TwelverShia.net Forum

Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

silentkiller

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #80 on: January 04, 2015, 06:41:37 AM »
ok farid i am waiting

Farid

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #81 on: January 04, 2015, 06:59:23 AM »
@ Silentkiller:

Before moving on, I would like your view on a subject. If a random verse was abrogated from then Qur'an, but was not removed, do you consider that Tahreef? Or simply Haram?

@ Ameen:

I don't see what is strange in the first hadith you quoted.

As for the second hadith, this all has to do with the history of the Qur'anic revelation and compilation. It seems that you do not believe or are aware that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ways.

silentkiller

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #82 on: January 04, 2015, 07:37:23 AM »
brother Farid its your comment above i quoted

and please reply it before asking me fst answer me then i will respond you

its your comment below

if one keeps an abrogated verse in the Quran, it is not Tahreef. It is a mistake and it is haram''

you said its mistake and haram to keep abrogated verse in Quran, fst the thing is

point 1 from you its mistake and haram

Response 1  IF PEOPLE DONOT HAVE CRITICIZED UMAR FOR ADDING IN BOOK OF Allah SWT, BY Allah SWT, UMAR WOULD ADD THIS VERSE IN THE Allah'S BOOK nauzubillah!

its in your narration and its not the words of those days you mentioned, its in the last age of umar when he wanted to add verse in HolyQuran as its part.

) Malik related to me that Yahya ibn Said heard Said ibn al-Musayyab say, "When umar ibn al-Khattab came from Mina, he made his camel kneel at al-Abtah, and then he gathered a pile of small stones and cast his cloak over them and dropped to the ground. Then he raised his hands to the sky and said, 'O Allah! I have become old and my strength has weakened. My flock is scattered. Take me to You with nothing missed out and without having neglected anything.' Then he went to Madina and addressed the people. He said, 'People! Sunan have been laid down for you. Obligations have been placed upon you. You have been left with a clear way unless you lead people astray right and left.' He struck one of his hands on the other and then said, 'Take care lest you destroy the ayat of stoning so that one will say, "We do not find two hadds in the Book of Allah." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stoned, so we have stoned. By He in Whose Hand my self is, had it not been that people would say that umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of Allah ta-ala, we would have written it, "The full-grown man and the full-grown woman, stone them absolutely." We have certainly recited that.'" Malik said, "Yahya ibn Said said Said ibn al-Musayyab said, 'Dhu'l-Hijja had not passed before umar was murdered, may Allah have mercy on him.' " Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, "As for his words 'The full-grown man and the full-grown woman' he meant, 'The man and the woman who have been married, stone them absolutely.' "  (Book #41, Hadith #41.1.10) malik muwata

now please fst according to your comment tell me do you accept umar wanted to do haram work till end of the life even if for just seconds and forsake of argument we agree you its an abrogated verse(to me according to umar it wasnt abrogated one)

plz respond this thanks
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 07:43:48 AM by silentkiller »

Farid

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #83 on: January 04, 2015, 07:44:08 AM »
Quote
now please fst according to your comment tell me do you accept umar wanted to do haram work till end of the life even if for just seconds and forsake of argument we agree you its an abrogated verse(to me according to umar it wasnt)

For the sake of the argument, I have let go of hadith Musnad Ahmad and Al-Nasa'ee, and stuck with the narration that you have provided me while ignoring the historical context. In this case, I say:

Yes, it shows that Omar wanted to do a mistake and that if he did, then it would be a sin.

silentkiller

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #84 on: January 04, 2015, 07:47:12 AM »
Quote
For the sake of the argument, I have let go of hadith Musnad Ahmad and Al-Nasa'ee, and stuck with the narration that you have provided me while ignoring the historical context. In this case, I say:

Yes, it shows that Omar wanted to do a mistake and that if he did, then it would be a sin.

brother you also said its haram and the narration shows please read again
UMAR WANTED TO DO IT

PLZ RESPOND THIS MAIN POINT
By He in Whose Hand my self is, had it not been that people would say that umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of Allah ta-ala, we would have written  MALIK MUWATA

question is not if omar did or no Question is umar wanted to do it till end of his life and he is taking Allah's oath in the narration

and you yourself said adding verse in Quran even the abrogated is haram

so this is clear you accepted that hazrat umar wanted to do haram work till end of his life
respond this
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 02:18:00 PM by Hani »

Farid

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #85 on: January 04, 2015, 07:54:55 AM »
Quote
so this is clear you accepted that hazrat umar wanted to do haram work till end of his life

For the sake of the argument: Yes.

