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  
Thaqalyn

Bukhari And Muslim Think Quran Isn't Complete?!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Before Sunnis come to us with a weak hadith and say 'Look! The Shia believe the Quran is incomplete!'. First we should say, they are weak and were compiled by fallible people. We don't believe the Quran is incomplete. Then we should say 'How about these which you say are completely perfect?'(I'm only quoting from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim).

 

Umar ibn al Khattab said, Certainly Allah sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed him the Book. One of the revelations which came to him was the verse of stoning. We read it and understood it. The Messenger of God stoned and we stoned after him. I am concerned that if time goes on, some one may say ‘ By God we do not find the verse of stoning in the Book of God ‘; thus, the Muslims will deviate by neglecting a commandment the Almighty revealed. Al-Bukhari recorded in his Sahih, v8, pages 209-210

 

According to Umar, there was a verse of stoning revealed when we know there is no verse of stoning, and he's concerned that people will stop stoning because that bit is missing. 3 options here:1) Bukhari isn't sahih 2) Umar is a liar 3) the Quran is actually incomplete. It's obviously the first or the second.

 

If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that ‘Umar has added to the Qur’an extra (verses), I would have written the Verse al- Rajm (stoning to death of married adulterers) with my own hands. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol 9, p212.Here, Umar says he would have added the verse with his own hands if he wasn't afraid of the people (whole host of implications about the persona of Umar there, but that is a different topic).

 

Aisha said that the Qur’anic verse enjoining stoning for adultery was written on a leaf, but the leaf was accidentally eaten by a goat while the Prophet Muhammad was on his death-bed, and thus the verse was lost. Sahih Muslim, the book of nursing (al-Ridha), v10 pages 29 (Arabic).

We used to read a Chapter from the Qur’an similar to Bara’ah in length and seriousness, but I forgot it. I can remember from the Chapter only the following words:Should a son of Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he should seek a third valley and nothing would fill Ibn Adam’s abdomen but the soil.Sahih Musllim Chapter CCCXCI, p500, Tradition #2286. 

 

If I were a Sunni and I read those ahadith, I would have to ponder as to whether these 'sahih' books are actually sahih- just a side note- the book of Nikah in Sahih Bukhari contains some shocking ahadith which are an insult to the Messenger (pbuh) and I will make an article about that inshallah. 

 

To conclude, Bukhari and Muslim think that that there was an ayah about stoning, a whole Surah the size of al Bar'ah is missing, and, oh, I almost forgot, Allah can't protect his holy book from a goat.

 

 

 

Edited by Thaqalyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know if the aHadith contradict the Quran, the Quran takes precedence no?

Correct, but if you are a Sunni, you 100% maintain that these books are completely authentic. That is the issue. How can they be authentic when they mock the book of Allah like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that isn't true. 

 

Well, maybe not all, but I would say the non-proto sunnis. Go look at their tv channels in the middle east and ask them. You will get that they are sahih because that is the view of their imams of the schools of thought.

 

Yes I know its from wiki, but check the source out:

 

Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and Muwatta Imam Malik.[1] In some circles, it is considered the most authentic book after the Quran.[2][3]

 

Also I got this from http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/

 

 

Imam Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet's (saw) death and worked extremely hard to collect his ahadeeth. Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Bukhari's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet(pbuh).

 

Bukhari (full name Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ibrahim bin al-Mughira al-Ja'fai) was born in 194 A.H. and died in 256 A.H. His collection of hadeeth is considered second to none. He spent sixteen years compiling it, and ended up with 2,602 hadeeth (9,082 with repetition). His criteria for acceptance into the collection were amongst the most stringent of all the scholars of ahadeeth.

 

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, maybe not all, but I would say the non-proto sunnis. Go look at their tv channels in the middle east and ask them. You will get that they are sahih because that is the view of their imams of the schools of thought.

 

Yes I know its from wiki, but check the source out:

 

Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and Muwatta Imam Malik.[1] In some circles, it is considered the most authentic book after the Quran.[2][3]

 

Also I got this from http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/

 

 

 

(wasalam)

 

 

I've asked a Sunni Hadith Scholar myself this very question, and he's response was they are considered Saheeh [all of them]. However, I have read and seen other Scholars disagreeing who are equally, and perhaps more knowledgable. 

 

Shi'a need to get over it and focus on our own ahadith. Majority of Shi'a don't even know the names of our four main Books but spend their time trying to prove Sunni's wrong. Its about time we give the polemics a rest and leave interfaith and sectarian dialogue to those who are qualified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Allamah al-Albani said it is not 100% authentic. Salafis' don't believe it is, although most Sunnis' do.

