question again

[Sindbad05 2,045]

8 hours ago, andres said:

It is not the end of the world if you and Imam Ali believe Baby boys milk weigh ca. 1,5 kg/L, and I believe it is only ca. 1kg/L. Lets stop here. 

Your belief is contrary to the scientific observation which says baby boys milk is 35% rich than baby girl's milk and has more calorific values and other stuff that makes it much rich and in the early days mother milk is even more rich so it confirmed what Imam Ali a.s said and what I believe. You want to end this discussion, I have no problem in that but you are wrong.

[andres 474]

On 2017-10-19 at 3:30 PM, Sindbad05 said:

Imam Ali a.s said: "Ask both mothers for their milk in equal scale and then weigh them". Later on Imam Ali a.s was told that weight of one milk is half of that of another, Imam Ali a.s said that the women whose milk is less in weight, the daughter belong to her, it is because of this that Allah AWJ has fixed half inheritance for daughter than son. 

.... 

I never questioned that Breast milk composition can vary dependng on the childs gender. It may be so, I dont know.

Breast milk consist of ca 85% pure water. Remains maybe 15% to make the weight differ from water. If you increase the percentage of fat, the weight will decrease, if you increase the percentage of minerals it will probaby increase. Proteins, carbonhydrates and whatever there also might be will also have an effect on the weight. But we are talking aboutvery small changes

I googled: 1 liter of milk weigh ca.1,027kg. (That is close to water wich is 1,000kg in standard pressure and temperature). The density of Breast milk also vary depending to temperature. But you may need a modern laboratory to determine this difference. Even if they did not have equipment to detect the small variations in weight of Breast milk, their equipment was good enough to see if one portion had twice the density of the other, which is the case in the story you are telling. I am certain Imam Ali knew this could not be correct. I do not think it would be difficult for you to come to the same conclusion. 

I 

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by andres

[Sindbad05 2,045]

2 hours ago, andres said:

I never questioned that Breast milk composition can vary dependng on the childs gender. It may be so, I dont know.

Breast milk consist of ca 85% pure water. Remains maybe 15% to make the weight differ from water. If you increase the percentage of fat, the weight will decrease, if you increase the percentage of minerals it will probaby increase. Proteins, carbonhydrates and whatever there also might be will also have an effect on the weight. But we are talking aboutvery small changes

I googled: 1 liter of milk weigh ca.1,027kg. (That is close to water wich is 1,000kg in standard pressure and temperature). The density of Breast milk also vary depending to temperature. But you may need a modern laboratory to determine this difference. Even if they did not have equipment to detect the small variations in weight of Breast milk, their equipment was good enough to see if one portion had twice the density of the other, which is the case in the story you are telling. I am certain Imam Ali knew this could not be correct. I do not think it would be difficult for you to come to the same conclusion. 

I 

 

The findings have led some researchers to suggest that baby formula should come in boy and girl formulations to match the differences seen in breast milk.

"We have good reason to be sceptical of a one-size-fits-all formula," said Prof Katie Hinde, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University.

Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago, Hinde described her work in rhesus monkeys that showed mothers produce milk with 35% more fat and protein for male babies, and even richer milk when the male was first-born.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/baby-boys-girls-sex-formula-milk

[Sindbad05 2,045]

Read above:-----even richer milk when the male was first-born.> 35%.....Probably the milk was fresh and that is why it weighed twice and Imam Ali a.s knew that and therefore said that since the weight of milk is twice that is why Imam said it is due to twice the weight of boy's milk that the share of boy is also 2:1 as compared to girl. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by Sindbad05

[Sindbad05 2,045]

@andres And milk was not compared with water, Milk was compared with other milk.....The milk which you are talking about having density of 1.027 according to other surveys is 1.03 litres and that may vary as you see due to time, child and other factors.....and since you have taken ordinary milk about which neither I nor you have the knowledge that what factors were responsible for such weight. And as said, this is not the discussion about animal's milk but human milk whose concentration and density may vary. 

[andres 474]

Cream with 35% fat weigh practically the same as water or milk. To produce a milk that is twice as heavy as breast milk that baby girls recieve, you must put something very heavy  in it. Mercury for example. You wil have some difficulty in dissolving it thou.

[Fakeha 407]

If any famous and important celebrity makes an announcement (such as Bill Gates, Trump, Jakie Chan :p just examples) you'll here it by aunthentic or unauthentic source somewhere someday.. The rule is that we go with the most authentic one, to check or recheck the authenticity is our duty...!!! You can simply take the examples of voting candidates and we go with most appropriate one for the job...

[Urwatul Wuthqa 3,166]

 

On 10/19/2017 at 2:05 PM, just a muslim said:

our main difference is due to our different hadith literature.

Our main difference is not due to hadith.

Abu Bakar was not elected as caliph in light of ahadith of Prophet.

On 10/19/2017 at 2:05 PM, just a muslim said:

going back to the infallibles. and even though it wont matter, but let's not call them infallibles for now. FOR NOW. i repeat, FOR NOW. dont take this to your heart and try to move past it okay?

This is not ok. What your rest of questions have to do with this request of "FOR NOW"? The concept of Infallibility or "ismah" is based on Quran. 

On 10/19/2017 at 2:05 PM, just a muslim said:

so, my question is: why do you trust what the narrator is saying? because he is thiqa/honest/truthful/reliable/trustworthy? who told you that? your books of rijal? why do you trust those? why trust whatever is written in them? why trust the authors of those books? for all you know, and please hold tight to your seats and try not to lose it as i dont mean any disrespect or offence, it could be the work of the devil, men who had no good intention and just wanted to create division among the ummah? how do you know it wasnt that? why do you trust them?

 

[Sindbad05 2,045]

18 hours ago, andres said:

Cream with 35% fat weigh practically the same as water or milk. To produce a milk that is twice as heavy as breast milk that baby girls recieve, you must put something very heavy  in it. Mercury for example. You wil have some difficulty in dissolving it thou.

That did not only said 35% fat only.....It says 35% rich but you are only stuck with fat bro. Get out of it, it says proteins, calories, fats and so on so forth. Secondly, this is just a research about cows and monkeys, it isn't about humans but it says that there is difference between milk of male and female infants. Finally, you could see the change yourself that you posted 1 liter to be 1.027 kg and I posted 1.03 kg, Even though, it was not mentioned if the milk was freshly drawn or kept for a time which may affect it's content. Finally, repeating again, you need samples to weight for baby girl's milk against baby boy's which unfortunately neither you nor I have. So, until this happens, I stick to my belief and you stick to what you belief,  

[andres 474]

1 hour ago, Sindbad05 said:

 I stick to my belief and you stick to what you belief,  

Fine.

[ShiaMan14 7,155]

On 10/21/2017 at 3:20 AM, just a muslim said:

no. i am saying i believe sunni books because they have ahadith which could not have been fabricated. i am not saying they cant have fabrications. i am just saying they have ahadith which most definitely could not have been fabrications. these ahadith contain facts, historical or scientific, which could not have been known more than 50 years ago, let alone 1400 years ago.

Some -  sure. All - nope.

Even the Bible has truth in it, become a christian.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

If this is your reason for believing Sunni literature, then you should believe everything in every book that has one truth in it.

On 10/21/2017 at 3:20 AM, just a muslim said:

how was he a known liar? how can you claim KNOWLEDGE upon that? provide evidence for it. as well as him being reprimanded by umar. and what was he reprimanded for?

http://abu-huraira.blogspot.com/2012/09/umar-beat-abu-huraira-for-narrating.html

On 10/21/2017 at 3:20 AM, just a muslim said:

the reason most sunnis believe bukhari to be sahih is because over the past 1200 years, numerous scholars of hadith have authenticated an overwhelming majority of hadith in sahih bukhari, if not all. there have been some scholars who criticised some ahadith. but they claimed such ahadith were hasan, not daeef. and it is important to understand what we mean by sahih bukhari. every hadith which has a continuous unbroken chain in the book, it's chain was considered as sahih by imam bukhari. and then by most of the later scholars. there are ahadith with broken chains in the book. but nobody claims that their chains are authentic.

Surely all hadees that trace back to the Prophet via the Sahaba are authentic. After all, the Sahaba did not lie, did they?

On 10/21/2017 at 3:20 AM, just a muslim said:

what do you mean? if the 8th or 9th imam narrates an event from the life of the prophet pbuh, how did that imam know that event since he wasnt even born at the time of the prophet?

same way any chain of narrators work.

