₦airaland Forum

Empiree:
[size=40pt]Congratulations !!![/size]

Welcome To Islamic Den

I'm NOT Mod.

Mac is No Longer Mod either.

There is nothing you can really do as far as I know.

All you can do now is hola @holyspirit to take the cup away from you

Which post are you trying to comment on? .

Quote it and let's see how we can help.

The "Testimony of faith" will eventually disappear. For now, you are muslim don't get your bp high. It's all good, buddy. Does it hurt?

I hope @Kendzyma do have a good sense of humor, Just avoid posting on this section for a while, maybe a week or so, the "oat" would be removed, I believe. Meanwhile, may I also congratulate you coming over and wanting to contribute to a thread here, feel free to read through, ask questions and enjoy your time being a "Muslim"

Ma sha Allah, Jazakumullahu khayran brother, may Allah increase you in knowledge, wisdom and understanding ameen.

@AlBaqir, I do know that the reason for this continuous antagonism for taraweeh in jama’ah immediately after ishai as well as 20 raka’aat is just because of Umar (ra), there is absolutely no tangible reason aside from this, so I would like to bring to fore, the following narrations found in your books,

From al-Istibsar:

1792 – 5: Muhammad b. Ya`qub from `Ali b. Ibrahim from Muhammad b. `Isa b. `Ubayd from Yunus b. `Abd ar-Rahman from Abu 'l-`Abbas al-Baqbaq and `Ubayd b. Zurara from Abu `Abdillah . He said: The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله would increase his salat in the month of Ramadan when he had prayed the `atama(isha), he prayed after it. The people stood behind him so he went inside and left them. Then he went out again and they came and stood behind him, so he went inside and left them. Then he went out again and they came and stood behind him, so he went inside and left them several times. And he said: Do not pray after the `atama(Isha) in other than the month of Ramadan.

8 – 1795: `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Faddal from Isma`il b. Mihran from al-Husayn b. al-Hasan al-Maruzi from Yunus b. `Abd ar-Rahman from Muhammad b. Yahya. He said: I was with Abu `Abdillah and he was asked whether the salat of nawafil are increased in the month of Ramadan? So he said: Yes, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله would pray after the `atama(Isha) in his place of prayer. So he did takbir and the people would gather behind him to pray by his salat. So when they did takbir behind him, he left them and went inside his house. So when the people dispersed he went back to his place of prayer and he prayed as he had prayed. So when the people did takbir behind him, he left them and went inside, and he would do that several times.

Abu Abdillah -AS - said: The Prophet would increase his Salaat during Ramadan after he prays ishaa so people will stand behind him to pray .......he added: do not pray after ishaa except in the month of Ramadan [Al-Kafi: 4/154]

Abu Abdillah said: The Prophet used to increase his Salaah in Ramadan and i am increasing it too so increase it as well. [ al-tahtheeb: 3/60]

Well what can I say, interesting narrations indeed…

Now the reason the Prophet (SAW) discontinued the congregation for the taraweeh prayer was explicitly explained by him (SAW), there is nothing stopping us from praying taraweeh in Jama’ah now, because the reason given by the Prophet (SAW) does not apply on us, the nawafil cannot be made compulsory on us anymore, it was a form of mercy from the Prophet (SAW) to discontinue with the congregation, so I ask, what stops us from praying it in Jama’ah after the demise of the Prophet (SAW)? Do you shi’as have a narration that specifically and explicitly prohibit nawafil in Jama’ah?! Please provide evidences….

@ShiaMuslim,

First and foremost, Thank God you are not running away, and for the record, I post when I deem it fit and necessary as well as prevailing circumstances; I am not under any obligation to respond to your post immediately, it is my prerogative to apply myself on this forum accordingly.

Secondly, this is a forum, and it is expected that members should exhibit a level of intellectual capacity and ability. You are expected to post your opinions and if necessary, backed up with appropriate evidences for discussion.. pointing me to a link does not answer the questions posed on this thread thus far, and I find this act of yours similar to Al-Haydari in the video above by the OP, when confronted with similar question, beating about the bush and not going straight to the point…I guess it is a tough one to answer, if the scholars amongst you find it difficult, no wonder you are also afraid to give substantive answers…

Lastly, again I would ask, and this time, I would rephrase putting to cognizance what had transpired so far.

1. You have claimed that verses in the Qur’an are about Imamah (and this is referring to shi’a concept of Imamah), please post them, and give us the authentic narrations from the Prophet (SAW) that support this understanding from these verses…If you can, please post understandings of the ahl-l-bayt on the verses you quote

2. Prove the principles of Imamah (according to your shi’ah beliefs) from the Qur’an, note, if you may, the five pillars (fundamentals) of Islam according to authentic narration from the Prophet (SAW) can be proven (i.e their principles) from the Qur’an.

3. With respect to the Al-Muhajir’s statement being a mix-up due to his old age and several surgeries, making him to forget Tawheed as a fundamental of Islam, and listing zakah, sawm etc, as part of the fundamentals, you then posted the 5 Usul (Fundamentals) of the Shi’a to be; 1.) Tawheed 2.) Adl (Divine Justice) 3.) Nubuwwah 4.) Imamah 5.) Qiyamah (resurrection), hence, I request you provide evidences to support this list from the Prophet (SAW) and the ahl-l-bayt…

Now these are straightforward questions that do not require dillydallying, if you are sure of what you believe in being a command from Allah (SWT) then you should provide answers…But if you do not have answers and want to keep pointing to external links for me to visit, then I doubt you know what you are doing…

@lexiconkabir, perhaps you should mail the mods, seems the anti-spam bot has picked on your posts…

@ShiaMuslim

1. I agree with you, the translation is not accurate literally; it should be “Imamah is a fundamental amongst the fundamentals of the religion.” If you would also be truthful to yourself, the Sheikh then states that there is no excuse for one who ignores it, or forgets about it for they would enter hell fire, I would like to know, if one ignores or forget the other fundamentals of the religion, and holds on to Imamah, is it the same? Would the person still be a Kafir and enters hell?
If we put the statement of the second sheikh into the picture, he stated emphatically that without Imamah, acts of worship i.e other fundamentals of the religion are null and void, hence in reality, Imamah is the fundamental principle on which the religion is based upon, thus, I wouldn’t be too critical if those who translated the video chose to use that particular translation. Again still on what you have up there, I find it dishonest that you claim Tawheed is one of the fundamentals, the second sheikh stated emphatically again, using all the vocabulary that is available to him, that Islam is built on five , and he listed them, without mentioning tawheed. We then ask you to bring proof from your infallible Imams if this is true, you have not produced any yet, and then you are claiming furoo and what have you, is the sheikh who said the above ignorant for him not to be able to distinguish branches and fundamentals of the religion?!

2. Oga, did the part of the ex-shia exceed two (2) minutes?!

3. Yeah I have asked a pertinent question above in regards to what the sheikh stated clearly in the video, it is either you agree with the sheikh or you simply acknowledge his ignorance or perhaps mistake, for he claimed that the religion is based on five fundamentals, principles, pillars, and he went ahead to mention the five, we didn’t hear him mention tawheed, or tawheed is under Imamah?! I had mentioned you guys like using semantics to play games, which one is groundwork?! How is Salah, Zakah, Sawm and Hajj branches of the religion? Says who?! The infallible Imams?! Unfortunately for you, the sheikh did not mention the five to mean branches of the religion, and what you have given as fundamentals of the religion are by whom?! Bring your proofs if you are truthful.

4. Here we go again, your scholars says A, you people would say Z, who do we believe?!

Ayatullat Sadiq Shirazi said: [b]As for all the different Shiite groups, except for the Twelvers, then their disbelief has been proven according to many of our text and many of our classical narrations state that whosoever rejects a single Imam is like the one who says Allah is one of three [trinity].[/b]And Al-Kishi reported with a chain [of transmission], on the authority of Ibn Abi Omayr [broken chain] who said: ‘I asked Muhammad Ibn Ali Al-Ridha (AS) about the following verse:
[Some] faces, that Day, will be humbled [hard] and exhausted. Working [hard] and exhausted. [Surah Al-Ghashiyah, Verse 2-3]
He [Muhammad Al-Jawad son of Al-Ridha] said: ‘This verse was revealed about the Nawasib [Sunnis], Zaydi [Shiites] and Waqifi [Sevener Shiites] […]’

Source: https://gift2shias.com/2014/01/17/ayatullat-shirazi-disbelieving-in-the-imams-is-like-believing-in-trinty/

Yeah only the wahabis/salafist go on killing the kafirs SMH all of them abi? Please remind me which sect do Hezbollah belong to again? When you label someone a kafir, and condemn them to burn in hell because they do not believe in this your Imamah, what you say and do with them in this world is of no benefit and value spiritually and to a large extent physically, so what is the essence of calling ourselves brothers in Islam?! The point I am trying to make is that you guys always claim you do not do takfir, but alas, your level of takfir is even worse, because to your strange believes, all Sunni are Kafir, while we the ahlu Sunnah still find excuses for the laymen amongst you people and even try to believe they are still Muslims…

5. Bros what is requested is a clear cut verse just like we have for the oneness of Allah (SWT), believe in the Prophets, performing the salah, performing the Hajj, and observing the fast in the month of Ramadhan. The above verses you quoted cannot establish imamah like the verses that establishes the above fundamentals of the religion. Let me even go further, bring proof from the Prophet (SAW), the ahl-l-bayt, the companions (those you claim are mu’meen) that the above mentioned verses are about the belief in Imamah.

6. Bros, we do not hold caliphate as being a fundamental of the religion as you guys hold Imamah, so the above is lame. Try harder next time.


7. So?! Who cares if He doesn’t have shi’a background or shi’a family? Does that change the fact that what we can’t find a verse to prove Imamah according to the shi’ah from the Qur’an?! How could something this important, that can determine a person’s eternal end not specifically and emphatically stated in the Holy Qur’an?!

8. Subhanallah! Al-Haydari’s words in the video were clear, it is left for you to prove otherwise, and show that the authors of the video were dishonest…
Since you have listened to the lectures from the same Al-Haydari, therefore, avail us of our ignorance, bring out the verses of Imamah, and as you bring them, please bring the narrations from the Prophet (SAW) and the infallibles that agrees that those verses are about Imamah, and please make sure they are authentic narrations from trustworthy 4 books of the shi’ah.

Do not run away bro, yeah, yeah, the publishers of the video were dishonest, they put words into your scholars mouth to say what they said, in fact, I think they superimposed images too…

Bring irrefutable proofs from the Qur’an that states emphatically, the principles of Imamah…Also, bring authentic narrations from the infallibles that agrees that the verses you bring are about their Imamah and that Imamah is part of the fundamentals of the religion (I would prefer Imam Ali’s statement (ra) since he was the first Imam).

^^^I would have laughed my heads off watching the above video, but it's not a laughing matter at all, I am eternally thankful to Allah (SWT ) for His guidance of which I seek more for myself as well as all of us.

The folly in believing in the concept of Imamah according to the shi'ah is something quite straightforward. It needs not to be argued, it is not in the Qur'an SIMPLE! The principle cannot even be found in the Quran! Using semantics is quite revealing how they arrive at principles of the religion. Shi'as are never straightforward!

AlBaqir would claim the salafists are a takfiry loving bunch, but the reality is that shi'a consider sunnies(all) to be kafirs, because they do not believe in the concept of Imamah according them.

Let me also join you inawaiting their responses. ...

The fourth manifestation: Shia scholars and students of knowledge avoiding its recitation.

Abandoning the Quran in one’s daily life was an inevitable consequence caused by their deviant beliefs and twisted look at the Book of Allah.

Ayatullah Muhammad al-Ya’aqoubi says in “Thalathah Yashkoun” pg.10, footnote #3:

[I read a number of random samples from students who wished to enroll in the honorable Hawza, to discover their relation to the Quran, and supposedly they had to represent a certain level of awareness and faith that pushes them into following this path, but I found out that some of them had not finished reading the entire Quran even once, and one individual who delivers sermons on the Mimbar only finished it twice in his entire life, and many of them read some chapters in religious occasions and seasons. That was as far as reciting it, but as far as understanding its meanings and contemplating on its notions and contents, there was absolute ignorance.]

That quote above is the testimony of an expert who teaches at the Hawza and has a lot of contact with the students and knows the secrets that are hidden from the average Shia laymen.

The fifth manifestation: Mocking those who emerge themselves in Quranic studies and lowering their status.

We saw their abandonment of the book of Allah and how even their students of knowledge and scholars never paid much attention to reciting it or teaching it, and here we will see their reaction to those that decided learn it, explain it and teach it.

Supreme leader of Iran ‘Ali al-Khaminaei says in “al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah fi Fikr al-Imam al-Khaminaei” pg.59-60, and in “Thawabit wa Mutaghayirat al-Hawza” pg.110-112:

[The matter did not stop at this point in the Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah, but it surpassed it, as being interested in Quranic studies has become an object of mockery in the eyes of some who claim knowledge, those who declare that all the knowledge is restricted in the circle of Usooli and Fiqhi research. This was what fired the arrows of criticism towards those who busy themselves with the Quran and its studies]

And al-Khaminaei said:

[If a person wanted to attain any scholarly rank in the Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah he had to avoid explaining and making Tafseer of the Quran otherwise he’s be accused of ignorance (…) they looked at the scholar who makes the Tafseer and benefits the people by his interpretations as an ignorant who has no real scholarly weight, so he’d be forced to abandon his study (…) Do you not consider this a disaster!?]


Famous Iranian scholar and philosopher al-Shaheed Murtada Mutahhari talks about this in several locations in his book “Ihyaa al-Fikr al-Deeni fil-Islam” pg.44-46:

[The old generation itself has abandoned the Quran and left it, then they blame the new generation for being ignorant in the Quran!? It is we who have abandoned the Quran and we expect from the new generation to be attached to it, and I shall prove to you that the Quran is abandoned among us (…) leaving the Quran is the cause of our current sadness and depression, we are included among those that the Prophet (SAWS) complained about: {And the Messenger has said, “O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur’an as [a thing] abandoned.”} (Quran 25:30).]

And he says:

[If a certain individual was knowledgeable about the Quran, meaning he would contemplate its deep meanings a lot, and studies its interpretation thoroughly, how much respect do you think he would have among us!? Nothing. On the other hand, if an individual reads the book of “Kifayah” by al-Mulla Kazim al-Khurasani, he would be a respected and distinguished personality.]

And he said:

[A month ago, one of our close virtuous men was privileged by visiting the holy steps, when he came back he said that he was honored by visiting Ayatullah abu al-Qassem al-Khoei may Allah preserve him, and he asked him: “Why did you leave the lectures of Tafseer you used to deliver in the past!?” He replied: “There are obstacles and problems in teaching Tafseer.” so I said: “But al-‘Allamah al-TabaTabaei still continues to deliver his lectures of Tafseer in Qum.” So he said to me: “al-TabaTabaei is sacrificing himself!” meaning he is sacrificing his social image and that was true.]