Omar wanted to do someone haram "till end of his life" but did not.

silentkiller

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #86 on: January 04, 2015, 08:05:58 AM »
w
Quote
so this is clear you accepted that hazrat umar wanted to do haram work till end of his life

For the sake of the argument: Yes.

Omar wanted to do someone haram "till end of his life" but did not.
anted to do=
did not just coz of fear of people not because he donot wanted too and not because of fear of Allah swt but just because of fear of people, in real hazrat umar is clear he wants to do it by ALLAH SWT said by hzrat umar is clearly visible in narration

brother now its clear hazrat umar died with haram akida of making additions in HolyQuran a person is judged by his beliefs

and hazrat umar's beliefs are clear and you accepted he wanted to do haram work till end of his life

is end of the accadamic debate coz you have accepted that it was hazrat umar who wanted to make additions in Quran without permission of Allah so now

you cannot accuse shias for tehreef or additions because your own caliph died in such mental state.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 08:47:07 AM by silentkiller »

Ameen

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #87 on: January 04, 2015, 01:29:37 PM »
@ Silentkiller:

Before moving on, I would like your view on a subject. If a random verse was abrogated from then Qur'an, but was not removed, do you consider that Tahreef? Or simply Haram?

@ Ameen:

I don't see what is strange in the first hadith you quoted.

As for the second hadith, this all has to do with the history of the Qur'anic revelation and compilation. It seems that you do not believe or are aware that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ways.

Please do provide me with the information that it was revealed in seven different ways. And what was the purpose of it being revealed in different ways. All I know and am aware of is that the Quran wasn't revealed together as one complete book, but was revealed in sentences and paragraphs or Surahs, for various reasons for example situations and conditions that developed, in the form of circumsutances, principals, rules and regulations, historical incidents and events, to settle former differences and disputes between Yahood and Nasara, etc (much much more).

What is strange??? Well it's straightforward that they're about to do and go ahead with something the Prophet (pbuh) didn't order or do himself or during his time. My question is to those who consider Eid Milaad e Nabi as Bidaa and believe we shouldn't celebrate the Prophet's (pbuh) birthday because it wasn't celebrated during the Prophet's (pbuh) time. I'm sure you know what I mean.

Hani

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #88 on: January 04, 2015, 02:35:25 PM »

Please do provide me with the information that it was revealed in seven different ways. And what was the purpose of it being revealed in different ways. All I know and am aware of is that the Quran wasn't revealed together as one complete book, but was revealed in sentences and paragraphs or Surahs, for various reasons for example situations and conditions that developed, in the form of circumsutances, principals, rules and regulations, historical incidents and events, to settle former differences and disputes between Yahood and Nasara, etc (much much more).


Brother Ameen,


The Qur'an was revealed on the Arabs of the time, and these Arabs just like today's Arabs spoke very different languages, just like today when you see a Tunisian speaks it is completely different words than how an Egyptian speaks, the same about Syrians and Saudis etc...


Since the Qur'an was a mercy for mankind and for these very simple uneducated Arabs, it was revealed with seven letters, seven letters at the time meant seven languages, and they were allowed to actually recite it in their languages and the Prophet (saw) would teach each man Allah's words based on his language.


What happened was that `Iraqis learned the Qur'an from folks like `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud while Shamis learned it from the likes of Ubay bin Ka`b, so the recitations differed and these laypeople had no idea this was permissible, so each group began to deny the other group's recitations, and they ended up making Takfeer on eachother, although both were reciting Allah's words.