On 10/21/2017 at 3:20 AM, just a muslim said:

i already told you how it doesnt. at least not yet. there are ahadith in sunni books which talk about things which couldnt possibly be known more than 50 years ago. how could those ahadith be fabrications? they cant be anything but true. and hence demand some form of trust. i have yet to come across any such ahadith which can be true without the shadow of a doubt, and so i have literally zero reason to trust the shia books. i hope you understand my point first before coming with a preconceived intent of replying to me.

Your reason is because they have 1 true narration then all narrations must be true. that is really hysterical.

I understand your point. I think it is quite illogical and naive. So let's discuss these "things" which could not be known for more than 50 years....

On 10/21/2017 at 3:20 AM, just a muslim said:

you dont understand. suppose i believe the shia books. and that the first 3 caliphs were misguided to say the least. you know who compiled the quran? uthman did. if he was misguided and didnt think Ali was the Imam, how can i trust him to preserve the quran with honesty? and not tampering it or changing it or removing verses/surahs from it? you cant say that he COULDNT have messed with the quran because it is the final book and Allah has promised to preserve it. because that is a circular argument. the only way you know that the quran says that Allah promised to protect the quran is through uthman's compilation. how do you know uthman didnt remove a couple of surahs about Ali's wilayah/imamah and then add the verses which talk about Allah protecting the quran? this is what i mean when i say that i cant have the quran without the sunni view of islam. 

Caliph Uthman did nothing more than set the order of the Surah of the Quran. The surahs were already compiled.

How do you know Uthman didn't change the Quran? For all you know, he changed it and added the ayah that the Quran can never change.

[just a muslim 119]

18 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Some -  sure. All - nope.

Even the Bible has truth in it, become a christian.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

If this is your reason for believing Sunni literature, then you should believe everything in every book that has one truth in it.

yes. some. the remaining cant be tested against fact, and will have to be relied upon as historical sources.

the bible has flaws in it too, including contradictions which cant be explained except by human error, hence it cant be from God.

no. we do not go by believing every book. we go by believing the knowledge about people at that time, ilm ur rijal. and then we judge each hadith based on that. i am saying that person X narrated something absolutely true and couldnt have been from anyone but the prophet pbuh, but according to shia literature and ilm ur rijal, person X is supposed to be a liar/fabricator. that means that according to shia literature, two things can happen. 1. hadith cant be a source of deen, because there is evidence that the chains that shias labelled as fabricated, can give us true wordings of the prophet. which means some of the hadith are labelled as weak/fabricated and some part of the source of deen is lost. or 2. the shia books of rijal are not reliable. the books that tell us who each narrator was and whether he was reliable or not. i hope you understand my point and tell me which you think is more likely.

18 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

http://abu-huraira.blogspot.com/2012/09/umar-beat-abu-huraira-for-narrating.html

my brother, these are lies. have you looked at the references? the citations say the "hadith" is narrated in muslim, while in truth it is narrated in nahjul balaghah. not a single proper reference is given. just the volumes. like, bring the hadith number if you really want to share the truth. and refer to the article below for a detailed response to your link:

https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/05/09/did-umar-and-aisha-call-abu-hurairah-a-liar/

i would appreciate if you do not copy paste links. just bring hadith with its reference. otherwise i will also start mentioning links and we will get no where.

18 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Surely all hadees that trace back to the Prophet via the Sahaba are authentic. After all, the Sahaba did not lie, did they?

i can explain to you the answer. but dont you think asking such a question shows double sandards?

18 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

same way any chain of narrators work.

a chain of narrators works like this: person A compiled a hadith book. A talked to B who said he heard from C who heard from D who heard from E who directly heard the prophet pbuh say something. person E has met the prophet directly and lived at his time. what we find in shia literature, is that A compiled the book, asked B, who said he heard C who heard the 9th imam say that XYZ happened at the time of the prophet. but the ninth imam didnt live at the time of the prophet. even if we accept that they were infallible, and would lie, who said they narrated the XYZ event from their parent, i.e. the previous imam? it could easily have been some one else, say for example person J. J could have claimed to have heard the previous imam, the 8th imam, father of the 9th imam and so the 9th imam narrated the XYZ event. but who know who narrator J was? it could have been ANYBODY, even a nonmuslim, or a hypocrite, or a liar, or fabricator.  do you understand what i am saying? sunni hadith go continuously from narrator B to E to the prophet. shia hadith go from B to C to 9th imam to the prophet. noone in between the 9th imam and the prophet.  

18 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Your reason is because they have 1 true narration then all narrations must be true. that is really hysterical.

I understand your point. I think it is quite illogical and naive. So let's discuss these "things" which could not be known for more than 50 years....

no. my reason is, they have some true narrations, but lets go with 1 for simplicity. that true narration tells that at the very least, the narrators of that hadith CAN tell the truth. even if you believe them to be fabricators, they CAN tell the truth. and hence, we go into the discussion above, where i mention the two possibilities.

my initial question was, do the shia narrations have any such TRUE narrations? which could not have been known at the time the books were written/compiled, and not just at the time of the prophet? just to be safe and eliminate the possibility of the compilers fabricating such hadith. i bring you one example below from sunni hadiths.

Aisha narrated: The Prophet used to try to fast on Mondays and Thursdays.

jami at-tirmidhi 745

sunan an-nasai 2361,2362,2363,2364 similar wordings.

 

many more such ahadith exist. some from different occasions than this, and more explanations about this.

meaning the prophet pbuh used to fast mondays and thursdays.

 

now i link you to a google search. read the articles, any one of them, about intermittent fasting and see how exactly this matches:

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=5+2+diet&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

this was the first part. now the second part:

 

Abdullah ibn Amr bin al-Aas narrated:

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) met me and said: Have I not been informed that you told: I shall stand at prayer all the night, and I shall fast during the day ? He said: I think so. Yes, Messenger of Allah, I have said this. He said: Get up and pray at night and sleep ; fast and break your fast ; fast three days every month: that is equivalent to keeping perpetual fast. I said: Messenger of Allah, I have more power than that. He said: Then fast one day and break your fast one day. That is the most moderate fast ; that is the fast of Dawud (David). He said: I have more power than that. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: There is no fast more excellent that it.

 

sunan abu dawud 2427, authentic hadith.

muslim 1159 l, 1159 k, bukhari 3420, abu dawud 2448 all with similar wordings. 

 

meaning, fasting alternate days is the best fasting. even though mondays and thursdays were good, this has been narrated as the best.

 

i link you again to a google search. give any of them a read, specially the title of the third result. in case it is not there, the second link below is to that article:

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&client=opera&hs=zzO&q=eod+diet&oq=eod&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0i67k1j0j0i67k1l3j0i20i264k1j0j0i67k1j0l2.727540.728002.0.729610.3.3.0.0.0.0.278.676.0j1j2.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.672...0i131k1j0i131i46k1j46i131k1.0.VQ-66CaS1pU

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2017/01/12/every-other-day-52-diet-weight-loss_n_4674289.html

 

i humbly request you to at least check out the google search results and at least skim through one article, specially the one above from huffingtonpost. 

 

18 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Caliph Uthman did nothing more than set the order of the Surah of the Quran. The surahs were already compiled.

How do you know Uthman didn't change the Quran? For all you know, he changed it and added the ayah that the Quran can never change.

surahs were written. yes. not compiled. but lets agree that all uthman did was set the order of the surahs in the quran. and that the quran was already compiled before it. did uthman change the order of the surahs? does that mean that Allah swt failed to keep his promise of protecting the quran? 

how do you know that the quran today is the same as that which was compiled during the life of the prophet pbuh? and that uthman(and subsequently all the sahaba) didnt add the verses of protection of quran?

i am quite happy that you turned the question around at me. i KNOW that uthman didnt change the quran nor added ANY ayah, because i believe he was a righteous companion, and when he did compile it, all the sahaba agreed with it, and generally speaking, i repeat, generally speaking, those sahaba were righteous people, whom Allah has praised in the quran. see, in the sunni view, the general rule about sahaba was that they were good, due to the general praise in the quran about them. there may be exceptions to that rule, and there were, but that doesnt nullify the rule. otherwise the same could be said about the companions of imam jafar, which would be worse because the quran doesnt praise them, neither generally nor specifically.

suppose i were a shia. i wouldnt believe that uthman were a righteous person, upon the path of guidance, nor that the sahaba could be trusted since most of them didnt support Ali(even though this hypothetical situation is extremely circular, meaning the shia position is circular, no offence). then i would have no reason to trust the sahaba. and i wouldnt KNOW that the quran was preserved. the ahlul bayt played no role in the preservation of the quran(Ali ra did according to sunni view if i recall correctly, but the point is about the remaining ahlul bayt, the "infallibles", according to shia view). you can believe that Ali a.s. had a mushaf, organized chronologically, but that wasnt preserved by the ahlul bayt, so you dont have a case there. 

this is what i meant when i said that if i believe in the shia rijal system or literature, i wont have the quran. 

