable to what shias believe ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it—through which the compulsory duties of Allāh, the Powerful and Exalted, and the tradition of His Prophet (saws) can be fulfilled.

And you said: ‘If that happens, I can hope that (the book) would be a means through which Allāh will rectify our brothers and people of our religious community through his support and grace, and take them closer to their salvation.’”

Source:al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 8 [Tehran]

Let’s see what his friends think of him.

ÇáãÝÓÑ ÇáßÈíÑ ãÍãÏ Èä ãÑÊÖì ÇáßÇÔÇäí ÇáãáÞÈ ÈÜ (ÇáÝíÖ ÇáßÇÔÇäí) :

ÞÇá : ” æÃãÇ ÇÚÊÞÇÏ ãÔÇíÎäÇ Ýí Ðáß ÝÇáÙÇåÑ ãä ËÞÉ ÇáÇÓáÇã ãÍãÏ Èä íÚÞæÈ Çáßáíäí ØÇÈ ËÑÇå Ãäå ßÇä íÚÊÞÏ ÇáÊÍÑíÝ æÇáäÞÕÇä Ýí ÇáÞÑÂä áÃäå ßÇä Ñæì ÑæÇíÇÊ Ýí åÐÇ ÇáãÚäì Ýí ßÊÇÈå ÇáßÇÝí æáã íÊÚÑÖ ááÞÏÍ ÝíåÇ ãÚ Çäå ÐßÑ Ýí Ãæá ÇáßÊÇÈ Ãäå ßÇä íËÞ ÈãÇ ÑæÇå Ýíå

ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÕÇÝí 1/52 ãäÔæÑÇÊ ÇáÇÚáãí – ÈíÑæÊ .

The Great Shiite Classical mufassir and Scholar Ibn al murtada al Kashani also known as al Faydh al Kashani said:

As for the belief of our scholars in that Matter (Distortion of the Quran) it’s apparent from thiqat al Islam The Scholar Muhammad Bin ya’aqoob al kulayni May Allah reward him That he used to believe in the Distortion of the Quran in terms of deletion, this is because He narrated Narrations which prove this and didn’t even criticize them although he narrated at the beginning of his book that he was confident in all that he narrated in it.

Source: Tafseer al Safi 1/52, Beirut.

ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓä ÇáÚÇãáí :

ÞÇá : ÇÚáã Ãä ÇáÐí íÙåÑ ãä ËÞÉ ÇáÇÓáÇã ãÍãÏ Èä íÚÞæÈ Çáßáíäí ØÇÈ ËÑÇå Ãäå ßÇä íÚÊÞÏ ÇáÊÍÑíÝ æÇáäÞÕÇä Ýí ÇáÞÑÂä áÃäå Ñæì ÑæÇíÇÊ ßËíÑÉ Ýí åÐÇ ÇáãÚäì Ýí ßÊÇÈ ÇáßÜÜÜÇÝí ÇáÐí ÕÑÍ Ýí Ãæáå ÈÃäå ßÇä íËÞ ÝíãÇ ÑæÇå Ýíå æáã íÊÚÑÖ áÞÏÍ ÝíåÇ æáÇ ÐßÑ ãÚÇÑÖ áåÇ

ÇáãÞÏãÉ ÇáËÇäíÉ ÇáÝÕá ÇáÑÇÈÚ ÊÝÓíÑ ãÑÂÉ ÇáÇäæÇÑ æãÔßÇÉ ÇáÇÓÑÇÑ æØÈÚÊ ßãÞÏãå áÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÈÑåÇä ááÈÍÑÇäí .

The Big Scholar Abu al hassan al Amili said:

I Know that what’s apparent regarding Thikat al Islam Muhammad Bin Ya’aqoob al Kulayni May Allah reward him is That he believed in the distortion of the Quran and its deletion because he narrated so many Narrations to that effect in his book al Kafi in which he stated at the beginning ( of the book) that he trusts all that he narrates in it and he didn’t criticize those narrations nor did he oppose them.

Source: Second introduction from the 4th Fasl, Tafseer Mira’at al Anwar wa Mishkat al Asrar, and it was printed as an introduction for “Tafseer al Burhan” for the scholar al Bahrani.

