Altered Quran..

[Flowers91]

Hello!

Well, I just got a text off of one of my friends (sunni) who asked me "do shias believe that the Qur'an is altered - and that he'd come across a book written by Mirza Husain bin Muhammad Tsai an-nawari at-tabarsi called " The decisive word on the proof of the alteration of the book of the lord of the lords"

I googled this...... and I found a whole other world i've never heard before tbh lol!

There is a so called "Surat al Willayah"

http://www.amislam.com/khutoot.htm (Shia hating website i know, but scroll down)

Does anyone believe in this ??

[Shia_Debater]

Wa Alaykum Al Hello ! :D

That is fake. We shia believe that the Qur'an is the complete word of Allah (swt) and everything written in the Qur'an is the truth.

Sure some Translations and Tafsir differ with other sects but we do not believe that any surahs are missing or anything like that, in fact many Shias have the Qur'an that is produced in saudia arabia and issued by king fahd which goes to prove my statement.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Salafi_Strangler

[Ali H Syed]

sunnis say this to shia, out of ignorance and no knowledge, they think we believe that the "real" quran is with imam mahdi as, that is a false claim, we believe imam mahdi as will teach us the full understanding of the quran, ie. the complete message, they may ask what i mean by my statement, hadith tell us certain surahs, have levels of meaning, ie. lets say a particular line, what the line saying, is its message, but interpretation reveals there are upto 70 levels of understanding on a particular surah, its just we havnt got the knowledge to fully understand the whole message, that is where our imam mahdi as will teach us. however sunnis/wahabis whatever you want to call them, lie to their people and say astaghforallah, shias believe the quran isnt complete, how ridiculous.

(bismillah)

[habib e najjaar]

(salam)

Imam Ali (as) says in Nahjul Balagha: “We did not make human rulers, but we made the Quran the ruler over humans. This Quran is free of change, but doesn’t speak on its own accord, an interpreter is needed for this task……”.

“ Ali bin Salam narrates from his father who asked Imam Jafer Sadiq “ O descendant of Prophet, what are your views on the Quran? Imam Jafar replied “ the Quran is Allah’s book; it contains commands of Allah; sent by Allah. It is not subject to alteration, neither can anyone claim it has been changed, no has anyone ever made such a claim.”

Allama Sayyid Muhammad Hussein Tabatabai writes in his exegesis 'Tafsirul Meezaan', “ The Quran which Almighty Allah descended on Prophet Mohammad (S) is protected from any change.”

Ibn Babawayh aka "Shaykh Saduq" (309/919 - 381/991), wrote: "Our belief is that the Qur’an which Allah revealed to His Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two covers (daffatayn). And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater in extent than that. The number of Suras as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen ...And he who asserts that we say that it is greater in extent than that, is a liar."

You should aslo read 'The Collection and Preservation of Quran' by Ayatullah Khui

“It is clear from what we have mentioned above that the question of interpolation or profanity occurring in the Qur'an is baseless, advocated by those who have poor judgment, or those who refuse to ponder, or those who are infatuated with the task of disproving the Qur'an and indeed, infatuation makes a person blind and deaf. A person with intellect and sense of justice can have no doubt about baselessness of this presumption.”

I think you should make a point of reading this: Tahrif al Qur'an: a study of the misconceptions regarding the corruption of the Qur'an. http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/misconceptions/misconceptions.htm

(wasalam)

http://www.al-islam.org/nutshell/files/tahrif.pdf

[Rohani]

salam alaykom

the correct response would be that not all adherents to the jafari school of thought agree on the issue.

I personally hold the view that qu'ran is complete.

Edited September 6, 2011 by AlMuttaqi

[89jghur32]

The issue itself is pointless. Even if you do believe that the Qur'an is altered, what does that mean for you as a follower of the Jafari maddhab? The foundation of this maddhab is Qur'an and Ahl al-Bayt. Even if it is altered, you still have to follow it, and an alteration does not necessarily mean that the message of the Qur'an changes. Personally, I think the obsession with the tahrif issue is another way for the nawasib to cast doubt on other Muslims. Think of how easy it is to just use a premise and then build on top of it a conclusion to attack others: "You are not a Muslim if you believe the Qur'an has been changed," "The (Group X) believe that the Qur'an has been changed," and finally, "Group X are not Musiim and wajib ul-qatl." (Mind you I do believe that the Qur'an has not been changed, but I take issue with people who make this into some huge point of creed.)

