Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni

Abul Hussain Hassani · July 26, 2014

(bismillah)

(salam)

This is an invitation from Farid to knowledgeable members of Shiachat (or any other Shia forum/site) for a debate about the authenticity and completeness of the Quran according to Shia and Sunni Madhabs.

Debate format and other details will be provided once you accept the debate.

Debate Topic: Authenticity and completeness of Quran in the Shia and Sunni Madhabs

Debate Venue: Popeye's chicken

Edited November 3, 2014 by Abu Tufayl

**Ibn Al-Shahid** · July 26, 2014

(bismillah)
(salam)

This is an invitation from Farid to knowledgeable members of Shiachat (or any other Shia forum/site) for a debate about the authenticity and completeness of the Quran according to Shia and Sunni Madhabs.

Debate format and other details will be provided once you accept the debate.

Debate Topic: Authenticity and completeness of Quran in the Shia and Sunni Madhabs

Debate Venue: Popeye's Chicken

I suggest teaching your members some respect then opening up a forum for debate.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Abu Tufayl

**Ethics** · July 26, 2014

The Collection and Preservation of the Qur'an

RationalDeen · July 26, 2014

The Collection and Preservation of the Qur'an

His father confirms tahreef.

**Ethics** · July 26, 2014

His father confirms tahreef.

Ha! If you watched the lecture you would actually know his father did not and doesnt not believe in tahrif. Its very clear that you resort to treachery and deceitful lies. To prove your honesty I ask you to simply provide his full lecture. Just a simple request. IF he does believe in tahrif of the physical verses and not the interpretation, then it will be clear in his full lecture, no need to be afraid of being proved wrong if you are telling the truth :)

http://youtu.be/bn12aD8hs0I?t=30m25s

(bismillah)
I asked Sayyid Murtadha's grandson about this, this video is misleading. Sayyid Murtadha Qazwini does not believe in physical tahreef of the Qur'an, he believes that the interpretation has been tampered with it...which no one disagrees with.
As to all the narrations about Tahreef, they are not necessarily tahreef in physical text. Such as the Imam [as] adding tafseer into recitation (something Ibn Abbas is noted to have done, too) as well as things relating to tahreef of tafseer/taweel.
We do not hold Tahreef to be kufr, in any case. Their Islam is maintained (they uphold the Usool and Furu al-deen), though they hold an incorrect belief.
في امان الله

Edited July 26, 2014 by PureEthics

kbsquare · July 26, 2014

(salam)

It's quite ironic how there has been a debate on tahref for the past few days here: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235023988-kamal-haydari-tahreef-of-quran/page-8#entry2723230

Now, Mr. Farid and Co. want to have a debate on tahref on their forum. Hmmmm, one can only wonder.

(wasalam)

.equilibrium. · July 26, 2014

(salam)
It's quite ironic how there has been a debate on tahref for the past few days here: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235023988-kamal-haydari-tahreef-of-quran/page-8#entry2723230
Now, Mr. Farid and Co. want to have a debate on tahref on their forum. Hmmmm, one can only wonder.
(wasalam)

What are you implying?

kbsquare · July 26, 2014

What are you implying?

I'm not implying anything. I just find it very odd.

Ali.20 · July 27, 2014

The posts on TwelverShia.net can only show the ignorance and hatred that drives a person to ignore some aspects in favor of others just to prove that the other is wrong. Like his last post about the Tahrif. I refuted it in an hour or two. The Nasibi plagiarizes so much and that is his tool, and let him use it freely as embarrassing as it is. That day he posted about the reliability of the Teachers (a topic already refuted) and he just had to translate from BahrainForums.

----------------------------------------

علي.20

It is more than hilarious to accuse the Shia of Tahrif narrations when Ahlal Sunnah themselves use the same excuses for their own hadiths. Let’s start with explaining what the narrations meant:

علي بن الحكم ، عن هشام بن سالم ، عن أبي عبد الله ( عليه السلام ) قال إن القرآن الذي جاء به جبرئيل ( عليه السلام ) إلى محمد صلى الله عليه وآله سبعة عشر ألف آية.