Salam.

[rinneganMahdi 151]

Quran (109:6)- "You have your faith and I have mine", that's the answer to this question

[wmehar2 652]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 12:29 PM, Ron_Burgundy said:

Well now if you think any of our sahih hadith is wrong you just need to prove it. And I will agree with you. For me its not about hadiths. Its about whats right and wrong. Its not like if you gonna quote me something and say I took it from Kafi I will agree to it. I will do my research and will accept or decline, depends on my research. 

Quran always comes above Hadith,   The burden of proof of the veracity of Hadith is on the people claiming it.    It seems @JustAMuslim are not too far apart in how we observe/study and rationalize the essence of an idea.

I shouldn't have to prove Sunni hadith wrong first, or Shia hadith wrong first, it is they who must prove it right, especially to others if they fancy on being the hand of Da3wah.

Conjecture must be eliminated, you cannot assume something is truth just because you grew up learning it.  Which is half the reason I left Sunnism. 

Why the heck should I make the same mistake within Shiism?

The only book /Hadith that has merit is the Quran, time and time again old Quranic excerpts are discovered and retranslated to posses the exact same meaning with little to no significant textual/scriptural variance.

If Allah swt is the true God (and I believe He is) who  says in that same uncontracting, verified book the Quran, that no burden shall be placed on a soul more than it can bear, then it must be tested and held accountable to truth!  (which Is why I think it's from God, as I don't see contradiction, in addition to it's other attributes that anyone with half a brain could reason it would be very difficult for a 40 year old man in 600 AD to construct and put together by memory before it was put down)

To expect someone to be able to sift through all these Hadith, and rationalize/prove their veracity is a burden incredibly beyond one's soul should bear. To even have to CARE about Hadith, God has to tell us we should, and I find only verses that directly/explicitly state to disregard any other Hadith but His.

54:17

Now We have made the Koran easy for Remembrance. Is there any that will remember?

Last I checked, Hadith aren't so easy to remember much less write down.

Quran 32:15

"The only people who truly believe in our revelations are those who fall prostrate upon hearing them. They glorify and praise their lord, without any arrogance."

Converts didn't need Hadith of Sunnism or Shiism or anyone, to know these were the true words of God, hopefully they avoided the difficult convoluted road of Hadith.

Quran 6:37-38

They also say, 'Why has no sign been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say: 'Surely God is able to send down a sign, but most of them know not.

No creature is there crawling on the earth, no bird flying with its wings, but they are nations like unto yourselves. We have neglected nothing in the Book; then to their Lord they shall be mustered.

Look at that, nothing was left out/neglected in Qu'ran.  Who needs Hadith I guess?

Quran 6:115

Perfect are the words of thy Lord in truthfulness and justice; no man can change His words; He is the All-hearing, the All-knowing.

Quran 7:52

And We have brought to them a Book that We have well distinguished, resting on knowledge, a guidance and a mercy unto a people that believe.

To say we NEED Hadith, are we discrediting God here, not enough knowledge in the Qur'an for us?  Man can change Hadith's words, easy, since it was they who made them. 

17:46

We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the QURAN ALONE, they run away in aversion.

As much as you'd like to argue that this verse means to say ".. Allah only in Quran", we know when one reads the Arabic, that is not the case.  The Arabic word for "only" is directly after the word "Qu'ran".

18:27

Recite what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord; no man can change His words. Apart from Him, thou wilt find no refuge.

.. No one can change his words, and no one besides him we can find refuge.  Well isn't learning religion from Hadith, someone other than Allah?   Better to learn from something that is unchangeable than something that probably was changed.  Because you know, man preserved hadith.

[Quran 7:185] Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things God has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which hadith, besides this do they believe in?

[Quran 31:6] Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution.

[Quran 39:23] God has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent and points out both ways (to heaven and hell). The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for God's message. Such is God's guidance; he bestows it upon whomever He wills. As for those sent astray by God, nothing can guide them.

[Quran 45:6] These are God's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?

[Quran 52:34] Let them produce a hadith like this if they are truthful.

[Quran 68:44] Therefore, let Me deal with those who reject this Hadith; we will lead them on whence they never perceive."

[Quran 77:50] Which Hadith other than this do they uphold?

[Quran 17:77] This has been consistently the case with all the messengers that we sent before you, and you will find that our system (Sunnah) never changes.

[Quran 33:62] This is God's eternal system (Sunnah), and you will find that God's system (Sunnah) is unchangeable." 33:62

[Quran 48:23] Such is God's system (Sunnah) throughout history, and you will find that God's system (Sunnah) is unchangeable.

Forgive me if I seem like I'm patronizing but do you all not see the above???!   If Hadith differ from each other especially in Sunnism and Shiism (because we all know within these sects are more sects and even same sects who may practice "religious rituals" differently based on Marja or Scholarl/Imam rulings), then how does the above not ring a bell in anyone's mind?

Quran is unchangeable, Hadith ARE. @JustAMuslim  @skyweb1987 @Sindbad05 @S.M.H.A. @Salsabeel

Sorry I kinda hijacked this part @JustAMuslim. 

Did anyone of you Shia's travel and read these scripts/hadiths and were able to find any of your Imam personal insignias on the parchment/tablets?  Did any Sunnis? 

Edited October 24, 2017 by wmehar2

[ShiaMan14 7,155]

1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

yes. some. the remaining cant be tested against fact, and will have to be relied upon as historical sources.

the bible has flaws in it too, including contradictions which cant be explained except by human error, hence it cant be from God.

no. we do not go by believing every book. we go by believing the knowledge about people at that time, ilm ur rijal. and then we judge each hadith based on that. i am saying that person X narrated something absolutely true and couldnt have been from anyone but the prophet pbuh, but according to shia literature and ilm ur rijal, person X is supposed to be a liar/fabricator. that means that according to shia literature, two things can happen. 1. hadith cant be a source of deen, because there is evidence that the chains that shias labelled as fabricated, can give us true wordings of the prophet. which means some of the hadith are labelled as weak/fabricated and some part of the source of deen is lost. or 2. the shia books of rijal are not reliable. the books that tell us who each narrator was and whether he was reliable or not. i hope you understand my point and tell me which you think is more likely.

so now you are changing the discussion. The real discussion is about ilm-ur-rijal. If Abu Huraira has a hadith in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, it must be true. If Abu Huraira has a hadith in Tirmidi or Ibn majah, it could be daef. So can I not assume that Bukhari and Muslim picked all the truth from Abu Huraira and Tirmidi and Ibn Majah picked his lies?

Here is your text right back at you:

no. we do not go by believing every book. we go by believing the knowledge about people at that time, ilm ur rijal. and then we judge each hadith based on that. i am saying that person X narrated something absolutely true and couldnt have been from anyone but the prophet pbuh, but according to sunni literature and ilm ur rijal, person X is supposed to be a liar/fabricator. that means that according to sunni literature, two things can happen. 1. hadith cant be a source of deen, because there is evidence that the chains that sunnis labelled as fabricated, can give us true wordings of the prophet. which means some of the hadith are labelled as weak/fabricated and some part of the source of deen is lost. or 2. the sunni books of rijal are not reliable. the books that tell us who each narrator was and whether he was reliable or not. i hope you understand my point and tell me which you think is more likely.

1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

my brother, these are lies. have you looked at the references? the citations say the "hadith" is narrated in muslim, while in truth it is narrated in nahjul balaghah. not a single proper reference is given. just the volumes. like, bring the hadith number if you really want to share the truth. and refer to the article below for a detailed response to your link:

https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/05/09/did-umar-and-aisha-call-abu-hurairah-a-liar/

i would appreciate if you do not copy paste links. just bring hadith with its reference. otherwise i will also start mentioning links and we will get no where.

we are not going to get anywhere because you have blinders on. The exact same logic you are using to justify sunni literature can be used to justify shia literature. The exact accusations you are making against shia literature can be made against sunni literature.

