Hajji vs Raza

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,

Great discussion!  While brother Hajji kept Raza in check (for the most part), he made the mistake of getting hasty (while trying to rush in order to pray Maghrib) and got pulled into discussing a particular hadith.  Whereas Raza, the always dishonest, declared from the get-go that he does not believe in Tahreef so no matter how many proofs brother Hajji would have thrown at him, he would have side-stepped them (like Conman here on TS).  In other words, Raza declared he is free from Shi'i books of aqeedah and fiqh but he still calls himself a Shia.  How can you be a Shi'i if you refuse to stand by any of your books?  Not to mention, he tried so hard to prevent brother Hajji from reading from Shi'i books.

My question, to learned members here, is this: is this translation accurate?

Hadith in Arabic: حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى، قَالَ قَرَأْتُ عَلَى مَالِكٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ يُحَرِّمْنَ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ فَتُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهُنَّ فِيمَا يُقْرَأُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ

Translation: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).

https://sunnah.com/muslim/17

[Muhammad Tazin]

Why this person(Blade runner) has to be in Shorts most often(in Muta discussion with Adnan Rashid etc.)?! Is there not any obligation in his religion to cover his knees?! 

[Mythbuster1]

Why this person(Blade runner) has to be in Shorts most often(in Muta discussion with Adnan Rashid etc.)?! Is there not any obligation in his religion to cover his knees?! 

Lol in his debate with bro adnan this filthy reza geezer was having a good time scratching his pants 😂😂😂😂

This is their akhlaq and we all know they didn’t learn it off the imams ra

God damn filthy animals

[MuslimK]

Why this person(Blade runner) has to be in Shorts most often(in Muta discussion with Adnan Rashid etc.)?! Is there not any obligation in his religion to cover his knees?! 

'Blade Runner' is his brother. His name is Raza.

[MuslimAnswers]

'Blade Runner' is his brother. His name is Raza.

I don't know about others, but 'Blade Runner' in my mind brings up the convicted murderer Oscar Pistorious. I wonder whether Shias think they can intimidate us by naming/titling themselves after convicted killers and scaring us into hiding for our lives or something; if this is their goal, they are failing.

[GreatChineseFall]

I actually applaud the fact that discussions seem less macho and more civil(from both sides), it helps understanding the other better. For example, only now do I understand why they are so adamant in bringing Sunni narrations about so-called Tahreef into the discussion. Key concept seems to be "giving the benefit of the doubt". They seem to say, we give the benefit of the doubt to our scholars with wrong opinions just like you do with your companions when it comes to these types of narrations.

The key issue is however, what kind of benefit of the doubt are we talking about? Saying that you give someone the benefit of the doubt with respect to what his understanding is, is entirely different from giving someone the benefit of the doubt with respect to HOW he came to his understanding (an understanding of which there is no doubt).

So someone talking about a certain verse that can't be found in the Qur'an anymore can be understood as an abrogated verse. However, someone stating explicitly that certain people have corrupted the Qur'an, there is no benefit of the doubt with what they mean, the benefit of the doubt that the Shia's are talking about is how they came to that understanding, which is entirely different.

Basically, people should say, if something is POSSIBLY Tahreef we leave it out of the discussion, if something is CERTAINLY Tahreef it should be discussed. And if they in response want to be intellectually dishonest by stating that those Sunni narrations are CERTAINLY Tahreef while the narration of the 17000 verses is not and can have a valid understanding, then that should be pointed out as well.

It's like one says "Germany won the World Cup as the big news corporations have reported." One can say, maybe he's talking about a different year or another sport. If one says "France won the FIFA World Cup four times in a row now, the big news corporations are infiltrated by Francophobes and trying to hide the news from the masses" and you claim that you have as a Qa'ida "Whatever the big news corporations have reported is absolutely and undoubtedly true and what goes against it should be thrown against the wall", one can try to say that maybe he's saying that out of ignorance, but two entirely different doubts are discussed here. Apparently to the Shia, if you do the first you have to do the second.