First, the narration was in the chapter called al-Nawadir. It means the irregularities of hadiths he collected which should not be taken into account, since they are out of the norm. They are more like the Al-Albani’s Weak Collection, except that they are not weak. However, you forgot to mention they were in that chapter, and that makes sense because that means Al-Kulayni does not believe in the narration.

Second, this narration only has different variations, implying that there is something wrong which you did not catch. Why could not there be all the same hadiths but the same meanings? Because one has to be wrong. It is this one. Al-Faydh Al-Kashani says a hadith which has only seven thousand, close to today’s 6346 verses count. The ten was probably added from either the printing or the narrators themselves. It could also mean that whatever revealed on Muhammad excluding the Quran could have equaled to more than 17,000 verses. Finally, it is only one narration in such that it cannot be believed in, as in contrast to let’s say Hadith al-Thaqalayn. In al-Ittiqan 1/242, it says:

أخرج الطبراني عن عمر بن الخطاب ، قال : «القرآن ألف ألف وسبعة وعشرون ألف حرف

In this narration, Umar says that the Quran contains a thousand of a thousand and seventeen-thousand letters. Surely, a thousand of a thousand is a million, plus seventeen-thousand equals a million and seventeen-thousand letters. Surely, the Quran only has 323671 letters, and what Umar said was not even a strand of hair close to the true number. Even if the narration was weak, Al-Suyuti surprisingly commented on that it meant it was done as Naksh.

However, even I won’t believe in such. No matter it was sahih or weak, al-Dhahabi automatically ignored that and instead declared it invalid. So do we.

Third, al-Majlisi was wrong when commenting on the narration and here is why. One: Compared to the other narrations, this narration would be invalid, and it would only be valid if the other ones did not exist. Unfortunately, al-Majlisi did not notice that. Two: He said that there are many sahih narrations that say Quran is added to or subtracted from, and that is not right because they are only few narrations saying so out of all of our books. This opinion was supported by Al-Mufid and Al-Murtadha. Three: We can’t say that al-Majlisi believed in the Tahrif, since in the Bihar he agreed with Al-Mufid on that Quran was the same as revealed and as in now. (That is in volume 92 page 75). He even copied exactly what al-Mufid said.

أبو علي الأشعري عن محمد بن عبد الجبار عن صفوان عن إسحاق بن عمار عن أبي بصير عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام، قال: نزل القرآن أربعة أرباع، ربع فينا وربع في عدونا وربع أمثال وربع فرائض وأحكام.

Clearly, people are trying to play with this hadith against the Shia. There is nothing, however, wrong it in it. It is as analogous as Imams are to the Prophets. Prophets make up so much of the Quran not by name but rather what they have done. The same is here: The Imamate, the wilayat, and the bara’a. Here, it is more of take-into-account than of dividing the Quran by 200 pages. Also, some of the Revelations were for the Tafsir, so this could have been why. And I ask the Nasibi, "Where is the place where the words were changed?" More explanations are available.

علي بن إبراهيم عن أبيه عن ابن أبي عمير عن عمر بن أذينة عن بريد بن معاوية، قال: تلا أبو جعفر عليه السلام: أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولي الأمر منكم فإن خفتم تنازعا في الأمر فردوه إلى الله وإلى الرسول وإلى أولي الأمر منكم، ثم قال: كيف يأمر بطاعتهم ويرخص في منازعتهم، إنما قال ذلك للمأمورين الذين قيل لهم: أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول.