[Guest]

salaams,

If a sunni believes that shias have altered the Quran then they have no belief in Allahs (swt) promise, power and His word. The Quran clearly states

"Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian" (15:9)

Furthermore Allah (swt) also states:

"And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful"(2:23)

" But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers" (2:24)

"Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." (4:82)

therefore Allah (swt) has taken the work of guarding the Quran. Allah's pure and holy truth will never suffer tahrif (alteration).

Do they then doubt the word of God?

Wasalaam

Edited September 6, 2011 by AlHamdulillah110

[Basim Ali]

That is fake.

The book is not fake. The author, along with Allama Majlisi, is one of the examples of Imami scholars who believed in Tahrif. Their opinion is of a minority in our madh'hab and is quite possibly erroneous.

[aladdin]

Here is a good video about Sunnis claim that the Quran was not preserved. This is based on the Sunni six sahih books of hadith.

Here is the thread:

http://www.shiachat....ctly-preserved/

The Quran produced by Usman was unreadable, unless if one had it memorized.

WHY?

Because it didn't contain dots for the letters, as most of the Arabic letters have dots either on top of them and on bottom of them. Also, it didn't have the Arabic Diacritics. These were taught to Imam Ali (a.s) by rasool Allah (saws) and Imam Ali taught this to his students, especially to abu Aswad. This grammar was put into the Holy Quran 20 years after the death of Imam Ali and 50 years after the death of the Prophet, by abu Aswad and other students of Imam Ali.

Edited September 6, 2011 by aladdin

[Shia_Debater]

The book is not fake. The author, along with Allama Majlisi, is one of the examples of Imami scholars who believed in Tahrif. Their opinion is of a minority in our madh'hab and is quite possibly erroneous.

I never said the book is fake. I said shia saying that there is a missing surah from the Qur'an is fake.

[Guest]

Here is a good video about Sunnis claim that the Quran was not preserved. This is based on the Sunni six sahih books of hadith.

Here is the thread:

http://www.shiachat....ctly-preserved/

The Quran produced by Usman was unreadable, unless if one had it memorized.

WHY?

Because it didn't contain dots for the letters, as most of the Arabic letters have dots either on top of them and on bottom of them. Also, it didn't have the Arabic Diacritics. These were taught to Imam Ali (a.s) by rasool Allah (saws) and Imam Ali taught this to his students, especially to abu Aswad. This grammar was put into the Holy Quran 20 years after the death of Imam Ali and 50 years after the death of the Prophet, by abu Aswad and other students of Imam Ali.

apparently (i could be wrong so please find references) i heard in a majalis that Imam Ali (a.s) added the lines like the fata, kisra,when people were translating the Quran because it would keep to the original meaning to the verse and it wouldnt be interpreted it wrongly, or take it out of context, because original arabic was not interpretable, and its easier to understand the Quran and preserving the original ayaats. The Quran is the same, and is also used by sunnis aswell.

Personally, (no offence intended) i wouldnt believe Bukhari, Muslim and other sunni books because a lot of the content is unreliable and unauthentic, and if they believe that there is a different Quran then they dont believe in he power of Allah (swt) when HE HAS PROMISED TO PROTECT THE QURAN HIMSELF!!! do they doubt Allah (swt) and His promises?

Edited September 7, 2011 by AlHamdulillah110

[twoblade]

Here is a good video about Sunnis claim that the Quran was not preserved. This is based on the Sunni six sahih books of hadith.

You didn't watch the debate than...

There is a very big difference between the idea of tahrif al Qur'an and naskh at tilawa - the later would've taken place during the Prophethood, the former is through the errors/deceit of those it was entrusted to..