[Asif Hussain]

To be fair to him I think he didn't choose this name, rather it was given to him by the sunnis in the park. The blade is referring to shias cutting themselves in muharram matams

[GreatChineseFall]

By the way, they also suffer from using double standards. I think one of them said something like " You can't say there are five prayers or five sucklings IN the Qur'an, you can only say that prayer or suckling is in the Qur'an and the rest is from the Sunnah" (which is a fair point, same applies to twelve Imams). But can you honestly say then that "The Quran that was revealed had 17000 verses is talking about the Qur'an + Ali's commentary" is a valid understanding of that narration? It would have been funny if he said "Perhaps, when 'Aisha talked about five sucklings in the Qur'an, she was referring to a personal copy she had of the 17000 "verses" consisting of the Qur'an with Ali's commentary and the number five was mentioned therein".

[muslim720]

The most glaring thing in the whole discussion (which no one stressed upon enough) was that we have two sides one of which has narrations regarding abrogation, also attested to by Shi'i scholars (yes, Shi'i scholars of the past, unlike e-Shias of today considered the very same narration Raza quoted, by Aisha (ra), to be an example of abrogation, not Tahreef) and the other side has chapter headings saying Qur'an has suffered from Tahreef in many books of their hadiths.  To compound upon that problem, you have scholars, generation after generation, confirming Tahreef (of the Qur'an) and highlighting that exact belief of their predecessors.

[Farid]

Alsalam alaykum everyone.

Long time, huh?

Translation: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).

We find two verses in this hadith. A'isha states clearly that the first was abrogated. She doesn't comment on the second hadith. Shias interpret it to be tahreef, which is absolutely ridiculous. What reason is there for the authorities to manipulate a verse about suckling in the first place?!

The scholars have understood this as: The sahaba kept reciting "five sucklings" since they were not aware of its late abrogation.

I don't know about others, but 'Blade Runner' in my mind brings up the convicted murderer Oscar Pistorious.

Both Oscar Pistorius and Zayn Rizvi got the name from Ridley Scott's 1982 masterpiece.

[iceman]

I don't know about others, but 'Blade Runner' in my mind brings up the convicted murderer Oscar Pistorious. I wonder whether Shias think they can intimidate us by naming/titling themselves after convicted killers and scaring us into hiding for our lives or something; if this is their goal, they are failing.

We don't scare or intimidate anyone. There is no need for us to do that. We are the ones under attack and under fire 😊 Our goal is to protect our belief and defend ourselves by speaking about who and what we are and challenging those malicious accusations and baseless allegations against us. That's all we're doing folks. How about you changing tactics and telling and talking about who, what and why you are. This must be beyond your ability.

[MuslimAnswers]

We don't scare or intimidate anyone. There is no need for us to do that. We are the ones under attack and under fire 😊 Our goal is to protect our belief and defend ourselves by speaking about who and what we are and challenging those malicious accusations and baseless allegations against us. That's all we're doing folks. How about you changing tactics and telling and talking about who, what and why you are. This must be beyond your ability.

It is very funny a Shia would say the above, especially when I myself have personally heard Shias making calls to exterminate Arab nations. Even on this forum we have had Shia people threatening specific members' lives, and this can be easily found.

And as far as Mr. Blade Runner is concerned, those of his associates (like Hasan Qadri) have a lot of posts online threatening non-Shias in Iraq, Lebanon, etc. and proudly posting severed heads and what not - it is all in the public domain; I am not out of my league in sensing this title of 'Blade Runner' was adopted to intimidate/threaten Sunnis by making us think he is some tough guy murderer or murder-sympathizer. I am sure a Sunni lawyer who knows the law of the land can get Mr. Blade Runner and his associates arrested, if he put his mind to it, Insha Allah.

So don't wonder why "we" are here; the reason is to expose the religion of Tashayyu' and its followers and we will continue on this goal, through all Shari' methods available.