Although many remake Sahih versions have been made of other books by Allamah al-Albani, the majority didn't want him to make one of Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Allamah al-Albani said it is not 100% authentic. Salafis' don't believe it is, although most Sunnis' do.

Although many remake Sahih versions have been made of other books by Allamah al-Albani, the majority didn't want him to make one of Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari.

Yes, that is what I'm trying to get at brother, the mainstream believe it is completely authentic and without fault, and I am asking, how can they say that when both are clearly saying that parts of the Quran are missing? That is the question, and so far not a single Sunni has said anything regarding this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunnis with nothing to say? Normally it takes a while to beat them in these debates but this one is something else...

Have you ever watched zakir naik and William Campbell's debates about the authenticity of Quran and bible...don't you think dr William Campbell would have won the debate or even got an upper hand if there wasn't explanations for the above Hadith...smarty pants

Ps. I'm no supporter of zakir naik but when it comes to debating OTHER faiths we have to admit he rocks

Edited by Just the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The verse of Rajm (stoning) are in Shia books as well. 

 

Again, as I explained elsewhere, there are different categories of abrogation.  One category is a verse the application of which was abrogated but the verse itself is recited.  For example, the verse which says that one should not approach prayers while intoxicated.

 

The other category is a verse whose recitation was abrogated (we do not recite it so it is not in the Qur'an) but it's application is not (abrogated).  For example, the verse of stoning.

 

The third category is a verse whose recitation and application were abrogated.

Edited by muslim720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The verse of Rajm (stoning) are in Shia books as well.

Again, as I explained elsewhere, there are different categories of abrogation. One category is a verse the application of which was abrogated but the verse itself is recited. For example, the verse which says that one should not approach prayers while intoxicated.

The other category is a verse whose recitation was abrogated (we do not recite it so it is not in the Qur'an) but it's application is not (abrogated). For example, the verse of stoning.

The third category is a verse whose recitation and application were abrogated.

Jazakallah bro I've studied those Hadith thanks for your answer anyway....funny thing is this thaqalayn/haider geezer reminds of a certain somebody who was on here last year full of steam but left so suddenly!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)
(bismillah)

 

If I were a Sunni and I read those ahadith, I would have to ponder as to whether these 'sahih' books are actually sahih- just a side note- the book of Nikah in Sahih Bukhari contains some shocking ahadith which are an insult to the Messenger (pbuh) and I will make an article about that inshallah. 

 

To conclude, Bukhari and Muslim think that that there was an ayah about stoning, a whole Surah the size of al Bar'ah is missing, and, oh, I almost forgot, Allah can't protect his holy book from a goat.

Brother, I hope you realize we have multiple Sahih hadeeth (in al-Kaafi and Man Laa Yahduruh al-Faqih) that talk about the verse of stoning and how it is not in the current Qur'aan. The hadeeth are authentic by any scholar's standards, but we, as well as Sunnis, do not interpret those hadeeth to mean tahreef, rather it was abrograted, mainly a naskh al-Tilaawah, with the hukm staying in effect. Please brother, read our books very carefully before delving into Sunni-Shia discussions. 

 

 

Here are some of our scholars view on naskh (abrogation):

 

 

al-Tusi:

"And they differed in the method of abrogation in four ways:
1.) People Say: it is permitted to abrogation Hukm and tilaawah (recitation) but can (only abrogate) together (?)
2.) And Others say: It is permitted to abrogate Hukm without tilaawah (recitation)
3.) And Others say: It is permitted to abrogate the Qur’aan from LawH al-maHfoodh like the abrogation of a book from a previous book
4.) And the fourth group (says): It is permitted to abrogate tilaawah alone, and the Hukm alone, and them together – and this is SaHeeH (correct opinion) – and we indicated upon this, and the widespread corruption of types in Al-`Uddah fee Usool Al-Fiqh (Al-Toosi’s other Fiqh Book)"


Source:

Al-Toosi, Al-Tibyaan fee Tafseer Al-Qur'aan, vol. 1, pg. 392

 

al-Hillee:


“It is haraam to touch (verses that) abrogated the ruling specifically, without abrogation of tilaawah (recitation) specifically”


Source:

Al-Hillee, Qawaa'id Al-aHkaam, vol. 1, pg. 210

 

al-Rawandi:


