Proofs from Shia`a's own sources which they cant refute!
Taz
bismi-Llahi-RaHmaani-RaHeem
subHaan Allahee w-al Hamdu li-Llahee wa la ilaha ila-Llah w-Allahu
Akbar
Allahumma Sala `ala MuHammad wa `ala aalihi wa aS-Haabihi
as salamu `alaykum wa raHmatu-Llahee wa barakatuhu
I. Exaggerations about Ali (r) and the 12 Imams:
A. al Kulayni in al Kaafi in Kitab al Hujja, volume 1, page 285
narrates that Abu Abdullah claimed that Ali ibn Abi Talib (r)
allegedly said "..I know the destined hours of all creatures, the
afflictions that would befall them, and their geneologies. My word
shall discriminate truth from falsehood. I shall not be tried for my
inconsistencies and errors. ANYTHING THAT IS HIDDEN CAN NOT BE HIDDEN
FROM ME..."
THIS IS A LIE BECAUSE:
1. Surat an Naml aya 66 states:
"qul laa ya`lam man fi-samaawaati w-al arDi-l ghayb ila-Llah"
which means:
"Say: no one from the heavens or the earth knows the hidden except
Allah."
2. Surat al An`aam aya 50 states:
"qul laa aqool lakum `indee khazaa'ini-Llah wa laa a`lama-l ghayb wa
laa aqool lakum ana mulk."
which means:
"Say [oh MuHammad]: I say not unto you that I have access to the
treasures of Allah. Nor do I have knowledge of the hidden (`ilm al
ghayb) and I say not unto you that I am (like unto) an angel."
3. This fabrication states that `Ali (r) stated, "I shall not be tried
for my inconsistencies and errors.."`Ali (r) is ma`soom and sinless
and flawless to the most literal sense according to the shi`a. So then
why would he have to be exempt from something to which he was not even
susceptible to? Moreover why would he have to brag about it? Does a
woman brag that she doesn't have to shave her beard?
B. Also in Kitab al Hujja of al Kaafi, vol 1, page 223, `Abdullah ibn
Jundub allegedly recieved a letter from `Ali ibn Musa [the 8th imam]
in which Ali ibn Musa allegedly stated: "....We possess knowledge of
the afflictions, destinies, and genealogies of the Arabs..On casting a
single glance on a man we can tell whether he is a true believer or a
hypocrite..."
THIS IS A LIE BECAUSE:
1. Surat al Luqman aya 34 states:
"inn Allaha `indahu `ilmu-sa`ati wa yunzilu-l ghayth wa ya`lamu maa
fi-l arHaami wa ma tadree nafsu-maa thataksibu ghadan wa maa tadree
nafsum bi ayyi arDin tamoot. Inna Llaha `aleemun khabeer."
which means:
"Verily, knowledge of the hour is with Allah. It is He who sends down
rain, and He who knows what is in the wombs. Nor does anyone know what
is that he will earn on the morrow, nor does anyone know in what land
he will die. Verily, with Allah is full knowledge and He is acquainted
(with all things).
2. The statement "...we can tell whether he is a true believer ot a
hypocrite.." is a lie because surat at-Tawba aya 101 states: "wa
mim-man Hawalakum-min al a`raabi munaafiqoona wa min ahli-l madeenati
maradu `ala-nifaaqi laa ta`lamuhum naHnu na`lamuhum.
sanu`ath-thibahum-maratayni thumma yuraddoona ilaa `athaabin `aTHeem."
which means:
"Certain of the (desert) Arabs around you are hypocrites as well as
some of the people of Medina. They are firm in their hypocrisy. YOU
DON'T KNOW THEM. WE KNOW THEM. Twice shall we punish them."
D. More lies which are in themselves so stupid they need no sources
for refutation:
1. In Usool al Kaafi, vol 1, page 261 Abu Abdullah [one of the 12
imams] allegedly stated: "...By The Lord of the Ka`ba and the House,
had I been among Moosa and KhiDr (as) I would have told both of them
that I am abler than both of them to possess knowledge, and I would
have even told them of the things that were not before them, because
Moosa and KhiDr (as) had been granted knowledge of only the past and
they had not been embued with the knowledge of the future till the Day
of Resurrection."
2. Later on the same page al Kulayni claims that Abu Abdullah also
stated: "Verily, I possess the knowledge of all what is in the heavens
and the earth, and I know what is in Paradise and what is in the Fire.
Furthermore, I know the past and the future."