In other words, being knowledgeable about the Quran is considered an act of suicide among the Shia scholars. These O dear readers are the effects of the fractious schizophrenia and the continuing crisis between the Shia scholars and the Holy Quran, and all of it resulting from their adoption of those poisonous beliefs, and maybe some of the good hearted Shia will not allow their scholars to place a solid huge Dam between them and the Quran.

{ Thereafter they could neither scale it, nor could they pierce it. } [al-Quran 18:97]

– The End –

Written by the ex-Shia, our respected Sheikh ‘Abdul-Malik al-Shafi’i under the original title of “al-Fesam al-Nakid”, translation done by Hani al-Tarabulsi al-Shafi’i on February/28/2012.

The third manifestation: The reluctance of teaching the Quran in the Shia Hawza(School where Shia clerics are trained).

This is the dark reality that their biggest scholars admit.

Grand Ayatullah al-Khomeini writes about it in “al-Quran al-Thaqal al-Akbar” pg.32:

“I call on the Hawzat(Plural of Hawza) of knowledge and the universities of researchers, rise and save the glorious Quran from the evils of the ignorant and immoral scholars that attacked it and continue to attack the Quran intentionally. From my knowledge I say in all seriousness that I feel sorry for my life that I’ve wasted on the path of ignorance and misguidance, and you O brave sons of Islam, wake up the Hawzat and the universities so they may pay attention to the Quran and all the sciences related to it, and make the Quranic education your aim and your highest goal. So that you may not regret it at the end of your lives when old age strikes you, then you feel sorry for the days of youth, like the author himself.]


This document alone is more than enough to prove this dark reality that hit the Shia as a result of their beliefs, it comes from their biggest contemporary scholar and the creator of the Islamic state of Iran himself, when he admits the seriousness of the situation in the Shia schools and universities and how Quranic studies have been abandoned. He regrets this and feels sorry for the life he wasted in ignorance and misguidance away from the book of Allah al-Quran.

The current leader of Iran ‘Ali al-Khaminaei also writes about this Quranic crisis in several locations, we quote some from the book “al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah fi Fikr al-Imam al-Khaminaei” pg.59-60:

[al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah, as a result of circumstances and certain conditions and because of a specific view, was distanced historically from paying great attention to the Quran and the Quranic studies. This distance from the Quran and its sciences has left plenty of negative marks on the course of studies and teaching in al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah]

And he said:

[The isolation away from the Quran which has taken place in the Hawzat, because we are not delighted with it(Quran), has caused many problems in our present and future, also distancing ourselves from it(Quran) causes short-sightedness]

And he said:

[What causes one to wonder, is that the student of religious studies can become a ‘Alim(scholar) and a Moujtahid in Islamic thought and jurisprudence without (the need of) the glorious Quran “The book of revelation”.]

And he said:

[It is unfortunate that we can begin our studies and continue them until receiving an Ijazah of Ijtihad without the need of checking the Quran even once (…) Why is this? because our studies do not depend on the Quran.]

And he said:

[From here, we find that the solution lies in returning the matters to their proper courses, and building the base of our Islamic studies from “al-Kitab wal-Sunnah”, we shouldn’t allow the knowledge that was created beside the book and the Sunnah to be the primary basis in a way that the study of the book and the Sunnah turn into secondary sub-studies]

And he said:

[We must not overlook the Quran, and the Quranic studies, and understanding the Quran and being delighted with it, and the Quran has to be a part of our studies in al-Hawzat al-‘Ilmiyah, and our students need to memorize it or at least a part of it.]

Grand Ayatullah Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah says in the book “Thawabit wa Mutaghayirat al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiya” by Dr. Ja’far al-Baqiri pg.111:

[We may be surprised to find out that the Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah in Najaf or Qum or others do not possess a curriculum for teaching the Quran!!]

Grand Ayatullah Muhammad al-Ya’aqoubi leader of the Shia “al-Fadeelah” party in ‘Iraq admits to this reality in several locations in the book “Thalathah Yashkoun: al-Quran, al-Masjid, al-Imam” pg.39:

[And I had previously stated in some of my books that it is really unfortunate, that the Quran is missing from the curriculum of the Hawzat, it was planned in a way that the student does not need to dive into the glorious Quran from the beginning of his studies until their end]

And he said:

[And maybe the student at the Hawza might reach a high rank in Fiqh and Usool but he never go to live the life of the Quran nor did he have the experience of interacting with the Quran and understanding it as a message of restoration, and you would see days and weeks passing by and the student of knowledge has not touched the Quran to recite its verses and think about them, because there is no deep spiritual connection between him and the Quran (…) And this is a great disaster for the Hawza and society, and maybe some of them do not know how to read it correctly.]

Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakeem writes about teaching Tafseer courses in the Hawza, in “Tafseer Surat al-Hamd” pg.4-5:

[And I had taught this course in a time when the Arabic Hawza in Qum, was unfortunately not committed to teaching it in its general curriculum]

Dr. Ja’far Baqiri also wrote about this in several locations in “Thawabit wa Mutaghayirat al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah”pg.109-110:

[From the main foundations that were not met with appropriate attention from the Hawza which suits their importance is the Quran, and all that is related to it from knowledge and facts and secrets, it is the most weighty thing and the origin of the Islamic entity in general.]

And he said:

[And it was not integrated into the curriculum adopted by the student of religious sciences during the entire period of his studies, and his knowledge of it is not examined at any point during the course of his studies]

And he said:

[It is possible for the student of religious sciences to rise in the ranks of knowledge, and to reach the farthest point (The rank of Moujtahid) without having been introduced to the Quranic studies and secrets, or without having given it attention even as far as how to recite it properly.]

2- Their stance on one of their biggest scholars and the Marji’i in Lebanon grand Ayatullah Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (d. July 4th, 2010) because he questioned the Sanad of Hadith al-Ghadeer and the infallibility of Fatima (ra) and the story of the broken ribs.

Fadlullah said in “al-Nadwah” magazine 1/422:

[Our problem is that Hadith al-Ghadeer is from the narrations that are massively narrated in both Sunni and Shia books, this is why many of our Sunni brothers discuss the content not the chain of transmission]

Let us see what this small hint towards the Sanad(chain) of Hadith al-Ghadeer created, one of the most important religious and political figure in ‘Iraq, sheikh Jalal-ul-Deen al-Sagheer said while commenting on the above in his book “Lihatha Kanat al-Muwajaha” pg.74:

[This text is one of the texts that have been relied upon by our Religious Marji’i in order to issue a ruling on Fadlullah that he is misguided and he is misguidance and he is outside the folds of the truthful sect.]

Fadlullah said in “Taamulat Islamiyah Hawl al-Maraah” pg.8-9 while commenting on Fatima (ra) and Mariam (as):


[And we cannot say that there are any hidden elements that would differentiate them from the average woman, because there is no explicit proof or this]

al-Sagheer reported in “al-Muwajaha” the saying of the other Marji’is and scholars about Fadlullah on pg.13-15:

[And most of them declared that he is misguided and he is the cause of misguidance, and their stances ranged between condemning him in a written format and between those who stated that he reached a level of corruption that they placed him in the circle of Kufr (…) and we mention some of their noble names: 1- Sayyed ‘Ali al-Sistani. 2- Sayyed Muhammad al-Roohani (Teacher of Fadlullah). 3- Sayyed Muhammad Sa’eed al-Hakeem. 4- Sheikh al-Waheed al-Khurasani. 5- Sheikh Jawad al-Tabrizi. 6- Sayyed Taqi al-Qummi. 7- Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Bahjat. 8- Sayyed Muhammad Husseini Shahroudi. 9- Sayyed Mahdi al-Husseini al-Mur’ashi. 10- Sayyed Muhammad al-Husseini al-Waheed al-Tabrizi. 11- Sheikh Bachir al-Najafi. 12- Sheikh Noori al-Hamdani. 13- Sheikh Ishaq Fayyad. 14- Sheikh al-Fadil al-Lankarani. 15- Shaheed Sheikh ‘Ali al-Gharawi. 16- Shaheed Sheikh Murtada al-Barujurduri.]

al-Sagheer even called Fadlullah names on pg.55:

[And it is sufficient honor for him that the people describe him as the lady’s man and the sexy man.]

So all of this anger and Takfeer and name calling is because he questioned that Fatima (ra) was infallible and the Sanad of the narration of Ghadeer Khum but if he had attacked the book of Allah then all you’d see is praise and respect.

3- Their stance on their scholar Ayatullah Muhsin al-Ameen al-Husseini al-‘Amili (d. March 30th, 1952) who prohibited hitting one’s self with swords and chains in ‘Ashuraa.

Ja’far al-Shakhouri wrote in the introduction of his book “Marji’iyat al-Marhala wa Ghubar al-Taghyeer” some of the reactions of the Shia scholars to his Fatwa and I shall state some, briefly:

A- Sayyed Saleh al-Helli wrote a poem to attack him, calling all travelers who pass by Syria(Where al-Ameen was) to spit in his face.

B- Sayyed Reda al-Hindi also wrote a poem calling on the Shia to remove al-Ameen from the progeny of Fatima (ra).

C- Another stated that his Fatwa destroys the religion and the Madhab, then he likened him to Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab al-Najdi (rah) who forbade touring and circling the graves.

This fierce attack can only be equaled with the fierce attack they did on the scholars who declared the corruption of the Quran by calling them: “Scholar of scholars, may Allah prolong his life, may Allah raise his level, may the mercy of God shower him ect…”

These three small examples show you the eruption of their rage on some of their scholars for disagreeing on small secondary issues that can never be compared to the magnitude and seriousness of the declaration of the corruption of the book of the Lord. This shows the amount of love and respect they have for the Quran, and now I ask the impartial reader: Does this show the importance and the dignity of the book of Allah in the eyes of the Shia scholars?

The second manifestation: Their great rage against some scholars in matters that are less important than the corruption of the Quran.

1- Their stance from one of their biggest scholars and writer of one of their four main books, ibn Babaweih al-Qummi al-Saduq (d.381 AH) who affirmed al-Sahu(forgetfulness) for the Prophet (SAWS).

al-Saduq said in “Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih” 1/359-360:

[The extremists and the Mufawwidah may Allah curse them deny the forgetfulness of the Prophet (SAWS) (…) and our sheikh Muhammad bin al-Hassan bin Ahmad bin al-Walid may Allah have mercy on him used to say: “The first step towards extremism is to deny the forgetfulness of the Prophet (SAWS), and if it were permissible to deny the narrations in this regard then it would also be possible to reject all of our narrations and this would cancel the religion and the Shari’ah.” and I hope for the reward by compiling the first book that proves the forgetfulness of the Prophet (SAWS) and refutes all those who deny this]

The violent and angry reply to al-Saduq by their great scholar and leader al-Mufid (d.413 AH) in his book “‘Adam Sahu al-Nabi” pg.20:

[Know that the one whom we’ve reported this from has gotten himself into a matter that does not concern him, and he has shown how little knowledge he has and his incapability (…) he confronted an issue that he is not good at, nor is it from his specialization, nor would he be guided to it(knowledge), but the desire leads this person]

And he said about him on pg.30:

[No one would believe in it, not a Muslim, nor a person who embraced Islam then rejected it, nor a monotheist, not even a godless person would accept it for the concept of Prophet-hood, and the one whom I mentioned previously deserves this because of his Fatwa on the forgetfulness of the Prophet (SAWS), it shows the weakness of his brains and the evils of his choice and the corruption of his imagination (…) just like that reckless man claimed in his saying: that the one who denies forgetfulness of the Prophet (SAWS) is an extremist]

He also said other horrible things about him but what is above is sufficient, and as you can see this is similar to the eruption of a volcano of rage and anger, all of this because the man claimed that the Prophet (SAWS) can forget some things like the average humans. On the other hand, if al-Saduq were to claim that the Quran we have is missing a page for example, al-Majlisi would have praised him as: “Our master, the great scholar of Islam, may Allah sanctify his noble secret and fill his shrine with light.”

@AlBaqir, If you had any iota of decency and shame, you would not bring the above as a counter to what your scholars had documented in your books and widely believed by you shi'a. This tactics you are employing clearly shows you also believe as your aytollahs and shuyukhs as documented on this thread:https://www.nairaland.com/3071287/discussing-reality-crisis-between-shia

Proof that any of the sahabahs, salafs, khalafs believed that the Qur'an with us is corrupt and incomplete like your ayatollahs and shuyukhs believe and stop all this already debunked instances you keep bringing...for anyone who likes to read the stand of the ahl Sunnah in regards to corruption of the Qur'an please read: http://twelvershia.net/2015/11/25/defense-sunni-view-quran/

I boldly state, anyone who believes the Qur'an with us is corrupted and incomplete, and by extension believes that one Imam in occulation has the complete Qur'an is a KAFIR!

Allah (SWT) promised to protect the Qur'an, Allah (SWT) never fails in His promises.

Your sect has been exposed bro, your lies and deceit are open for all to see and read, gone are the days of employing taqqiyah!

Shia scholar ‘Ali Aal Muhsin writes about him in “Li-Allah Thumma lil-Haqiqa” pg.542:

[al-Mirza Hussein al-Nouri—May Allah’s mercy be upon him—has many grateful efforts and well-known impacts in regard to the assistance of Islam. And contesting him, and his slip in this book (i.e. Fasl al-Khitab), will neither make us ignore all his efforts nor take away anything from his credibility, for every pious man has a slight fault; for every man of knowledge has a slip.

This, is along with the fact that he did not say: “The Quran present in our hands is distorted in terms of addition and deletion,” rather what he said is: “Indeed, some words or verses of the Quran were omitted from the Quran present in our hands.”]

Grand Ayatullah al-Khomeini says about him in “al-Arba’oun Hadith” pg.21-22:

[The master, the scholar, the altruistic, the jurist, the Muhaddith al-Mirza Hussein al-Noori may Allah fill his noble shrine with light]

Another of the big Shia scholars, Muhammad Baqir bin Muhammad Taqi al-Majisi, author of “Bihar al-Anwar” who also declared his belief in Tahreef in his other book “Miraat al-‘Uqool” 12/525:

[So the narration is Sahih(authentic), and it is no secret that this narration and many of the other authentic narrations are explicit in expressing the loss of Quran and its manipulation, I find that the narrations in this regard are Mutawatir in their meaning (i.e. delivered by many narrators) and the rejection of all of them requires directly not to rely on(any) narrations at all. Even more, it is my opinion that the narrations in this regard are not inferior to the narrations about the Imamah. So how do they prove it(the Imamah) relying on narrations?]