[Yahya2004]

Your Ahlus Sunnah Faqih Imam al-Sarkhsy didnt view things that way:

أَمَّا حَدِيثُ عَائِشَةَ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهَا - فَضَعِيفٌ جِدًّا؛ لِأَنَّهُ إذَا كَانَ مَتْلُوًّا بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ، وَنَسْخُ التِّلَاوَةِ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - لَا يَجُوزُ فَلِمَاذَا لَا يُتْلَى الْآنَ.؟

وَذُكِرَ فِي الْحَدِيثِ «فَدَخَلَ دَاجِنٌ الْبَيْتَ فَأَكَلَهُ» وَهَذَا يُقَوِّي قَوْلَ الرَّوَافِضِ الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ: كَثِيرٌ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ ذَهَبَ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - فَلَمْ يُثْبِتْهُ الصَّحَابَةُ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُمْ - فِي الْمُصْحَفِ وَهُوَ قَوْلٌ بَاطِلٌ بِالْإِجْمَاعِ، وَلَوْ ثَبَتَ أَنَّ هَذَا كَانَ فِي وَقْتٍ مِنْ الْأَوْقَاتِ، فَإِنَّمَا كَانَ فِي الْوَقْتِ الَّذِي كَانَ إرْضَاعُ الْكَبِيرِ مَشْرُوعًا وَعَلَيْهِ يُحْمَلُ الْحَدِيثُ الثَّانِي، فَإِنَّ إنْبَاتَ اللَّحْمِ وَإِنْشَازَ الْعَظْمِ فِي حَقِّ الْكَبِيرِ لَا يَحْصُلُ بِالرَّضْعَةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ، فَكَانَ الْعَدَدُ مَشْرُوعًا فِيهِ ثُمَّ انْتَسَخَ بِانْتِسَاخِ حُكْمِ إرْضَاعِ الْكَبِيرِ عَلَى مَا نُبَيِّنُهُ إنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى

Your Imam here, actually admits this is tantamount to Tahreef since the Goat ate the ayaat after the Death of the Prophet. I've underlined where he said this, furthermore he states the Shias probably fabricated this hadith, which shows he didnt trust the Science of Rijaal that the Sunnis were peddling. (al-Mabsoot, volume 5, page 134)

وَأَمَّا مَا يُحْكَى مِنْ أَنَّ تِلْكَ الزِّيَادَةَ كَانَتْ فِي صَحِيفَةٍ فِي بَيْتِ عَائِشَةَ فَأَكَلَتْهَا الدَّاجِنُ فَمِنْ تَأْلِيفِ الْمَلَاحِدَةِ وَالرَّوَافِضِ

Imam al-Qurtubi, your Mufassir equally feels just as embarassed and blames this on Shi'as and Mulhids (Atheists) showing he thought it was Tahreef also and probably didnt trust your hadith sciences much. (Tafseer al Qurtubi, vol. 14, page 113)

وأما كون الزيادة كانت في صحيفة عند عائشة فأكلها الداجن فمن وضع الملاحدة وكذبهم في أن ذلك ضاع بأكل الداجن من غير نسخ كذا في الكشاف

Damn your other Mufassir, al-Alusi, says exactly the same... It's a lie from the Atheists. Showing he was embarassed by it and thought it was tahreef, he also didnt care much for your hadith sciences either. (Ruh al-Ma'ani, vol. 11, p. 140)

So, they certainly were ashamed by this..... and viewed it as Tahreef. Also didnt trust your hadith gradings very much.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Yahya2004

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Well it all comes down o the fact that imam Ali a.s okayed the quran we have as enough for guidance for momineen and the ones who understood the quran from ahlulbayth a.s can never falter.

And tehreef is a very much debatable issue with many Sunnis agreeing with tehreef so the answer to it cannot be a one. Liner

[Gypsy]

(salam)

Aladin, thanks for the video. I am surprised to see and hear that people are actually defending the absurd notion of the Quran being reveled in 7 different ways. Also, have you noticed that the 7-ahruf comes only from hadeeths and the Quran does not support it at all. The Prophet never told anyone that there is ahruf. And no one in the 3^rd generation of Muslims even know about this ahruf .

I also noticed a strange belief by the Sunni in the video. He said the Quranic verses that are abrogated need not be included in the Holy Quran! What!? Please tell me that he is kidding.

I like the debater on the right side. He is more honest in the debate. He admits that there are some problem and mistake in the written script and the recitation. His arguments are also less dogmatic. He traces each narration accurately and explains it in a very objective manner. And he also mentions how suspicious it is when you say the reason you cannot find something in the Quran is because they are abrogated! This whole concept of the missing verses is going against what Muslims believe about the Preserved Tablet.