Here, the Nasibi of course did not include al-Majlisi’s opinion on this. Two words that can render so many of those hadiths’ understanding 360 degrees around, in both Sunni and Shia books. They are in Arabic “Hakadha Nazalat,” or revealed like this. This phrase means that the Tafseer of whatever verse revealed to the Prophet by Gabriel was like this. The Quran does not only get revealed to the Prophet; it is also explained to him (pbuhahf). Here is a documental proof:

محمد بن يحيى عن أحمد بن محمد عن ابن فضال عن الرضا عليه السلام فأنزل عليه سكينته على رسوله وأيده بجنود لم تروها، قلت: هكذا نقرؤها وهكذا تنزيلها.

This hadith is so funnily misunderstood too. The narration says “And it was revealed on him” and the following was the part of the verse. The Nasibi who does not know the Arabic grammar instead took the whole thing as a verse, and that is partly due to his hatred which can drive to such illogic. Then, the meaning of “Naqrauha” means the pronunciation, while “Tanzeeluha” means Tanzeel, which we explained before as meaning. There is a similar narration to this in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah, in the book of Al-Bahr Al-Muhit by the renowned Abu Hayyan. He says, explaining the exact verse on 5/422,

وَالضَّمِيرُ فِي عَلَيْهِ عَائِدٌ عَلَى صَاحِبِهِ، قَالَهُ حَبِيبُ بْنُ أَبِي ثَابِتٍ، أَوْ عَلَى الرَّسُولِ قَالَهُ الْجُمْهُورُ، أَوْ عَلَيْهِمَا. وَأَفْرَدَهُ لِتَلَازُمِهِمَا، وَيُؤَيِّدُهُ أَنَّ فِي مُصْحَفِ حَفْصَةَ: فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِمَا وَأَيَّدَهُمَا.

So is this Tahrif, or did the Nasibi dig a trap for himself to fall in while hiding the topic of the Qira’at of the Quran? And even worse, we found out there is a different Mushaf of the Quran called “Mishaf Hafsa.” How did Ibn Hayyan have access to it if it is not even in existence now? Did the Sunnis depreciate this Mushaf enough to make it cease of its own existence?

Now it is the next narration (which I will only type one of its kind):

عدة من أصحابنا عن أحمد بن محمد عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر عن ثعلبة بن ميمون عن زرارة، قال: سألت أبا جعفر عليه سلام عن قول الله عز وجل: وكان رسولا نبيا، ما الرسول وما النبي؟ قال: النبي الذي يرى في منامه ويسمع صوت ولا يعاين الملك والرسول الذي يسمع الصوت ويرى في المنام ويعاين الملك، قلت: الإمام ما منزلته؟ قال: يسمع الصوت ولا يرى ولا يعاين الملك، ثم تلا هذه الآية: وما أرسلنا من قبلك من رسول ولا نبي ولا محدث.

First, those narrations are also in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah, so the Imamis are not alone in this:

One: Ibn Abi al-Hatim’s Tafsir:

عن سعيد بن إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن بن عوف قال: إن فيما أنزل الله: وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِكَ مِنْ رَسُول وَلا نبي ولا محدث فنسخت محدث والمحدثون: صاحب يس ولقمان وهو من آل فرعون، وصاحب موسى

Now to the explanation: Clearly, this is a Tafsir of the verse, and this can be supported further not only by the Shia Tafsirs, but by the Sunni Tafsirs too. Then he even goes deeper explaining who the Muhaddithin are! Here is what al-Tahhawi said in his book Sharh Mashakil Al-Athar (he first presented the narration).

وَقَدْ رُوِيَ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ عَبَّاسٍ فِي تَوْكِيدِ مَا تَأَوَّلْنَا الْحَدِيثَ الْأَوَّلَ الَّذِي ذَكَرْنَا فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ عَلَيْهِ مَا قَدْ حَدَّثَنَا يُوسُفُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو هُوَ ابْنُ دِينَارٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَقْرَؤُهَا " وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِكَ مِنْ رَسُولٍ وَلَا نَبِيٍّ وَلَا مُحَدَّثٍ "

Now this narration is weak because Amru bin Dinar is weak. But he still went on to explain the addition.