The leader of the Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah in Najaf and the biggest of their contemporary scholars, grand Ayatullah abu al-Qassim al-Khoei writes statements of praise in several locations of his “Mu’ujam Rijal al-Hadith” such as in 15/221:

[9940 – Muhammad Baqir Muhammad Taqi: al-Sheikh al-Hurr said in “Tathkirat al-Mutabahireen” (733): Our master the venerable Muhammad Baqir son of our master Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi: The scholar, the virtuous, the skillful, the examiner, the scrutinizer, the learned, the understanding, the jurist, the out-spoken, scholar of Hadith, Thiqahtun Thiqah(Trustworthy Trustworthy), owner of all good traits and virtues, a man of great value may Allah prolong his stay. He has many beneficial works, such as: Bihar al-Anwar (…)

al-Ardabili said about him in his “Jami’i al-Ruwat”: Muhammad Baqir bin Muhammad Taqi bin al-Maqsoud ‘Ali, called al-Majlisi may Allah extend his high shadow: Our teacher, our scholar, the scholar of Islam and Muslims, the seal of Moujtahideen, the learned Imam, the examiner, the scrutinizer, of great value, of high rank, the unique in his era, unparalleled in his time, trustworthy (…) may Allah reward him with the best reward of good doers, he has good valuable books and he gave me Ijazah to narrate all of them from him, such as: Bihar al-Anwar]

Grand Ayatullah al-Khomeini says about him in “al-Arba’oun Hadith” pg.143:

[The expert examiner and unique Muhaddith our master al-Majlisi says]

and on pg.144:

[al-Majlisi may Allah have mercy on him reports]

and on pg.587:

[And the venerable Muhaddith al-Majlisi may the mercy be upon him explained]

Observe with me their shameful stance towards the book of Allah as they did not make Takfeer on those who declared its corruption nor did they even criticize them, but instead they praised them in the most eloquent style.

Chapter 3: Presenting some of the manifestations of this crisis from the reality of the Shia.

After presenting some of those beliefs that make the Shia avoid and doubt the Quran, it is time to show how these beliefs affect the reality of the Shia.

The first manifestation: Their refusal to make Takfeer on those who believe in Tahreef al-Quran.

When this team of Shia scholars decided that they do not believe in the distortion of the Quran, they were expected to take a strong stance towards the scholar who believe in its distortion, such as making Takfeer on them, declaring them apostates and heretics, disowning them and their beliefs, so that Allah may not place them all together in the same place on the day of judgment, but they surprised everybody with their weak stance as a result of the weakness of their spiritual link to the Quran.

Grand Ayatullah al-Marji’I Muhammad Sa’eed al-Hakeem says in “Fi Rihab al-‘Aqeedah” 1/149, under the chapter “The correct stance from those who declare Tahreef”:

[Yes, it is not good to go all out in attacking those who believe in Tahreef, even if they made a huge error, but it is considered a scientific mistake as a result of inattention and it does not drop their right to be treated as Muslims nor necessities their Kufr.]

One of the biggest Shia scholars who believes in the distortion of the book of Allah is al-Mirza al-Noori al-Tabrasi, he wrote an entire book to prove that the book of all has been distorted and called it “Fasl al-Khitab fi Ithbat Tahreef Kitab Rabb al-Arbab” or in English “The Decisive Speech Concerning the Distortion of the Book of the Lord of Lords “, this scholar wrote in the introduction of this book on pg.2:

[This is a subtle book, a noble compilation, that I have written to prove the distortion of the Quran and the disgraces of the people of tyranny and oppression.]

There is no doubt among healthy Muslims on the Kufr of this evil individual. However, the Shia scholars decided to praise him and venerate him instead of condemning him, Sheikh ‘Ali bin Hassan al-Biladi says about him in “Anwar al-Badrayn” [/b]pg.129-130:

[b][The other brilliant contemporary, the trustworthy personage of Islam, the imitated and skilled scholar of narrations, al-Mirza Hussein al-Noori al-Tabrasi—May Allah’s mercy be on him—: Author of several venerable works, such as Nafs al-Rahman fi Fadail Salman, Fasl al-Khitab, Jannat al-Maawa, Mustadrak al-Wasael wa Mustanbat al-Dalael and other splendid books. This Shaykh was a proof among the proofs of Allah with respect to study, scrutiny, research, ample perception such as that of Master al-Majlisi, godwariness and scrupulosity.]


Ayatullah ‘Ali al-Milani write about al-Tabrasi in “al-Muhadarat fil-I’itiqadat” 2/602:

[It is certainly correct that al-Mirza al-Noori is from among major scholars of narrations and we respect al-Mirza al-Noori. al-Mirza al-Noori is one of our major scholars, and neither is it possible for us to even slightly be hostile towards him, nor is it permissible; (doing) this is forbidden [Haram]! Verily, he is a major expert in the field of narrations from among our scholars.]

And he further says in his defense on pg.608:

[As for our anathematizing and repulsing of him from our faction, and expelling him from our circle, as demanded by some of the contemporary writers from Ahl al-Sunna, then that is wrong and absolutely impossible. Do they do this with the major Companions who were proponents of deletions (from the Quran) and with their scholars of narrations who related these opinions?]

To be Continued...

The sixth belief:

The Quran of ‘Ali (ra) that the 12th hidden Imam al-Mahdi shall reveal is a new Quran, different than the one the Muslims are used to because of its miraculous power and difference in interpretation and accuracy and the perfection of its collection.

Since ‘Ali’s (ra) Quran had all those unique aspects that allow it to touch people’s hearts, to truly display the miraculous power of the Quran, to be understood in the proper way as Allah intended ect…, thus they began calling it “The new Quran” in their narrations, such as the Hadith(narration) of Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Nu’umani:

[From abu Baseer, he said: abu Ja’far (as) said: al-Qaem (as) will rise in a new order, a new book, a new judgment, Harsh on the Arabs. He will only use his sword and will not accept the repentance of anyone, nor will he fear anyone but Allah.]

sources: Ghaybat al-Nu’umani pg.237, Bihar al-Anwar 52/354, Ithbat al-Hudat 3/540, Mu’ujam Hadith al-Mahdi 3/253.

Grand Ayatullah and Muhaqqiq al-Muntaziri says about this in “Dirasat fi Wilayat al-Faqih” 1/521:

[And in the narration of abu Baseer, from abu Ja’far (as) regarding the Qaem (as): “By Allah, it is as if I am looking at him between al-Rukn and al-Maqam and the people are giving him Baya’ah on a new order and a new book and a new authority from the sky.] (…) And by New Quran he means its explanation dictated by the Prophet (SAWS) and in Ameer al-Mumineen’s (as) own handwriting, as we have read in many narrations.]

Sheikh ‘Ali al-Kourani says in “Kitab ‘Asr al-Zuhour” pg.88-89:

[And what may have been meant by the “New Book” is the new Quran with its new order of verses and chapters, it was reported that this copy is preserved with the Mahdi (as) along with other things inherited from the Prophets (SAWS)]

Sheikh ‘Abdul-Latif al-Baghdadi says in “Tahqeeq fil-Imamah” pg.235-236:

[Yes, and this Quran remained with its correct explanation with ‘Ali (as) and after him with al-Hassan (as), and so on until it became from the private inheritance of the pure Imams, and now it is with Imam al-‘Asr wal-Zaman al-Mahdi (aj). It was reported from al-Baqir (as) that he said: “If he arose (al-Mahdi) he will start with a new order, a new book, a new Sunnah, a new judgment, he shall be Harsh with the Arabs.” (al-Majalis al-Sunniyah). And from him (as) in another Hadith: ” By Allah, it is as if I am looking at him between al-Rukn and al-Maqam and the people are giving him Baya’ah on a new order and a new book and a new authority from the sky, his flag will not be held back until his death.” and what is meant here by New order and New Book and New Sunnah and judgment and authority is bringing the true laws of Islam as Allah had wanted, and bringing the Quran with its Tanzeel and Taaweel and the explanation of its laws.]

I have to say here, that it is sad and ironic that these people are saying that the true religion and the true Shari’ah and laws shall only appear with the Mahdi (as), Isn’t that a bit too late? is this considered fair?

al-Mirza Muhammad Taqi al-Isfahani says in “Mikyal al-Makarim” 1/184-185:

[Allah says: {And We had already given Moses the Scripture, but it came under disagreement.} (Quran 41:45). al-Tabrasi (rah) says in “Majma’a al-Bayan” that what is meant is that his people differed and disagreed on it, meaning on the authenticity of the book revealed on him. There will also be a disagreement on the book that al-Qaem (as) will bring, the complete book preserved with al-Hujjah (as).

-What points to this, is what we find in Rawdat al-Kafi with its Isnad from abu Ja’far on Allah’s saying: {And We had already given Moses the Scripture, but it came under disagreement.} (Quran 41:45), he (as) said: “They disagreed on it just like this nation disagreed on its book and they will disagree on the book of al-Qaem which he will bring to them, many people will deny it so he will execute them and cut off their necks.”]

He says in the same book pg.197:

[‘Aziz (as) when he returned to his people and appeared to them, he read the Torah exactly as it was revealed on Musa bin ‘Imran (as). al-Qaem (as) when he will appear to the people of the earth shall read the Quran as it was revealed on the seal of the Prophets (SAWS).]

He also said on pg.63:

[I say: This could be the secret as to why al-Qaem (as) was called “The great Quran”, considering that he orders u to follow it and pushes the people to read it and he reveals it and promotes it]

So this belief like those before it, makes the Shia ignore this Quran and not pay much attention to it, instead he’d just wait for the arrival of his Imam and the other Quran. It is as if the Shia are saying: “Forget about this Book collected by the Caliphs, let us all wait for the Mahdi to reveal the New Quran, the complete Quran that pleases Allah and is hidden with his Imams.”

The fifth belief:

The Quran collected by ‘Ali (ra) has acquired miraculous power and all matter of perfection and accuracy in compilation as opposed to the one spread all over the world today.

‘Allamah Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifah says while describing the transcript of ‘Ali (ra) in “Talkhees al-Tamheed” pg.152, under the title “Describing the Mushaf of ‘Ali (as)”:

[His (as) Quran was distinguished with:

A- An objective arrangement, based on the time of revelation of each verse, in high precision.
B- Affirmation of the texts of the book as they are, without modification or change, with no exception of any verses or words.
C- Affirmation of the reading of the Prophet (SAWS), letter for letter.
D- It incorporates clarifications -on the margin of course- and it shows the event that caused the verse to descend, the location it descended, the hour it descended and the persons that the verse was aimed at.
E- It contained the general aspects of the verses in a way that is not specific for a certain time or place or person, it flows like the sun and the moon, this is what was meant by Taaweel in his (as) saying: “I came to them with the book containing the Tanzeel and he Taaweel.”

So al-Tanzeel is the temporal occasion that called for the revelation of the verse, and al-Taaweel is clarifying the general flow of the verse.
‘Ali’s (as) transcript contained all of these minute details which he took from Rassul-Allah (SAWS) without forgetting or confusing anything.]

And he said on pg.148-149:

[The first one to rise for the duty of collecting the Quran, directly after the death of the Prophet (SAWS) and by his command, was ‘Ali bin abi Talib (as) who sat at home busy with collecting it and arranging it according to revelation, with explanations and interpretations of the vague parts of the verses, and with reasons for revelation and locations of revelation in detail until he finished it in this magnificent style.]

And he said in “Siyanat al-Quran”pg.229:

[Because the transcript of the Imam Ameer al-Mumineen (as) was collected in the most precise arrangement exactly like the revelation of Allah without change, he did not miss any of it properties]

Shia scholar ‘Ali al-Kourani al-‘Amili says in “Tadween al-Quran” pg.254-255:

[As for us the Shia, we believe that it happened and that our Prophet (SAWS) had given as inheritance his knowledge and the copy of the Quran that was compiled in a miraculous manner that touches the substance and the soul greatly, and shows the miraculous power of the Quran and its interpretation to al-Hassan and al-Hussein (…) until it reached the hands of the seal of successors as promised by the seal of Prophets, al-Imam al-Mahdi (…) And what can we do if the texts in our sources state this.]

Notice the hidden attacks on the Quran of the Muslims, by saying that the Quran of ‘Ali (ra) is distinguished from our common Quran by its perfection and accuracy and its miraculous ability to reach the soul, and how the exaggerate in describing how great and unique it was and how it is written word for word in a way that pleases Allah without any changes and modifications. We ask them: Are these properties also found in our Quran? Do these descriptions also fit the book in our hands? If the answer is “Yes” then how come you are mentioning them as features that distinguish the other Quran and show its uniqueness!? This dear reader is the malicious strategy adopted by these men to lower the importance of the book of Allah.

Finally, abu Muhammad al-Khaqani stated in “Ma’a al-Khutout al-‘Areedah li-Muhibb al-Deen al-Khateeb” pg.51:

[And on this basis, he (as) did not participate in correcting the Quran of ‘Uthman as long as he (as) had the corrected Quran that was collected according to what was revealed on the Prophet (SAWS), and the existence of ‘Ali’s (as) Quran does not lower the status of the Quran because it is the best collection after the Quran of ‘Ali (as), and the existence of what is Best does not raise the status of what is Good.]

As you can see they continue to attack our Quran in an indirect and twisted way, although the writer was cautious at the end and he didn’t want to hurt the feelings of the Muslims so he said that our Quran was “Good”, although it is no match for ‘Ali’s (ra) perfect Quran which he described as being better and labeled it as “Best”.

They continue to tell you how good and unique that Quran was, while indirectly telling us that our own Qurans do not posses any of those miraculous features. We ask the average Shia, will your heart then turn towards this Quran? or towards the Quran of the Mahdi that has all of those unique miraculous features and bonuses!?

Ramadhan Comes!

One month, once in a year,

One night, once in 354 nights

The month draws near, as the days unfold,

Like an expectant mother, her due date nigh

Or perhaps, like a farmer awaiting the season to plant for the morrow

Lo! The companions were prepared several months prior

For the effects from the previous were constantly at fore

It is indeed a month like no other,

Therein lies a night worth a thousand further

The gates of hell would all be locked up, and the devil in chain

The gates of paradise would be wide open, and Allah’s Mercies pouring like rain

Only the wretched loser would miss out of Allah’s bounties therein

For His righteous servants fast by day and stand by night fearing

Their sins committed from time past, their weaknesses and their doubts are overwhelming…

Ramadhan comes like a ray of light in a darkened tunnel

A sign from the Most Merciful of His love eternal

O dear brothers and sisters in the deen, Ramadhan comes!

A month of worship,

A month of blessing,

A month of forgiveness,

A month of free tickets to Jannah!


...Sino

The difference in the arrangement of the text alone, is enough to make the recitation harder and it makes understanding the meaning harder, because understanding the meaning is directly tied to the arrangement of the parts of the text, if it is to be changed, most definitely the meaning will change. Also placing the sentences in their positions according to the will of the speaker is the best way to understand the intended meaning, because the context surrounding the speech can only be used as indication if it were placed according to how the speaker wants, not so in case it is changed intentionally or by mistake.]