3. In al BaSaa'ir al Darajat vol 5, chapter 7, Abu `Abdullah allegedly
stated: "They belong to our Party [the 12 imams] who are dropped a
hint in the ear, and they are also of our Party who are inspired in a
dream. They also belong to our Party those who hear the humming of a
bell ringing like the chain dropped in a metallic basin. They also
belong to us those to whom appear an apparition greater than that of
Gabriel or Michael." According to this:
a. The 12 imams are given revelations from Allah while awake directly
in their ears.
b. The 12 imams are given revelations from Allah in their dreams.
c. The 12 imams are given revelations from Allah with the ringing of
the bell [characteristic of MuHammad's (s) "wahi"].
d. The 12 imams recieve revelations from a being who is greater than
the angels Gabriel or Michael. The Prophet (s) only recieved
revelations from Gabriel much less to say both Gabriel and Michael or
even an "apparition" greater than both of them.
It is more than obvious that the shia`a have placed their imams on a
level higher than not only the angels and the Prophets (as) of Allah
themselves but on a level equal with Allah. No shia`a can dispute this
since this has all been taken from their most reliable sources.
No shia`a on this planet will dispute the veracity of al Kulayni and
his work. Usool al Kaafi is the primary source of narrations for their
distorted sunnah. This is the same Usool al Kaafi which quotes the
donkey of the Prophet (s) as a narrator in a chain of transmission
(isnaad) which al Kulayni declared authentic. It literally says "`an
Himaar ar rasooli-Llah" meaning "On the authority of the donkey of the
Prophet (s)"!
For the sake of argument, if every Muslim from ahl as sunnah w-al
jama`ah on the planet adhered to the notion that Ali (r) should have
ruled instead of Abu Bakr (r) and Ali's (r) children should have
succeeded, thenceforth, then what? Will that answer why the shia`a
have elevated Ali (r) and his 11 descendents higher than the Prophets
and Angels and on a level equal with Allah's unique Safat of which is
`ilm al ghayb? If every sunni wails over the martyrdom of Hussayn (r)
and maligns Mu`awiyya and his whole family, ancestors and descendents
alike, will that answer why the shia`a claim their imams know who is a
hypocrite and who is not at a glance whereas the Qur'an states in
Surat at-Tawba, "...la ta`lamahum naHnu na`lamahum.." meaning, "You
don't know them [the hypocrites], but We know them."????
They wish. There is more to it then sappy drama and tragic stories of
martyrdom. These people have fed off of the blood of the ahl al bayt
(as) for 1400 years. They WISH the difference between Shia`a and Sunni
was in the history of the khilaafa. The difference is the difference
between monotheism and polytheism.
w-as salamu `alaykum wa raHmatu-Llahee wa barakatuhu
Zaman
P.S. You have the freedom to print this out and distribute it as
freely as you like. Likewise, to copy all the information from it and
distribute it in any form under anyone's name you like so long as the
content is not changed as to effect its veracity.
Taz
bismi-Llahi-RaHmaani-RaHeem
On 9 Apr 1997 13:48:09 GMT, Massou...@sdsu.edu (Massoud Ajami)
wrote:
>
>This is not a lie because:
>
>Shame on you calling your forth khalif a lier!!
>
>You don't understand the difference between "qeib,' and "maqib."
>
>go figure! And the rest!
>
Dear SRI poster, I appreciate your response to my post, jazakum Allah.
However, I would have appreciated a refutation more. It seems you were
slightly emotional while writing this. As a naSeeHa to you I would
advise that you read substance thoroughly and then with a calm and
cool mind attempt, as vainly as you may, to refute your own most
reliable sources I have quoted down to the page number. I was not
calling Ameer al Mu'mineen a liar, obviously. I was calling the
fabricators of these fabricated ahadeeth liars which al Kulayni
declared authentic. It seems you failed to percieve this though it was
obvious to most. May Allah calm you and ease your frustration...ameen.
>>It is more than obvious that the shia`a have placed their imams on a
>>level higher than not only the angels and the Prophets (as) of Allah
>>themselves but on a level equal with Allah. No shia`a can dispute this
>>since this has all been taken from their most reliable sources.
>
>And they say God doesn't have hands!
Are you claiming that refuting the imams' having knowledge of the
hidden is limiting Allah? If you are saying that then you have only
disproved yourselves and affirmed the entire objective of the article:
"The 12 Imams Elevated to the Level of Allah".
>
>
>>They wish. There is more to it then sappy drama and tragic stories of
>>martyrdom. These people have fed off of the blood of the ahl al bayt
>>(as) for 1400 years. They WISH the difference between Shia`a and Sunni
>>was in the history of the khilaafa. The difference is the difference
>>between monotheism and polytheism.
>
>Mister, the real Sunni is Shia. Sorry Mac, you alike Christian, defining a
>petty god that came down and restle with Jacob, put his hand here and
>grabed dirt to make Adam, and so forth. You scraped off all the might of
>Almighty.
Please tell me what the connection between:
1) God wrestling with Jacob (a story from the Bible not even in Islam)
2) God grabbing dirt to make Adam (another story found nowhere in
Sunni or Shi`i sources)
3) Scraping the might of the Almighty
4) Shia`a's most coveted sources testifying that the 12 imams have
knowledge of the hidden.
