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

Why do Shi'as reject the Seven Ahrufs?

Rate this topic


Yousuf

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

I would like to know that why do Shi'as reject the Sahih Hadith of Seven Ahrufs that is present in Bukhari when the fact is that there is manuscript evidence that suggests that Quran was indeed revealed in seven ahrufs? The Sana'a manuscript is one of those manuscripts that had different variants from that of Uthmanic manuscript. However, these variants fall under the categories of seven ahrufs and confirm the hadith of bukhari. You can check those variants in the Sana'a codex at wikipedia's page here:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript

The thing is that Bukhari already gave a hint about the seven ahrufs and several sunni scholars have deduced from the hadith collection of bukhari that what is the meaning of seven ahrufs. For a better explanation of seven ahrufs. You can read this website that responds to Christian objections raised on Islam:-

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/12/understanding-seven-ahruf-1-weaker.html

See part 2 here:-

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/05/seven-ahruf-2-best-explanation-taqi.html

So why do shi'as reject the existence of seven ahrufs when the fact of the matter is that we have manuscript evidence to support the claim? How can shias explain the Sana'a codex then?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, Irfan1214 said:

Shias do not follow fabricated Ahadith of Sahih Bukhari :D

Yes, this is true. Bukhari might contain fabrication, but not all hadiths of Bukhari are fabricated. Have you even read what I wrote above and proved that seven ahrufs do exist? We have manuscript evidence of seven ahrufs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother yousuf let me read this manuscript and I will tell you then.

However, I would like to say following things according to my own research:

1. There were said to existed various copies of Quran to different people at the time of Prophet.

2. Ali a.s himself compiled Quran in complete in order of revealed verses and topic of discussion and showed it to Abu Bakar, he did not accept it.

3. Afterwards, Abu Bakar delegated his own team to gather Quran and that is said to have compiled the Quran in the time of Uthman. Which became prevalent and accepted to all Muslims. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Irfan1214 said:

Brother yousuf let me read this manuscript and I will tell you then.

However, I would like to say following things according to my own research:

1. There were said to existed various copies of Quran to different people at the time of Prophet.

2. Ali a.s himself compiled Quran in complete in order of revealed verses and topic of discussion and showed it to Abu Bakar, he did not accept it.

3. Afterwards, Abu Bakar delegated his own team to gather Quran and that is said to have compiled the Quran in the time of Uthman. Which became prevalent and accepted to all Muslims. 

Irfan,

You can read the textual variants present in the Sana'a codex in the wikipedia article above. Yes, there were several copies, but those copies probably also contained seven ahrufs in them. You can check them in the manuscript variants above. This manuscript evidence also confirms various Sunni hadith that say that there were different readings present, too. So the Shia claim that Quran was not revealed in seven ahrufs is simply incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Irfan1214 said:

Secondly, any one in today's era can produce its own parchment and write it down and condition it as it belonged to old era, But we have Quran since centuries and there is not a single word that is misplaced because our scholars and community read it thoroughly.

.  

Brother Irfan,

This claim does not make any sense. The Sana'a codex is radio carbon dated and it is very old manuscript. So the claim that it belongs to today's era is a laughable claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, Irfan1214 said:

We do not need to read another codex :) Since Quran has been with us since our forefathers. While it is known that Bible and Torah were misplaced :D

This is true. The Birmingham Qur'an codex proves that Qur'an is perfectly preserved. It matches today's Qur'an. Birmingham manuscripts are perhaps even older than Sana'a manuscripts. However, this does not mean that we should overlook the topic and subject of seven Ahrufs. Sana'a codex is a proof that different readings and seven ahrufs were present and this proves that the hadith of Seven ahrufs is NOT a fabrication. It proves it is a genuine hadith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Irfan1214 said:

We have standard version of Quran that is well known to us. There were many different kinds of people in past era, many who deviated from religion but still believed themselves to be Muslims and there were many deviated scripts so it proves nothing :D

Irfan, you wrote,

"There were many different kinds of people in past era, many who deviated from religion but still believed themselves to be Muslims and there were many deviated scripts so it proves nothing."

Can you provide any hadith from Shi'a or Sunni book that proves that "deviated scripts" were floating around in that time? Please brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yousuf said:

This is true. The Birmingham Qur'an codex proves that Qur'an is perfectly preserved. It matches today's Qur'an. Birmingham manuscripts are perhaps even older than Sana'a manuscripts. However, this does not mean that we should overlook the topic and subject of seven Ahrufs. Sana'a codex is a proof that different readings and seven ahrufs were present and this proves that the hadith of Seven ahrufs is NOT a fabrication. It proves it is a genuine hadith.