From a pure logic perspective, you have no argument here. Replace "sunni" with "shia" in everything you post and you are exactly where you started.

1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

i can explain to you the answer. but dont you think asking such a question shows double sandards?

How is it a double standard? Sunnis say all sahaba were flawless; all hadith are from sahaba; therefore all hadith are true.

1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

a chain of narrators works like this: person A compiled a hadith book. A talked to B who said he heard from C who heard from D who heard from E who directly heard the prophet pbuh say something. person E has met the prophet directly and lived at his time. what we find in shia literature, is that A compiled the book, asked B, who said he heard C who heard the 9th imam say that XYZ happened at the time of the prophet. but the ninth imam didnt live at the time of the prophet. even if we accept that they were infallible, and would lie, who said they narrated the XYZ event from their parent, i.e. the previous imam? it could easily have been some one else, say for example person J. J could have claimed to have heard the previous imam, the 8th imam, father of the 9th imam and so the 9th imam narrated the XYZ event. but who know who narrator J was? it could have been ANYBODY, even a nonmuslim, or a hypocrite, or a liar, or fabricator.  do you understand what i am saying? sunni hadith go continuously from narrator B to E to the prophet. shia hadith go from B to C to 9th imam to the prophet. noone in between the 9th imam and the prophet.  

because once a hadith chain goes to an Imam it is an automatic presumption that it goes to the previous imams to the Prophet....I think the shias need to update all their books and after every hadith from an Imam we should add the names of all the Imams to the Prophet. That way, my good sunni brothers don't get confused.

1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

my initial question was, do the shia narrations have any such TRUE narrations? which could not have been known at the time the books were written/compiled, and not just at the time of the prophet? just to be safe and eliminate the possibility of the compilers fabricating such hadith. i bring you one example below from sunni hadiths.

Aisha narrated: The Prophet used to try to fast on Mondays and Thursdays.

jami at-tirmidhi 745

sunan an-nasai 2361,2362,2363,2364 similar wordings.

 

many more such ahadith exist. some from different occasions than this, and more explanations about this.

meaning the prophet pbuh used to fast mondays and thursdays.

 

now i link you to a google search. read the articles, any one of them, about intermittent fasting and see how exactly this matches:

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=5+2+diet&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

this was the first part. now the second part:

 

Abdullah ibn Amr bin al-Aas narrated:

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) met me and said: Have I not been informed that you told: I shall stand at prayer all the night, and I shall fast during the day ? He said: I think so. Yes, Messenger of Allah, I have said this. He said: Get up and pray at night and sleep ; fast and break your fast ; fast three days every month: that is equivalent to keeping perpetual fast. I said: Messenger of Allah, I have more power than that. He said: Then fast one day and break your fast one day. That is the most moderate fast ; that is the fast of Dawud (David). He said: I have more power than that. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: There is no fast more excellent that it.

 

sunan abu dawud 2427, authentic hadith.

muslim 1159 l, 1159 k, bukhari 3420, abu dawud 2448 all with similar wordings. 

 

meaning, fasting alternate days is the best fasting. even though mondays and thursdays were good, this has been narrated as the best.

 

i link you again to a google search. give any of them a read, specially the title of the third result. in case it is not there, the second link below is to that article:

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&client=opera&hs=zzO&q=eod+diet&oq=eod&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0i67k1j0j0i67k1l3j0i20i264k1j0j0i67k1j0l2.727540.728002.0.729610.3.3.0.0.0.0.278.676.0j1j2.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.672...0i131k1j0i131i46k1j46i131k1.0.VQ-66CaS1pU

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2017/01/12/every-other-day-52-diet-weight-loss_n_4674289.html

 

i humbly request you to at least check out the google search results and at least skim through one article, specially the one above from huffingtonpost. 

 

my brother - you need to come up something much better than this.

All the days of year are regarded as recommended days for fasting except for the forbidden days, reprehensible days and obligatory days of fasting. Besides fasting is highly recommended in these several days:

The first and the last Thursday as well as the first Wednesday after the tenth of each lunar month,
Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth of each lunar month,
All days of both Rajab and Sha'ban months,
From fourth to ninth of Shawwal,
The twenty ninth and twenty fifth of Dhu l-Qa'da (known as dahw al-ard day),
The first nine days of Dhu l-Hijja (the ninth of Dhu l-Hijja is known as 'Arafa day); However if one is incapable of reciting the 'Arafa supplication, observing fasting would be reprehensible,
The eighteenth of Dhu l-Hijja (Eid al-Ghadir),
Twenty fourth of Dhu l-Hijja (the day of mubahala),
The first, third and seventh of Muharram,
Seventeenth of Rabi' I (in which Prophet Muhammad (s) was born),
Fifteenth of Jumada I
Twenty fifth of Rajab (the day of Bi'that)

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Fasting

1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

surahs were written. yes. not compiled. but lets agree that all uthman did was set the order of the surahs in the quran. and that the quran was already compiled before it. did uthman change the order of the surahs? does that mean that Allah swt failed to keep his promise of protecting the quran? 

Yes of course Caliph Uthman changed the order of the surahs. Are you suggesting the first 2 surahs revealed by Allah were Al-Fatiha and Al-Baqara? Changing the order of the surahs is not changing the Quran. Its just like I pick up the Quran and tart reading any surah. There is not fiqhi rule about the order of surah to be read.

2 hours ago, just a muslim said:

how do you know that the quran today is the same as that which was compiled during the life of the prophet pbuh? and that uthman(and subsequently all the sahaba) didnt add the verses of protection of quran?

Because no Imam has cast doubt over the Quran.

2 hours ago, just a muslim said:

i am quite happy that you turned the question around at me. i KNOW that uthman didnt change the quran nor added ANY ayah, because i believe he was a righteous companion, and when he did compile it, all the sahaba agreed with it, and generally speaking, i repeat, generally speaking, those sahaba were righteous people, whom Allah has praised in the quran. see, in the sunni view, the general rule about sahaba was that they were good, due to the general praise in the quran about them. there may be exceptions to that rule, and there were, but that doesnt nullify the rule. otherwise the same could be said about the companions of imam jafar, which would be worse because the quran doesnt praise them, neither generally nor specifically.

suppose i were a shia. i wouldnt believe that uthman were a righteous person, upon the path of guidance, nor that the sahaba could be trusted since most of them didnt support Ali(even though this hypothetical situation is extremely circular, meaning the shia position is circular, no offence). then i would have no reason to trust the sahaba. and i wouldnt KNOW that the quran was preserved. the ahlul bayt played no role in the preservation of the quran(Ali ra did according to sunni view if i recall correctly, but the point is about the remaining ahlul bayt, the "infallibles", according to shia view). you can believe that Ali a.s. had a mushaf, organized chronologically, but that wasnt preserved by the ahlul bayt, so you dont have a case there. 

this is what i meant when i said that if i believe in the shia rijal system or literature, i wont have the quran. 

Salam.

Brother - you do know that righteousness and making mistakes are not synonymous with each other. A righteous Dr. can still make a mistake and kill his patient.

The reason Caliph Uthman could not change the Quran (not that he would) is because all the surahs were already compiled as they are today. He just ordered them which is not altering them.

Moreover Sunnis claim with great pride that Allah revealed the Quran in 7 huruf and Caliph Uthman consolidated it into 1. By whose authority did he do that? Sure if Allah wants 7, not even the Prophet can consolidate it into 1. My sunni brothers can't even tell me if Caliph Uthman chose 1 out of the 7 or combined the 7 huruf into an 8th harf. So you are better of believing the shia version of the truth that the surahs were compiled as they are today and Caliph Uthman ordered their sequence. Otherwise, either he changed the Quran or Allah lied about protecting the Quran. Either scenario is quite damning for you.