When the Imam of that time learned that this problem started, he took action and decided to make an official Qur'an in a book form based on the Masaahif the Imams before him collected, and the people he chose to do this job as writers and collectors and supervisors were themselves from various tribes and read the Qur'an in various letters, so he instructed them that whenever they differed they should try to write the letter according to the Qurashi manner, not the language of Hudhayl or Thakeef or the others.


What ended up happening is that the Qur'an was made into a book form, and it had a certain Rasm(written text) and this text would contain some Lahn in it but the Arabs knew how to recite it so that did not matter. After the `Uthmani Rasm was established the people all accepted and adopted Mushaf-ul-Imam, then they tried to stick to it and avoided all other letters whether it was ibn Mas`oud's letters or Ubay's letters or ibn `Abbas's letters, for them the Rasm was what's more important.


The matter of Qira'aat(recitations) and Naqt and Tashkeel were the next things the nation had to work with and discuss but it was not a problem at all, recitations were derived from various Sahabah and taught to the people and their Mutawatir chains can still be traced until our days.

(I know this is a bit complicated but I'm still researching it because in all seriousness, I don't blame you for not knowing and no one I asked knew about this stuff or was able to help me in it, so I'm researching it myself at the moment in order to formulate an opinion.)
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 02:40:57 PM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

adnan42

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #89 on: January 04, 2015, 04:57:16 PM »
Paden me brothers. Both shia and sunni believe that verse of stoning was part of quran but later it was abrogated. So the verse was part of the quran before. If hrz umer didnt belief that verse was abrogated why is he talking about adding it. Because how can you add something which acc to you is already part of it. Shouldn't umer would be talking against other companions who take the quranic verse out which was part of the quran and never abrogated.
We know umer feared that in future people will abandon this practice by saying that we dont see this command of allah in quran.by the way this is exactly what is happening today. This is one of those verses in which reciting was abrogated but commandment remains.

Maybe umer want this verse to stay as a part of official book but not as the part of quran itself.  Like different companions use to write quran explaination in there book but that was not made part of official book.
Same thing we see today in quran with translation. That translation is part of the book but not the quran itself.

P.s this is just my 2 cent I am just a layman with extremely little knowlege. If mod think my post has error he can delete it. Thanx.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 05:27:18 PM by adnan42 »

silentkiller

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #90 on: January 04, 2015, 05:36:27 PM »
Paden me brothers. Both shia and sunni believe that verse of stoning was part of quran but later it was abrogated. So the verse was part of the quran before. If hrz umer didnt belief that verse was abrogated why is he talking about adding it. Because how can you add something which acc to you is already part of it. Shouldn't umer would be talking against other companions who take the quranic verse out which was part of the quran and never abrogated.
We know umer feared that in future people will abandon this practice by saying that we dont see this command of allah in quran.by the way this is exactly what is happening today. This is one of those verses in which reciting was abrogated but commandment remains.

Maybe umer want this verse to stay as a part of official book but not as the part of quran itself.  Like different companions use to write quran explaination in there book but that was not made part of official book.
Same thing we see today in quran with translation. That translation is part of the book but not the quran itself.

P.s this is just my 2 cent I am just a layman with extremely little knowlege. If mod think my post has error he can delete it. Thanx.


fst thing brother its clear in the narration when you say you want to keep it as tafsir you say as tafsir but when you say it as the PART OF ALLAH'S BOOK clears you consider this a verse,

2nd if for sake of argument i agree your claim that umar wanted to add the verse as tafsir?
the point is hazrat umar only wanted 1 verse to add as tafsir?
which donot make any sense

3rd hazrat umar is clear in his wordings he wanted to add the verse in Allah's book and he feared the people
so the point is here why people would criticize hazrat umar for writing his own tafsir? from which hazrat umar is fearing?

so this is clear the verse umar wanted to add he consider it as the part of HolyQuran not tafsir thats why he was fearing people, like today if you talk about additions in Quran muslims will criticize you and make takfir on you as on this thread, same like hazrat umar said=> he didnt edited this verse DUE TO THE FEAR OF PEOPLE, NOT FEAR OF ALLAH SWT
OTHERWISE HE TOOK OATH OF ALLAH SWT HE WANTED IT TO BE THE PART OF ALLAH'S BOOK WHICH IS QUIET CLEAR.