ÇáäæÑí ÇáØÈÑÓí :

ÞÇá ÇáäæÑí Ýí ÇáãÞÏãÉ ÇáËÇáËÉ Ýí ÐßÑ ÃÞæÇá ÚáãÇÁ ÇáÔíÚÉ Ýí ÊÛííÑ ÇáÞÑÂä Õ 23 : ” ÇÚáã Ãä áåã Ýí Ðáß ÃÞæÇáÇð ãÔåæÑåÇ ÇËäÇä . ÇáÃæá : æÞæÚ ÇáÊÛííÑ æÇáäÞÕÇä Ýíå ¡ æåæ ãÐåÈ ÇáÔíÎ ÇáÌáíá Úáí Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã ÇáÞãí ÔíÎ Çáßáíäí Ýí ÊÝÓíÑå ÕÑÍ Ýí Ãæáå æãáà ßÊÇÈå ãä ÃÎÈÇÑå ãÚ ÇáÊÒÇãå Ýí Ãæáå ÈÃä áÇ íÐßÑ Ýíå ÅáÇ Úä ãÔÇíÎå æËÞÇÊå æãÐåÈ ÊáãíÐå ËÞÉ ÇáÅÓáÇã Çáßáíäí ÑÍãå Çááå Úáì äÓÈå Åáíå ÌãÇÚÉ áäÞáå ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ ÇáßËíÑÉ ÇáÕÑíÍÉ Ýí åÐÇ ÇáãÚäì Ýí ßÊÇÈ ÇáÍÌÉ ÎÕæÕÇð Ýí ÈÇÈ ÇáäßÊ æÇáäÊÝ ãä ÇáÊäÒíá æÝí ÇáÑæÖÉ ãä ÛíÑ ÊÚÑÖ áÑÏåÇ Ãæ ÊÃæíáåÇ

ÝÕá ÇáÎØÇÈ Ýí ÇËÈÇÊ ÊÍÑíÝ ßÊÇÈ ÑÈ ÇáÇÑÈÇÈ Õ 23

Giant scholar Al Noori al Tabrasi said:

In the third introduction in which he states the Sayings of Shia scholars about the Distortion of the Quran Page 23: I Know that they have two popular sayings. The first: That Corruption did in fact take place in form of change and of deletion, and that is the Madhab of the Respected Sheikh Ali bin Ibrahim al Qummi, Kulayni’s Scholar who in his Tafseer says this in the introduction and fills his book with such sayings and he only mentioned these sayings from his Own Scholars (teachers) and his trustworthy sources, also it is the Madhab of his Student thiqat al islam al Kulayni May Allah have mercy on his soul in which he transmitted many clear Sarih Sayings which prove this (Tahreef) and especially in his “Kitab’ul Hujjah” in the chapter ‘Al Nakt wal Natf min al Tanzeel’ and in His “al Rawdah” without criticizing any of them or refuting them.

Source: Fasl al Khitab fi Ithbat Tahreef Kitab rabb al arbab Page 23, tehran.

ÂíÉ Çááå ÇáÓíÏ Úáì ÇáÝÇäí ÇáÇÕÝåÇäí :

æÞÏ ÐßÑ Çáßáíäí ãä ÇáÚáãÇÁ ÇáÐíä ÞÇáæÇ ÈÃä ÇáÞÑÂä ãÍÑÝ

ÂÑÇÁ Íæá ÇáÞÑÂä – ÏÇÑ ÇáåÇÏí – ÈíÑæÊ Õ 188

grand Ayatullah Sayyed Ali al Fani al Isfahani:

“And Kulayni is mentioned amongst those scholars who Say that the Quran is Corrupt“

Source: Ara’a Hawl al Quran – Darul Hadee – Beirut Page 188.

Below is a self-charging document showing that rijal expert grand ayatullah al-Kho’ei believes the Qur’an to be altered and messed with by contributing such a belief to Ahlul-Bayt.

The following evidence is from his book Al-Bayaan fi tafseer al-Qur’an, published by Al-’Alami Foundation, Beirut, Lebanon, 3rd ed. 1974, p. 226

ÇáÔÈåÉ ÇáËÇáËÉ : Ãä ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ÇáãÊæÇÊÑÉ Úä Ãåá ÇáÈíÊ – Ú – ÞÏ ÏáÊ Úáì ÊÍÑíÝ ÇáÞÑÂä ÝáÇ ÈÏ ãä ÇáÞæá Èå : æÇáÌæÇÈ : Ãä åÐå ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ áÇ ÏáÇáÉ ÝíåÇ Úáì æÞæÚ ÇáÊÍÑíÝ Ýí ÇáÞÑÂä ÈÇáãÚäì ÇáãÊäÇÒÚ Ýíå ¡ æÊæÖíÍ Ðáß : Ãä ßËíÑÇ ãä ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ¡ æÅä ßÇäÊ ÖÚíÝÉ ÇáÓäÏ ¡ ÝÅä ÌãáÉ ãäåÇ äÞáÊ ãä ßÊÇÈ ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÓíÇÑí ¡ ÇáÐí ÇÊÝÞ ÚáãÇÁ ÇáÑÌÇá Úáì ÝÓÇÏ ãÐåÈå ¡ æÃäå íÞæá ÈÇáÊäÇÓÎ ¡ æãä Úáí Èä ÃÍãÏ ÇáßæÝí ÇáÐí ÐßÑ ÚáãÇÁ ÇáÑÌÇá Ãäå ßÐÇÈ ¡ æÃäå ÝÇÓÏ ÇáãÐåÈ ÅáÇ Ãä ßËÑÉ ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ÊæÑË ÇáÞØÚ ÈÕÏæÑ ÈÚÖåÇ Úä ÇáãÚÕæãíä Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã æáÇ ÃÞá ãä ÇáÇØãÆäÇä ÈÐáß ¡ æÝíåÇ ãÇ Ñæí ÈØÑíÞ ãÚÊÈÑ ÝáÇ ÍÇÌÉ ÈäÇ Åáì ÇáÊßáã Ýí ÓäÏ ßá ÑæÇíÉ ÈÎÕæÕåÇ