This belief means that the Caliphs changed the order of verses and chapters based on their desires, to hide the truth and misguide the people. In other words, the current Quran was corrupted by altering the locations of the verses which led people to understand it differently than was originally intended by Allah. We give a few examples of such cases according to the Shia scholars:

Grand Ayatullah ‘Abdul-Hussein Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi author of “al-Muraja’at” wrote on pg.63 concerning the verse of completion of religion {This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.} [Quran 5:3] he said that this was revealed about the Imamah of ‘Ali (ra) after the Prophet (SAWS) appointed him as Caliph for the nation but the context of the verse rejects this interpretation so he accused the Caliphs of changing its location:

[Why is it forbidden that the verse starting with {This day those who disbelieve have despaired} until {approved for you Islam as religion} (Quran 5:3), why can this not be a separate verse independent of what surrounds it? and that it was revealed alone on the day of Ghadeer, then the people in the days of ‘Uthman have placed it and pushed it into the middle of that noble verse, because of an objective they had or because of their ignorance or something else!?]

al-‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi claimed a similar thing concerning the verse of purification {Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.} [Quran 33:33] because the context completely contradicts his belief that the verse was revealed only about ‘Ali’s (ra) family, he said in “Bihar al-Anwar” 35/234:

[Maybe the verse of purification was placed in a location that they claimed was suited for it, or they inserted it between the verses addressing the wives for worldly purposes.]

Ayatullah ‘Ali al-Milani says in “Muhadarat fil-I’itiqadat” 2/590-591:

[b][Tahreef(corruption) has many meanings: al-Tahreef bil-Tarteeb (corruption of arrangement): There is no difference between the Muslims that this type of corruption has happened to the glorious Quran, everyone agrees that the current Quran was not written down according to how it was revealed, it’s different than how it was revealed and organized, this is what the scholars of Quran in their books, refer to al-Itqan of al-Suyuti and you’ll see him mentioning the names of the chapters according to their time of revelation. So why did they do this? what was their objective? I had told you that one lecture was not enough. The order of chapters and the order of verses is different than how it was originally revealed, take for example the verse of al-Mawaddah (Quran 42:23) it was placed in a location other than its original location, the Verse of al-Tathir (Quran 33:33) it was also placed in a location other than its original location, the chapter of al-Maedah (5th chapter) according to the consensus of Muslims this is the last chapter revealed, you will see that it is not at the end but at the beginning of the Quran. What is the purpose of this? this is a type of corruption and it has undoubtedly occurred.]
[/b]
[b]The danger of this Shia ‘Aqeedah must be obvious to all Muslims with healthy minds and beliefs, they openly accuse the Caliphs of changing the locations of the verses and their contexts to hide the true meaning of the verses that are supposedly proofs for Imamah and infallibility!!! This belief is just as dangerous as the belief of the Shia scholars who openly claim the Quran is corrupted in means of deletion, because the result is exactly the same, that the Caliphs corrupted the Quran to hide the truth of the Imamah from the Muslims. In both cases the Quran was manipulated and changed to hide the truth and the only difference here is the method, so who are they fooling!?

I turn now towards the honest Shia, will your soul feel at ease when you read the Quran while knowing that the book you have in your hands was changed and distorted and manipulated by the evil Imams!? Will you feel at ease while knowing that Allah is not pleased with what you have between your hands!?

What about the saying of Allah: {Behold, it is We Ourselves who have bestowed from on high, step by step, this reminder? and, behold, it is We who shall truly guard it [from all corruption].} [Quran 15:9]

How is it that Allah exactly “protected” it according to the saying of the Shia scholars? when the explanations and interpretations were removed and the methods of reading and recitation are wrong and the verses were scrambled and mixed changing their meanings and hiding the most important pillars of the Shia faith such as Imamah and infallibility?
[/b]

To be continued...

Continuation of the topic...

The fourth belief:

The Quran collected by the Caliphs is different than that of ‘Ali (ra) in terms of order of chapters and verses. This belief was adopted by Shia scholars either directly and apparently or they pointed to it indirectly.

A- Examples of Shia scholars that openly declared it:

Shia scholar ‘Ali al-Kourani says in his book “Mu’ujam Ahadith al-Mahdi” 3/126, under the chapter “The Mahdi’s (as) renewal of Islam and the Quran”:

[What’s apparent is that he (as) means that they teach them the Quran in its complete rulings, and it was reported that the Quran in the hand writing of ‘Ali and inherited by the Imams (as) differs with this Quran in the order of chapters and maybe verses.]

He also says in “Kitab ‘Asr al-Zuhour” pg.88-89:

[And what may have been meant by the “New Book” is the new Quran with its new order of verses and chapters, it was reported that this copy is preserved with the Mahdi (as) along with other things inherited from the Prophets (SAWS), and that it is no different than the one in our hands, it has no addition or subtraction of any letter, but it differs in the order of chapters and verses, spoken by the Prophet (SAWS) and with ‘Ali’s (as) hand writing.]

Ayatullah Sheikh abu Talib al-Tajlil al-Tabrizi in “Tanzeeh al-Shia al-Ithna ‘Ashariyah ‘an al-Shubuhat al-Wahiyah” 2/526:

[I say: (…) As for the Quran, it can only be new in the order of its chapters or the interpretation of its verses.]

Ayatullah ‘Ali al-Milani says in “‘Adam Tahreef al-Quran” pg.38:

[All there is to it is that it differed with this Quran in how it is ordered and that it has additions that Ameer al-Mumineen heard from the Prophet (SAWS) concerning the verses so he wrote them in the margins.]

B- They accepted this belief in practice:

They accepted it by saying that ‘Ali (ra) wrote it in the order of revelations and wrote the Abrogating verses before the abrogated verses, so it definitely has to be different than the Quran in our hands in how it looks and how it is understood, we give some examples:

al-Mufid who was the leader of the sect in his time says in “Masael Saruriyah” pg.79:

[And Ameer al-Mumineen (as) had collected the revealed Quran from beginning to end, and compiled it the way it was supposed to be compiled, he placed the Makki verses before the Madani verses, and the abrogated verses before the abrogating verses.]

‘Allamah Muhammad Hussein al-TabaTabaei says in “al-Quran fil-Islam” pg.137:

[And the Imam Ameer al-Mumineen (as) although he was the first to collect the Quran and compile it based on the date of revelation of verses.]

Grand Ayatullah ‘Abdul-Hussein Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi says in “al-Muraja’at” pg.411:

[After he (as) finished preparing the Prophet (SAWS), he decided not to leave the house except for Prayer, he wanted to collect the Quran and he collected it and organized it in the order of revelation.]

Ayatullah Muhammad al-Hussein al-Tehrani says in “Anwar Malakut al-Quran” 4/344:

[From the properties of this Quran, alongside the order of chapters and verses according to their time of revelation.]

And everyone knows that changing the order of verses in the chapters, placing the Makki before the Madani, placing the abrogating before the abrogated, all of this changes the context of the verses and thus the way people understand them, because the context plays a vital role in how a verse is interpreted.

Ayatullah Sayyed ‘Ali al-Milani say in “Ayat-ul-Tathir” pg.23:

[In the science of Usool, we say: The context is a proof, meaning that when we need to know the meaning of some words or the meaning of a word, we look at what surrounds it and in what context it is found in, because the words that surround it and the context of the phrase that contains it will aid us in understanding that word or phrase, this is something they mention in ‘Ilm al-Usool and this is something Sahih(correct) and no one argues about it.]

Here are the words of some of their scholars pointing to this reality, al-‘Allamah Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifah says in “Siyanat al-Quran min al-Tahreef” pg.230:

[The narrations pointing to this are not small in number, and they show us that there is a difference between his (as) Quran and the current Quran, is the difference in the text itself or how it is arranged or something else? This is what the narrations do not state, except the first Hadith we pointed to, it is explicit in specifying what the difference is, it is only in how it is arranged and compiled (…)

ShiaMuslim:
oh very nice of you! you are so open-minded that you are convinced to be open-minded is not to be Shia. well, i would'nt tell you not to be a Satanist to start with. i would instead debate your ideas and beliefs and find out their merits or demerits.

our books are not "sihah". we do not refer to any of these books as "sahih". only the Quran is sahih. the problem is not in having irregularities, fabrications, or whatever you call them in hadith books which were compiled and narrated by fallible men. we are aware of these things you have name. however, the curse and the problem lies in your own side. you have these same negative things you have stated in books such as Bukhari and Muslim and the other ones of the "sihah us sittah", yet you give them the indisputable tag of "sahih". we do not label nonsense as "sahih".likewise, a book that contains even a few nonsense cannot be called in entirety "sahih". wake up! Bukhari and Muslim were not prophets of Allah nor members of the Ahlul-Bayt that Allah has kept pure from sin as per Quran Verse 33:33. so Bukhari and Muslim, like as-Saduq and others and also the very narrators are all fallible and prone to mistakes. therefore, if you want to understand our books, go to a hawza. i myself i am not a specialist on hadiths even with the little i know. what i know is that we examine each and every individual hadith and each hadith is graded. you cannot grade a book of hadith narrated by thousands of people and compiled by fallible men as "sahih". but you can grade a single hadith. that is where we differ, but you have rushed to use your "open mind" to condemn others instead of seeing your flaw and building courage to accept the truth and reality.

As I had hinted earlier, saying you do not call your books sahih does not mean those who compiled them did not believe that they are sahih. Secondly, this your new ways of rejecting narrations in your books is quite in contrary to your predecessors. Forget about the sunnis and their sahih sitah, our scholars had done a brilliant job in separating the wheat from the chaff. Let’s read what your scholars said, their words carry more authority than you lots…

For the record, your scholars never considered the chain of narrators like the sunnis did, and establishing the trustworthiness of each narrator. Again the ahl sunnah used the same principle with the compilation of the Qur’an, therefore even if we cannot compare the fact that Allah (SWT) promised to preserve the Qur’an from corruption, still, the work on the hadith is thorough, extensive, impressive and exemplary, hence the title sahih.

Since your scholars who compiled your books never considered chains of narration, they believed all what was recorded in their books to be sahih. Now let’s proceed to read their comments:

al-Kulaynī (d. 329) the author of al-Kāfī has the following to say about the narrations he compiled:

“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it—through which the compulsory duties of Allāh, the Powerful and Exalted, and the tradition of His Prophet (saws) can be fulfilled.

And you said: ‘If that happens, I can hope that (the book) would be a means through which Allāh will rectify our brothers and people of our religious community through his support and grace, and take them closer to their salvation.’”

al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 8 [Tehran]

The contemporary Shī`ī scholar Āyat Allāh Muĥammad Mahdī al-Āşifī writes about al-Kulaynī while discussing al-Kāfī in his epistle Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt:

“He—may Allāh have mercy on him—has collected what he found authentic from the narrations of the guiding Imāms (as) in this encyclopedia of his.”

Riyāđ al-Masā’il fī Bayān Aĥkām al-Shar` wa al-Dalā’il, of al-Sayyid `Alī al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1231), volume 1, page 31 [Qum] – Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt included in the introduction.

Ibn Bābawayh (d.381) in his Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh says:

“I have compiled this book for him without chains of transmission, so that its transmissions should not be too many while its benefits are abundant. I did not intend to present all of what they have narrated, as authors usually do; rather I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord, exalted is His power.”

Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh, of Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī (d. 381), volume 1, page 2-3 [Qum]

Contemporary Shī`ī scholar and intellectual, Dr. `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī, writes after quoting these words of Ibn Bābawayh:

“This explicit statement of his is clear and unequivocal in showing that he believes in the authenticity of what is in his book, and views it to be proof between himself and Allāh the Exalted.”

Uşūl al-Ĥadīth, of `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī, page 217 [Beirut]

This is further confirmed by al-Tabrīzī, who states about Ibn Bābawayh and his book:

“He has declared the authenticity of its narrations in his introduction, with his statement: ‘I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is a proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord.’”

Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāmī, of Abū Ţālib al-Tabrīzī, page 17 [Qum]

Another thing worthy of mention here is what is mentioned in the transcribed lectures of the contemporary Grand Āyat Allāh `Alī al-Sīstānī about Ibn Bābawayh and his book:

“Verily, he—may Allāh sanctify his secret—has certified the authenticity of all that he has narrated in it, in the introduction, when he said: ‘I did not intend to present all of what they have narrated, as authors usually do; rather I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord, sacred is His mention and exalted is His power.’”

Qā`ida lā Đarar wa lā Đirār, of `Alī al-Sīstānī, page 87 [Qum]

One now wonders why sahih sitah of the sunni is the problem to these our shia brothers when their own scholars had acknowledged their books to be sahih…Double standard? Hypocrisy? Ignorance? Or plain deceit? one needs to ask, when did narrations from the shi'a books became fabricated, weak and not authentic?! this cast a big shadow on the belief systems of the earlier shi'ah and the ones we have now, which forms part of the inconsistencies being talked about and the reactionary tendencies...

An Open-minded person is interested in the truth, the veracity of the evidences provided, and trustworthiness of the sources. I am sorry to say, but what I have found presented in your books can never allow any intellectual (i.e an educated and open-minded individual) accept your views or opinions on any matter, be it religious or otherwise.

ShiaMuslim:
i have presented you a sermon of Imam Ali (as) called the Sermon of Tawheed in Nahjul Balagha. apparently you did not bother to read it. it is surely easier to argue and argue endlessly than to read and understand. our Tafsir of the Quran is based on the Tafsir of the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

You brought a sermon attributed to imam Ali, that cannot be substantiated or corroborated, no other sources have these sermons, just a book with questionable authenticity, no chain nothing, and you want me to accept that as evidence?! How do you take your aqeedah from a book with questionable authenticity?! Is Nahju-l-balagah a book of tawheed?!

Other scholars who pointed out the lies in this book was al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi, in al-Jaami’ li Akhlaaq al-Raawi wa Adaab al-Saami’, 2.161; al-Qaadi Ibn Khalkaan; al-Safadi, and others. The things that have been said against it may be summarized in the following points:
[b]
1. There are seven generations of narrators between ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and the author of this book, and he did not mention any name whatsoever. Hence we cannot accept his words without an isnaad.

2. If these narrators are mentioned, it is essential to research about them and find out whether they are trustworthy.

3. The fact that most of these sermons did not exist before this book was written indicates that they were fabricated.

4. Al-Murtada – the author of the book – was not one of the scholars of reports, rather he was one of those whose religious commitment and competence were debatable.

5. The slander that it contains against the leading Sahaabah is sufficient to count it as false.

6. The insults and slander that it contains are not the characteristics of the believers, let alone their leaders such as ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him).

7. It contains contradictions and clumsy expressions from which it may be known for certain that it was not produced by one who was prominent in eloquence and fluency.