[just a muslim 119]

8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

so now you are changing the discussion. The real discussion is about ilm-ur-rijal. If Abu Huraira has a hadith in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, it must be true. If Abu Huraira has a hadith in Tirmidi or Ibn majah, it could be daef. So can I not assume that Bukhari and Muslim picked all the truth from Abu Huraira and Tirmidi and Ibn Majah picked his lies?

please try to understand the situation first before assuming. you can not assume that. because that is not true. a hadith in bukhari or muslim is not sahih simply because of abu huraira. the people who narrated the hadith from abu hurairah, the hadith is authentic because those people were reliable.

the hadith of abu hurairah in tirmidhi or ibn majah could be daeef. but it would not be daeef because of abu hurairah. it would be daeef because the people/person who narrated from abu hurairah was not reliable. 

8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

we are not going to get anywhere because you have blinders on. The exact same logic you are using to justify sunni literature can be used to justify shia literature. The exact accusations you are making against shia literature can be made against sunni literature.

From a pure logic perspective, you have no argument here. Replace "sunni" with "shia" in everything you post and you are exactly where you started.

i already told you why it is not the same. i can and did bring you True narrations from sunni literature. can you bring me a True narration from shia literature? if you think what i brought was a far fetched example, then bring an equally far fetched example from your literature. if you do, then i can be open to the possibility of there being some truth to both sunni and shia literature. and will try to bring something that you hopefully do not find so far fetched.

8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

How is it a double standard? Sunnis say all sahaba were flawless; all hadith are from sahaba; therefore all hadith are true.

1. no. there are other narrators as well in a chain. so all hadith from sahaba are not true. sunnis, educated ones, do not claim sahaba were flawless. their claim is that generally speaking, no sahabi will lie about the prophet. they base their claim on the quran, just as the shia base infallibility of ahlul bayt on the quran. you can chose to argue about it, but you first need to understand it. 

2. were the companions of imam jafar all reliable? your scholars say they were. 

8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

because once a hadith chain goes to an Imam it is an automatic presumption that it goes to the previous imams to the Prophet....I think the shias need to update all their books and after every hadith from an Imam we should add the names of all the Imams to the Prophet. That way, my good sunni brothers don't get confused.

okay. so it is an assumption. 

you should know that a hadith means sanad plus matn. if you change the sanad, that means you are changing the hadith and fabricating it. you should know such basic things. 

8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

my brother - you need to come up something much better than this.

bring something equally not good from shia sources and then we can up the ante. 

8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Yes of course Caliph Uthman changed the order of the surahs. Are you suggesting the first 2 surahs revealed by Allah were Al-Fatiha and Al-Baqara? Changing the order of the surahs is not changing the Quran. Its just like I pick up the Quran and tart reading any surah. There is not fiqhi rule about the order of surah to be read.

i thought that you were implying book meant something between two covers? when you quoted the hadith of umar about kitabullah being enough for us. that would imply that uthman changed the kitabullah. and thus the promise of Allah was not kept. but that cant be. so, that means that the quran was not in a book form during the prophet pbuh's life. and your claim that uthman simply arranged the surahs, and didnt/couldnt change anything is false. you dont even know if the surahs were written during the time of the prophet. that is merely a belief without any basis. sunnis have a basis for that.

8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Because no Imam has cast doubt over the Quran.

that is no daleel my friend.

8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Brother - you do know that righteousness and making mistakes are not synonymous with each other. A righteous Dr. can still make a mistake and kill his patient.

The reason Caliph Uthman could not change the Quran (not that he would) is because all the surahs were already compiled as they are today. He just ordered them which is not altering them.

Moreover Sunnis claim with great pride that Allah revealed the Quran in 7 huruf and Caliph Uthman consolidated it into 1. By whose authority did he do that? Sure if Allah wants 7, not even the Prophet can consolidate it into 1. My sunni brothers can't even tell me if Caliph Uthman chose 1 out of the 7 or combined the 7 huruf into an 8th harf. So you are better of believing the shia version of the truth that the surahs were compiled as they are today and Caliph Uthman ordered their sequence. Otherwise, either he changed the Quran or Allah lied about protecting the Quran. Either scenario is quite damning for you.

true. righteousness and making mistakes are not synonymous. but righteous does imply that the person wont fabricate a lie, specially against the prophet pbuh, when the mutawatir hadith exists aboout the punishment of doing so.

i already told you i am reading about the ahruf. and if there doesnt exist a good enough explanation, i wont hesitate to leave it.

[Urwatul Wuthqa 3,166]

9 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Quran is unchangeable, Hadith ARE.

Surah Al-Ahzab, Verse 23:

مِّنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ رِجَالٌ صَدَقُوا مَا عَاهَدُوا اللَّهَ عَلَيْهِ فَمِنْهُم مَّن قَضَىٰ نَحْبَهُ وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَنتَظِرُ وَمَا بَدَّلُوا تَبْدِيلًا

Of the believers are men who are true to the covenant which they made with Allah: so of them is he who accomplished his vow, and of them is he who yet waits, and they have not changed in the least

(English - Shakir)

[Ashvazdanghe 8,483]

http://shiastudies.org/article/ilm-al-rijaal-science-of-men

In keeping with tradition, Shaykh Mishkeeni (d. 1939AD) has defined ilm al-Rijaal as follows:

What is studied about a narrator's biography in accordance with the criteria for the acceptance of the report or the rejection of it[1]

[1] Mirza Abu'l Hassan al-Mishkeeni, Wajeezah fi 'ilm al-Rijaal, (Mu'assasat al-'A'lami lil MaTbuaat, 1991) p.13.

 

"O Believers, if an unrighteous person comes to you with information, you should verify it or else you might inflict harm on a people in ignorance and then end up regretting what you have done." (Al Quran 49:6)

Biographies of the Companions of Imam Ali (a.s)

 

Classical Period

The two works from this time, which continue to be relevant, and are viewed as highly invaluable today, are the works of the renowned Imami jurist and scholar Shaykh Abu Ja'far Muhammad b. al-Hassan al-Tusi (d. 1067AH), who in his works ‘Rijaal al-Tusi’ and ‘Fihrist al-Tusi’ respectively has contributed heavily to the development of  Rijaal literature.

The second of the primary works for the discipline of ilm al-Rijaal is the work of Tusi's contemporary  Ahmad b. Ali b. 'Abbas al-Najashi (d. 1058AH) ,who wrote  ‘Fihrist al-Najashi,’ a work which is now recognized as being the most dependable of all the primary works for the discipline.

After the classical period, several more works of Rijaal were written by dependable scholars of the Imamiyyah, three in particular have gained relative importance and have come to be depended upon in the discipline, namely:

1. The work of Allamah al-Hilli (d.1325AH) ‘Khulasat al-Aqwaal fi Ma'rifat 'ilm al-Rijaal’
2. The Rijaal work of b. Dawud (d.1274AH) known commonly as ‘Rijaal b.
3. Dawud’ Mu'allim al-'Ulema’ of b. Shahrashub al-Mazandarani (d.1162AH).

This last work is older than the other two, but is less widely used. These works, despite not being primary sources, have been extensively utilized by modern scholars in the field of 'ilm al-Rijaal.

Modern Period

Rijaal works since the time of Allamah Hilli are generally classified as modern Rijaal works. While there were many works written during this period, the two most celebrated ones are the reference works of two twentieth century Jurists

1. Tanqeeh al-Maqal fi 'ilm al-Rijaal’ of Shaykh Abd Allah al-Mamqani(d.1931AH).
2. al-Mu'jam Rijaal al-Hadith’ of Sayyed Al-Khu’ī (d.1993AH).

While not always recognized strictly as sources of ilm al-Rijaal, mention must also be made of two particular sources which have been heavily utilized by the scholars of ilm al-Rijaal:

1. Kamil al-Ziyarat’ of Ibn Qulawayh (d.368A.H)
2. Tafseer al-Qummi’ by ‘Ali ibn Ibraheem al-Qummi (d.329A.H).

Al-Ziyarat states in the introduction to his crucial work that he only narrates from trustworthy individuals (although Khu’i would interpret this to mean only those whom he narrated from directly) and ‘Ali ibn Ibraheem al-Qummi states that he too has only narrated from reliable individuals. However, unfortunately with 'Tafseer al-Qummi,’ there is a great deal of controversy over whether or not the Tafseer ascribed to him is actually the original Tafseer he wrote.

[S.M.H.A. 1,795]

17 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Quran is unchangeable, Hadith ARE.    @S.M.H.A. 