adnan42

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #91 on: January 04, 2015, 06:51:28 PM »
Paden me brothers. Both shia and sunni believe that verse of stoning was part of quran but later it was abrogated. So the verse was part of the quran before. If hrz umer didnt belief that verse was abrogated why is he talking about adding it. Because how can you add something which acc to you is already part of it. Shouldn't umer would be talking against other companions who take the quranic verse out which was part of the quran and never abrogated.
We know umer feared that in future people will abandon this practice by saying that we dont see this command of allah in quran.by the way this is exactly what is happening today. This is one of those verses in which reciting was abrogated but commandment remains.

Maybe umer want this verse to stay as a part of official book but not as the part of quran itself.  Like different companions use to write quran explaination in there book but that was not made part of official book.
Same thing we see today in quran with translation. That translation is part of the book but not the quran itself.

P.s this is just my 2 cent I am just a layman with extremely little knowlege. If mod think my post has error he can delete it. Thanx.


fst thing brother its clear in the narration when you say you want to keep it as tafsir you say as tafsir but when you say it as the PART OF ALLAH'S BOOK clears you consider this a verse,

2nd if for sake of argument i agree your claim that umar wanted to add the verse as tafsir?
the point is hazrat umar only wanted 1 verse to add as tafsir?
which donot make any sense

3rd hazrat umar is clear in his wordings he wanted to add the verse in Allah's book and he feared the people
so the point is here why people would criticize hazrat umar for writing his own tafsir? from which hazrat umar is fearing?

so this is clear the verse umar wanted to add he consider it as the part of HolyQuran not tafsir thats why he was fearing people, like today if you talk about additions in Quran muslims will criticize you and make takfir on you as on this thread, same like hazrat umar said=> he didnt edited this verse DUE TO THE FEAR OF PEOPLE, NOT FEAR OF ALLAH SWT
OTHERWISE HE TOOK OATH OF ALLAH SWT HE WANTED IT TO BE THE PART OF ALLAH'S BOOK WHICH IS QUIET CLEAR.

Sir if I am holding quran with translation if some one ask me what are you holding I will tell him book of allah even tho it has translation in it which is not the part of quran itself. Maybe umer use those words in same figure of speech. If someone also take my statement under microscope he can say I consider translation as a part of quran which in reality I dont.

This verse is important because unlike other abrogated verses it is talking about taking someones life. And no new verse was reviled in its place which is talking about same punishment. That I know of.

Sir Maybe people criticized it in the same sense when they criticized official collection of hadith during the compilation of quran. For the fear of bluring the line between quran and hadith. In the same sense they feared for the blurring of line between quran and abrogated verse.it is also word of allah after all.

Hani

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #92 on: January 04, 2015, 07:03:32 PM »
@Adnan,


Brother don't get involved in this discussion as you haven't researched it, nor did the guy you're talking to research it, so nothing is going to come out of this, even I'm still in the process of researching it. Farid has read a few books on the topic so best leave the answering to him.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

adnan42

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #93 on: January 04, 2015, 07:11:00 PM »
@Adnan,


Brother don't get involved in this discussion as you haven't researched it, nor did the guy you're talking to research it, so nothing is going to come out of this, even I'm still in the process of researching it. Farid has read a few books on the topic so best leave the answering to him.

Sorry sir for my ignorance please forgive me I wont post on this thread from now on. Thanx.

silentkiller

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #94 on: January 04, 2015, 07:52:11 PM »
Quote from brother adnan
below
''Sir if I am holding quran with translation if some one ask me what are you holding I will tell him book of allah even tho it has translation in it which is not the part of quran itself. Maybe umer use those words in same figure of speech. If someone also take my statement under microscope he can say I consider translation as a part of quran which in reality I dont.

This verse is important because unlike other abrogated verses it is talking about taking someones life. And no new verse was reviled in its place which is talking about same punishment. That I know of.