فَكَانَ الْمُحَدَّثُ فِي هَذَا مِنَ الْجِنْسِ الَّذِينَ ذَكَرَهُمْ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي الْحَدِيثِ الَّذِي ذَكَرْنَاهُ فِي أَوَّلِ هَذَا الْبَابِ، فَقَالَ قَائِلٌ: أَفَيَجُوزُ أَنْ يُقَالَ لِهَؤُلَاءِ الْمُلْهَمِينَ: إنَّ اللهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ أَرْسَلَهُمْ كَمَا قَرَأَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ الْآيَةَ عَلَيْهِ عَلَى مَا فِي حَدِيثِهِ هَذَا؟ فَكَانَ جَوَابَنَا لَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ بِتَوْفِيقِ اللهِ وَعَوْنِهِ أَنَّ الرِّسَالَةَ الْمَذْكُورَةَ فِي هَذِهِ الْآيَةِ إنَّمَا أُرِيدَ بِهَا الْأَنْبِيَاءُ وَالرُّسُلُ صَلَوَاتُ اللهِ عَلَيْهِمْ لَا الْمُلْهَمُونَ الْمَذْكُورُونَ مَعَهُمْ، فَقَالَ: كَيْفَ يَكُونُ ذَلِكَ وَهُمْ مَذْكُورُونَ مَعَهُمْ بِمَا فِي أَوَّلِ الْآيَةِ وَهُوَ الرِّسَالَةُ فَكَانَ جَوَابَنَا لَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ فِيمَا ذَهَبَ إلَيْهِ أَهْلُ الْعَرَبِيَّةِ فِيهِ أَنَّهُمْ جُمِعُوا مَعَهُمْ بِكِنَايَةٍ فِي الْآيَةِ كَأَنَّهُ أُرِيدَ وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِكَ مِنْ رَسُولٍ، وَلَا نَبِيٍّ، وَلَا أَلْهَمْنَا مِنْ مُحَدَّثٍ إلَّا إذَا تَمَنَّى أَلْقَى الشَّيْطَانُ فِي أُمْنِيَّتِهِ.

In short, what he said is exemplifying by that it is a Tafsir, and that the Arabic-pros said that the message was intended for Rasul and Nabi, while al-Ilham (or what God inspires in someone) is another part. This is further supported before in the book when he said in 4/337:

فَكَانَ مَعْنَى قَوْلِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مُحَدَّثُونَ أَيْ: مُلْهَمُونَ , وَكَذَلِكَ يُحَدَّثُونَ أَيْ: يُلْهَمُونَ حَتَّى تَنْطِقَ أَلْسِنَتُهُمْ بِالْحِكْمَةِ كَمَا كَانَ لِسَانُ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ يَنْطِقُ بِمَا كَانَ يَنْطِقُ بِهِ مِنْهَا.

Here, he says one of those people is Umar.

The next narration:

حدثني أبي عن الحسين بن خالد انه قره أبو الحسن الرضا عليه السلام :ألم الله لا إله إلا هو الحي القيوم لا تأخذه سنة ولا نوم له ما في السماوات وما في الأرض وما بينهما وما تحت الثرى عالم الغيب والشهادة الرحمن الرحيم من ذا الذي يشفع عنده الا باذنه يعلم ما بين أيديهم وما خلفهم ) قال ” ما بين أيديهم ” فأمور الأنبياء وما كان ” وما خلفهم ” اي ما لم يكن بعد ، قوله ” الا بما شاء ” اي بما يوحى إليهم ( ولا يؤده حفظهما ) اي لا يثقل عليه حفظ ما في السماوات وما في الأرض وقوله ( لا إكراه في الدين ) اي لا يكره أحد على دينه الا بعد ان قد تبين له الرشد من الغي ( فمن يكفر بالطاغوت ) وهم الذين غصبوا آل محمد حقهم ( فقد استمسك بالعروة الوثقى ) يعني الولاية ( لا انفصام لها ) اي حبل لا انقطاع له يعني أمير المؤمنين والأئمة بعده عليهم السلام ( الله ولي الذين آمنوا ) وهم الذين اتبعوا آل محمد عليهم السلام ( يخرجهم من الظلمات إلى النور والذين كفروا أولياؤهم الطاغوت ) هم الظالمون آل محمد والذين اتبعوا من غصبهم ( يخرجونهم من النور إلى الظلمات أولئك أصحاب النار هم فيها خالدون والحمد لله رب العالمين ) كذا نزلت.