8. The fact that the Raafidah accept it and are certain that it is as true as the Qur’aan, despite all these objections, indicates that they do not pay attention to verifying sources and ensuring that they are sound with regard to the matters of their religion.
[/b]
Based on the above, it is clear that this book cannot be attributed to ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), therefore nothing in it can be used as evidence in matters of sharee’ah, no matter what the issue is. But whoever reads it in order to find out what it contains of eloquence, the ruling is the same as that on all other books on Arabic language, without attributing its contents to Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him).

See Kutub hadhdhara minha al-‘Ulama’, 2/250

Source:Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Please when you are ready to bring proper evidences, let me know.

ShiaMuslim:
it simply means "There is nothing unto like Him"-Quran! if a hadith is quoted or attributed to an Imam and it contradicts the authentic hadiths which the Imams have denied that Allah has a body, and it contradicts the Quran, then common sense dictates the hadith is rejected.

Bros why not reject those verses in the Qur’an that uses body parts?! Why reject authentic narrations?! How come you people reject narrations compiled by your earlier scholars who believed those narrations to be authentic?! What sought of confused set where your predecessors who didn’t know better but compiled thousands of fabrications or is it weak narrations?! Either way you look at it, it really does not put your big scholars in a good light, we can say they were a gullible lot to have let so many fabrications or is it weak narrations into their books…Mind you, they believed strongly that their works were authentic…if you need proofs, I would gladly provide…Come to think of it, what were your infallibles doing during these corruptions?! Weren’t they supposed to guide their people of their time?!

ShiaMuslim:
we do not believe Allah has a hand, or face or any body part. we also do not believe He will be seen at the Resurrection, as you do. you are making Him physical. the stance of the Salafiyyah is to accept these attributes literally, and at the same time accept verses that says He cannot be compared to anything or anyone. we do not do that. not even you using literalism on Quran verses can save you from this.

All you need to do is say you reject the part of the Qur’an, your Imam says you should affirm them without tashbeeh, but you are here denying them. It is clear you do not follow the Imams, this your aqeedah is from the mutazilah, it can never be attributed to the prophet (SAW) nor the companions and the ahl-l-bayt…I ask again, if Allah (SWT) uses those words for himself, who the hell are you to deny them?! I am still waiting for the evidences from your Imams...

Please inform us further, when Allah(SWT) states in the Qur’an, He loves, He hates, He is Merciful, He is angry with.. Are these figurative too?! Do humans not share these attributes?! How do you guys explain these words, please provide evidences from the Imams… Let's go to the madrasat of the ahl-l-bayt!

ShiaMuslim:
you are contradicting yourself. if you agree that the holy Imams were not part of these corrupt beliefs, then how can you claim that those who subscribed to these corrupt beliefs were my predecessors? where did these so called predecessors got their corrupt beliefs from, or their beliefs from if not from the Imams? you are touching at the heart of the definition of who is Shia and what makes one a Shia? if those so called predecessors did not follow what the Imams taught, then they are not following Shia teachings or Islamic teachings for that matter even if they call themselves Shia. this would take us to the reason why these bunch of people adhered to beliefs the Imams were opposed to. was it ignorance? was it influence from Sunni groups? was it distance? or was it outright rejection of the Imams? in any of these cases, those so called predecessors can be said to be either ignorant and that can be excused or they were renegade and out of the fold of Shia Islam. you really have not made any case.

I have no problem with you denying them, well just to be clear, they were companions/servants of the Imams, they were scholars amongst them, and political leaders, and sure some of them had influences and followers, its your choice to look for excuses for them, that is none of my business, they were not from ahl-sunnah, they were of the imami shi’a and your predecessor in shi’ism. The fact remains that your predecessors were anthropomorphist and that cannot be changed.

Let me quickly ask again, bring proofs from your infallible Imams that you need to do tawil of Allah (SWT) names and attributes in the Qur’an or authentic narrations so as not to fall into tajseem etc. I am waiting… Please don’t quote from unreliable sources, and please any narration you bring from your books should have its chains too…

ShiaMuslim:
stop generalizing and point them out. we do not memorize the Quran to simply recite like parrots. we are the people of the Quran who understand the Quran and its meanings most. when it comes to memorization, you beat us. but when it comes to understanding you know nothing!

Abu Hurairah was a companion who embraced Islam two years before the demise of the Prophet (s). yet, his hadiths are in the thousands more than the hadiths of those who spent decades with the Prophet (s). Abu Hurairah is not a layman in the streets of Qum. to Ahlus-Sunnah, Abu Hurairah is a prominent sahabi and regarded as a reliable transmitter of hadiths, even if the bulk of them are proven to be the figment of his imagination and his own fabrication and storytelling. so i do not understand the relationship.

LOL, indeed you are people of the Qur’an, I can see that, your knowledge of the Qur’an really shows in the great inconsistencies and contradictions from your scholars.

Please tell us who Ibrahim bin Hashim is? This individual narrated nothing less than 6,000 hadiths, and there is no information about who he was and how trustworthy he was. He is basically unknown, but your scholars have found a way to accept his narration as authentic, how is that logical and correct?! This is another hypocrisy on you people’s part, you jump at Abu Hurayrah, not knowing that a worst case scenario can be found in your books. There are others like that in your books who narrate so much, but they are unknown, example is Ahmad bin Mohammed bin Al-Hasan bin Al-Waleed. If we are to follow the principles of your later scholars of hadith, all those narrations should be at least labeled weak if not fabricated.

Back to the issue here, you may wish to go back up and read the same narrations from Abu Hurayarah also narrated in your books, even narrating similar narration by your Imams. You would not understand the relationship, because hatred has blocked your sense of reasoning. I asked, did Abu Hurayrah bring forth his opinion? Are the narrations in your books narrated by Abu Hurayrah? If he fabricated those narrations, who fabricated the ones in your books? Rejecting those narrations clearly shows your hypocrisy, your inconsistencies and your dishonesty.

ShiaMuslim:
those parts stated are not literal. they are figurative. that is our position. Allah does not descend and ascend because according to the Quran He is omnipresent. "He is with you wherever you are"-Quran. to descend and ascend means limiting Allah to a space. space is a creation of Allah. and there is nothing like Him. so your belief that He descends at a particular hour of the night is nonsense! you are trying to justifying nonsense.

So your Imams that said so too were saying nonsense? And who says they are to be taken literally?! I am only interested in how the Imams understood those verses, names and attributes of Allah (SWT). I had already provided evidences for the Imam understanding. For the record, taking the decent as an example, I provided evidence that one of the Imam states it being true, and only Allah (SWT) has the knowledge of this, also in another narration, one of the Imam says to affirm without doing tashbih…so ShiaMuslim, provide authentic and clear evidences from your Imams that states otherwise, let us know that you are truly a follower of the Imams…this shouldn’t be too difficult right?!

Ask a layman on the street, you see and Allah (SWT) sees, is Allah sight like yours? He would answer in the negative, he knows Allah (SWT) seeing can never be like his, he needs not look for other meaning from God knows where do explain what Allah’s seeing means…these also goes for other names and attributes of Allah (SWT) in His infinite wisdom chose for Himself. It is as simple as that!

I had prepared my reply, and was having second thoughts of continuing this discussion, but since you guys now want to derail this thread and turn it into a prayer request session, I find it necessary to reestablish the purpose of this thread and not forget what we are discussing here.

ShiaMuslim:
irrelevancies and gibberish. i like the part of you mentioning "ex-Shia". i think with every one million Sunni becoming Shia, you may find a lunatic Shia becoming Sunni! really, what reason would make me want to abandon the Ahlul-Bayt? there is nothing you have to offer us other than Takfir and jahiliyyah terrorism. you have nothing to offer. but Shia Islam can offer you a lesson or two on the Ahlul-Bayt, and the Thaqalayn, and also Imamate. there are Islamic concepts and teachings in Shia Islam that you lack. at most you can tell me to love the sahaba; something we actually do. we do love the good sahaba while being realistic enough to accept there were bad eggs among them who do not deserve any image whitening!

Bro, you are not making sense, I asked questions which you have failed to answer, trying to smooth talk your way doesn’t really help your case, it shows you have nothing tangible as evidence to hold on to.

Yeah, only a lunatic shi’a becomes a sunni…

Well I will quote why reasonable people leave shi’ism, I hope you would not say this is also a nobody in your sect, it seems the contradictions and discrepancies can really cause lunacy, therefore the need to safe their sanity by abandoning shi’ism.

The Esteemed Shaykh of Shiism, Tusi says in his Tahtheeb:

And among the Hadiths (narrated) by our companions (Shia scholars/companions of the Imams) are so many disparities, contrast, contravening and contradictions that you will not find a single report that we agree upon which doesn’t have another that contradicts it, and not a single Hadith is safe from another which denies it. These (contradictions) are to such an extent that our opponents (the Muslims/Ahl Al-Sunnah) have used it as the biggest accusation/attack against our school and as a proof for the falsehood of our creed. (Until he said): ‘… and this is why a number (of Shias) have left the true creed and amongst them are the likes of Abu Al-Hassan Al-Harouni Al-Alawi, who used to be on the true creed, upon the creed of Imamah (Imamate), but he turned away from it when confusion overtook him due to the issue of the contradicting Hadiths. So he left the school (of Shiism) and attached himself to another (school), as he could not grasp the different understanding (of our text) and this is an indication that he did not embraced it (Shiism) without insight, rather based on Taqleed.

Source: Tahtheeb Al-Ahkam 1/8 by sheikh of the sect al Tusi.

You can spin your way out of the above quote, but for reasonable people, it is quite revealing, even Al Tusi himself acknowledges the vast inconsistencies in your books, the confusion in your creed is legendary, if this is what you call us to, then, you must be more confused than I earlier imagined. I love my sanity!

ShiaMuslim:
so you took census of the people of Qom at that time? when you keep cheering for the phrase "Shia leader", it is as if you are implying he believed in Tajseem, when it is quite the opposite. what lay people believe in, be they in Qom or in Zaria or in beijing, does not make any difference when it comes to Shia beliefs. we do not uphold or believe in what any dick, tom and harry believe in. rather, we believe in what "Shia Leaders" like al-Shareef al-Murtada and others believe in and have transmitted through the Imams.

I only quoted what one of your leaders said; you should throw your questions at him, not me. Mind you, the names mentioned in the narrations are not just laymen, and more so, your Imams and narrators confirmed that some of their companions/servants believed in tajseem, go back and read the narrations slowly and properly, with proper comprehension.

So let us look at some of the names mentioned, if they were just laymen as you want us to believe. This was done with simple google search…

1. Al-Hasan ibn Sahl
Al-Hasan ibn Sahl (died 850/1) was an Abbasid official and governor of Iraq for Caliph al-Ma'mun (reigned 813–833) during the Fourth Fitna.

2. Hisham ibn Hakam
Hisham ibn Hakam (Arabic:هشام بن حکم) or Abul Hakam Hisham ibn Hakam Kendi was a Shiite scholar of the second century of Hejri and a companion of Jafar al-Sadiq and Musa al-Kadhim

3. al-Jawaliqi, Hisham b. Salim
Abu Muhammad (or Abu al-Hakam) Hisham b. Salim al-Jawaliqi was an Imami theologian of the second / eighth century and one of the two Hishams ...

Please ShiaMuslim, are these just laymen?! It seems you didn’t do your homework bro…

5. Summary and Conclusion

Ibn ‘Umar only referred to the abrogated part of the Qur’an and his comment in no way suggests of even a single letter of the Qur’an being lost.
Ibn ‘Umar’s other narration quoted by Ibn Hajr on the authority of Ibn ad-Durays plainly establishes this meaning.

Abu ‘Ubayd and as-Suyuti have both placed the narration in the sections about abrogated verses which shows they also understood it likewise. Comments of al-Baqilani and al-Alusi also support the same.

The word katheer does not mean ‘much’ in the comparative sense.

The rightful translation of the meanings of this narration is:

Ibn ‘Umar said: “None of you should say that he has taken the whole of the Qur’an; how could he know what all of it was (before some of it being abrogated)! Substantial parts of the Qur’an has passed him by (due to abrogation)! Let him say instead: ‘I have taken of the Qur’an that which (remained and) became apparent (after abrogation).”


References & Notes
________________________________________
[1] Qur’an 15:9
[2] as-Suyuti, Jalal ad-Deen, al-Itiqan fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’an, (Cairo: al-Halabi, 1935) Vol.2, 25
[3] Ibid., Vol.3, 66, 82-83
[4] as-Suyuti, Jalal ad-Deen, Mu’tarik al-Aqran fee Aijaz al-Qur’an, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1988) Vol.1, 95
[5] Abu ‘Ubayd, Fada’il al-Qur’an, (Damascus; Dar Ibn Katheer, 1995) Vol.1, 320
[6] al-Asqalani, Ibn Hajr , Fath al-Bari, Vol.9, 65
[7] al-Baqilani, al-Intisar lil-Qur’an, (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2001) 406
[8] Ibid., 408
[9] al-Bukhari, as-Sahih, Hadith 5019
[10] al-Asqalani, Ibn Hajr, Fath al-Bari, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah, 1379 A.H.) Vol.9, 65
[11] al-‘Ayni, ‘Umdah al-Qari, (Beirut: Dar al-Ahya al-Turath al-‘Arabi, n.d.) Vol.20, 36
[12] al-Alusi, Shahab ud-Deen, Tafseer Ruh al-M’ani, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1415 A.H.) Vol.1, 26
[13] al-Humayyid (editor), Sunan Sa’eed bin Mansoor, (Beirut: Dar as-Sami’i, 1993) Vol.2, 433
[14] as-Sajistani, Abu Dawood, as-Sunan, Translated by Ahmad Hasan (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Sons, 1984) Hadith 2409
[15] al-Bukhari, Muhammad bin Isma’il, as-Sahih, Translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Riyadh: Maktabat Dar-us-Salam, 1997) Hadith 2742

4- Two objections answered

Having explained the narration let us now turn to two possible questions.

4.1 Why did Ibn ‘Umar refer to the abrogated verses as the Qur’an?

Before finding the answer to this question let us have another look at the narration of Ibn ad-Durays:

“‘Ibn Umar used to dislike the person who said, ‘I have recited the whole of the Qur’an.’ He (Ibn Umar) used to say, ‘But (the reality is) a part of the Qur’an has been abrogated.’”

Very much like our explanation to the narration we are discussing, this report shows that Ibn ‘Umar referred to the abrogated verses as Qur’an. With the clarity in its last words this narration takes away all the rhetoric power of the question and reduces it to a mere query having no ability whatsoever to cast doubts on the validity of the explanation offered.

Dr. Sa‘d bin ‘Abdullah al-Humayyid comments on this narration in his research of Sunan Sa‘eed bin Mansoor:

“And it appears from the words of Ibn ‘Umar that in his opinion even the abrogated verses could also be called Qur’an after their being abrogated or (they could be so called) by the way what they once were.”[13]

This is understandable given the fact that Qur’an is nothing but the word of Allah and abrogated verses, although they are not required to be
followed, were nevertheless revered due to their divine origin. In this regard, there is one important difference between Ibn ‘Umar and the people of later generations like us. As there is no authority of continuous (mutawatir) reports, we cannot be as certain as him about some abrogated words once being a part of the Qur’an. We may however refer to them as such for academic purposes on the basis of lesser proofs. However, for Ibn ‘Umar this was not the condition as he must have listened to some verses from the Prophet in person for which he later learned that they were abrogated. Therefore, he was particular about the words that emanated from the Almighty as part of the Qur’an though abrogated afterwards.