Which says:

Shubha 3:

The mutawatir narrations from Ahlul-Bayt [as] indicate that tahreef has took place in the Qur’an, and therefore it must be adopted.

Answer:

There is no indication in these narrations pointing to the fact of tahreef as in the disputed meaning of the word. To explain that: a great number of these narrations, though they are of weak isnad, a good number of them were copied from the book Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Sayyari, whom the scientists of Rijal have a consensus on the invalidity of his mazhab, and the fact he believes in the incarnation, as well as from Ali b. Muhammad al-Kufi who has been charged by the scientists of Rijal to be a liar and pointed to his invalid mazhab. However, the multitude of these narrations force us to believe that some of them have definately been issued by the infallibles [as], that is the least we can be sure of, and some of them have been narrated with a considerable Isnad, and therefore there is no need to examin each and every Isnad of them.

Source: http://www.najaf.org/arabic/book/24/a226.htm

Now below I have managed to find few sayings of Shia elders

Source

Book Title: Masa'il as-Sarawiyya

Author: ash-Shaykh al-Mufid

Publisher: Dar al-Mufid in Lebanon, Beirut [1993]

Editor: Sa'ib `Abd al-Humayd

Page(s): 78-81

“All of what is between the two covers of the Quran is the Speech of Allah Ta'ala and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beings, and it is most of what has been revealed, and the rest of what Allah Ta'ala has revealed as Quran is bestowed with (Al-Qaem) the Preserver of Shariah and Custodian of Rulings with none of it being omitted, even though the one who has compiled what is between the two covers as present today (Uthman) did not include this in the compilation due to reasons such as: his shortcomings in knowing some (of it), what he had doubts about, and some which he included and others he meant to exclude, while Amir al-Mu'mineen (Ali) compiled the revealed Quran from beginning to end, and collated it as it is supposed to be collated: so he put the Makki (verses) before Madani, and abrogated verses before those abrogating them, and put all of it as it is required to be put, and for this reason (Imam) Jafar ibn Muhammad as-Saddiq said: "By Allah if the Quran was read as it was revealed you would have found our names as those before us were named"...

Authentic Hadiths have passed from our Imams (A.S.) that they have ordered (us) to read what is between the two covers, and that we do not resort to any other, be it in addition or subtraction until the Qaem emerges and he would read to people the Quran as Allah Ta'ala revealed it and as collected by Amir al-Mu'mineen (Ali) and they forbade us from reading what is mentioned in Hadith of words that are in excess of what is established in the Mushaf because it did not come through Mutawatir (narrations), but through individual (narrations), and a person can commit mistakes in conveying it, and whenever a person reads what is contrary to what is in the two covers he will make himself prone to (the attacks) of those who differ with us (i.e. Sunnis), and to the mighty (Sunni rulers) and thus he would expose himself to perishing. Thus, they (A.S.) prevented us from reading the Quran contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers.”

Source

Book Title: Kitab al-Irshad (The Book of Guidance)

Author: ash-Shaykh al-Mufid

Publisher: Balagha Books in conjunction with The Muhammadi Trust [1981]

Translated by: I.K.A. Howard

Page: 553

Shaykh al-Mufid writes:

(Imam al-Baqir) said: When the Qai'm from the family of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and his family, arises, he will set up encampments and he will teach the people the Quran as it was revealed by Allah, the Mighty and the High. The greatest difficulty will be for those who have learnt it as it is today, because it differs from its original composition.

Edited by patelfiroz6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SEE BELOW JUST A VERY FEW SHIA SOURCES AND SCHOLARS DEFEND AND PROPAGATE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE QURAN AND ITS TOTAL PROTECTION FROM ANY ALTERATION:

1.)Authenticity of the Quran by Shaikh Muslim Bhanji:

http://www.al-islam.org/authen_of_the_quran/

2.)The Qur'an:Its Protection from Alteration by Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi:

http://www.al-islam.org/protection/

3.)The Qur'an in Islam by Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i:

http://www.al-islam.org/quraninislam/index.htm

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...