Many points on this: This can be attributed to either Tafsir, as the ending says, or that it can be a Qira’at. Second, you just cannot bring narrations from al-Qummi’s Tafsir; it has never been authenticated and its status it just like to your own book Al-Imama wal Siyasa. Al-Qummi’s Tafsir is two parts: One could be attributed to Ali bin Ibrahim a-Qummi, and the other one is to Abi al-Jaroud. Abu al-Fadhl al-Abbas bin Muhammad bin al-Qasim bin Hamza bin Musa bin Jaa’far is the one who narrates from Abi al-Jaroud. However, the problem exists that it says “Haddathani” and that means there is another person other than Abu al-Fadhl, but yet those narrations that are attributed to Abi al-Jaroud were narrated by contemporary sheikhs to Al-Qummi. So much went that Abi al-Jaroud’s narrators may not be trusted. Moreover, when you read the Intro, you can see that it cannot be attributed to Al-Qummi because it contains the “Haddathani” part in addition to narrations of Al-Qummi, so why would Al-Qummi narrates himself? This can’t mean that all of the Intro cannot be attributed to him, but at least some of it can’t. Worse is that Abu al-Fadhl is not even in our Rijal books, and if there was certainly a third person, then it would be unknown.

The final narration:

محمد بن عيسى قال : حدثنا إبراهيم بن عبد الحميد ، في سنة ثمان وتسعين ومائة في مسجد الحرام ، قال : دخلت على أبي عبد الله عليه السلام فأخرج إلي مصحفا . قال : فتصفحته فوقع بصري على موضع منه فإذا فيه مكتوب : هذه جهنم التي كنتما بها تكذبان فاصليا فيها لا تموتان فيها ولا تحييان . يعني الأولين.

This is a Mudarraj narration, or ones that parts of it were said rather by the narrator. Similar one is found in al-Bukhari by Abu Hurayra:

حَدَّثَنَا آدَمُ بْنُ أَبِي إِيَاسٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ زِيَادٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ ـ وَكَانَ يَمُرُّ بِنَا وَالنَّاسُ يَتَوَضَّئُونَ مِنَ الْمِطْهَرَةِ ـ قَالَ أَسْبِغُوا الْوُضُوءَ فَإِنَّ أَبَا الْقَاسِمِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ وَيْلٌ لِلأَعْقَابِ مِنَ النَّارِ ‏"‏‏.‏

Second, this hadith is only reported once in such words, and consequently the Nasibi should have known such hadiths are not to be trusted, and that is the exact reason so many hadiths of Ahlul-Sunnah are not accepted.

Moreover, if “Al-Awwalin” at the end of the narration was really pointing to the Two caliphs, then you should have known that if this Mashaf was Ali’s Mashaf, then it was written during Abu Bakr’s reign when Umar was not even a caliph, so how did “Al-Awwalin” even refer to them?

I will present only two narrations out of thousands in the Public's books that reveals how much is changed to the Quran (according to them) and how they tried to understand it differently.