The second debater is absolutely right when he said the Muslims are creating all the escape clause with ahrufs and abrogation’s. Why not admit that there is a problem with the hadeeths or with the written Quran.

And this is part 2 - the rebuttal session

Edited September 15, 2011 by Zareen

[Ruq]

The issue itself is pointless. Even if you do believe that the Qur'an is altered, what does that mean for you as a follower of the Jafari maddhab? The foundation of this maddhab is Qur'an and Ahl al-Bayt. Even if it is altered, you still have to follow it, and an alteration does not necessarily mean that the message of the Qur'an changes. .)

It does however raise questions about 'infallibility' and the Quran being 'protected' and what that actually means.

[rotten_coconut]

If Qur`an had been revealed in 7 ahruf just like Sunni said, that Uthman committed a grave sin & great bid`ah by destroying the 6 ahruf & leaving only 1.

[xstatik2]

http://www.abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=260964

http://www.abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=260970

http://www.abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=260971

[Muhammed Ali]

the correct response would be that not all adherents to the jafari school of thought agree on the issue.

A better response would be that tahreef is a minority opinion.

The issue itself is pointless. Even if you do believe that the Qur'an is altered, what does that mean for you as a follower of the Jafari maddhab? The foundation of this maddhab is Qur'an and Ahl al-Bayt. Even if it is altered, you still have to follow it, and an alteration does not necessarily mean that the message of the Qur'an changes. Personally, I think the obsession with the tahrif issue is another way for the nawasib to cast doubt on other Muslims. Think of how easy it is to just use a premise and then build on top of it a conclusion to attack others: "You are not a Muslim if you believe the Qur'an has been changed," "The (Group X) believe that the Qur'an has been changed," and finally, "Group X are not Musiim and wajib ul-qatl." (Mind you I do believe that the Qur'an has not been changed, but I take issue with people who make this into some huge point of creed.)

I personally think it has great ramifications on belief, without going into the details.

Incidentally I was actually speaking to a scholar (whose name I wont mention) recently about this subject and he the holds the opinion that belief in alteration is kufr. I mentioned the names of a couple of Shia scholars who may have held that belief and he insisted that it is kufr because the Quran is the foundation of Islam. I mention this event because we often get the impression that no Shia scholar attributes kufr to the belief in alteration. He also said that the belief in alteration originates from Sunni Islam.

[Haydar Husayn]

The Quran produced by Usman was unreadable, unless if one had it memorized.

WHY?

Because it didn't contain dots for the letters, as most of the Arabic letters have dots either on top of them and on bottom of them. Also, it didn't have the Arabic Diacritics. These were taught to Imam Ali (a.s) by rasool Allah (saws) and Imam Ali taught this to his students, especially to abu Aswad. This grammar was put into the Holy Quran 20 years after the death of Imam Ali and 50 years after the death of the Prophet, by abu Aswad and other students of Imam Ali.

So was written Arabic unreadable before the addition of the dots and vowel marks? If one person sent another a letter, the receiver couldn't then read it?

[aladdin]

(salam)

Aladin, thanks for the video. I am surprised to see and hear that people are actually defending the absurd notion of the Quran being reveled in 7 different ways. Also, have you noticed that the 7-ahruf comes only from hadeeths and the Quran does not support it at all. .......

Salam sister,

You raise quite a few and interesting questions. Would love to discuss them one a time. I am just waiting to finish watching the second part and inshaAllah after that I will come back to you.

[aladdin]

So was written Arabic unreadable before the addition of the dots and vowel marks? If one person sent another a letter, the receiver couldn't then read it?

Salam brother,

You are very argumentative person, so I don't like to reply to you. But I will give it one try.

Evolution in quite a few things, including printing, sending messages, languages and grammar, and so forth. We think in today's mind frame and we forget the evolution of things.

Printing: Today we go to a bookstore and buy a bounded Quran which weighs less than a kilo. The Quran Hafsa bint Omar had was not bounded, different verses were written on different material and most probably all together weighted about 30 kilos or more (this is guess).

Message: Not very long ago, the messages we used to mail messages, which took on an average about two weeks. We had to go to post offices to do so. If we wanted to send them faster within two days or so, we used to send them by telegram. Again, we had to go to the telegram office to do so. Today, we from home can send an email and it is instant delivery. In olden days, the messages were sent verbally through messengers. Then these messengers carried a written letters (risala) and these messenger were then able to read these messages to the recipients, thus giving them a written record.