Well, you know what ? Shia are told by their Imams to read the Uthmanic version of Quran. However, we also believe that the Quran which Imam Ali a.s compiled was in the order of revelation and also commentary and it is with Imam e Zaman a.s. But, this does not mean that we Shias consider Uthmanic version of Quran to be correct. We believe that it is correct otherwise, our Imams would not have told us to read it. So, it is clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Yousuf said:

Brother Irfan,

This claim does not make any sense. The Sana'a codex is radio carbon dated and it is very old manuscript. So the claim that it belongs to today's era is a laughable claim.

Not that I think the codex is a forgery, but one should be careful when drawing conclusions with carbon dating. Expert forgers will use actual old manuscripts or blank parchments. Which seems rather odd--where does one find blank paper that's also ancient? They can usually be found separating the pages and sections within old books and manuscripts. The counterfeiters will remove and use those particular pages to perpetuate their forgery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yousuf said:

Irfan, you wrote,

"There were many different kinds of people in past era, many who deviated from religion but still believed themselves to be Muslims and there were many deviated scripts so it proves nothing."

Can you provide any hadith from Shi'a or Sunni book that proves that "deviated scripts" were floating around in that time? Please brother.

Why should we go in past ? look at present how many wrong interpretations of Quran are there available ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Netzari said:

Not that I think the codex is a forgery, but one should be careful when drawing conclusions with carbon dating. Expert forgers will use actual old manuscripts or blank parchments. Which seems rather odd--where does one find blank paper that's also ancient? They can usually be found separating the pages and sections within old books and manuscripts. The counterfeiters will remove and use those particular pages to perpetuate their forgery.

So you are saying that experts and scientists can lie when it comes to carbon dating manuscripts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Netzari said:

Not that I think the codex is a forgery, but one should be careful when drawing conclusions with carbon dating. Expert forgers will use actual old manuscripts or blank parchments. Which seems rather odd--where does one find blank paper that's also ancient? They can usually be found separating the pages and sections within old books and manuscripts. The counterfeiters will remove and use those particular pages to perpetuate their forgery.

Is there a tool which says this is actual parchment of Quran or wrong one even if it belonged to old era ? Your scientists cannot tell who was the person who wrote it and whether it was credible or not ? right so what is point of argument 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Irfan1214 said:

Why should we go in past ? look at present how many wrong interpretations of Quran are there available ? 

I totally agree with you. However, this still does not invalidate the existence of seven ahrufs about which our beloved Prophet (Peace be upon him) spoke about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Yousuf said:

So you are saying that experts and scientists can lie when it comes to carbon dating manuscripts?

Yes. If someone today decides to write on a 900 year old parchment, the parchment will still carbon date to 900 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Irfan1214 said:

Is there a tool which says this is actual parchment of Quran or wrong one even if it belonged to old era ? Your scientists cannot tell who was the person who wrote it and whether it was credible or not ? right so what is point of argument 

I'm not sure what your point is. I was making a point that one should be careful in drawing conclusions based solely on carbon dating, as expert counterfeiters know how to use that to their advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Irfan1214 said:

I am saying that Scientists cannot measure abstract things such as who wrote and what was has belief, though a person may show that he is good from outside but inwardly he may a evil one.

The codex of Sana'a has two writings. The upper text and the lower text. The upper text agrees with the Uthmanic codex. But the lower text is different. When I say "different" I do NOT mean Quran is corrupted. When I say "different", I mean the seven ahrufs and the different reading about which Bukhari speaks about. It is quite possible that scribes erased the previous text and re-wrote Utmanic text when they received Uthmanic codex. This still proves that the hadith of seven ahrufs is valid.

See the Sunni website I posted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Netzari said:

Yes. If someone today decides to write on a 900 year old parchment, the parchment will still carbon date to 900 years ago.

Hahaha!! Can you please provide any example with evidence that this has actually happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I'm not aware of anything regarding this codex in particular. But there are plenty of forgeries in the world of antiquity dealers. The most famous recent one I can think of is the infamous "Viking map". I also know that Israel recently announced that several of the "newly discovered" Dead Sea Scroll fragments were highly sophisticated forgeries.