“The Abrogation in law is of three types: abrogation of Hukm (judgment) without vocalization (recitation), abrogation of vocalization (recitation) without Hukm (judgment), and abrogation of both of them”

Source:
Al-Rawaandee, Fiqh Al-Qur'aan, vol. 1, pg. 204

 

 

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Brother, I hope you realize we have multiple Sahih hadeeth (in al-Kaafi and Man Laa Yahduruh al-Faqih) that talk about the verse of stoning and how it is not in the current Qur'aan. The hadeeth are authentic by any scholar's standards, but we, as well as Sunnis, do not interpret those hadeeth to mean tahreef, rather it was abrograted, mainly a naskh al-Tilaawah, with the hukm staying in effect. Please brother, read our books very carefully before delving into Sunni-Shia discussions.

Here are some of our scholars view on naskh (abrogation):

al-Tusi:

"And they differed in the method of abrogation in four directions:

1.) People Say: it is permitted to abrogation Hukm and tilaawah (recitation) but can (only abrogate) together (?)

2.) And Others say: It is permitted to abrogate Hukm without tilaawah (recitation)

3.) And Others say: It is permitted to abrogate the Qur’aan from LawH al-maHfoodh like the abrogation of a book from a previous book

4.) And the fourth group (says): It is permitted to abrogate tilaawah alone, and the Hukm alone, and them together – and this is SaHeeH (correct opinion) – and we indicated upon this, and the widespread corruption of types in Al-`Uddah fee Usool Al-Fiqh (Al-Toosi’s other Fiqh Book)"

  • Source:

  • Al-Toosi, Al-Tibyaan fee Tafseer Al-Qur'aan, vol. 1, pg. 392

al-Hillee:

“It is haraam to touch (verses that) abrogated the ruling specifically, without abrogation of tilaawah (recitation) specifically”

  • Source:

  • Al-Hillee, Qawaa'id Al-aHkaam, vol. 1, pg. 210

al-Rawandi:

“The Abrogation in law is of three types: abrogation of Hukm (judgment) without vocalization (recitation), abrogation of vocalization (recitation) without Hukm (judgment), and abrogation of both of them”

Source:

Al-Rawaandee, Fiqh Al-Qur'aan, vol. 1, pg. 204

(salam)

Brother this is the problem with both some Sunnis and some Shia they read something and without researching blindly give people misinformation and take this lightly...like as though it's no big deal...I hope this is a wake up call to thaqalayn/haider and his like from both sides (Sunni and Shia)

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jazakallah bro I've studied those Hadith thanks for your answer anyway....funny thing is this thaqalayn/haider geezer reminds of a certain somebody who was on here last year full of steam but left so suddenly!!!

And who exactly is this somebody that you are reminded of and why???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Brother, I hope you realize we have multiple Sahih hadeeth (in al-Kaafi and Man Laa Yahduruh al-Faqih) that talk about the verse of stoning and how it is not in the current Qur'aan. The hadeeth are authentic by any scholar's standards, but we, as well as Sunnis, do not interpret those hadeeth to mean tahreef, rather it was abrograted, mainly a naskh al-Tilaawah, with the hukm staying in effect. Please brother, read our books very carefully before delving into Sunni-Shia discussions. 

 

 

Here are some of our scholars view on naskh (abrogation):

 

 

al-Tusi:

"And they differed in the method of abrogation in four ways:

1.) People Say: it is permitted to abrogation Hukm and tilaawah (recitation) but can (only abrogate) together (?)

2.) And Others say: It is permitted to abrogate Hukm without tilaawah (recitation)

3.) And Others say: It is permitted to abrogate the Qur’aan from LawH al-maHfoodh like the abrogation of a book from a previous book

4.) And the fourth group (says): It is permitted to abrogate tilaawah alone, and the Hukm alone, and them together – and this is SaHeeH (correct opinion) – and we indicated upon this, and the widespread corruption of types in Al-`Uddah fee Usool Al-Fiqh (Al-Toosi’s other Fiqh Book)"

Source:

Al-Toosi, Al-Tibyaan fee Tafseer Al-Qur'aan, vol. 1, pg. 392

 

al-Hillee:

“It is haraam to touch (verses that) abrogated the ruling specifically, without abrogation of tilaawah (recitation) specifically”

Source:

Al-Hillee, Qawaa'id Al-aHkaam, vol. 1, pg. 210

 

al-Rawandi:

“The Abrogation in law is of three types: abrogation of Hukm (judgment) without vocalization (recitation), abrogation of vocalization (recitation) without Hukm (judgment), and abrogation of both of them”

Source:

Al-Rawaandee, Fiqh Al-Qur'aan, vol. 1, pg. 204

 

 

(salam)

 

Jazak Allah

 

My mistake

 

 

We used to read a Chapter from the Qur’an similar to Bara’ah in length and seriousness, but I forgot it. I can remember from the Chapter only the following words:Should a son of Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he should seek a third valley and nothing would fill Ibn Adam’s abdomen but the soil.Sahih Musllim Chapter CCCXCI, p500, Tradition #2286. 