Sir Maybe people criticized it in the same sense when they criticized official collection of hadith during the compilation of quran. For the fear of bluring the line between quran and hadith. In the same sense they feared for the blurring of line between quran and abrogated verse.it is also word of allah after all.
[/quote]''

response
brother its simple umar is not talking about translation or tafsir or hadis bluring etc etc , umar considered it as the verse of the Book of Allah
and its clear Book of Allah swt KITABALLAH=HolyQuran
cleared he wanted to add one more verse

and THIS MAY BE MAY BE people say this that etc and this verse is important => from you is not a proof its your own explanation


umar wanted to add one verse in Book Of Allah KITABALLAH till end of his life this makes no sense
without permission of Allah swt
when Allah swt has abrogated it who is umar to make it as the verse in the of Book of Allah SwT?
and your partners brother farid accepted it hazrat umar died with this haram akida of making additions in HolyQuran,
so AGAIN this is clear the verse umar wanted to add he consider it as the verse of HolyQuran not tafsir translations etc thats why he was fearing people, like today if you talk about additions in Quran muslims will criticize you and make takfir on you as on this thread, same like hazrat umar said=> he didnt edited this verse DUE TO THE FEAR OF PEOPLE, NOT FEAR OF ALLAH SWT
OTHERWISE HE TOOK OATH OF ALLAH SWT HE WANTED IT TO BE THE VERSE OF ALLAH'S BOOK WHICH IS KITABALLAH HOLYQURAN QUIET CLEAR.

Quote:Quote from: Hani on Today at 10:03:32 PM  nor did the guy you're talking to research it,

lolz!
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 07:54:55 PM by silentkiller »

Farid

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #95 on: January 05, 2015, 09:31:11 AM »
@ Ameen:

Quote
Please do provide me with the information that it was revealed in seven different ways.

Brother Ameen, Hani has beaten me to this information.

As for the existence of seven ahruf (ways/letters), then you can check out the fatwa of Al-Sistani here:

http://www.sistani.org/arabic/qa/0406/

See fatwas 8 and 10.


Quote
What is strange??? Well it's straightforward that they're about to do and go ahead with something the Prophet (pbuh) didn't order or do himself or during his time. My question is to those who consider Eid Milaad e Nabi as Bidaa and believe we shouldn't celebrate the Prophet's (pbuh) birthday because it wasn't celebrated during the Prophet's (pbuh) time. I'm sure you know what I mean.

You are just playing the devil's advocate akhi, since you are a supporter of the existence of the Qur'an in a complete Mushaf. I don't have time to answer questions like these.


@ adnan42:

Thank you for reminding me that stoning and its abrogation from the Qur'an is authentic according to Shias themselves.


@ silentkiller:

Do you not believe that stoning was a part of the Qur'an but was abrogated?

sameer

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #96 on: January 05, 2015, 10:33:47 AM »

and hazrat umar's beliefs are clear and you accepted he wanted to do haram work till end of his life


you dont need to tell us wht hazrat umar RA beliefs were.. for the sake of argument i say he wanted to do "haram" work,but did he? no he did not.. but on the other hand we have narrations where hazrat Ali RA did mistake when he burnt people alive ... which is not halal act in islam
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 10:36:24 AM by sameer »

silentkiller

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #97 on: January 05, 2015, 10:54:38 AM »
@ Ameen:

Quote
Please do provide me with the information that it was revealed in seven different ways.

Brother Ameen, Hani has beaten me to this information.

As for the existence of seven ahruf (ways/letters), then you can check out the fatwa of Al-Sistani here:

http://www.sistani.org/arabic/qa/0406/

See fatwas 8 and 10.


Quote
What is strange??? Well it's straightforward that they're about to do and go ahead with something the Prophet (pbuh) didn't order or do himself or during his time. My question is to those who consider Eid Milaad e Nabi as Bidaa and believe we shouldn't celebrate the Prophet's (pbuh) birthday because it wasn't celebrated during the Prophet's (pbuh) time. I'm sure you know what I mean.