Please let me know.
>
>You need to understand the Shia first, then interprate them. Ali was "ra"
>and ahl al bayt is "as?" amazing.
1) My family are former shia`a who herald from Basra, Iraq on my
mother's side. We Iraqis from Basra of shia`a origin seem to be a
little more well informed of the Shia`a and their sources which are in
Arabic as well as Farsi then our Iranian and Pakistani/Indian
compatriots because we speak both Arabic and Farsi. I like to think I
know enough to hold my own on the subject and may Allah make me more
knowledgable as any knowledge I may ever have will always be too
little. All praise is due to Allah for making me his slave and the
patron of MuHammad (s), Abu Bakr (r), Omar (r), `Uthman (r), and Ali
(r).
2) To say "`alayhi-s salam" upon the ahl al bayt is sunnah. `Ali is a
member of the Ahl al Bayt so to `alayhi-s salam upon them is to say it
upon him. When I say "raDee Allahu `anhu" upon him I am doubling my
blessings to him. I am saying "Peace be upon him" and "May Allah be
pleased with him". Odd that you should object since you are allegedly
from the "shia`at `Ali". Then again, Ali (r) did say about his
"shia`a", "Oh you look to be men but are not men. You possess only the
minds of children and the reasoning of unwise women.....May Allah
destroy you!.....You have shattered my mind by disobeying me and
betraying me...." [Nahju-l Bolagha pages 70-71 pub. Beirut]
May Allah guide you, calm you and ease your frustration..ameen
Zaman
>
>--
>Peace and Prosperity!
> ---==< 110 >==---
>
>
D. Beatty
Bismillah,
Alaaykum Salaam
No shia source is sahih. Al Kulayni has numerous mistakes in it that
shias do not believe in. Sahih bukhari has hadith claiming Quran was
distorted, but do sunnis believe Quran was distorted? No. Likewise,
just because there is some weirdo stuff in al Kulayni, you cannot say that
shias believe all of it.
"The real Brother is the one who helps in difficult times" a hadith
"And pray in the small hours of the morning an additional prayer (of
spiritual profit) for thee. Soon will they Lord raise thee to a station
of praise and glory." Quran 17:79 about Namaz e Shab
Mehdi
"D. Beatty" <dia...@holly.ColoState.EDU> writes:
>No shia source is sahih. Al Kulayni has numerous mistakes in it that
This is definitely true - no shia source is correct/Sahih. Alhamdulillah
that you know that at least.
>shias do not believe in. Sahih bukhari has hadith claiming Quran was
>distorted, but do sunnis believe Quran was distorted? No. Likewise,
>just because there is some weirdo stuff in al Kulayni, you cannot say that
>shias believe all of it.
Notice what you said - Sahih Bukhari has a hadeeth saying
Quran is distorted? you use distorted and not ayat which
are abrogated and there is a difference - pray tell me which
hadeeth.
Mahdiyy Al3rabiyy Alsunniyy
--
----------------______________--------------------________________
_=asd0g jf kdfjg 9f-f\\ ukjfghsfg 0==0gh -
Mahdiyy ------ Sleep never increases age <> Nor
does lack of it decreases age ....
Fouad Haddad
>Sahih bukhari has hadith claiming Quran was distorted,
It is understandable that such claims are never backed with an authentic
reference from the text, else all would see their falsehood on the spot,
which would work against the purpose of the writer.
Fouad Haddad
fha...@sunnah.org
Dareer
Bissmi illahi alrahman alraheem, wal salat wal salam ala Sayedina Muhamad
Khatem Al Nabieen, wa ala Aly - Baytihi Al -Taiybeen Al -Tahireen
salam alaikum:
On April 8, 1997 Zaman wrote:
>
>Abu Abdullah claimed that Ali ibn Abi Talib (r)
>allegedly said "..I know the destined hours of all creatures,
>the afflictions that would befall them, and their geneologies.
>THIS IS A LIE BECAUSE:
>1. Surat an Naml aya 66 states:
>2. Surat al An`aam aya 50 states:
Knowledge is a series of types, and for people who post articles like this
may benifit from the definition of knowledge and it's sources. Let us
start briefly by definig the two types of knowledge. The knowledge of
"Dhati" and the knowledge of "Arzi".
Dhati is a self existant knowledge and peculiar to allah(SWT). We can
aknowledge it but can not comprehend its reality. It is beyond Human
comprehension.
"Arzi" is of two types: " Tahsili" which is Acquired through study and
experience, like a school student learning from his teacher at school, and
"Ladunni" which is the knowledge that man recieves directly from Allah
(swt). Man does not learn it through letters and words but recieves it
directly from the Allah (swt). As Allah Told us in the Holy Qur'an: " And
whom we had taught Knowledge from ourselves" (18:65)
Shi'as do not believe that knowledge of the unseen was self existent in
the holy prophet and the Imams, or they understood the unseen as Allah
(SWT) does, what the Shi'a say that Allah(swt) can give this power to any
one he wishes. Some times Allah (SWT) give this knowledge through a
teacher or directly through himself. This directly bestowed knowledge is
the Knowledge of the Unseen.