1) Book 8, Hadith 315

حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ، عَنِ الْقَعْقَاعِ بْنِ حَكِيمٍ، عَنْ أَبِي يُونُسَ، مَوْلَى عَائِشَةَ أُمِّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ أَمَرَتْنِي عَائِشَةُ أَنْ أَكْتُبَ لَهَا مُصْحَفًا ثُمَّ قَالَتْ إِذَا بَلَغْتَ هَذِهِ الآيَةَ فَآذِنِّي ‏{‏حَافِظُوا عَلَى الصَّلَوَاتِ وَالصَّلاَةِ الْوُسْطَى وَقُومُوا لِلَّهِ قَانِتِينَ‏}‏ فَلَمَّا بَلَغْتُهَا آذَنْتُهَا فَأَمْلَتْ عَلَىَّ حَافِظُوا عَلَى الصَّلَوَاتِ وَالصَّلاَةِ الْوُسْطَى وَصَلاَةِ الْعَصْرِ وَقُومُوا لِلَّهِ قَانِتِينَ قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ سَمِعْتُهَا مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from al-Qaqa ibn Hakim that Abu Yunus, the mawla of A'isha, umm al-muminin said, ''A'isha ordered me to write out a Qur'an for her. She said, 'When you reach this ayat, let me know, "Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and stand obedient to Allah." ' When I reached it I told her, and she dictated to me, 'Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the asr prayer and stand obedient to Allah.' A'isha said, 'I heard it from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.' "

.2) Muslim 3031حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُطِيعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، عَنْ أَبِي بِشْرٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، قَالَ قُلْتُ لاِبْنِ عَبَّاسٍ سُورَةُ التَّوْبَةِ قَالَ آلتَّوْبَةِ قَالَ بَلْ هِيَ الْفَاضِحَةُ مَا زَالَتْ تَنْزِلُ وَمِنْهُمْ وَمِنْهُمْ ‏.‏ حَتَّى ظَنُّوا أَنْ لاَ يَبْقَى مِنَّا أَحَدٌ إِلاَّ ذُكِرَ فِيهَا ‏.‏ قَالَ قُلْتُ سُورَةُ الأَنْفَالِ قَالَ تِلْكَ سُورَةُ بَدْرٍ ‏.‏ قَالَ قُلْتُ فَالْحَشْرُ قَالَ نَزَلَتْ فِي بَنِي النَّضِيرِ ‏

I said to Ibn 'Abbas about Sura Tauba, whereupon he said: As for Sura Tauba, it is meant to humiliate (the non-believers and the hypocrites). There is constantly revealed in it (the pronoun) minhum (of them) and minhom (of them, i. e. such is the condition of some of them) till they (the Muslims) thought that none would be left unmentioned out of them who would not be blamed (for one fault or the other). I again said: What about Sura Anfal? He said: It pertains to the Battle of Badr. I again asked him about Sura al-Hashr. He said: It was revealed in connection with (the tribe) of Banu Nadir.

*Comment: So where are the new updates to Surah al-Toabeh?

تم بعون الله سبحانه وتعالى

-------------------------------------------

Edited July 27, 2014 by Ali.20

.equilibrium. · July 27, 2014

I'm not implying anything. I just find it very odd.

Their cheerleaders here on SC are naturally reporting back to their masters on their forums about the recent tahreef debates over here, and quite frankly the shi'i replies havent been quite honest at times about our former scholars opinions on this issue - presumably out of fear that admittance to tahreef in any form would constitute kufr and would give the sunnis an extra + point for upholding the belief of Zero tampering, which in my understanding is flawed reasoning to begin with, because at the end of the day our imams warranted this quran as binding upon muslims, be it with or without additions/deletions.

Edited July 27, 2014 by .equilibrium.

Abul Hussain Hassani · July 27, 2014

The posts on TwelverShia.net can only show the ignorance and hatred that drives a person to ignore some aspects in favor of others just to prove that the other is wrong. Like his last post about the Tahrif. I refuted it in an hour or two.

-------------------------------------------

(bismillah)

(salam)

Brother why don't you debate the topic? If Shia Chatters endorse brother Ali and are OK that he represents them then he is most welcome to debate.

Ali.20 · July 27, 2014

(bismillah)
(salam)

Brother why don't you debate the topic? If Shia Chatters endorse brother Ali and are OK that he represents them then he is most welcome to debate.