You are just playing the devil's advocate akhi, since you are a supporter of the existence of the Qur'an in a complete Mushaf. I don't have time to answer questions like these.


@ adnan42:

Thank you for reminding me that stoning and its abrogation from the Qur'an is authentic according to Shias themselves.


@ silentkiller:

Do you not believe that stoning was a part of the Qur'an but was abrogated?

@farid the point is not what i believe or no, for now we r discussing => the point is what omar believed you yourself said its haram to add abrogated verse in the Quran then does your question to continue the discussion make sense when you cannot prove your caliph to be died with halal akida?

the acaddamic debate is over now because you refuted your ownself, you are saying umar didnt, but the narration says BY ALLAH umar wanted to add it in KITABALLAH =s HolyQuran without permission of Allah swt

accept that fst and give me in written you believe umar died on haram akida for making additions in Quran without Allah's permission as u said in your comments+ and to call the verse abrogated answer the other points i mentioned in previous comments which you skipped all.
thanks.


and hazrat umar's beliefs are clear and you accepted he wanted to do haram work additions in Quran till end of his life


you dont need to tell us wht hazrat umar RA beliefs were.. for the sake of argument i say he wanted to do "haram" work,but did he? no he did not.. but on the other hand we have narrations where hazrat Ali RA did mistake when he burnt people alive ... which is not halal act in islam

brother i have the same reply which is for farid, and we r not discussing about burning people now nor hz ali a.s done haram work like bkr umr as your brothers accepted for umar, so plz stickup to the discussion of tehreef which your beloved caliph wanted to do instead of bogus self explanation replies.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 11:44:54 AM by silentkiller »

Farid

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #98 on: January 05, 2015, 01:34:17 PM »
@ Silentkiller:

According to all the above, since you do not want to accept that Omar was the reason that Rajm was not included in the first place... We are led to opinion that Omar had an incorrect opinion on how the Qur'an should be compiled. Is this a matter of ideology? You apparently think so, while I disagree.

@ Ameen:

Quote
Please do provide me with the information that it was revealed in seven different ways.

Brother Ameen, Hani has beaten me to this information.

As for the existence of seven ahruf (ways/letters), then you can check out the fatwa of Al-Sistani here:

http://www.sistani.org/arabic/qa/0406/

See fatwas 8 and 10.


Quote
What is strange??? Well it's straightforward that they're about to do and go ahead with something the Prophet (pbuh) didn't order or do himself or during his time. My question is to those who consider Eid Milaad e Nabi as Bidaa and believe we shouldn't celebrate the Prophet's (pbuh) birthday because it wasn't celebrated during the Prophet's (pbuh) time. I'm sure you know what I mean.

You are just playing the devil's advocate akhi, since you are a supporter of the existence of the Qur'an in a complete Mushaf. I don't have time to answer questions like these.


@ adnan42:

Thank you for reminding me that stoning and its abrogation from the Qur'an is authentic according to Shias themselves.


@ silentkiller:

Do you not believe that stoning was a part of the Qur'an but was abrogated?

@farid the point is not what i believe or no, for now we r discussing => the point is what omar believed you yourself said its haram to add abrogated verse in the Quran then does your question to continue the discussion make sense when you cannot prove your caliph to be died with halal akida?

the acaddamic debate is over now because you refuted your ownself, you are saying umar didnt, but the narration says BY ALLAH umar wanted to add it in KITABALLAH =s HolyQuran without permission of Allah swt

accept that fst and give me in written you believe umar died on haram akida for making additions in Quran without Allah's permission as u said in your comments+ and to call the verse abrogated answer the other points i mentioned in previous comments which you skipped all.
thanks.


and hazrat umar's beliefs are clear and you accepted he wanted to do haram work additions in Quran till end of his life


you dont need to tell us wht hazrat umar RA beliefs were.. for the sake of argument i say he wanted to do "haram" work,but did he? no he did not.. but on the other hand we have narrations where hazrat Ali RA did mistake when he burnt people alive ... which is not halal act in islam

brother i have the same reply which is for farid, and we r not discussing about burning people now nor hz ali a.s done haram work like bkr umr as your brothers accepted for umar, so plz stickup to the discussion of tehreef which your beloved caliph wanted to do instead of bogus self explanation replies.