The two versus that you use as a reference are fully true but u have used
them out of context. We all know that each verse of the Qur'an came down
to deal with a certain situation. On the other hand if we were to examine
the following versus:
"The Knower of the unseen! So does not reveal his secrets to any except to
him whom he chooses as an apostle; for surely he makes a gaurd to march
before him, so that he may know that they delivered the message of their
lord, and he encompasses what is with them, and He records the number of
all things." (72:26-28)
we can clearly see from the above versus that the exhalted messengers of
Allah (swt) who are endowed with the knowledge of the unseen are an
exception.
If we also examine the verse of the chapter Al Imran (3:179)
" Nor is Allah going to acquaint you with the unseen, but Allah chooses of
his apostles whom he pleases; therefore believe in Allah and his
apostles...."
Here we also see that Allah (SWT) tells us that he gives the Knowledge of
the useen to whom he chooses from his apostles. So we settled the issue
of the knowledge of the unseen with regards to the prophets (pbut). Now
let us examine the same for the Imams (as).
Abu Hamid Ghazali who is one of your great uIama in his
Bayan-e-IImu'l-Ladunni, has reported Ali (as) as saying : "The Holy
prophet put his tongue in my mouth. From the Sailva of the holy prophet,
1000 chapters of knowledge were revealed to me, and from each chapter
another 1000 chapters were revealed to me." The same hadith was reported
by another one of your great ulama Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l
Mawadda, ch. xiv,p77.
Your Own Ulama also narated a Hadith about 'Umm Al Mu'minnin A'ysheh
regarding this point. She said: " The holy prophet called Ali and
embraced him him and covered his head with a mantle. I put my head forward
and tried to listen to them, but I could not understand anything. When
Ali raised his head, his forehead was covered with prespiration. The
people asked Ali what did the prophet tell you, Ali said: ' Verily the
holy prophet taught me 1000 chapters of knowledge, each chapter opened
1000 chapters."
The following is also a list of sunni references that tell us hadiths
with regards of the knowledge of Ali(as) :
Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isphahani Hilyatu'l-Auliya
Kanzu'l-Ummal, v. Vi p. 392
Also in Yanabiu'l - Mawadda, ch. 14 The following hadith was reported: "
Knowledge has 10 parts. Nine parts are exclusively for Ali (as), and the
remaining tenth is for all of mankind. Of that one part too, Ali was
granted the greatest share."
Allah forbid if Al-Kulayni would have said the following:
" Matha Aqoolu be'man Hutat lahu qadamun
fi Mawdi'in Wada'a al rahman Yumnahu
Wayamoot Al Shafii wa-la Youdra A'rabuhu Ali
Aw Rabbahu Allahu"
which translates:
" what would I say with whom his foot was placed
in a place where the Rahman placed his right
and the Shafii dies and it is not known whether
his god was Ali or his god was Allah"
But you see brother Zaman it was one of your own Ulama who said that Al
Shafii (ra).
Had it been Al-Kulayni Only allah would know what the sunni brothers would
have said.
So you see brother 'zaman' not only Al-Kulayni says that Imam Ali possesd
the Knowledge of the unseen, but also your own learned Ulama.
I will try to answer the rest of your posting later if time permits.
wa/salaam
Dareer Al Amiliy Al Shiiy Al Muhib Li Rasool Allah Wa Aly Bayt Rasool Allh
Wa' A3dow A'3daihum.
Allahuma Sully Ala Muhamad Wa Aly Muhamad.
D. Beatty
> >Sahih bukhari has hadith claiming Quran was distorted,
>
> It is understandable that such claims are never backed with an authentic
> reference from the text, else all would see their falsehood on the spot,
> which would work against the purpose of the writer.
Oh, but I thought you knew! Here are a few of the hadith for you if you
cannot
find them for yourself.
Sahih Muslim has several as well, but since we are talking about Bukhari
I will stick to that:
Al-Bukhari recorded in his Sahih, vol8 pp 209-210 that Ibn Abbas reported
that Umar Ibn al-Khattab said the following in a discourse which he
delivered during the last years of the caliphate (from arabic english
version) :
When Umar performed his last Hajj, he said:
Certainly Allah sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed him the Book.
*****
One
of the revelations which came to him was the verse of stoning.
*******
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We read it
and understood it. The Messenger of God stoned and we stoned after him.
I am concerned that if time goes on, some one may say, 'By God we do not
find the verse of stoning in the Book of God', thus the Muslims will
deviate by neglecting a commandment the Almighty revealed.