Languages and Grammar. Same thing happened to the languages. Before, the Holy Quran was reveled, the Arabic Grammar was there in oral form. Rasul Allah Mohammad (pbuh) taught Imam Ali (as) the written grammar. Imam Ali taught this written grammar to his trusted students, including a special one called abu Aswad. After the death of Imam Ali, his students especially his student abu Aswad put the grammar in the Holy Quran, based on the memorization of the Holy Quran.

Here is a Wikipedia artice on Arabic diacritics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_diacritics

Now again the history is being changed and the kabeth Muawiyah is being given the credit for it:

According to tradition, the first to commission a system of harakat was Muawiyah I of the Umayyad dynasty, when he ordered Ziad Ibn Abih, his wāli in Basra (governed 664–673), to find someone who would devise a method to transcribe correct reading. Ziad Ibn Abih, in turn, appointed Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali for the task. Abu al-Aswad devised a system of dots to signal the three short vowels (along with their respective allophones) of Arabic. This system of dots predates the ʾiʿǧām, dots used to distinguish between different consonants.

See how these kabeth Wahhabis change the history. I have attempted to answer your question, but I am not willing to go into arguments.

Wa'Salam.

[alimohamad40]

salaam

as you would witness many people lack knowledge in this.

the quraan that we have today is not one version... We have a few slightly different versions called Qiraat so which one is the true one?

this in itself is a proof that the copy of the quraan that we have in our hands is not perfect.

sunnies also have many claims of tahreef but they always attribute it to Naskh altilawa or 7oroof al sab3a

in the shia belief both of those are regarded Ta7reef (alteration)

if you are interested i can explain to you about naskh and qiraat and 7roof but in general if the quran came out to be altered this doesn't effect our belief in any way because Usool addeen are not by imitation

salaam

Salaam

A better response would be that tahreef is a minority opinion.

I personally think it has great ramifications on belief, without going into the details.

Incidentally I was actually speaking to a scholar (whose name I wont mention) recently about this subject and he the holds the opinion that belief in alteration is kufr. I mentioned the names of a couple of Shia scholars who may have held that belief and he insisted that it is kufr because the Quran is the foundation of Islam. I mention this event because we often get the impression that no Shia scholar attributes kufr to the belief in alteration. He also said that the belief in alteration originates from Sunni Islam.

Quraan is not the foundation of islam . only for akhbaries it is but for Usoollies they prohibit the imitation in Usool addeen

prohibition of imitation means to prohibit the imitation of anyone and anything including the quraan.

this means if we didnt have the quran it wouldn't effect usool addeen in any way

Tawheed will stay, justice of god, day of return, Isma of the messengers ETC

people who say the quran is perfect ???? Qiraat itself is a proof that there are minor alterations...

i give you an example and you can present that example to that takfiry scholar of yours.

Say to him. Asim al kufy was the teacher of Hafs and and Shu3ba

So Hafs and shu3ba both claimed to have narrated Asims version of the quraan right?

so how come Shu3ba and Hafs also differed between eachother?

Edited September 16, 2011 by alimohamad40

[Waiting for HIM]

Salam, let's don't speak out of our own ignorance about potential tahreef in Quran and what not.

Aqa Mehdi Puya has a lengthy discussion in the beginning of his tafseer about the Shia and Sunni view of the potential tahreef in Quran. The jest of it is, it is in fact Sunni's sahabas and tabe'een who used to believe in the tahreef in Quran. Sunnis scholars still believe in a whole lots of ayaat in Quran to be abrogated and are not in use now. (Ayat about khums is one of the many Sunnis believe as useless).

Shia belief in the unity and authentication and its completeness has always been non wavering because after all it was something which was written in the time of Prophet (sawaw), Imam Ali (as) was the writer and later gatherer of the Quran. The Quran Imam Ali (as) presented and Osman and his jahil gang burned was the one which Imam (as) had compiled according to the tarteel (in the sequence it was revealed). Just this reason we Muslims should send tabarra and lanat on Osman (la) and his followers that they destroyed such a literary work of Islamic Text compiled by none other than the one who had witnessed the wahi many times.