Furthermore, it also has an indication of an attitude of extreme care on such matters that involves goodness on one part because this can in a way lead to self-glorification. One might see it akin to the following hadith:

Narrated Abu Bakrah: The Prophet said: “One of you should not say: ‘I fasted the whole of Ramadan, and I prayed during the night in the whole of Ramadan.’ I do not know whether he disliked the self-praise; or he (the narrator) said: ‘He must have slept a little and taken rest.’”[14]

We can see that even though it is natural that one who would fast as such for the whole month of Ramadan, will break the fasts at night and will also sleep besides standing in late-night prayers, yet an out of the way step is taken in instructing not to make such a claim. The fact that narration of Ibn ‘Umar is in essence similar to this and involves the idea of claim as well; it can help us appreciate the real message in the words of Ibn ‘Umar.

4.2 Was “much” of the Qur’an abrogated?

We know the actual text involves the words “qur’an katheer” therefore one may tend to translate it as “much of the Qur’an” with a stress on “much.” In fact one critic asks, “What kind of revelation is this that MUCH (not some) of it consists of verses that have been abrogated?” This may appear to be a very strong point but actually speaks of the lack of proper understanding of the Arabic language.

The Arabic word katheer does not mean ‘much’ in the comparative sense. In the comparative sense it can even be used to mean less than what it is compared to as shown below. The same is the case with abrogation that we are discussing. The abrogated part of the Qur’an was definitely less than what remains.

A simple proof for this assertion is the narration in which Sa‘d bin Waqqas asked the Prophet about the share of his wealth that he might give away in charity while he feared to die. Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas himself narrated his dialogue with the blessed Prophet on the subject:
“I said, ‘Should I give two-thirds of my property in charity?’ He said, ‘No.’ I asked, ‘Half?’ He said, ‘No.’ Then he added, ‘One-third, and even one-third is much (wal-thuluthu kathir).’”[15]

Certainly one-third is not “much” in the comparative sense of being more than the rest and no person of reason can ever claim that. Ibn ‘Umar only aimed to highlight the fact that verses of the Qur’an were abrogated and no one should say that they have memorized the whole of the Qur’an (including those verses) as it rests in the guarded tablets with Allah. The Qur’an that we have between the two covers today, the Qur’an given to us by the Messenger of Allah, collected by Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman, is the Qur’an that Allah revealed and decreed to remain as the guiding message for humanity till the Day of Judgment, without any addition, subtraction or alteration.

Continuation...

3. Nothing has been lost of what the Prophet left of the Qur’an

Narrated ‘Abdul-‘Azeez bin Rufai’: “Shaddad bin Ma’qil and I entered upon Ibn ‘Abbas. Shaddad bin Ma’qil asked him, ‘Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur’an)?’ He replied, ‘He did not leave anything except what is between the two bindings (of the Qur’an).’ Then we visited Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah and asked him (the same question). He replied, ‘The Prophet did not leave except what is between the bindings (of the Qur’an).’”[9]

This hadith is categorical evidence that nothing was lost of the Qur’an because all that the blessed Prophet – peace and blessings of Allah be upon him – left for his people is what was put between the two bindings.

Ibn Hajr writes:

“And this chapter is made to refute those who assume that a lot from the Qur’an was lost with the death of those who knew it.”[10]
Al-‘Ayni (d. 855 A.H.) also makes exactly the same point.[11]

Shahab ud-Deen al-Alusi’s (d. 1270 A.H.) comment helps explain the issue:

“Verily they (i.e. people of Sunnah) have agreed on there being no loss in the Qur’an as is continuously reported like we today find between the two bindings. Yes during the time of (Abu Bakr) as-Sidiq the part which was not reported continuously and was (rather) abrogated was dropped (out of the official mushaf)…and to this relates that which is reported by Abu ‘Ubayd from Ibn ‘Umar, who said: ‘None of you should say that he has taken the whole of the Qur’an; how could he know what all of it was! A lot of the Qur’an has passed him by! Let him say instead: I have taken of the Qur’an that which became apparent.’”[12]

The above mentioned narration of Sahih Bukhari is very significant. One of the two who said “The Prophet left nothing except what is between the two bindings” was Ibn ‘Abbas, and in the narration quoted by al-Baqilani we find him reporting and listening to the comment of his teacher Ubayy bin Ka‘b which is same as that of Ibn ‘Umar. Connecting the dots we make out that he understood Ubayy did not mean to say that some part of the Qur’an that the Prophet had left for the Ummah might have been missed and could not be found anymore by the person claiming to have memorized the whole of it. It rather shows that Ibn ‘Abbas fully knew that what Ubayy referred to was something exclusive to what the Prophet had left for the Ummah as eternal guidance (i.e. it was the abrogated part). And we have already seen that the narration of Ibn ‘Umar quoted by Ibn Hajr on the authority of Ibn ad-Durays makes the same point very plainly.

Another significant observation about Bukhari’s narration is that the two who testified for the Qur’anic preservation are Ibn ‘Abbas, the cousin of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, and Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah, the son of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib. Their testimony is quite sufficient to lay to rest any arguments by some extreme Shiites who say the Qur’an was tampered with to remove verses in favor of ‘Ali. Had this been the case these two close relatives of ‘Ali would have not failed to make a mention of it.

(Sino's comment: To be continued.... )

Eyah, your plight is really pathetic since you keep jumping from piller to post looking for what would stick. Bro, 7 types of qira'ah and abrogation does not mean the Qur'an with us is incomplete and that it was distorted by the sahabahs like your scholars believe and their followers, such beliefs already pointed out previously are "kufrutic" or do you also believe the complete Qur'an is with the Imams?!

Anyways, the narration of Ibn Umar (ra) is what interest me in refuting, and Alhamdulilah, there is an academic refutation online...

NB: It is pertinent to mention here that the author of this research work was refuting the critics of Islam, non-Muslims who are just looking for anything to hang on to, to destroy Islam and Muslims...When a supposed Muslim brings up such claims, one needs to probe the authenticity of the Islam such person professes...

Meaning of Ibn ‘Umar’s statement, “Much of the Qur’an is Gone”
By Waqar Akbar Cheema & Gabriel Al Romaani

Abstract

One subject of Islam that is constantly under attack from its critics is the preservation of the Qur’an. Muslims are proud to state that the Qur’an is completely intact, as Allah has promised to protect it from any changes. There have been many failed attempts by skeptics to prove that the Qur’an is not in its original form. They often jump at any opportunity to prove this point because it is essential to their argumentation to refute the most important aspect of Islam – its miraculous Noble Book. One such claim that has appeared has to do with a statement of Ibn ‘Umar, one of the Companions who was very knowledgeable about the Qur’an. It was misconstrued by some to mean that “much of the Qur’an is lost,” but this is not what it means at all. This article will explain this mistranslation of Ibn ‘Umar’s statement and provide a reason why this statement does mean what the critics of Islam want to make it appear to mean.

1. Introduction
The critics of Islam take much of their inspiration from Orientalists of the past, some sincere (but mistaken) while others had destructive agendas. Some of these missionaries have lacked the desire and sincerity to look at Islam from a neutral point of view. In an attempt to delegitimize Islam, they have often dealt with translations (since they cannot understand the source language) which are often inaccurate and do not encompass the full meaning of the original text in Arabic. Despite their claim that the Qur’an has not been perfectly preserved, we will show beyond the shadow of a doubt Allah has protected the Qur’an as promised:

“Verily, We have revealed the Reminder (the Quran) and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).”[1]

A narration from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar quoted by Hafidh as-Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.) in his al-Itiqan fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’an has become a source of joy for some of these skeptics.

One critic of Islam translates this narration as the following:

‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar reportedly said: “Let none of you say, ‘I have got the whole of the Qur’an.’ How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR’AN IS GONE. Let him say instead, ‘I have got what has survived.’”[2]

(Sino's comment: Fortunately for our brother shi'ah, his translation is different a little compared to the above from the non-Muslim critics, but note how he said "Much of the Qur'an has been lost" this is a very bad, nay worst and deceitful translation than the above as we shall soon see)


Not only are the meanings that these critics try to superimpose on this narration totally wrong, but this translation is also misleading. We shall first clarify the real meaning of this narration and then give its rightful translation supported with due reasoning.

2- The true meanings of the narration

To every ardent student of the Qur’anic sciences it is known that there were many verses first revealed as part of the Qur’an and later abrogated.

(Sino's Comment: well sure not up to 10,000 verses like an auithentic narration from Al-Kafi of the shi'a suggests)

As-Suyuti brings this narration in the section of his work titled as, “Section forty-seven: About the Abrogating and the Abrogated.”[3]

Likewise it is in the section about abrogation in another work of as-Suyuti.[4]

In Abu ‘Ubayd’s (d. 228 A.H.) work, from which as-Suyuti quotes this, it is the first narration in the chapter titled, “[About] what all was abrogated from the Qur’an after revelation and is not put in the Masahif.”[5]

Most important is the narration quoted by Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) which compliments and fixes the meaning of the report we are discussing. Ibn Hajr writes:

“Ibn ad-Durays has narrated a report of Ibn ‘Umar that he used to dislike the person who said, ‘I have recited the whole of the Qur’an.’ He (Ibn ‘Umar) used to say, ‘But (the reality is) a part of the Qur’an has been abrogated.’”[6]

This report confirms that Ibn ‘Umar’s statement simply refers to what was abrogated from the Qur’an.

Abu Bakr bin Tayyib al-Baqilani (d. 403 A.H.) in his amazing work al-Intisar lil-Qur’an (In Defence of the Qur’an), quotes another narration on the similar lines and then explains the two together. He writes:

“And similar is the report of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas from Ubayy, that he heard a man said to him: ‘O Abul-Munzar, verily I have gathered (i.e. memorized) the whole of the Qur’an.’ He (Ubayy) said to him, ‘He does not know (what the whole of it was) because so much of the Qur’an was abrogated and it was not found afterwards.’[7]

And then explaining it he writes:

“And it is not possible for anyone to claim that he has learnt (all) what was revealed as Qur’an – the abrogating part of it and the abrogated. And their words ‘it was not found afterwards’ (underscore) that we do not find in our day one who has memorized all that was abrogated and whose recitation was given up. And this is something which was bound to happen.”[8]

To be continued...

ShiaMuslim:
@sino
actually, you are the one that is so blind with hatred for the Shia that anything, any garbage written anyhow and by whoever, is enough for you to copy/paste. the materials you are presenting, for Allah's sake, are contradicting your claim that the Shia believe in Tajseem. read the hadiths again. take for instance this hadith you quoted in your above last post:
[We were told by Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Imran al-Daqqaq (rah), Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Koufi told us, from Muhammad bin Isma`il al-Barmaki, from al-Husayn bin al-Hasan, from Bakr bin Salih, from al-Husayn bin Sa`id, from Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Khazzaz and Muhammad bin al-Husayn, they both said We entered upon abu al-Hasan (as) and told him about what they narrated from Muhammad (saw) that he saw his Lord in the image of a handsome man in His thirties wearing green. I told him: Hisham bin Salim, abu Ja`far al-Ahwal Sahib-ul-Taq and Ahmad bin al-Hasan ibn Maytham al-Tammar all say that He (Allah) is void up until His navel and the rest is full. So he (as) fell in prostration and said: “Glory be to You, they didn’t know You nor unify You.”]
Note: al-Daqqaq is supported by Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Asadi (Thiqah) in al-Kafi.
MY COMMENT ON THE ABOVE:
after the holy Imam (as) disapproved of what "some" Shia, possibly laymen or whoever they maybe, that Allah has a body, do you expect me to follow the words of the Imam or the words of "some" people who held erroneous view disapproved of by the Imam?
you are presenting proof against yourself. and you are still copying/pasting. then further examine what you quoted from al-Shareef al-Murtada in “Rasa’il al-Murtada”:
[The greatest amount of (Shia) Fiqh, rather all of it, reaches us through chains containing a Waqifi, a Ghaali (extremist), a Khattabi or a Qummi who believes in Jabr and Tashbeeh. The Qummies, all of them -with the exception of Ibn Babuwayh – until just yesterday were all Mushabbihah and Mujabbirah, their books and works are a testimony to this.]
you are so fond of the title of "Shia leader". yes, al-Shareef al-Murtada was a leader. but from what you quoted of him describing those who believed in tajseem negatively, did he personally believe in tajseem? no!
it is like saying Sunni history in the Indian subcontinent is transmitted through Ahmadiyyah who did not believe in the finality of prophethood of Muhammad (s).
there are Shia narrators in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. does that make Sunnis believers that Abu Bakr was a usurper of the caliphate and Fadak? lets go further, Shia do not have "sahih books". each hadith, individually is examined for its merits and demerits. in fact, as per the Quran, leave the authentic sayings of the 12 holy Imams that speak against tajseem, Tajseem is not Islamic. and that is enough for me to throw away any hadith that contradicts the Quran. Imam Ja'far Al-Sadeq (as) says any hadith that contradicts the Quran should be thrown away.
really, engaging you is just a waste of time. you question the knowledge of the Shia. you do not know how many of the Shia attend hawza, travel to Iraq, Iran or Lebanon to study religion and Islamic history. when i see the stress you put AlBaqir through, i feel sorry for him. you make him reply and dissect every nonsense you copy/paste. you are copying/pasting what possibly you have not read yourself. i doubt if you would have read the above hadiths in your last post you would still have gone ahead to paste such. it is discrediting your claim.
it clearly shows the Imams had a stance and some ignorant fellows, even if they claim to be Shia had contradicting views; possibly influenced by other groups of Muslims in their time. what is our duty as Shia? to follow the Imams and what they authorized or to follow those unknown people who had view disapproved of by the Imams? after examining the above two hadiths/sayings, i do not find it necessary to even continue reading your long copy/paste. please open your mind.

AlBaqir:
^Shukran kathir brother. That's an excellent observation and submission. You've really exposed him. Personally I left the guy and his usual copy-pasting of gibberish which he never vet. Its boredom. He finds it difficult to reply on his own understanding. I remembered a thread of mine on Umar where he defended, Umar, tooth and nail. Unfortunately when ran out of idea, he resorted to his usual copy-paste. Whao! He shot himself big time as he copied abusive words used for Umar.

I am sorry but it seems you guys have comprehension problem or is it taqqiyah?!.