Again, (als0) we used in read in what we found in the Book of God:
Do not deny the fatherhood of your fathers in contempt because it is a
disbelief on your part to be ashamed of your fathers.
NOTE: neither of these aya are in our Quran.
Also in: Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hisham if you want the exact location let me
know.
Here is another one, tradition 8.817, 8,816, 9,424B in Bukhari.
The following hadith is narrated without any hadith number in Bukhari, in
vol 9 p 212 between traditions 9.281 and 9.282:
If a judge has to witness in favor of a litigant when another judge before
whom he would bear witness)
And the judge Shuraih said to a person who sought his witness, "Go to the
ruler so that I may bear witness before him for you." And 'Ikrima said,
"Umar said to 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf, "If I saw a man committing illegal
sexual intercourse or theft, and you were the ruler (what would you do)?.
'Abdur Rahman said, 'I would regard your witness as equal to the witness
of any other man among the Muslims. 'Umar said 'You have said the truth.'
UMAR ADDED:
IF I WERE NOT AFRAID OF THE FACT THAT PEOPLE MAY SAY THAT UMAR HAS ADDED
TO THE QURAN EXTRA VERSES, I WOULD HAVE WRITTEN THE VERSE AL-RAJM (STONING
TO DEATH OF MARRIED ADULTERERS) WITH MY OWN HANDS. and Ma'iz confessed
before the Prophet that he had committed illegal intercourse, whereupon
the prophet ordered him to be stoned todeath. It is not mentioned that
the prophet sought witness of those who were present there.
Hammad said, "If an adulterer confesses before a ruler once only, he
should be stoned to death, but al Hakam said, He must confess four times."
Here is another:
Sahih al Bukhari hadith 6.468
Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of Abdulla Ibn Masud came to Abu darda and before they
arrived....text deleted to get to the part we are interested in...
"How did you hear abdullah bin masud reciting sural allail?
Alqama recited:
***************
:By the male and the female...
Abu ad DArda then added"I testify that I heard the Prophet reciting it
likewise but these people wanted me to recite it:
:And by Him who created male and female... but by Allah, I will not follow
them.
****************
Another one:
Sahih Bukhari 5.85
Narrated Alqama:
****************
Abu Darda further asked, "How does Abdullah bin masud recite the surah
starting with, By the Night it conceals (the light) 92.1
Then I recited before him:
By the night as it enveloped, and by the day as it appears in brightness
and by male and female. (91 1-3)
By Allah the prophet made me recite the Surah in this way while I was
listening to him reciting it.
***********
See also hadith 5.105 and others.
wasalaam
Taz
bismi-Llahi-RaHmaani-RaHeem
as salamu `ala man ittabaa` al Hudaa
On 12 Apr 1997 04:54:35 GMT, dar...@aol.com (Dareer) wrote:
Dareer wrote a brief summary of the facets of knowledge etc....then
defined "ladunni" which is important....please read on.....
>"Ladunni" which is the knowledge that man recieves directly from Allah
>(swt). Man does not learn it through letters and words but recieves it
>directly from the Allah (swt). As Allah Told us in the Holy Qur'an: " And
>whom we had taught Knowledge from ourselves" (18:65)
I am glad he quoted the aya in surat al Kahf about KhiDr (as) it will
later prove as a proof against his argument. He goes on to claim that
shia`a do not claim that "ladunni" knowledge is resident in the
prophets or their imams....as seen below:
>
>Shi'as do not believe that knowledge of the unseen was self existent in
>the holy prophet and the Imams, or they understood the unseen as Allah
>(SWT) does, what the Shi'a say that Allah(swt) can give this power to any
>one he wishes. Some times Allah (SWT) give this knowledge through a
>teacher or directly through himself. This directly bestowed knowledge is
>the Knowledge of the Unseen.
He then quotes an example of this from the Qur'an:
>
>"The Knower of the unseen! So does not reveal his secrets to any except to
>him whom he chooses as an apostle; for surely he makes a gaurd to march
>before him, so that he may know that they delivered the message of their
>lord, and he encompasses what is with them, and He records the number of
>all things." (72:26-28)
This is from surat al Jinn and actually reads,
"`aalimu-l ghaybi fa laa yuTH-hiru `ala ghaybihee aHada..illa
mani-rtaDa mi-RASOOLin......"
Literally:
"Knower of the Unseen, He does not show his unseen to anyone. Except
from the RASOOLS who he has chosen...."
However, the little mistake he makes is that he quotes an aya which
specifically talks about "RASOOL". Is he prepared to say that the 12
imams each had the title of "rasooli-Llah". This is is turning out to
be quite revealing of their perspective and its dangers.
>If we also examine the verse of the chapter Al Imran (3:179)
>" Nor is Allah going to acquaint you with the unseen, but Allah chooses of
>his apostles whom he pleases; therefore believe in Allah and his
>apostles...."
Again, the word is "RASOOL"....it states, "walaakinn-Allaha yajtabee
mi-RUSOOLihi..."