 

هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ ۖ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ ۗ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۗ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا ۗ وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ {7}

[Pickthal 3:7] He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

*****

I am leaving among you the Two Weighty Things: the Book of Allah and my `Itrat (Progeny), my Ahlul Bayt. So long as you (simultaneously) uphold both of them, you will never be misled after me; so, do not go ahead of them else you should perish, and do not lag behind them else you should perish; do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you.1

https://www.al-islam.org/shiah-are-real-ahlul-sunnah-muhammad-al-tijani-al-samawi/hadith-al-thaqalayn-according-shias

*****

اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۚ مَثَلُ نُورِهِ كَمِشْكَاةٍ فِيهَا مِصْبَاحٌ ۖ الْمِصْبَاحُ فِي زُجَاجَةٍ ۖ الزُّجَاجَةُ كَأَنَّهَا كَوْكَبٌ دُرِّيٌّ يُوقَدُ مِنْ شَجَرَةٍ مُبَارَكَةٍ زَيْتُونَةٍ لَا شَرْقِيَّةٍ وَلَا غَرْبِيَّةٍ يَكَادُ زَيْتُهَا يُضِيءُ وَلَوْ لَمْ تَمْسَسْهُ نَارٌ ۚ نُورٌ عَلَىٰ نُورٍ ۗ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ لِنُورِهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ ۚ وَيَضْرِبُ اللَّهُ الْأَمْثَالَ لِلنَّاسِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ {35}

[Pickthal 24:35] Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guideth unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things.

*****

"Al-Qur'an an-natiq" means the "speaking Qur'an."

https://www.al-islam.org/shiism-imamate-and-wilayat-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi/knowledge-ahlul-bayt#6-concept-al-quran-natiq

[Sindbad05 2,045]

17 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Quran is unchangeable, Hadith ARE. @JustAMuslim  @skyweb1987 @Sindbad05 @S.M.H.A. @Salsabeel

Sorry I kinda hijacked this part @JustAMuslim. 

Brother, I agree that narrator may fail to quote the Hadith as it was really happened. That is the reason that I was discussing it with @andres as I read about the same hadith which I quoted to him in a book which says that "baby boy's is fed with different milk by mother than baby girl". The reason of this is that one book "Salooni" mentions that it's weight is double that of baby girl on page 62,63,64. Albeit another book "Hazrat Ali k Faislay" that can be downloaded by clicking the following first link in my signature on page 194,195 says that "The milk that feeds baby boy is increased in weight than baby girls". The difference is clear that one calls it double and other just says it weighs more. So, I think that it may be due to human error that we may encounter misinformation in Hadith but not due to "Infallible Imams". 

[Sindbad05 2,045]

For me, I need to search all sources of the particular hadith and also wait for the observations in this regard to ascertain which one is true. 

[Muslim2010 3,537]

19 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

...., then how does the above not ring a bell in anyone's mind?

Quran is unchangeable, Hadith ARE. @JustAMuslim  @skyweb1987 @Sindbad05 @S.M.H.A. @Salsabeel

 

Already Replied earlier in other thread after long discussion:

.

[ShiaMan14 7,155]

10 hours ago, just a muslim said:

please try to understand the situation first before assuming. you can not assume that. because that is not true. a hadith in bukhari or muslim is not sahih simply because of abu huraira. the people who narrated the hadith from abu hurairah, the hadith is authentic because those people were reliable.

the hadith of abu hurairah in tirmidhi or ibn majah could be daeef. but it would not be daeef because of abu hurairah. it would be daeef because the people/person who narrated from abu hurairah was not reliable. 

that is my point. reliability of ahadith is based on each hadith and its chain of narrators. Sunnis and shias have their own ilm-ur-rijal. So really all you re arguing over is "I am Sunni and I believe sunni literature. Therefore all shia literature is false". Other than that, you have no argument here....at all.

10 hours ago, just a muslim said:

i already told you why it is not the same. i can and did bring you True narrations from sunni literature. can you bring me a True narration from shia literature? if you think what i brought was a far fetched example, then bring an equally far fetched example from your literature. if you do, then i can be open to the possibility of there being some truth to both sunni and shia literature. and will try to bring something that you hopefully do not find so far fetched.

bring something equally not good from shia sources and then we can up the ante. 

You discussed fasting and I provided a whole list of recommended fasts for the shia. Your reason for believing Sunni literature is that it mentions the Prophet (saw) recommended frequent fasting. Shias have the same. Therefore, you are as Shia as you are Sunni.

11 hours ago, just a muslim said:

1. no. there are other narrators as well in a chain. so all hadith from sahaba are not true. sunnis, educated ones, do not claim sahaba were flawless. their claim is that generally speaking, no sahabi will lie about the prophet. they base their claim on the quran, just as the shia base infallibility of ahlul bayt on the quran. you can chose to argue about it, but you first need to understand it. 

2. were the companions of imam jafar all reliable? your scholars say they were. 

 

1. The Quran claims all sahaba were flawless??? Let's use an example - would Abu Sufiyan lie about the Prophet (saw)?
2. Nope. but it depends on your definition of companion. Just because someone met Imam Jafar (as) once, does not make him a companion. There are those who spent a lot of time with the Imam and are deemed trustworthy.

11 hours ago, just a muslim said:

okay. so it is an assumption. 

you should know that a hadith means sanad plus matn. if you change the sanad, that means you are changing the hadith and fabricating it. you should know such basic things. 

who is changing the sanad?

11 hours ago, just a muslim said:

i thought that you were implying book meant something between two covers? when you quoted the hadith of umar about kitabullah being enough for us. that would imply that uthman changed the kitabullah. and thus the promise of Allah was not kept. but that cant be. so, that means that the quran was not in a book form during the prophet pbuh's life. and your claim that uthman simply arranged the surahs, and didnt/couldnt change anything is false. you dont even know if the surahs were written during the time of the prophet. that is merely a belief without any basis. sunnis have a basis for that.

Please, please, please tell me you know that the Prophet had scribes who wrote the revelations (wahi). Well, the hadith from Caliph Umar is authentic and he referred to the Quran as "kitabullah". What was he referring to if not the Quran? Bible?

Changing the order of the surahs is not changing the Quran.

11 hours ago, just a muslim said:

true. righteousness and making mistakes are not synonymous. but righteous does imply that the person wont fabricate a lie, specially against the prophet pbuh, when the mutawatir hadith exists aboout the punishment of doing so.

i already told you i am reading about the ahruf. and if there doesnt exist a good enough explanation, i wont hesitate to leave it.

Even if no one fabricated lies, they can make mistakes.

Leave aside ahruf, if Caliph Uthman arranged the ayahs of Surahs and then ordered the indexing of surahs, that is definitely changing the Quran, isnt it.

 

 

[wmehar2 652]

2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Even if no one fabricated lies, they can make mistakes.

Leave aside ahruf, if Caliph Uthman arranged the ayahs of Surahs and then ordered the indexing of surahs, that is definitely changing the Quran, isnt it.

If we're referring to who did what in History, must we also acknowledge that The official culmination/compilation was not approved unless imam Ali ibn Abu Talib's AS gave final approval?

I'm fairly certain that this is a thing that was supposed to have happened.  According to historical narrative, Uthman was literally frustrated with how it was put together Because of how attentive Imam Ali AS was with the process.

 

Whether or not I have proof all this is true, is another  story. But if you beleive that is the case, then what is the issue?

[ShiaMan14 7,155]

52 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

If we're referring to who did what in History, must we also acknowledge that The official culmination/compilation was not approved unless imam Ali ibn Abu Talib's AS gave final approval?

I'm fairly certain that this is a thing that was supposed to have happened.  According to historical narrative, Uthman was literally frustrated with how it was put together Because of how attentive Imam Ali AS was with the process.

 

Whether or not I have proof all this is true, is another  story. But if you beleive that is the case, then what is the issue?

I believe 100% that the Quran we have today is the Quran that was left by the Prophet.

The issue is that brother @just a muslim said, "i believe if i dont trust the sunni version, i cant have the quran". 

Do you agree with his statement?

Edited October 25, 2017 by shiaman14

[wmehar2 652]

2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

I believe 100% that the Quran we have today is the Quran that was left by the Prophet.

The issue is that brother @just a muslim said, "i believe if i dont trust the sunni version, i cant have the quran". 

Do you agree with his statement?

@JustAMuslim are you saying that? If so, I'd have to know what "Sunni Version" means.  Sunni version of History?  If so, what is it?

And what does "not having quran" mean?