First and foremost, I do not know that a book authored by Al Saduq is garbage, or is it Al-Kafi that is garbage?! When you guys shout copy and paste, I laugh, it seems a new escape route when confronted with overwhelming evidences…Yeah keep shouting copy and paste, as if it would cause what is present in your books and presented as evidences to disappear. Yes I have not seen some of these books, and some there are pictures presented i.e scanned pages or screen shots. I trust my source, which is why I boldly reference my copy and paste. Some are ex-Shi’ah, while some have dedicated their time and resources to expose what you hide away from the general public, my job is to present their research and counter your allegations, assumptions, suspicions etc. against the ahl-Sunnah and expose your beliefs.

Now, if you had read and comprehended my post properly, you wouldn’t come up with these poor responses. I guess due to lack of evidences to counter my claims, you took the easiest route. I even highlighted the important part that supports the fact that earlier Imami shi’ah were mujasim, well, maybe a vast majority.

I need to ask you ShiaMuslim, where did I accuse al-Shareef al-Murtada of being a mujasim?! I only quoted him because of his statement showing that ALL the people of Qom were mujasim except for Ibn Babuwayh, and that all your fiqh (understanding of religion) came through those who believed in anthropomorphism and corporeality. Funny enough, we are quoting the same thing how you arrived at your own conclusion and missed the above is quite baffling…His statement is very informative, he also mentioned that not until yesterday (during his time) the tajseem and tashbeeh beliefs were prevalent. What is so difficult to understand from this? And thus I asked you to provide evidences to the contrary, which you have failed to produce.

I agree that the Imams were not part of these corrupt beliefs, and I clearly stated so in my post, but what you should worry about is the fact that not only small groups, but majority of your earlier predecessor believed in anthropomorphism and corporeality even the Imams acknowledged this amongst their people.

Again, I do find it hypocritical when you guys claim to follow the Imams, and yet AlBaqir “forgot” all the narrations that are clearly similar to what he had presented here on this thread with explanations from the infallible Imams, perfectly in sync with the beliefs of the ahlu Sunnah to start criticizing Abu Hurayrah of being a mujasim. Why? If it is not hatred for the companion, then what could be the reason?!

About your other way of running away from narrations that clearly exposes you people, saying if it contradicts the Qur’an, then you reject it? If this is to be the case, then there would be a lot of your beliefs that should be rejected. Secondly, as earlier indicated, Allah (SWT) used hands, shin, face, seeing, knowing, etc. Allah (SWT) states in the glorious Qur’an: “And your Lord comes and (also) the angels in ranks” (Fajr vs 22) why not reject these verses?! If you don’t, then why would you reject authentic narrations that says Allah (SWT) descends?! I ask both of you, bring authentic evidences from your Imams that says you must do tawil of Allah’s words in the Qur’an in order not to become a mujasim, please let us know whether indeed your beliefs are from the modrasat of the ahl-bayt instead of this cry baby tactics you are employing.

Let me quote one for you, maybe you can explain how it is weak or fabricated (thankfully the chain is there):

[We were told by Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad bin al-Walid (rah), Muhammad bin Yahya al-`Attar said, Muhammad bin Ahmad said, Muhammad bin `Isa said, from Hisham bin Ibrahim, he al-`Abbasi, I told abu al-Hasan (as): May I be your ransom, some of your followers asked me to ask you something, he (as) who is he? I said: al-Hasan bin Sahl, he (as) said regarding what? I said: regarding Tawheed, he asks whether Allah is a body or not? He (as) replied: People have split to three groups: Affirming with Tashbeeh, denying and affirming without Tashbeeh. Affirming with Tashbeeh is impermissible, and denying is impermissible so the path is the third, to affirm without Tashbeeh.”] (From the same book by Al Saduq)

Let me again quote (slightly modified) what the beliefs of the ahl-sunnah:

“Our way of dealing with such texts (if taken literally would suggest anthropomorphism or are allegorical in nature), be it in the Qur’an or authentic narrations is: {we believe in it; all is from our Lord} [3:7]

We say: We believe in this text and we do not ask “How?” We affirm what Allah affirms for Himself in a way that suites His majesty and only He knows the truth of all things. This is why they will consider things like “hands” to be an attribute and pass by such texts without asking any questions.

This group will also rely on prophetic-traditions and reports from the first generations (al-Salaf) to interpret similar texts if available.”

For the record I am open-minded, and recently, I had compelling reason to write an article on open-mindedness. If you guys are really open-minded, you wouldn’t be shi’ah, because your books are filled with too much irregularities, unknown authors and narrators, fabrications and outright lies. An open-minded person would have fled with such staggering amount of inconsistencies…But you guys like throwing words you know nothing about…

AlBaqir:
# Shaykh Muḥammad Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Laṭīf Ibn al-Khaṭīb (died 1981 CE), one of the Sunnī scholars of Egypt, wrote a book called al-Furqān – first published in 1948 in Cairo by Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyyah, and then later re-published in Beirut by Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah – to prove that taḥrīf truly took place. The book is 247 pages long; and in it, he has gathered Sunnī reports which support taḥrīf in it. Whosoever wishes to download that book in a scanned, PDF version should click this link( http://www.4shared.com/get/B0haEOof/___________.html). In Egypt, Ibn al-Khaṭīb was a member of the Qur’ān Society, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Supreme Ṣūfī Council, and the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs.


# Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, for instance, states in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 12, p. 492:
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/304.html

"Moreover, a lot of the Salaf made mistakes in a lot of these issues, and they agreed not to make takfīr on account of that. For instance, some of the Ṣaḥābah denied that the dead could hear the call of the living, and some of them denied that the mi’rāj took place in a state of wakefulness, and some of them denied that Muḥammad saw his Lord, and the opinion of some of them concerning the khilāfah and superiority (among them) is well-known. Likewise, there are well-known statements from some of them about the fighting of some others among them, the cursing of some others among them, and the total takfīr against some others among them.

Qāḍī Shurayḥ used to deny the qirāat of those who recited bal ‘ajibttu (“Nay, I wondered”) [37:12] and used to say that Allāh never wondered. This reached Ibrāhīm al-Nakha’ī and he said, “Shurayḥ is only a poet, who is dazzled by his knowledge. ‘Abd Allāh was more knowledgeable than him and he used to recite bal ajibttu.” So, he had denied a well-established qirāat and also denied a Divine Attribute which is proved by the Book and the Sunnah. Yet, the Ummah are unanimous that he was one of the Imāms.

Some of the Salaf were like that too. Some of them denied expressions used in the Qur’ān. For instance, one of them denied His Statement afalam yay-as al-ladhīna āmanū [13:31] and said, “It is only awalam yatabayan al-ladhīna āmanū.” Another (from the Salaf) denied the qirāat of His Statement wa qaḍā Rabbuka al-lā ta’budū’ ila iyyāhu [17:23] and said, “It is only wawaṣā Rabbuka.” One of them also expunged Sūrat al-Falaq and Sūrat al-Nās (from the Qur’ān), and another wrote Sūrat al-Qunūt, and this was an error by consensus and mutawātir reports."

So, where exactly do you find yourself Mr Sino? I hail thee in copy-pasting!

Unfortunately for you AlBaqir, the above does not help your case in trying to excuse your early scholars, do you mind quoting the whole statement of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyah?! What we are discussing here is the Qur'an where Allah (SWT) had sworn to protect, and majority of your early scholars do believe is incomplete and distorted, and the Imams have the complete Qur'an. The transmission from your early scholars and some present ones have reached tawatur, and they are no mistakes, they are clear belief in the tahreef of the Qur'an.

I repeat, who ever believes the Qur'an is incomplete i.e not 100%, that it had been tampered with by the sahabahs, and the complete Qur'an is with the Imams is a Kafir....SIMPLE

By the way, the book you posted is just a joke, you yourself had presented a link explaining the ahl-Sunnah's position on tahreef, so what new narrations would be presented in the book that had not been analyzed already?!

And I have not finished posting the original article wherein more evidences abound... so chill, i dey come...

SMH, Same shallow reasoning and lies just to bring Umar (ra) to disrepute. Don't you guys get tired of repeating the same lies all over and over?! what next after this? Umar (ra) beat whaling women? or that he had slaves bare chested serving sahabahs?! Anyway, here is a previous comment (modified) on your chapter one and two which were presented by AlBaqir in another thread trying to cast aspersions upon the personality of Umar (ra).

sino:
Firstly, in sahih Muslim, the word which Umar (ra) uttered after ‘Ammar made the statement “if you wish, I would not narrate this” was “"نوليك ما توليت "Nuwallika ma Tawallayt."

In Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar, he explains this expression:

أي لا يلزم من كوني لا أتذكره أن لا يكون حقا في نفس الأمر ، فليس لي منعك من التحديث به

Meaning: It is not necessary that If I do not recall it then it isn't true, so I cannot prevent you from narrating this.

In Sharh Sunan abu Dawoud by al-`Abad:

يعني: نكلك إلى علمك وإلى ما عندك، ولك أن تعمل وتفتي بهذا

Meaning: We leave you to your knowledge, and it is permitted for you to practice upon it and to offer it as a verdict.

This clearly indicates that Umar (ra) was not in disagreement with ‘Ammar, but accepted his opinion as a verdict, that was why he told him to fear Allah (SWT) on what he narrates. Imam An-Nawawi in his Sharh Sahih Muslim (vol 4 pg. 63), opined that this issue was a case of ijtihad, since ‘Ammar himself did ijtihad with how to perform tayammum when you are junub. This shows to a great extent that it wasn’t a practice to perform tayammum when you are junub, for it requires washing of the whole body, no wonder ‘Ammar himself, according to the narration, rolled in dust using the idea that since the whole body is to be washed, then rolling in dust would also suffice, whereby the prophet (SAW) corrected him and taught him what would suffice.

Again, in the narration of ‘Ammar, there is nowhere that indicates Umar (ra) was with him when the Prophet (SAW) taught him how to perform tayammum to cleanse the body after being in the state of janabah.


Let us now look at the meaning of what Ibn Masood (ra) said to Abdullah (ra), firstly, Ibn Masood was not basing his judgement on Umar (ra)’s opinion, it was what was apparent in the meaning of the verse quoted by Abdullah (ra), and Ibn Masood even tried to show the reason for his opinion by saying [b]“There is a possibility that they would perform tayammum with soil even if water were available but cold.” [/b]Meaning that Ibn Masood (ra) himself was with the opinion that washing the whole body was the proper way to purify from sexual intercourse (janabah).

It would not only be ridiculous, but utterly irresponsible to say that these sahabas did not know of this verse of the Qur’an, these were people who memorized the Qur’an as it was being revealed, and put it to use immediately. Again to buttress the fact that Ibn Masood knew about this verse, and was of the opinion that Janaba (being impure due to intercourse) is different from touching a woman physically, without intercourse which do not require ghusl but tayammum will suffice if no water was available, please read the following analysis:

Allah (SWT) says:

{O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of Janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.} [4:43]

`Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) and `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) never heard of the narration of Tayammum apparently, and they practiced based on the apparent meaning of these Qur'anic verses:

{O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of Janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful.} [5:6]

Notice how this verse separates the ruling of Janabah from the rest of the matters, it says: {And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves}.

Even in verse [4:43] quoted by the Shia, they understood from this part that Janabah can only be removed by washing: {O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of Janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. }

Both verse [5:6] and [4:43] state clearly that Janabah is removed by washing.

In other words, they did not hear the narration of Tayammum, and they did not see that the person on Janabah is included in this part of the verse:

{But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it.}

They also understood that "contacting women" is anything less than reaching a state of Janabah, such as touching your wife with or without lust without having intercourse.

This is proven by the fact that `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) narrates:

حدثنا حفص عن أشعث عن الشعبي عن أصحاب عبد الله عن عبد الله قال اللمس ما دون الجماع

[Hafs from al-Ash`ath from al-Sha`bi, from the companions of `Abdullah (ra) that he says: "Contact" is what is less than intercourse. Also narrated by Wakee` from Suffiyan from al-Mugheerah from Ibrahim from `Abdullah (ra)]

With the same chain from the companions of `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) that he believed that "contacting women" means having intercourse with them. Ibn `Abbas (ra) also believed this but his student Sa`eed ibn Jubayr believed otherwise, and some Imams also differed on this, the reader can refer to the chapter in Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah about the meaning of "contacting women".


Another point I would like to bring to the notice of the readers, is the fact that Qaadhi Al-‘Iyyaad (544H.) explained the meaning of the statement of Ibn Masood to Abdulah (ra) about the displeasure of Umar (ra) to ‘Ammar narration as follows:
وقوله : (ألم تر عُمَر لمِ يقنع بقول عمارٍ ) ؛ لاَنه أخبره خبراً ذكر أنه شاهَدَه ولم
يذكره فجوَّز عليه الوهم كما جَوز على نفسه النسيانَ له ، ثم تركه وما اعتقَدَه وصححه ، إذ لم يخهمْهُ بقوله : (نُوَليك من ذلك ما تَوَليْتَ " ، بخلاف لو قطع على خطئه فيه .

And his (Ibn Masood) statement: “Don’t you see Umar (ra) was not satisfied with what ‘Ammar said”: this is because, he(‘Ammar) narrated it in such a way that indicated that he (Umar) was present, a witness to the whole event, and he (Umar (ra)) did not remember, so it is possible to admit that he (‘Ammar) was mistaken/delusional, as he (Umar) himself admits that he had forgotten this incidence. Then he (Umar) left him and his believe (of the incident) and he accepted it to be correct, even if he doesn’t understand this (narration) by saying : “ we accept from that what you take upon yourself” (this statement of Umar (ra) has also been explained above)….

Our Scholars are not ignorant people, they explain issues based on evidences, and it is quite painful that most of these explanations are in Arabic, and we are not doing enough jihad to learn about the deen, and that is why people like BETATRON would have the effrontery to criticize a companion of the Prophet (SAW) like Umar (ra).

To refute the narration of stoning, although I couldn’t locate the narration myself, but I found a rebuttal online and I did a little bit of editing:

Firstly, the translated Arabic phrase "fa hamm bi rajmiha" as "so he resolved to stone her to death" is wrong . The correct translation is "so he intended to stone" and this phrase is more explained in other version of this hadith which shows that Umar discussed it among Sahaba before judging and there he was told by Ali that the least time-limit of a pregnancy is six months. Hence he left that woman. This is reported by Abdur-Razzaq and Suyuti quoted it from Abdur-Razzaq, Ibn al-Mundhir and Abd bin Humaid. So we see that Umar did not finalize it until he was informed by Ali (ra).

Secondly, There are certain incidents which establish that Umar (ra) would not inflict the punishment only because of delivery rather he would give excuse if there is chance of forced intercourse. Ibn Qudamah quotes from Sunan of Sa'eed bin Mansur:

فَرَوَى سَعِيدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا خَلَفُ بْنُ خَلِيفَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا هَاشِمٌ، أَنَّ امْرَأَةً رُفِعَتْ إلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ، لَيْسَ لَهَا زَوْجٌ، وَقَدْ حَمَلَتْ، فَسَأَلَهَا عُمَرُ، فَقَالَتْ: إنِّي امْرَأَةٌ ثَقِيلَةُ الرَّأْسِ، وَقَعَ عَلَيَّ رَجُلٌ وَأَنَا نَائِمَةٌ، فَمَا اسْتَيْقَظْت حَتَّى فَرَغَ. فَدَرَأَ عَنْهَا الْحَدَّ

This incident is also reported in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah and other books. And Allah knows best.