Now, back to where he quotes surat al Kahf in reference to his claim
that shia`a do not believe that the 12 imams possessed "ladunni"
knowledge. He then quoted:
>directly from the Allah (swt). As Allah Told us in the Holy Qur'an: " And
>whom we had taught Knowledge from ourselves" (18:65)
This aya literally says in whole about KhiDr:
"fawajada `abdam-min `ibaadinaa aataynahu raHmatam-min `indinaa wa
allamnaahu mi-LADUNNA `ilma"
Literally:
"so they found one of Our servants whom we gave a Mercy from Ourselves
and taught him from "ladunna" knowledge."
If shia`a don't believe this kind of knowledge was in their 12 imams
24/7 then why did Abu Abdullah Ja`far as-Saadiq allegedly say
according to al Kulayni in his Usool al Kaafi, volume 1 page 261:
"By The Lord of the Ka`ba and the House, had I been among Moosa and
KhiDr (as) I would have told both of them that I am abler than both of
them to possess knowledge, and I would have even told them of the
things that were not before them, because Moosa and KhiDr (as) had
been granted knowledge of only the past and they had not been embued
with the knowledge of the future till the Day of Resurrection."
The Qur'an says that KhiDr had "ladunni" knowledge. Dareer says that
shia`a don't believe the 12 imams had that. Kulayni says that Abu
Abdullah said that he not only HAD the same kind of knowledge but that
he had MORE than KhiDr ***AND*** Moses (as) put together.
Inconsistency? Indeed...
If he tries to say that they have this knowledge only once and a while
due to little drops of revelation from Allah here and there. Abu
Abdullah's alleged statement from Usool al Kaafi, volume 1, page 261
(last part of above page) will prove that wrong even further:
"Verily, I possess the knowledge of all what is in the heavens
and the earth, and I know what is in Paradise and what is in the Fire.
Furthermore, I know the past and the future."
Obviously this statement is saying he knows just a ***LITTLE*** bit
more than a drop of revelation here and there. This is a confession of
having `ilm al ghayb 24/7.
Then Dareer goes on to quote a circus of fabrications which are
amusing to the sight of any person semi-knowledgable in `uloom al
Hadeeth and who has read even briefly any major work of jama`at
ad-Da`eefa w-al mawDoo`ah or the like:
>Abu Hamid Ghazali who is one of your great uIama in his
and...
>by another one of your great ulama Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l
>Mawadda, ch. xiv,p77.
and....
>Your Own Ulama also narated a Hadith about 'Umm Al Mu'minnin A'ysheh
[blah]
> The following is also a list of sunni references that tell us hadiths
>with regards of the knowledge of Ali(as) :
>Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isphahani Hilyatu'l-Auliya
>Kanzu'l-Ummal, v. Vi p. 392
and....
>Also in Yanabiu'l - Mawadda, ch. 14 The following hadith was reported: "
and....
Look up these fabrications....go to any library (Georgetown Unversity
in Washington has volumes of "Safat ar-Rajaal" if you live in that
area) and compare the narrators of these narrations to the volumes of
Safat ar-Rajaal and thank me later for the comedy relief.
Shia`a are very apt in saying "Your most great sunni scholar...." and
"Your own sunni sources say...etc..etc". This confuses people with
little knowledge, especially new converts and the shia`a know this.
Thats why they do it. They quote 3 ahadeeth from bukhari which talk
about the ummah having 12 leaders and say it is a proof for the 12
imams. Then you go and read it in arabic and the funny thing is that
the words used are "Khaleefa" and "Ameer", 2 words which the shia`a
hate. There is no mention of "imaams". Then also in Bukhari in the
same subject the Prophet (s) says "al immati li quraysh" meaning "The
position of leadership is for the Quraysh". This includes Yazeed. Do
they want to still use it as a proof for the 12 imams? Was Yazeed
elligible to be one of the 12 imams then? Ask them...and see their
reply or lack thereof. My purpose is not to argue with these people.
They have been defeated time and again by laymen and scholars alike
all throughout the past 1400 years of Islamic history. My only purpose
is to clear the smoke they conjure in the eyes of our less
knowledgable brothers and sisters. May Allah save us from being
debators...ameen. The Prophet (s) said, "No nation which has recieved
guidance has lost it except for those that argue..."
At 09:06 AM 4/10/97 -0800, dia...@holly.ColoState.EDU wrote:
>No shia source is sahih. Al Kulayni has numerous mistakes in it that
>shias do not believe in. Sahih bukhari has hadith claiming Quran was
>distorted, but do sunnis believe Quran was distorted? No. Likewise,
>just because there is some weirdo stuff in al Kulayni, you cannot say that
>shias believe all of it.