 

Could some of the nawasib explain how that is not tahrif then? A whole chapter was abrogated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jazak Allah

My mistake

Could some of the nawasib explain how that is not tahrif then? A whole chapter was abrogated?

Nawasib???? Take a one way ticket to Oman and ask the ibadis then..I will explain this Hadith if you can explain to me in an honest way why you don't put the same charge on majlisi and kulyani for believing in tehreef quran...I can defend sahih Muslim can you defend majlisi and kulyani...I think not

I think before you start trying to debate you should at the very least learn about abrogation

Edited by Just the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

abrogation

 

A whole chapter can be abrogated? It's only specific verses as far as I know.

 

 

Nawasib????

 

Why are you talking to yourself?

Edited by Thaqalyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A whole chapter can be abrogated? It's only specific verses as far as I know.

Why are you talking to yourself?

"A whole chapter can be abrogated? It's only specific verses as far as I know."

Oh wow all of a sudden it's acceptable for you to accept a few verses were abrogated when not so long ago you were all guns blazing..wow...just wow

Like I said go and learn and when you're good and ready come back

"Why are you talking to yourself?"

Go learn basic English cuz I don't think you're aware of what a question mark actually means....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go learn basic English cuz I don't think you're aware of what a question mark actually means....

*because

 

 

Oh wow all of a sudden it's acceptable for you to accept a few verses were abrogated when not so long ago you were all guns blazing..wow...just wow

 

Indeed, "wow" -  I think you need to answer to the hadīth saying a huge chapter has gone missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*because

Indeed, "wow" - I think you need to answer to the hadīth saying a huge chapter has gone missing.

I won't respond to your first childish statement regarding "because" mr Johnny English

As for the Hadith I already told you I will do once you tell me what I asked previously

Edited by Just the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't respond to your first childish statement regarding "because" mr Johnny English

As for the Hadith I already told you I will do once you tell me what I asked previously

(salam)

(bismillah)

Its long discussion but i want clarification of these points.

1. Let us assume removal of a whole chapter of Quran was due to abrogation, then its admitted fact that Quran present has abrogating (Nasikh) and abrogated (Mansookh) both kind of verses then how they were removed from Quran as reported by Umer?

2. Is there any hadith where prophet pbuh said "Go and remove that verse which is being abrogated by such and such verse"? The answer is no therefore the argument put forward by Sunnis that these hadths in Sunni sources are only talking about Nasikh and Mansokh verses is totaly false, frivolous, baseless and without basic understanding of Quran which contain both Nasikh and Mansookh verses and it is not so that abrogated is removed from content of Quran.

Wallahu Alam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Hadith I already told you I will do once you tell me what I asked previously

 

About al Kulayni and al Majlisi, or abrogation of verses?

 

if it's the first, then Ok then we can talk. If it is the second, can whole chapters be abrogated (the size of Surat al Bara'ah)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you people take those who fought the Imaam of their time as Kaafir, we will then talk about Shaykh al-Kulaynee (r.a).

Right now, you people say;

- Denying a verse from the Holy Qur'aan is kufr'.

- Rebelling against the Imaam of your time is kufr'.

For the second one, the excuse is "ijtihaad and err". I ask, why can't the first one be the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About al Kulayni and al Majlisi, or abrogation of verses?

if it's the first, then Ok then we can talk. If it is the second, can whole chapters be abrogated (the size of Surat al Bara'ah)?

Excuse me but you're talking about a surah?? The number of verses in the quran are just over 6000 whereas as kulyani thought 17000 were missing....SEVENTEEN THOUSAND!!! Woah that like two and a half QURANS and you're crying about one surah....nice logic there friend

About al Kulayni and al Majlisi, or abrogation of verses?

if it's the first, then Ok then we can talk. If it is the second, can whole chapters be abrogated (the size of Surat al Bara'ah)?