[a believer]

(bismillah)

(salam)

I found the following article intriguing and saw the need to share it in this topic.

http://www.islamicinsights.com/religion/religion/compilation-and-infallibility-of-the-qur-an.html

The article is a summary of a few chapters of a book which can be found on:

http://www.al-islam.org/tahrif_quran/15.htm

[Replicant]

If some Shia scholars of the past believed in distortion of the Quran, many would say that's kufr. So books of narrations by these scholars - would they be reliable?

I thought we only take narrations from Muslims?

[This was asked to me by a Sunni]

[Muhammed Ali]

this means if we didnt have the quran it wouldn't effect usool addeen in any way

Tawheed will stay, justice of god, day of return, Isma of the messengers ETC

Wa alaikum salaam.

No doubt there are minor differences in the qira'at of the Quran but that doesn't affect the authenticity of the Quran as a whole.

If we didn't have the Quran there would be less reason to be muslim (indeed there would be fewer muslims) and the Islam of today would have been a flawed religion like Christianity. The Quran has protected Islam for centuries, because if it wasn't for the Quran people would have fabricated greater lies against Allah and the religion and there would have been no strong furqan to repel the fabrications.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Muhammed Ali

[alimohamad40]

Wa alaikum salaam.

No doubt there are minor differences in the qira'at of the Quran but that doesn't affect the authenticity of the Quran as a whole.

If we didn't have the Quran there would be less reason to be muslim (indeed there would be fewer muslims) and the Islam of today would have been a flawed religion like Christianity. The Quran has protected Islam for centuries, because if it wasn't for the Quran people would have fabricated greater lies against Allah and the religion and there would have been no strong furqan to repel the fabrications.

salaam

if the quran we have is not perfect doesnt mean we can not use it as a constitution because its still the strongest text in authenticity

the bitter truth is that islam today is no different than Christianity and the prophet already foretold this ...

he said " the Jews of my nation and the Christians of my nation" referring to people who give the descriptions of god to the created or those who give the description of the created to god

the prophet also said to the muslims: "that you will follow the footsteps of the Christians and the Jews and youll do exatly the same as them"

so its not a surprise if they wreck the quraan as the christians and jews wrecked the books they had

if there was no quraan there is no less reason to be muslim at all. Islam is a universal ideology built into the innate of the human,

and yes I agree with you that quraan has been a judge between the muslims sects for centuries but any truth must be said

Allah is the truth and he says " witness for the truth even if its against yourself"

if you investigate the qiraat the differences are not always minor but some differences even change the meanings and some versions have additional words and so on so why on earth would we do takfeer to a person who believes the Duran is altered?

does that mean we do takfeer or shu3ba and qaloon and warsh and alkisaei because they have a different version of the quran?

also its common knowledge that the order of the quraan has been changed ,,, if you think that's not altering ? the order is not important ?

Edited September 17, 2011 by alimohamad40

[Bassam Zawadi]

Salam Yahya

Your Imam here, actually admits this is tantamount to Tahreef since the Goat ate the ayaat after the Death of the Prophet. I've underlined where he said this, furthermore he states the Shias probably fabricated this hadith, which shows he didnt trust the Science of Rijaal that the Sunnis were peddling. (al-Mabsoot, volume 5, page 134)

When Al Sarkhasi said “أ مَّا حَدِيثُ عَائِشَةَ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهَا - فَضَعِيفٌ جِدًّا؛ ” he wasn’t referring to the hadeeth of the goat, but to this hadeeth:

وفي حديث عمرة عن عائشة - رضي الله عنهما - قالت : كان فيما أنزل في القرآن عشر رضعات معلومات يحرمن فنسخ بخمس رضعات معلومات يحرمن كان ذلك مما يتلى بعد رسول الله - صلى الله عليه و سلم

What was Al Sarkhasi’s difficulty with this statement of Aisha? His difficulty was that Aisha said that a verse which was supposed to have been abrogated in terms of recitation was still being recited even after the death of the Prophet. He found it difficult to believe why this was the case. And if that was the case then why can’t we recite it today? (I believe other scholars adequately explained this as I showed over here http://www.call-to-m...se_on_suckling_) So he therefore believed that this narration was weak for stating this and not that he denied the idea of the suckling verse being abrogated.