I would think he understands/knows regardless the Qur'an by itself without some historical explanation of how it came to be put together in it's sequence or whatever, is irrelevant.   Reading it alone as it is, is enough beyond measure to understand.

[just a muslim 119]

@shiaman14 @wmehar2 what i mean is, if i dont believe the sunni rijal system, i cant be sure that the quran is preserved even to the dot. the quran is a book, as well as a recital. the sunnis, or rather the sahaba compiled the quran. to think that the quran existed in compiled form before that, is wishful thinking without any real evidence. and then when we do have the compiled quran, it was in a very different script without any nuqaats or tashkeel. dots or vowel signs. a non arab or a modern day arab wouldnt be able to read it. even a normal arab at that time wouldnt be able to read it because there was no standardized way of writing arabic. we can find proof of that even in the mushaf that exists today in every home. how then did the people know how to recite the book? with the help of qarees or qurraa'. the reciters. if i reject the sunni books of rijal, or if i accept the shia books of rijal, the quran will have been transmitted to me through either unknown reciters, or misguided/deviant sunni reciters, neither of which i would be able to trust. i can believe that the quran today is the same as the quran that was revealed to muhammad saw. but that would be as good as a christian's belief that bible is the unchanged word of God.

a simple question to explain what i am saying is, if i brought to you 2 books. and asked you which of them is the quran? how would you know? the one with all the surahs that you are aware of? how do you know that those surahs, the ones you are aware of, the ones you have been taught of, are a part of the quran? and just because everyone says something, doesnt make it true, so if you are gonna say that well, everyone says they are part of quran. so that must be true. that isnt necessarily true. also, saying that all the imams said that the quran is preserved is proof, is circular because you take the infallibility of imams from the quran(the nass atleast). so both of them authenticating each other is no proof for anyone. look up circular if any of you isnt aware of what it means. similarly, any verse of the quran you bring to prove the preservation of quran is also a circular argument, and hence logically false. you may bring some verses to say these couldnt have been known at the time of muhammad saw, so it has to be from god. nobody is denying that here. but those verses do not guarantee the preservation of other verses. you can find similar astonishing verses in other holy scriptures as well. 

[wmehar2 652]

40 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

@shiaman14 @wmehar2 what i mean is, if i dont believe the sunni rijal system, i cant be sure that the quran is preserved even to the dot. the quran is a book, as well as a recital. the sunnis, or rather the sahaba compiled the quran. to think that the quran existed in compiled form before that, is wishful thinking without any real evidence. and then when we do have the compiled quran, it was in a very different script without any nuqaats or tashkeel. dots or vowel signs. a non arab or a modern day arab wouldnt be able to read it. even a normal arab at that time wouldnt be able to read it because there was no standardized way of writing arabic. we can find proof of that even in the mushaf that exists today in every home. how then did the people know how to recite the book? with the help of qarees or qurraa'. the reciters. if i reject the sunni books of rijal, or if i accept the shia books of rijal, the quran will have been transmitted to me through either unknown reciters, or misguided/deviant sunni reciters, neither of which i would be able to trust. i can believe that the quran today is the same as the quran that was revealed to muhammad saw. but that would be as good as a christian's belief that bible is the unchanged word of God.

a simple question to explain what i am saying is, if i brought to you 2 books. and asked you which of them is the quran? how would you know? the one with all the surahs that you are aware of? how do you know that those surahs, the ones you are aware of, the ones you have been taught of, are a part of the quran? and just because everyone says something, doesnt make it true, so if you are gonna say that well, everyone says they are part of quran. so that must be true. that isnt necessarily true. also, saying that all the imams said that the quran is preserved is proof, is circular because you take the infallibility of imams from the quran(the nass atleast). so both of them authenticating each other is no proof for anyone. look up circular if any of you isnt aware of what it means. similarly, any verse of the quran you bring to prove the preservation of quran is also a circular argument, and hence logically false. you may bring some verses to say these couldnt have been known at the time of muhammad saw, so it has to be from god. nobody is denying that here. but those verses do not guarantee the preservation of other verses. you can find similar astonishing verses in other holy scriptures as well. 

The one without contradiction. 

I haven't heard differences in recitation that resulted in translation differences.

The recitations have been validated memorizer by memorizer,  someone wrote them down in kufic, classical, this language, that language,  yet the meaning and recitation ( perhaps recitation but none Im aware of) hasn't changed as far as the oldest Quran.

the second recitation, or script changes happen, they are challenged.   the muslim world nearly 99.99% agrees without dispute what the Quran is as preserved, otherwise we would have multiple books across sects.

[just a muslim 119]

1 minute ago, wmehar2 said:

The one without contradiction. 

I haven't heard differences in recitation that resulted in translation differences.

The recitations have been validated memorizer by memorizer,  someone wrote them down in kufic, classical, this language, that language,  yet the meaning and recitation ( perhaps recitation but none Im aware of) hasn't changed as far as the oldest Quran.

the second recitation, or script changes happen, they are challenged.   the muslim world nearly 99.99% agrees without dispute what the Quran is as preserved, otherwise we would have multiple books across sects.

difference in translation isnt the point. the point is, how did the prophet pbuh recite the quran. 

how do you know all this that you have mentioned? what is your source of information?

[wmehar2 652]

46 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

difference in translation isnt the point. the point is, how did the prophet pbuh recite the quran. 

how do you know all this that you have mentioned? what is your source of information?

 

The Arabic spoken by the Prophet was Quraysh Arabic, which no one knows how to resurrect.

The Quran has elements in it that seem arbitrary like Alif Lam mim or Alif lam raa, perhaps these are components someone with Quraysh Arabic understand. 

But I can't dig that up.

So I use deductive reasoning.  If books such as the Bible, Torah and even literature of poets and authors of the classical era are disputed, with many parties asserting their view of what it was, how is it the Quran escaped this circumstance?

You have some non muslim quasi- quack scholars who say Quran is in a syriac variant of arabic language and we (muslims) screwed up the translation, but even they agree we have as original as it gets. 

If pages carbon dated to life of Muhammad are still shown to be the same, I then have justification to say I have original Gods message.

Add to the fact that Arabic is a phonetically melodic language that has built into its frame rhythm and musicality. Memorization of complex verses and literature and poetry of great lengths were normal/standard in the Arabian culture .  Phrases with complex meanings are efficiently spoken,  easily comitted to memory.   These are a people who on average memorized their ancestors names 24 generations back. Did you know there isnt a single contradiction of the recitation of northern Arabian tribes ancestors to a single man, Adnan?

Not a single contradiction.  Seems like if I was a God, then these are the people I create to preserve my message.  Constant validation over time with rules governing when to destroy a written copy.... since inception of the message. Rules of how many Hafiz to produce in Royal courts etc. etc.  

Assuming historical narratives are correct, during compilation all memorizers came together with their written scripts, and burned  the ones with spelling errors.  Recitations all validated.

Beleive me when I say muslims (hypocrites), and non muslims alike have tried to change add, redact verses in the Quran and have failed. Thanks to recitation and strict standard work on preservation processes.

But quite frankly, I'm more curious to know, why is it important if we KNOW for certain that we have Quran recited as it originally was?

Either you believe what is in the Book as God's message or not.  This is an article of faith. If we are wrongly believing that Quran is a book of God, then are not we blameless?  The book claims God will preserve it, if you believe it, then you have it, if you don't, you have nothing. What do I care whether if its not how Muhammad recited it if I dont know Quraysh Arabic? Maybe God intended to preserve it this way so we understand it?

The fact remains, The Quran through all rijal systems are one in the same.  

Sunnism and Shiism narrative becomes Irrelevant.   The book as it is now is still very much a book without contradiction, and cannot be reflective of a man's single creation.

The Shia or Sunni Rijal 3lm system didn't do jack piddley doo more for Quran preservation than the other since they are the one in same result of Quran.  Lo and Behold the author of this book must be the one preserving it. Miraculously everyone agrees on its recitation and written script. 

The recitation came first, then the refined script.

Its like saying Bob names a cat, a cat..Bill names a cat, a cat... 1000 years later they call it a cat but spell it kat.

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by wmehar2

[hasanhh 10,318]

1 hour ago, wmehar2 said:

The Arabic spoken by the Prophet was Quraysh Arabic, which no one knows how to resurrect.