silentkiller

Re: Debate On Tahrif Al-Quran Between Shia & Sunni
« Reply #99 on: January 05, 2015, 02:39:17 PM »
Farid at fst brother its not me talking personally i am talking according to the narrations of sihasitta, and according to what you have said and according to umar beliefs

plz respond to this attachment i am sorry to say brother from more then 24 hrs i am asking you questions regarding the narration and umar's belief but i donot have any reponses from you to the questions i asked
you skipped all

now you said after changing your opinion(from the attachment of your comment i am attaching) this
We are led to opinion that Omar had an incorrect opinion on how the Qur'an should be compiled.


which actually insults your own caliph because the narration is of old age of omar
if we agree what you said then it will give an opinion till the end of omar's life he couldnt even know how the Quran should be compiled till end of his life which makes no sense



Malik related to me that Yahya ibn Said heard Said ibn al-Musayyab say, "When umar ibn al-Khattab came from Mina, he made his camel kneel at al-Abtah, and then he gathered a pile of small stones and cast his cloak over them and dropped to the ground. Then he raised his hands to the sky and said, 'O Allah! I have become old and my strength has weakened. My flock is scattered. Take me to You with nothing missed out and without having neglected anything.' Then he went to Madina and addressed the people. He said, 'People! Sunan have been laid down for you. Obligations have been placed upon you. You have been left with a clear way unless you lead people astray right and left.' He struck one of his hands on the other and then said, 'Take care lest you destroy the ayat of stoning so that one will say, "We do not find two hadds in the Book of Allah." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stoned, so we have stoned. By He in Whose Hand my self is, had it not been that people would say that umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of Allah ta-ala, we would have written it, "The full-grown man and the full-grown woman, stone them absolutely." We have certainly recited that.'" Malik said, "Yahya ibn Said said Said ibn al-Musayyab said, 'Dhu'l-Hijja had not passed before umar was murdered, may Allah have mercy on him.' " Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, "As for his words 'The full-grown man and the full-grown woman' he meant, 'The man and the woman who have been married, stone them absolutely.' "  (Book #41, Hadith #41.1.10) MALIK MUWATA

1 if the verse is abrogated as per umar and Allah swt has abrogated it who is omar to REadd this in KITABALLAH without Allah's permission?
2 HolyQuran is the only book which is free from additions and tehreef  and cannot be edited so there is no reason for  someone to criticize someone  for writing something in his personal tafsir ETC but only a muslim will criticiz you for making editions in HolyQuran as its obvious in the narration that criticizm of other muslims is mentioned on umar for adding the verse by umar, so umar is clear in the narration he wanted to add the verse IN KITABALLAH TILL END OF HIS LIFE BY ALLAH if people didnot have said that umar has edited the Quran nauzubillah
3 you yourself accepted that its haram to add a verse in HolyQuran offcourse you said its haram to add it in KITABALLAH
coz it will be consider as tehreef

4th OMAR TOOK THE OATH OF ALLAH SWT AND SAID HE DIDNT WROTE IT FOR FEAR OF PEOPLE BUT NOT FOR FEAR OF ALLAH SWT, IN REAL HE WANTED TOO ADD THIS

Conclusion i get from your comments is: umar died having haram akida of making additions in HolyQuran till end of his life, he didnt knew how to compile Quran till end of his life, please write me according to the attachment of the comment that umar died with haram akida of making tehreef in HolyQuran, then we will discuss further on tehreef and verse but deal with it first.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 03:03:36 PM by silentkiller »

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
46 Replies
15764 Views
Last post December 14, 2014, 12:09:26 AM
by Ameen
2 Replies
2808 Views
Last post April 25, 2015, 01:38:10 AM
by Rationalist
9 Replies
2023 Views
Last post June 18, 2017, 09:42:38 PM
by Mythbuster1
21 Replies
4907 Views
Last post August 26, 2017, 11:24:14 PM
by Link