THEN he goes on to say:

وذكر في الحديث فدخل داجن البيت فأكله وهذا يقوي قوله الروافض الذين يقولون كثير من القرآن ذهب بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فلم يثبته الصحابة

Now there is two ways to understand this comment of his.

Either he is connecting these two hadeeths together (i.e. the one he declared weak of Aisha where she said that the ten suckling verse continued to be recited after the Prophet’s death and now this hadeeth regarding the goat) and saying that they are a deadly combination.

Or he actually believes that the idea of a goat eating the Qur’anic manuscript implies Tahreef. So that is his own personal ijtihaad and he is clearly wrong. The narration doesn’t say that the verse was lost forever because the goat ate it. Did the goat also eat the memories of the companions who memorized those verses? Was that the only hard copy that the several scribes of the Prophet had those verses written on? Plus, we already know what the verse of stoning is, despite its recital abrogation and despite a goat eating up a paper that contained the verse.

Also, to go on and make a general comment “which shows he didnt trust the Science of Rijaal that the Sunnis were peddling.” is surprising coming from you Yahya, taking into account that you are studying hadeeth sciences. There are too many scholars out there who would disagree with hadiths that other scholars viewed as authentic either in terms of isnaad or matn. No one has ever understood that this shows that they don’t trust the science of Rijaal of the Sunnis. On the contrary, it only shows that they differed in it’s application sometimes on certain hadiths, but not that they disregarded the ENTIRE SCIENCE!

Heck, in Sunni hadeeth sciences you have the muta'akhireen and mutaqadimeen approaches and they actually have significant differences with each other. Yet, despite that no one has seen that as anyone rejecting the science of the Rijaal of the Sunnis.

Surely there are Shia scholars who have disagreed with each other on the authenticity of certain narrations right???

Also, the goat narration found in Sunan Ibn Majah has been criticized by some scholars because of the عن and presence of Muhammad ibn Ishaq in the chain. Al Sarkhasi happened to critique the narration from the point of matn because he understood it in a certain way, while others have not. That’s not a big deal. We choose whose arguments are stronger.

It’s not like Al Sarkhasi went on to promote the idea of textual Tahreef in the Qur’an or something.

Damn your other Mufassir, al-Alusi, says exactly the same... It's a lie from the Atheists. Showing he was embarassed by it and thought it was tahreef, he also didnt care much for your hadith sciences either. (Ruh al-Ma'ani, vol. 11, p. 140)

Yahya, read what Al Alusi said carefully:

وأما كون الزيادة كانت في صحيفة عند عائشة فأكلها الداجن فمن وضع الملاحدة وكذبهم في أن ذلك ضاع بأكل الداجن من غير نسخ كذا في الكشاف

Pay attention to the words في أن ذلك ضاع بأكل الداجن من غير نسخ.

What is he saying? He is saying that the claim that the verse BECAME LOST and that it was lost NOT DUE TO ABROGATION is the lie. That is what he is condemning Yahya.

You could refer to Al Alusi’s commentary and simply read the few sentences before this one and see that Al Alusi accepted recital abrogation.

Imam al-Qurtubi, your Mufassir equally feels just as embarassed and blames this on Shi'as and Mulhids (Atheists) showing he thought it was Tahreef also and probably didnt trust your hadith sciences much. (Tafseer al Qurtubi, vol. 14, page 113)

Al Qurtubi must have meant the same thing as Al Alusi. Because shortly before Al Qurtubi said what you cited of him he said this regarding the verse of stoning:

وأن آية الرجم رفع لفظها

So that shows that Al Qurtubi believed that the verse of stoning was abrogated in terms of recitation. Furthermore, Al Qurtubi cites what the verse of stoning is:

وكانت فيها آية الرجم : ( الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة نكالا من الله والله عزيز حكيم )

So Al Qurtubi is showing us that we know what the verse of stoning is.

Soooo…… Al Qurtubi wouldn’t have thought that a goat eating the verse of stoning and suckling would result in tahreef (since we already know what the verse of stoning is just as Al Qurtubi showed us). No, rather he is responding (just like how Al Alusi did) to those who said that this verse was lost due to reasons not related to recital abrogation. I believe that is the responsible way to understand Al Qurtubi's statement.

Salam,

Bassam

Edited September 18, 2011 by Bassam Zawadi

[Lanatin]

Bassam Zawadi what are you doing on a shia website. Aren't you the one who habitually slanders shias and once said we believe in an altered Quran on answering-christianity?