The Quran has elements in it that seem arbitrary like Alif Lam mim or Alif lam raa, perhaps these are components someone with Quraysh Arabic understand. 

But I can't dig that up.

 ...

These are the Muqatta`at.  Only Hojjatallah will know what these mean, inshallah.

So your wasting your time doing this.

[wmehar2 652]

40 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

These are the Muqatta`at.  Only Hojjatallah will know what these mean, inshallah.

So your wasting your time doing this.

( i know hence why I state can't dig it up)

[ShiaMan14 7,155]

14 hours ago, just a muslim said:

@shiaman14 @wmehar2 what i mean is, if i dont believe the sunni rijal system, i cant be sure that the quran is preserved even to the dot. the quran is a book, as well as a recital. the sunnis, or rather the sahaba compiled the quran. to think that the quran existed in compiled form before that, is wishful thinking without any real evidence. and then when we do have the compiled quran, it was in a very different script without any nuqaats or tashkeel. dots or vowel signs. a non arab or a modern day arab wouldnt be able to read it. even a normal arab at that time wouldnt be able to read it because there was no standardized way of writing arabic. we can find proof of that even in the mushaf that exists today in every home. how then did the people know how to recite the book? with the help of qarees or qurraa'. the reciters. if i reject the sunni books of rijal, or if i accept the shia books of rijal, the quran will have been transmitted to me through either unknown reciters, or misguided/deviant sunni reciters, neither of which i would be able to trust. i can believe that the quran today is the same as the quran that was revealed to muhammad saw. but that would be as good as a christian's belief that bible is the unchanged word of God.

the brother doesn't want to accept this but really his argument is that because he is a Sunni, he trusts the sunni Ilm-ur-rijal. Therefore Shias are wrong. The brother is this essentially:

I believe blue is the best color.
Sahih-Blueain says "blue is the best color"
Therefore I am right.
Sahih-Whiteain says "white is the best color"
I dont agree with it. It is wrong and everyone who believes in it is wrong.

14 hours ago, just a muslim said:

a simple question to explain what i am saying is, if i brought to you 2 books. and asked you which of them is the quran? how would you know? the one with all the surahs that you are aware of? how do you know that those surahs, the ones you are aware of, the ones you have been taught of, are a part of the quran? and just because everyone says something, doesnt make it true, so if you are gonna say that well, everyone says they are part of quran. so that must be true. that isnt necessarily true. also, saying that all the imams said that the quran is preserved is proof, is circular because you take the infallibility of imams from the quran(the nass atleast). so both of them authenticating each other is no proof for anyone. look up circular if any of you isnt aware of what it means. similarly, any verse of the quran you bring to prove the preservation of quran is also a circular argument, and hence logically false. you may bring some verses to say these couldnt have been known at the time of muhammad saw, so it has to be from god. nobody is denying that here. but those verses do not guarantee the preservation of other verses. you can find similar astonishing verses in other holy scriptures as well. 

I read a book called "Case for Christ". The author cites the Bible and Christian scholars to confirm Christianity is correct. Does that make any sense? This is exactly what my brother @just a muslim is doing.

13 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

 the muslim world nearly 99.99% agrees without dispute what the Quran is as preserved, otherwise we would have multiple books across sects.

and we would believe this even if not a single hadith book existed.

[aqeel321 0]

On 10/19/2017 at 3:19 PM, shiaman14 said:

Can we agree that the exact same question would be applicable to you or any sunni? Why do you trust Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim? Because someone told you too?

Bukhari was born 200 years after the Prophet. How can you be 100% sure he didn't make up everything in his book? A stone running away with Prophet Musa's clothes could just be his perverse thinking. No?

Brother,

How many years after the Prophet (saw) was Zurarah born?  And when exactly did Al-Kafi saw the dawn of day?

Perverse thinking?  Maybe you should not throw stones while living in a glass house.

This hadith is also recorded by your great (Shia) Mufassir Abul-hasan Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi in his Tafsir of Quran ‘Tafsir-ul-Qummi’ of Sura Al-Ahzab where he records the following:  "Abu Abdullah reported that that Banu Israil were saying that Musa does not have what men have and when Musa wanted to take a bath he would go to a place where nobody could see him.  One day he was taking a bath at a river, so he put his clothes on a stone so Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى ordered the stone (to go away) so it went away from him until Banu Israil saw him and knew that it was wrong what they said about him."  Also, al-Fadl b. al-Hasan al-Tabrisi has confirmed this event in his Majma' Al-Bayan and Ni'matallah al-Jaza'iri has defended this report.

Lastly, with a Hasan (good) chain from Imam Sadiq, we read (the Bani Israel thought) that Moses does not have manhood.  And when Moses wants to do ghusl (bath), he goes to such a place where no one can see him.  One day when he was taking a bath at the bank of a river, and he placed his clothes.  God ordered the stone to get away from Moses.  Moses ran after it.  Till the bani israel saw at Moses and they understood that what they thought was wrong.  And this is the meaning of this verse i.e ‘O ye who believe! Be ye not like those who vexed and insulted Moses, but God cleared him of the (calumnies) they had uttered: and he was honourable in God’s sight.’ [Hayat ul Quloob, Vol. 1, p. 240]

[ShiaMan14 7,155]

1 hour ago, aqeel321 said:

Brother,

How many years after the Prophet (saw) was Zurarah born?  And when exactly did Al-Kafi saw the dawn of day?

Perverse thinking?  Maybe you should not throw stones while living in a glass house.

This hadith is also recorded by your great (Shia) Mufassir Abul-hasan Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi in his Tafsir of Quran ‘Tafsir-ul-Qummi’ of Sura Al-Ahzab where he records the following:  "Abu Abdullah reported that that Banu Israil were saying that Musa does not have what men have and when Musa wanted to take a bath he would go to a place where nobody could see him.  One day he was taking a bath at a river, so he put his clothes on a stone so Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى ordered the stone (to go away) so it went away from him until Banu Israil saw him and knew that it was wrong what they said about him."  Also, al-Fadl b. al-Hasan al-Tabrisi has confirmed this event in his Majma' Al-Bayan and Ni'matallah al-Jaza'iri has defended this report.

 

I have. I problem saying this is false. We don't have Sahih books. Each hadith is validated on its own merit.

Surah Ahzab:69 refers to this incidents:

 

After Firawn and his people had been drowned in the Nile, Musa delegated the authority to Harun. This caused envy in Qarun towards Musa and Harun. To degrade Musa he employed a woman, bribing her with two purses of gold, and told her to say before public that Musa had committed adultery with her.

Next day when Musa was preaching to the crowd against adultery, Qarun stood up and asked if the same punishment would be against Musa also if he committed the crime? Musa said that it would certainly be, at which Qarun pointed out to the woman and said that the woman alleged that Musa had committed adultery with her. Musa called the woman and asked her to tell the truth. When face to face with Musa the woman divulged the secret plan of Qarun saying that she had been hired by Qarun to lay this false charge against him.

Musa got angry and prayed to Allah to punish Qarun. Allah responded to Musa's prayer and asked Musa to order the earth to swallow Qarun and his fellow disbelievers who were with him.

When the earth had taken up Qarun and his party to their waists they shouted for mercy but Musa did not stop the earth and they were completely swallowed. Allah addressed Musa, at this stage, and said to Musa that Qarun and his men cried for mercy several times but Musa commanded the earth to swallow them completely. "Had they called Me even once, I would certainly have forgiven them and saved them."

Here the grief of the Holy Prophet for the disbelievers should be remembered.

1 hour ago, aqeel321 said:

Lastly, with a Hasan (good) chain from Imam Sadiq, we read (the Bani Israel thought) that Moses does not have manhood.  And when Moses wants to do ghusl (bath), he goes to such a place where no one can see him.  One day when he was taking a bath at the bank of a river, and he placed his clothes.  God ordered the stone to get away from Moses.  Moses ran after it.  Till the bani israel saw at Moses and they understood that what they thought was wrong.  And this is the meaning of this verse i.e ‘O ye who believe! Be ye not like those who vexed and insulted Moses, but God cleared him of the (calumnies) they had uttered: and he was honourable in God’s sight.’ [Hayat ul Quloob, Vol. 1, p. 240]

Here is the link to Hayat Al-Qaloob VOL 1 section about Hz Musa. I couldn't find the above when I skimmed through it.

https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol-1-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/account-musa-and-harun

Edited October 27, 2017 by shiaman14