No source for the Bukhari claim....admitting the shia`a are DEVOID of
any authentic sources....Amazing....
w-as salamu `ala man ittabaa` al Hudaa
Zaman
Fouad Haddad
"D. Beatty" <dia...@holly.ColoState.EDU> had written :
>> >Sahih bukhari has hadith claiming Quran was distorted,
To which I commented:
It is understandable that such claims are never backed with an authentic
reference from the text, else all would see their falsehood on the spot,
which would work against the purpose of the writer.
Whereupon "D. Beatty" replied:
>Oh, but I thought you knew! Here are a few of the hadith for you if you
>cannot
>find them for yourself.
It is evident from the sarcasm and what follows it that we are dealing
with an unscholarly person.
> Sahih Muslim has several as well, but since we are talking about Bukhari
>I will stick to that:
>
>Al-Bukhari recorded in his Sahih, vol8 pp 209-210 that Ibn Abbas reported
>that Umar Ibn al-Khattab said the following in a discourse which he
>delivered during the last years of the caliphate (from arabic english
>version) :
As I predicted there was no proof to begin with, and there is no proof
in the end. The hadiths in question are sayings of the Companions
which constitute their recollection of what was part of the
revelation before it was abrogated. Between that and claiming "Sahih
bukhari has hadith claiming Quran was distorted" there is a vast
difference. Only an ignoramus or one feigning to be one, would confuse
the two.
`Umar's sayings -- may Allah be well pleased with him -- quoted by
"D.B." without understanding, were explained in Ibn Hajar's commentary
on Bukhari as concerning abrogated verses whose legislation is not
abrogated. There are two types of abrogated verses: those removed
physically amd those not, and those which are removed physically
are subdivided into two types: of abrogated and of current
legislation. The verse of stoning is not in the Qur'an, but it
nevertheless is law and that is what `Umar was alluding to. I
strongly suspect all this is news to "D. Beatty."
I will stop here because it is with "D. Beatty" as with Jobhen Katz
and the rest of their kind: they want to "discuss" Qur'an and hadith
and think nothing of it, and some Muslims help them in this. By Allah
if they did not have their two or three translations in their hand
to look up every preposition and noun to build up their pratter,
they would sit quietly and have nothing to say. Why bother with them?
Blessings and peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions
Fouad Haddad
fha...@sunnah.org
Fouad Haddad
fha...@sunnah.org
__________________________________________________________________________
http://sunnah.org/ http://www.naqshbandi.org/frmpract.htm
http://kohala.huskynet.com/ihlas/index.htm http://www.ummah.org.uk/masud/
http://members.aol.com/askgive/stories.htm http://web.syr.edu/~maalkadh/
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8139/index.html
Hazem Nasereddin
In article <5in4a8$1...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
D. Beatty <dia...@holly.ColoState.EDU> wrote:
>Al-Bukhari recorded in his Sahih, vol8 pp 209-210 that Ibn Abbas reported
>Also in: Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hisham
with regards to this hadith, the hadith abotu Omar and hajj and surat
rajm al-zani al-mu7san the verse was revelaed and abrogated. What omar is
talking about is adding an index at the back of Quran that contains a lit
of things that has been abrogated. Omar in no way intended to ADD
something to quran.
of course, the shi3a, the miguided misguiders, they refer to the hadith
as if it was a proof of the distortion f quran, the question is "do their
scholars not know that these hadohts are about Qira'at and abrogation?
yes they do. They just want to give a toy for their students to play with
and to misguided the unknowledgable of the sunnis.
>Here is another one, tradition 8.817, 8,816, 9,424B in Bukhari.
>The following hadith is narrated without any hadith number in Bukhari, in
>vol 9 p 212 between traditions 9.281 and 9.282:
>
>UMAR ADDED:
>IF I WERE NOT AFRAID OF THE FACT THAT PEOPLE MAY SAY THAT UMAR HAS ADDED
>TO THE QURAN EXTRA VERSES, I WOULD HAVE WRITTEN THE VERSE AL-RAJM (STONING
>TO DEATH OF MARRIED ADULTERERS) WITH MY OWN HANDS. and Ma'iz confessed
check the book "al-nasikh wal-mansookh min al-quran" to better understand
what happened.
>Here is another:
>Sahih al Bukhari hadith 6.468
>Narrated Ibrahim:
>The companions of Abdulla Ibn Masud came to Abu darda and before they
>arrived....text deleted to get to the part we are interested in...
>"How did you hear abdullah bin masud reciting sural allail?
>Alqama recited:
>
>***************
>:By the male and the female...
>Abu ad DArda then added"I testify that I heard the Prophet reciting it
>likewise but these people wanted me to recite it:
>:And by Him who created male and female... but by Allah, I will not follow
>them.
>****************
now another form of shi3a trying to misguide sunnis by misinterpetting
things . Again this is a quotation from the shi3a internet enclyclopedia,
which is the biggest collection of trash i have ever seen in my life :) a
good representation for the shi3a in general.