[aladdin]

Both Zawadi and Qureshi claim to be Muslims. Zawadi a Sunni Muslim and Qureshi an ex-Muslim. They debated for long time, and in rebuttal too, if the first Surah Fatiha is part of the Holy Quran or not.

They both don't know that the Holy Quran confirms that the first Surah Fatiha is part of the Holy Quran.

015.087 وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَاكَ سَبْعًا مِنَ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنَ الْعَظِيمَ

015.087 And We have bestowed upon thee the Seven Oft-repeated (verses) and the Grand Qur'an.

Both of them amateurs, however Zawadi sure left the impression that the Holy Quran is not perfectly preserved.

InshaAllah, I will post more later.

[alimohamad40]

brother bassam

all these naskh altilawa and the remaining of the rule are exactly the same as the tahreef (alteration)

they are excuses used by sunnies to justify all the enormous number of claims of alteration

god does not change the text while he keeps the law....??? why would he do some thing like that? would he cancel the document but keep the law running ? does he want to confuse the people?

what about the 6 7oroof that uthman burnt? dont the sunnies say that all the 7 7oroof are parts of the quraan ?

so uthman burnt 6/7 of the original quraan and you do not regard that as alteration?

what is alteration? what about slight alteration?

do you believe all qiraat are right ?

And the hadeeth about the nursing which is narrated by the wife of the prophet aisha is in saheeh muslim so for many sunnies if you doubt it its like doubting tawheed and the existence of god

the hadeeth says : " it used to be 10 suckles which got abrogated to 5 and that remained part of the quraan and continued to be read after the death of the prophet"

now show me in today's quraan where is that verse about nursing five times ?

Both Zawadi and Qureshi claim to be Muslims. Zawadi a Sunni Muslim and Qureshi an ex-Muslim. They debated for long time, and in rebuttal too, if the first Surah Fatiha is part of the Holy Quran or not.

They both don't know that the Holy Quran confirms that the first Surah Fatiha is part of the Holy Quran.

Both of them amateurs, however Zawadi sure left the impression that the Holy Quran is not perfectly preserved.

InshaAllah, I will post more later.

does this verse prove that fatiha is part of the quran?

its saying we have given you " sab3 al mathany" AND the Quraan

Edited September 19, 2011 by alimohamad40

[aladdin]

does this verse prove that fatiha is part of the quran?

its saying we have given you " sab3 al mathany" AND the Quraan

Salam brother,

Here is the tafsir from Pooya/Ali, you can look up any tafsir and you will find the same:

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 15:87]

http://quran.al-islam.org/

Refer to the commentary of al Fatihah on pages 9 to 11.

The seven oft-repeated verses of al Fatihah sum up the whole teaching of the glorious Quran, and constitute the most precious gift to a Muslim.

The seven oft-repeated verses of surah al-Fatiha, we Muslim recite in our daily prayers.

[twoblade]

what about the 6 7oroof that uthman burnt? dont the sunnies say that all the 7 7oroof are parts of the quraan ?

so uthman burnt 6/7 of the original quraan and you do not regard that as alteration?

He talked about that in his debate which was posted in this thread...

[Philip]

(salam)

Sahih International

This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah - 2:2

Sahih International

That is [deserved by them] because Allah has sent down the Book in truth. And indeed, those who differ over the Book are in extreme dissension. 2:176

Sahih International

It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding. 3:7

Sahih International

Those to whom We have given the Scripture recognize it as they recognize their [own] sons. Those who will lose themselves [in the Hereafter] do not believe. 6:20

Sahih International

O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book. 5:15

Sahih International

[All] praise is [due] to Allah , who has sent down upon His Servant the Book and has not made therein any deviance. 18:1

Sahih International

Here you are loving them but they are not loving you, while you believe in the Scripture - all of it. And when they meet you, they say, "We believe." But when they are alone, they bite their fingertips at you in rage. Say, "Die in your rage. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of that within the breasts." 3:119

Sahih International

And you were not expecting that the Book would be conveyed to you, but [it is] a mercy from your Lord. So do not be an assistant to the disbelievers. 28:86

Sahih International

[This is] the revelation of the Book about which there is no doubt from the Lord of the worlds. 32:2

(salam)