BETATRON, Islamic knowledge is not based on quoting narrations and authenticating them, and definitely not based on conjectures, lies and deceit. That is why we have scholars; those who have attained true scholarship, and are pious and sincere.

@ShiaMuslim

How would the names not be alien to present day shi’ahs, do you guys read your books?! Unfortunately for you and those who thought you had made any sense is that, evidences were presented to show that the earlier Imami shi’ah believed in tashbeeh and tajseem, and if you had been prudent enough, you would have presented compelling evidences to prove otherwise.

Please note if you may, I did not claim that the Imams believed in this corrupt beliefs, rather, the so called followers of the ahl-l-bayt. It is also on record that the ahl-l-bayt believed just as the ahl-Sunnah believe, you may look at the narrations already presented about Allah (SWT) descending…In fact, your brother AlBaqir started this thread based on similar narration from Abu Hurayrah that states Allah (SWT) descends and claims he was a mujasim based on this. So one needs to ask, are the Imams who affirm this narrations also mujasims? And are you guys really following the ahl-l-bayt?!

I would make bold to say that most of you are not really knowledgeable about your sect; they have indoctrinated you with hate and irrational attacks on the Sunnis.

Now let me provide you with more evidences that show that your predecessors, the Imami shi’ah were anthropomorphist. If you do not have evidences to counter my “copy and paste”, you should just ignore and move along…

We look at the book “al-Tawheed” by al-Saduq:

[We were told by Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Imran al-Daqqaq (rah), Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Koufi told us, from Muhammad bin Isma`il al-Barmaki, from al-Husayn bin al-Hasan, from Bakr bin Salih, from al-Husayn bin Sa`id, from Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Khazzaz and Muhammad bin al-Husayn, they both said We entered upon abu al-Hasan (as) and told him about what they narrated from Muhammad (saw) that he saw his Lord in the image of a handsome man in His thirties wearing green. I told him: Hisham bin Salim, abu Ja`far al-Ahwal Sahib-ul-Taq and Ahmad bin al-Hasan ibn Maytham al-Tammar all say that He (Allah) is void up until His navel and the rest is full. So he (as) fell in prostration and said: “Glory be to You, they didn’t know You nor unify You.”]

Note: al-Daqqaq is supported by Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Asadi (Thiqah) in al-Kafi.

[We were told by Hamzah al-`Alawi (rah), `Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashim told us, from Muhammad bin `Isa, from Yunus bin `Abdul-Rahman, from Muhammad bin Hakim, he said: “I described to abu al-Hasan (as) the opinion of Hisham al-Jawaliqi regarding (Allah resembling) the handsome young man and I also described to him the opinion of Hisham bin al-Hakam, so he said: “Allah does not resemble anything.”]

[We were told by `Ali bin Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Imran al-Daqqaq (rah), from Muhammad bin Ya`qoub al-Kulayni, from `Ali bin Muhammad, from Sahl bin Ziyad, from Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Hamdani: I wrote to aba al-Hasan (as): In our land your servants have differed about Tawheed, a group says (god is) an image and another says (god is) a body.]

[We were told by Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad bin al-Walid (rah), Muhammad bin Yahya al-`Attar said, Muhammad bin Ahmad said, Muhammad bin `Isa said, from Hisham bin Ibrahim, he al-`Abbasi, I told abu al-Hasan (as): May I be your ransom, some of your followers asked me to ask you something, he (as) who is he? I said: al-Hasan bin Sahl, he (as) said regarding what? I said: regarding Tawheed, he asks whether Allah is a body or not? He (as) replied: People have split to three groups: Affirming with Tashbeeh, denying and affirming without Tashbeeh. Affirming with Tashbeeh is impermissible, and denying is impermissible so the path is the third, to affirm without Tashbeeh.”]

Then he narrates with his chains to some of the companions of the Imams who were all complaining that the Shia in their lands have differed concerning Tawheed.

[… from Muhammad bin `Ali al-Qasani, he said: I wrote to him (as): The people of our land have differed about Tawheed (meaning whether god is an image or a body and whatnot).]

[… from Bishr bin Bashar al-Nishapuri, he said: I wrote to abu al-Hasan (as): The people of our land have differed about Tawheed, some say an image and others say a body.]

[We were told by Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya al-`Attar (rah), from his father, from Sahl bin Ziyad, he said: I wrote to abu Muhammad (as) in the year 255 hijri: O master, our companions differed in Tawheed, some say body and others say image. If you can inform me of the correct opinion O master.]

[We were told by Muhamad bin Musa al-Mutawakkil (rah), `Abdullah bin Ja`far al-Himyari told us, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Isa, from al-Hasan bin Mahboub, from Ya`qoub al-Sarraj: I said to abi `Abdillah (as): Some of our companions claim that Allah is an image like the image of a man and another said in the image of an adolescent whose beard has not grown on his face; He was also shaggy and curly. Upon hearing this abu `Abdillah (as) fell in prostration saying: “Glory be to Allah there is nothing like Him.”]

[We were told by Muhammad bin Musa (rah), `Ali bin Ibrahim told us, from his father, from al-Saqr bin abi Dalf, I asked aba al-Hasan `Ali (as) about Tawheed: I share the opinion of Hisham bin al-Hakam. So he (as) became angry and said: “What’s wrong with the people and Hisham!? He is not from us who claims Allah is a body.”]

As we can see from the above reports, anthropomorphism was adopted by the heads of the Shia sect in the early days and was wide spread among the followers. In fact Qum was the stronghold of Imami Shia in its time and they were all believers in Tashbeeh and Tajseem.

Shia leader al-Shareef al-Murtada says in “Rasa’il al-Murtada”:

[The greatest amount of (Shia) Fiqh, rather all of it, reaches us through chains containing a Waqifi, a Ghaali (extremist), a Khattabi or a Qummi who believes in Jabr and Tashbeeh. The Qummies, all of them -with the exception of Ibn Babuwayh – until just yesterday were all Mushabbihah and Mujabbirah, their books and works are a testimony to this.]

Well the evidences here are quite clear, I am not employing any deceitful tactics, it is based on evidence, so if you do have contrary evidences, please provide them and let us see.

And in regards to the sermon of Imam Ali (ra) in Nahju-l-Balagah, one simple question, do you take your aqeedah from a book with questionable authenticity?! Or better still, can you tell us how authentic the book is? Many thanks in advance.


@AlBaqir
While I anticipate ShiaMuslim's responses, I find a particular narration very interesting, you had presented a version from same Abu Hurayarah, and here we have it, where one of the infallibles explained it…

[We were told by `Ali bin Ahmad bin `Abdullah bin Ahmad bin abi `Abdilah al-Barqi (rah), from his father, from his grandfather Ahmad, from his father, from `Abdullah bin Bahr, from abi Ayyoub al-Khazzaz, from Muhammad bin Muslim: I asked aba Ja`far (as) about what they narrate concerning Allah creating Adam (as) upon His image. He said: “It is a created image, He chose it out of different images and attributed it to Himself just as He attributed the Ka`bah to Himself and the soul to Himself.”] (From the book “Al-tawheed” by Al-Saduq)

We can clearly read that the Imam did not reject the narration out rightly or deny the statement that Allah (SWT) created Adam in His image, but rather explains what is meant. Now I ask you AlBaqir, what was the crime of Abu Hurayrah?! Did Abu Hurayarah give any personal opinion in regards to this narration?! Isn’t it hypocritical of you to accuse Abu Hurayrah of being a Mujasim when he only just reported a hadith of the Prophet (SAW)?! I know you would not answer these questions, but know that people are already seeing you people for who you really are…

Again I had presented narrations showing the reports from the Imams using hands, fingers, leg, descending etc. to describe Allah (SWT), then why do you have problems with Abu Hurayrah’s narrations?! Now another question that begs answer is that, the beliefs of the present Shi’ah to do tawil of Allah’s names and attributes is from whom? From what I have read so far, the ahl-l-bayt didn’t do such. So kindly bring your evidences…

The sincere reader should by now realize that the shi’ah base their allegations blindly, they hardly study their own books and rarely follow the teachings of the ahl-l-bayt they claim to follow.

AlBaqir:
^ haha awon eleyi n copy-paste. I hail. Sino its you and I discussing. Really my brother, I am tired of discussing with you while you cannot respond directly based on your opponent's submission. Brother I wanna read your own understanding not copying and dump. Honestly I don't even bother to read though those that will read it will read no doubt.

Bro, I had presented my understanding previously, especially on the “where is Allah…” thread (https://www.nairaland.com/2570530/where-allah-intellectual-discourse/1), but you kept confusing my submissions just because you have preconceived opinions about my beliefs. I can’t help you understand this simple concept. I presented my “copy and paste” just so people can understand what is available in terms of beliefs types and forms in regards to Allah’s names and attributes i.e the classification into groups by the author of the article.

Again if you had been patient to read, the group 4 colored in green, describes in brief what my beliefs are and shows how to approach the names and attributes of Allah (SWT), as well as other allegorical verses in the Qur’an. It is quite simple and puts a believing heart at peace. No trying to be smart and claiming intellectualism or some “esoteric” understanding and knowledge.

Now do not run away dear AlBaqir, the second part of my “copy and paste” exposes the inconsistencies in shi’ism, your predecessors were anthropomorphist, they believed in corporeality. Since you lots of later generations now feel like having the superior understanding after abandoning the ways of your predecessors and following yet another strange ideology of the mutazilah, it is then pertinent that I present the truth, showing the world (okay, Nairaland Muslims ) who the real anthropomorphist were/are, and those who got their beliefs from philosophers and deviant sects, but still would want to attribute these strange beliefs to the ahl-l-bayt. One needs to ask; did the earlier shi’ah not know or study from the madrasat of the ahl-l-bayt before penning down blasphemous hogwash?!

Let me also point out that in your books are narrations from infallibles that describes Allah (SWT) with such words that are clear, it baffles the mind that these infallibles used these clear words to describe Allah (SWT) and did not find it necessary to do ta’weel (as you (AlBaqir) insist we must do) so as to show/affirm that Allah (SWT) does not resemble His creations…I’ll post a few here, others can be found on the site already indicated above.


1/126 of al-Kafi:

[`Ali bin Muhammad, from Sahl bin Ziyad, from Muhammad bin `Isa, he said: I wrote to abi al-Hasan `Ali bin Muhammad (as): May Allah take my soul in your service, O my master, it is narrated to us that Allah is in one place and not in another place on the Throne resting. He comes down to the sky above the earth every night during the last half of the night. It is narrated that He comes down at the ninth evening of the month of Dhul-Hijjah and then He returns back to His place. Certain individuals among your servants have said that if He would be found in certain places and not in other places the air must have come in contact with Him and would surround Him because air is a thin form of body that surrounds everything proportionate to its size. How then the air would surround Allah, the Most Holy and the Most High, According to this assumption? The Imam (as) replied in writing: “He has the knowledge of this. He is the best One in determining all things. You must, However, note that His being in the sky over the earth is just as Him being on the Throne. All things to Him are the same in the matters of His knowledge and power, domination and control.”

Also narrated from him, from Muhammad bin Ja`far al-Koufi, from Muhammad bin `Isa like it.]

This narration is important as we see the Imam accepting the text of the narration as it is and saying “Allah knows best how this takes place.”

This was affirmed by the commentators of al-Kafi.

`Ali Akbar Ghifari said in his commentary:

[His (as) saying: “He has the knowledge of this” meaning knowledge of how His descent takes place Glory be to Him and you (Shia) are not responsible for knowing how it happens.]

Notice how the Imam agrees with the narration of nuzul (descent) of Allah (SWT) (which you AlBaqir had mocked since it was from Abu Hurayrah in sunni books), but we already know your escape route is that the narration is weak, right? SMH

Note also how the Imam affirms the belief of the ahlu Sunnah by stating that Allah (SWT) has the knowledge of this i.e descent no need for us to be troubling ourselves with the "howness" or negating and denying it or looking for another word to interpret descent?! Now you were saying something about madrasat of ahl-l-bayt again?!

Here is another one AlBaqir

Also in Tahdheeb al-Ahkaam 3/3 #3, Majlisi graded “Sahih” in Malaadh-ul-Akhiyar 4/636:

[From him, from Muhammad bin Yahya, from `Abdullah bin Muhammad, from `Ali bin al-Hakam, from Abban, from abi `Abdillah (as), he said: Friday has its sanctity and right, do not waste a thing from Allah’s worship (etc…) If you are able to spend (that day) in prayer and supplication then do so because your Lord descends in the beginning of every Friday evening to the worldly sky to increase the rewards (etc…)]

Now lets see some quite interesting narrations:

Two narrations from Kitab-ul-Tawheed by Saduq pg.154-155:

3. [I was told by Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad bin al-Walid (rah), we were told by Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Saffar, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Isa, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin abi Nasr, from al-Husayn bin Musa, from `Ubayd bin Zurarah, from abi `Abdillah (as): I asked him about Allah’s words {Upon the day when the leg shall be bared, and they shall be summoned to bow themselves} He (as) lifted his lower garment and exposed his leg while his hand was on his head, then he said: “Praise be to the Lord most high.”]

2. [My father (rah) told me, Sa`d bin`Abdullah told us, from Ibrahim bin Hashim, from Ibn Faddal, from abi Jamilah, from Muhammad bin `Ali al-Halabi, from abi `Abdillah (as) about His words {Upon the day when the leg shall be bared} He (as) said: “May The Almighty be glorified.” then he (as) pointed to his leg and lifted the lower garment exposing it (etc…)]

al-Kafi 4/28:

[Some of our companions, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Khalid, from Isma`il bin Mihran, from Sayf bin `Umayrah, from abi `Abdillah (as), he said: Forgive the people of goodness their mistakes and shortcomings for Allah’s palm is over them like such” And he gestured with his hand as if shading something.]

al-Kafi 2/7:

[`Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, from ibn abi `Umayr, from Ibn Udhaynah, from Zurarah, that a man asked aba Ja`far (as) about the verse And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam – from their loins – their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes, we have testified.”} He (as) said in front of his father: My father told me that Allah took a fist full of dust from which He created Adam (as), then poured pure water (etc…) then He rubbed it thoroughly until they emerged like atoms from His right and left]

NB: I expect the usual, “don’t quote shi’a books without grading”, and “the narrations are weak!” And you are “tired of my “copy and paste””…Excuses, A sect whose beliefs are as a result of excuses and reactionary tendencies…SMH

Source:http://twelvershia.net/2016/02/27/tashbeeh/