I am not a representative of all the Shia and don't want to be, but I surely can defend my sect just like I refuted what he believes in the Shia of Tahrif using logical proofs from our and his own books. Refute back then we'll talk, otherwise we are the ones refuting and thus he should come here or any one from the TwelverShia website. I also have a life and not always on the computer, so the last is not always the winner like the Nasibi says and that is true applied to him. Seriously, I don't want to feel like it's CIA here telling the Nasibi what is being said on ShiaChat then reply back, we're not in the UN.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Ali.20

**Ethics** · July 27, 2014

(bismillah)
(salam)

Brother why don't you debate the topic? If Shia Chatters endorse brother Ali and are OK that he represents them then he is most welcome to debate.

^^ Look at this game they are trying to set up. It is truly laughable. It is nothing but trying to "debate" and find faults and then pose them against the shia as a whole. Not to learn, not to understand each other, not to defend against false accusations, but to be cheap and attack the credibility of a group as a whole. What senseless reasoning.

.equilibrium. · July 27, 2014

(bismillah)
(salam)

Brother why don't you debate the topic? If Shia Chatters endorse brother Ali and are OK that he represents them then he is most welcome to debate.

It's fruitless debating "convinced sunnis". If you're willing to downplay major events such as ghadeer khumm, multiple declerations of ahadith such as manzilah, thaqalayn, the relationship of ayat tatheer and hadith al Kisa, verse 5:55 of wilayah, among others, then you're obviously not debating for the sake of truth, so why bother, it's an exercise in futility.

Ali.20 · July 27, 2014

No, the problem that exists is that they are only looking at one side of the dime. They post some stuff then have party rock, thinking that Shia will never refute them. Those exact examples he posted from our books are found in his own sahihs! Yet he never mentions them, because bias. It is only a matter of time and knowledge, because unfortunately there are not many knowledgeable Shia in the world and above that those that speak English. And moreover there were volumes of books written just to refute what the Nasibi just repeated, yet he never goes to refute those. It is very sad.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Ali.20

kbsquare · July 27, 2014

(bismillah)
(salam)
Brother why don't you debate the topic? If Shia Chatters endorse brother Ali and are OK that he represents them then he is most welcome to debate.

(salam)

I picked up the scent of your ploy long before you posted this but let me ask, is this what Islam means to you? Getting the one up on the other guy? You know and I'm sure you don't care (at least not as much as this debate you're trying to host), that Palestinians are still dying...do something useful, find a Zionist forum and hold a debate with them and link me too! I would support you and even contribute if Allah (swt) willing.

(wasalam)

Ali.20 · July 27, 2014

Please ignore the Nasibi who is trying to hide in his cave. He found out that he was doomed to be refuted and thus only finishes his anger by saying I would not debate with him. As he might not know it, I am not even 20 years old nor did I ever enroll in an Islamic school or Hawzah. On the other side, he is a sheikh and has multiple accounts on many networks, even an Arabic one on Ahlal Hadith. And plagiarizes from that website along with IslamPort and BahrainForums (turning out to be his name Ibn Abi Al-Laythayn when he has other nicknames, like here: (http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=334030)).

And I ask, why does not he put his doubts and inquiries on this website? Just type them and we'll answer it, insha Allah. Likewise, if there was something on the Sunnis, we'll post it on his website with concrete proofs.

Let him refute my paragraph first, not be a derpy kitten.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Ali.20

Ali.20 · July 27, 2014

And surely, we return to proxy wars. He tries to label people as random even though I am a two-year ShiaChat user and posted a refutation directly to his website, which obviously does not and will not refute. I have only posted once on your evil website, and by the way, please correct your usage of grammar. I don't have websites at TwelverShia.net.

Now get over it and present what you want to say, and I call upon you to do it, or do you think that is shirk?

Again, refute the article or else you declare your inability. We don't need to go to your forums to prove something simple just like how most of your peers don't have accounts in Shia forums.

I would be more than welcome to refute more articles time-permitting.