Excuse me but you're talking about a surah?? The number of verses in the quran are just over 6000 whereas as kulyani and majlisi thought 17000 verses were missing....SEVENTEEN THOUSAND!!! Woah thats like two and a half QURANS and you're crying about one surah which we have answers for.....nice logic there friend

Once you people take those who fought the Imaam of their time as Kaafir, we will then talk about Shaykh al-Kulaynee (r.a).

Right now, you people say;

- Denying a verse from the Holy Qur'aan is kufr'.

- Rebelling against the Imaam of your time is kufr'.

For the second one, the excuse is "ijtihaad and err". I ask, why can't the first one be the same?

Switch your brain on kid you have a lot to learn...if you thinks it's ok to deny a verse by using the excuse of ijtehad then good luck on judgement day

Once you people take those who fought the Imaam of their time as Kaafir, we will then talk about Shaykh al-Kulaynee (r.a).

Right now, you people say;

- Denying a verse from the Holy Qur'aan is kufr'.

- Rebelling against the Imaam of your time is kufr'.

For the second one, the excuse is "ijtihaad and err". I ask, why can't the first one be the same?

Switch your brain on kid you have a lot to learn...if you think it's ok to deny a verse by using the excuse of ijtehad then good luck on judgement day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember I went to a masjid years ago and asked if they have copies of the Qur'an to give out to a couple of missionaries that happened to knock on our door.  They only came back to collect the copies of the Qur'an.  But they never returned for further discussions.

 

Nevertheless, one of the board members (at the masjid) said that they were running low on Qur'an.  When I inquired, he said that someone donated an entire shipment of Qur'ans but when they started reading one of the copies, they found a little error (either a verse or word was missing....something).  They ended up getting rid of the entire shipment.

 

So I find this "I am okay with one verse being abrogated but one entire chapter is too much" notion ridiculous.  If a Qur'an is tampered, it is tampered.  It is qualitative, not quantitative!

Edited by muslim720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me but you're talking about a surah?? The number of verses in the quran are just over 6000 whereas as kulyani thought 17000 were missing....SEVENTEEN THOUSAND!!! Woah that like two and a half QURANS and you're crying about one surah....nice logic there friend

Excuse me but you're talking about a surah?? The number of verses in the quran are just over 6000 whereas as kulyani and majlisi thought 17000 verses were missing....SEVENTEEN THOUSAND!!! Woah thats like two and a half QURANS and you're crying about one surah which we have answers for.....nice logic there friend

Switch your brain on kid you have a lot to learn...if you thinks it's ok to deny a verse by using the excuse of ijtehad then good luck on judgement day

Switch your brain on kid you have a lot to learn...if you think it's ok to deny a verse by using the excuse of ijtehad then good luck on judgement day

LOL Double Standards much? What is the fiqh' law on both of these actions according to your sect?! KUFR'! No double standards. You use the excuse of ijtihaad' too much... and it backfires :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL Double Standards much? What is the fiqh' law on both of these actions according to your sect?! KUFR'! No double standards. You use the excuse of ijtihaad' too much... and it backfires :-)

The whole thing began thus that we and the Syrians met in an encounter although we believe in one and the same Allah and the same Prophet, and our message in Islam is the same. We did not want them to add anything in the belief in Allah or in acknowledging His Messenger (Allah bless him and his descendants) nor did they want us to add any such thing. In fact, there was complete unity except that we differed on the question of `Uthman's blood while we were free of responsibility for it. We suggested to them to appease the situation by calming the temporary irritation and pacifying the people till matters settled down and stabilized when we would gain strength to put matters right.

Nahj ul balagah letter 58

Now.........YOU tell me whether it's ok to do ijtehad regarding quran

Edited by Just the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me but you're talking about a surah?? The number of verses in the quran are just over 6000 whereas as kulyani thought 17000 were missing

 

 

Although Allamah al Majlisi said it is reliable, it isn't. Nice try:

 

http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/09/hadeeth-17000-verses-in-quraan-saheeh.html

 

Plus, Sheikh al Kulayni stated very clearly that anything in his book is to abandoned if it contradicts the Qur'an.

 

So now that I have explained this hadīth, you explain the hadīth in sahīh Muslim, which is supposedly perfect, saying that a whole surah has been removed : )

LOL Double Standards much?

 

Precisely - Muawiyah kills thousand, curses Imam Ali (as) from the pulpits but 'Ijtahada and he erred'

 

Allamah al Majlisi - Kafir Majoosi zindeeq and all the rest of it.