NEWLY DISCOVERED DEAD SEA SCROLLS ARE SKILLFULLY CRAFTED FAKES, EXPERTS SUSPECT

I'm not using this discredit the codex (finding an unknown hruf is thrilling), but one should simply be careful when accepting evidence based solely on carbon dating. Counterfeiters are cunning and try to stay a few steps ahead of science. If this is genuine Islamic history, someone will be more than willing to pay big money for this codex $$$

Edited by Netzari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Netzari said:

I'm not aware of anything regarding this codex in particular. But there are plenty of forgeries in the world of antiquity dealers. The most famous recent one I can think of is the infamous "Viking map". I also know that Israel recently announced that several of the "newly discovered" Dead Sea Scroll fragments were highly sophisticated forgeries.

NEWLY DISCOVERED DEAD SEA SCROLLS ARE SKILLFULLY CRAFTED FAKES, EXPERTS SUSPECT

I'm not using this discredit the codex (finding an unknown hruf is thrilling), but one should simply be careful when accepting evidence based solely on carbon dating. Counterfeiters are cunning and try to stay a few steps ahead of science. If this is genuine Islamic history, someone will be more than willing to pay big money for this codex $$$

Actually, you might be right. Sana'a manuscript is NOT a reliable manuscript of the Quran because people who wrote it were not proficient Arabic writers. They made several mistakes while writing it. Well, I am currently asking a reliable Muslim scholar about this issue. I will notify you when I will receive a response from the scholar. By the way, you belong to which religion? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Yousuf said:

I would like to know that why do Shi'as reject the Sahih Hadith of Seven Ahrufs that is present in Bukhari when the fact is that there is manuscript evidence that suggests that Quran was indeed revealed in seven ahrufs? The Sana'a manuscript is one of those manuscripts that had different variants from that of Uthmanic manuscript. However, these variants fall under the categories of seven ahrufs and confirm the hadith of bukhari. You can check those variants in the Sana'a codex at wikipedia's page here:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript

The thing is that Bukhari already gave a hint about the seven ahrufs and several sunni scholars have deduced from the hadith collection of bukhari that what is the meaning of seven ahrufs. For a better explanation of seven ahrufs. You can read this website that responds to Christian objections raised on Islam:-

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/12/understanding-seven-ahruf-1-weaker.html

See part 2 here:-

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/05/seven-ahruf-2-best-explanation-taqi.html

So why do shi'as reject the existence of seven ahrufs when the fact of the matter is that we have manuscript evidence to support the claim? How can shias explain the Sana'a codex then?

 

Salaam brother Yousuf,

I had this discussion with a sunni brothera few months ago.

First of, I think we should agree on what Ahruf actually is. Only then, can you explore this topic further.

So please explain what you mean by Ahruf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Yousuf said:

Actually, you might be right. Sana'a manuscript is NOT a reliable manuscript of the Quran because people who wrote it were not proficient Arabic writers. They made several mistakes while writing it. Well, I am currently asking a reliable Muslim scholar about this issue. I will notify you when I will receive a response from the scholar. By the way, you belong to which religion? Thanks.

It's always good to double check! Objects that rewrite religious history tend to be worth obscene amounts of money, hence counterfeiters produce these sort of things. They know it will eventually be exposed as a fake, but they also know that someone will take the risk of buying it to find out! I'm interested in what your scholar has to say. You can click on my name to see my religion :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Salaam brother Yousuf,

I had this discussion with a sunni brothera few months ago.

First of, I think we should agree on what Ahruf actually is. Only then, can you explore this topic further.

So please explain what you mean by Ahruf.

The Sunni apologist website link I provided explains ahrufs.

Anyway, Sana'a manuscripts do provide evidence for seven ahrufs and different readings about which Bukhari speaks about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Netzari said:

It's always good to double check! Objects that rewrite religious history tend to be worth obscene amounts of money, hence counterfeiters produce these sort of things. They know it will eventually be exposed as a fake, but they also know that someone will take the risk of buying it to find out! I'm interested in what your scholar has to say. You can click on my name to see my religion :)

As far as those fake dead sea scrolls are concerned, were they produced by forgers of today's era or people of past? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yousuf said:

The Sunni apologist website link I provided explains ahrufs.

Anyway, Sana'a manuscripts do provide evidence for seven ahrufs and different readings about which Bukhari speaks about.

lolz, you are asking a shia to believe in Sahih Bukhari ? We only except what is truth in that book and the thing which you are saying is not known to us. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Yousuf said:

As far as those fake dead sea scrolls are concerned, were they produced by forgers of today's era or people of past? Thanks.

Lolz, ok if those are fake, your books are not right ? What do you say among wrongs which are mentioned in your books alleging pious persons with criminal acts and illogical things these are sufficient to prove that Bible and Torah are absent and these books of yours are depraved ones, you are non-Muslims must have came with your name why you are concealing yourself ?

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...