Edited by Thaqalyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although Allamah al Majlisi said it is reliable, it isn't. Nice try:

http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/09/hadeeth-17000-verses-in-quraan-saheeh.html

Plus, Sheikh al Kulayni stated very clearly that anything in his book is to abandoned if it contradicts the Qur'an.

So now that I have explained this hadīth, you explain the hadīth in sahīh Muslim, which is supposedly perfect, saying that a whole surah has been removed : )

Precisely - Muawiyah kills thousand, curses Imam Ali (as) from the pulpits but 'Ijtahada and he erred'

Allamah al Majlisi - Kafir Majoosi zindeeq and all the rest of it.

The Hadith is authentic 3 of your top scholars can't have got it wrong and brother Nader got it right....that's just ridiculous..I have the upmost respect for brother Nader but I disagree with him here....

Now...coming to your point where you have to reject this Hadith because it contradicts the book of Allah swt then I guess you skimmed past the part where majlisi commented on the Hadith...

""The khabar (hadeeth) is SaHeeH and it is obvious that this khabar (hadeeth) and other SaHeeH ones like it are clear about the Qur'aan being shortened and changed, and in my opinion, this is mutaawatir in meaning, and discarding these narrations would lead us to rejecting all akhbaar (narrations) in general."

If you had an ounce of knowledge about Hadith science then you would understand what majlisi means.

So simply put you haven't refuted a thing and your argument of "you can reject sahih Hadith" just holds no weight.....nice try better luck next time...

At the bare minimum I think it's safe to say majlisi believed the quran was shortened etc

What ijtehad about Quran are you talking about, about which verse? I had like to know. Thanks.

Brother dabeast313 believes you can reject a verse of the quran and use the excuse of ijtehad as an excuse..I know this isn't a Shia belief this is from himself I'm just trying to correct him Edited by Just the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hadith is authentic 3 of your top scholars can't have got it wrong and brother Nader got it right....that's just ridiculous..I have the upmost respect for brother Nader but I disagree with him here....

 

lol that's a different hadīth which is about supposed abrogation. Your talking about the 17000 verses one! lol.

 

 

""The khabar (hadeeth) is SaHeeH and it is obvious that this khabar (hadeeth) and other SaHeeH ones like it are clear about the Qur'aan being shortened and changed, and in my opinion, this is mutaawatir in meaning, and discarding these narrations would lead us to rejecting all akhbaar (narrations) in general."

 

People are fallible and that's the whole point - he got it wrong and the hadīth is not sahīh and the link shows that. He is not some sort of blind hujjah like you take upon yourselves for Bukhari and Muslim!

 

 

If you had an ounce of knowledge about Hadith science then you would understand what majlisi means.

 

He views the reports as mutawatir but so what? Is he some sort of infallible hujjah?

 

At the bare minimum I think it's safe to say majlisi believed the quran was shortened etc

 

I never denied that, but I said that the hadīth is not sahīh.

 

Shall we open up the other Sihah al Sittah? There's a hadīth where Umar says the original Quran has 1,250,000 words!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol that's a different hadīth which is about supposed abrogation. Your talking about the 17000 verses one! lol.

People are fallible and that's the whole point - he got it wrong and the hadīth is not sahīh and the link shows that. He is not some sort of blind hujjah like you take upon yourselves for Bukhari and Muslim!

He views the reports as mutawatir but so what? Is he some sort of infallible hujjah?

I never denied that, but I said that the hadīth is not sahīh.

Shall we open up the other Sihah al Sittah? There's a hadīth where Umar says the original Quran has 1,250,000 words!

"lol that's a different hadīth which is about supposed abrogation. Your talking about the 17000 verses one! lol."

Are you feeling alright??? No really..read the link again and again and again

"People are fallible and that's the whole point - he got it wrong and the hadīth is not sahīh and the link shows that. He is not some sort of blind hujjah like you take upon yourselves for Bukhari and Muslim!"

Like I said I don't want to dwell on whether the Hadith is sahih or not I'm more concerned with majlisi's comments regarding this hadeeth...if you had bothered reading them...

"He is not some sort of blind hujjah like you take upon yourselves for Bukhari and Muslim!"

Thank god for that!!!!

"He views the reports as mutawatir but so what? Is he some sort of infallible hujjah?"

I think you're missing the part where he believes in shortening of quran etc..even infallibility has it's limits (sigh)...

Open up whatever you like but let's get past majlisi first

Edited by Just the truth

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...