This hadith is about the qira'at. there are about 10 qira'at and many
disgareemtn abotu them. for example in al-fati7a some people say
"maaalik" and some say "malk" and both are correct as they are both
narrated in authentic sunnah.
This is the 3 time i see the SAME quotations, the SAME
misinterpretations, the SAME deviations. They can nto deny that their
Khumaini ordered the translation and republishing of the book "the best
arguement in proving the distorting fo quran" (faslu al-kitab fi ITHBATI
ta7rifi kitabi rabbi al-arbab) which was written by Al-Noor Al-Tubrusi,
so what do they do? they get some refernces from the sunni books, they
distort their menaing and then they blatantly quote them to misguide sunnis!
have these people thought that Sunnis are asleep?
well the sunnis who were asleep, and who ignorantly supported and
cheered the 'islamic' revolution in iran are finnaly starting to wake up,
we see through your sick deviations, we know what you are and we are
aware of your tuqayyah.
As hard as you will ever try, you will not be able to "prove" that sunnis
have sources that say quran is distorted, simply because sunnis do not,
when it is a fact that YOUR books attest to that many your scholars do.
Anyway, for those interested there is a atpe by shikeh Abdul-Rahman
al-Dimashqiyyah on this subject, it quotes several shi3a sources that
claim quran is distorted.
wassalam
--
-=<<( ht...@ee.mcgill.ca )>>=- ,=====================.
-=<( http://www.ee.mcgill.ca/~htana )>=- | HaZeM T. NaSeRedDiN |`.
`====================='`:
`--------------------`'
Mehdi
Assalam Alaikum,
I hold you accountable Mr./Ms. D. Beatty for the word you used
in the first post which is "distorted". Distorted means something
other than what you quoted.
We accept the report of what Omar (ra) said is true. It was abrogation
of a recited ayah - an abrogation of the recitation while the hukm
remained intact (by the agreement of all the schools of thoughts
of the muslims).
Notice that Omar (ra) said "We used to read that ayah during the time of rasool-
Allah." - It was threfore abrogated in the life time of the prophet by
a divine order no doubt. That is not distortion as you claim - that is
an abrogation (naskh). Allah says as you know "Whatever Ayah WE abrogate
or make to be forgetten, WE bring a superior one or one like unto it,
did not you know that Allah is able to do anything" -- {my humble translation}.
This is different than the sayings which fill the books of shia that
Quraan was intentionally distorted by the Sahabah and the muslims AFTER
the prophet by removing what did not suite them, etc..
This is actually the best that you can get or find because you can not find
in the books of sunnah anything to the effect of Quran's distortion. What
you will find is complete consensus by all Ahlu-Sunnah that although
in the time of the prophet Quran was still fresh and being revealed and
Ayat may be abrogated, this dynamic reveleation action froze after the
Quran was completed even in the time of the prophet (peace be upon him)
well earlier than his death. We believe that the Quran as the
prophet (peace be upon him) left it to us is what we have today.
On the other hand -- shia claim the following:
1. Fatimah and Ali (ra) kept receiving reveleations and compiled
it in a book {saheefat fatimah]
2. One of the imam claimed : "We have Mus3af fatimah, it is 10 times
your mus3af - and it does not have even a word from your mushaf"
3. The shia claim that the long surahs like Al-Nisaa' were originally3. The
twice or three times what we have today.
This is very different than Omar saying there was an ayah in the time
of the prophet whose ruling is intact but recitation is abrogated. He did
not hide that - to the contrary he was making it public knowledge, and he
knew the abrogated ayah "Wa Al-shaikhu wa Al-Shaikhah itha Zanaya
fa Urjumoohuma ALbattah" - he knew that people at his time has the
common Quranic sense to recognize that this was an abrogated ayah
by tilawah.
What prevented Omar if he wanted (when he was in full power) to reinstate
the ayah in the Quran when he knew it and nobody objected to him, and he was
not a tyrant. It was known that a woman from the public would answer him
and correct him and he will say: "The woman is right and Omar is mistaken".
And he did not say I only know it - but he said WE (for the sahabah as a whole),
used to recite it in the time of the prophet (peace be upon him).
It seems to me that the shia do not know about this classification of
abrogation in the Quran:
1. Abrogation by both text and ruling.
2. Abrogation by ruling only. Text intact.
3. Abrogation by text only - ruling intact.
Mahdiyy AL3rabiyy Alsunniyy
se...@netbox.com
On 14 Apr 1997 03:04:32 GMT, ha...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Mehdi) wrote:
[snip]
>This is different than the sayings which fill the books of shia that
>Quraan was intentionally distorted by the Sahabah and the muslims AFTER
>the prophet by removing what did not suite them, etc..
>
quran but his own collection ? Isn't it because he was not sure
wether all those copeis were correct or not ?
However, distortion stopped after Othman burnt all copies but his own
collection.
>On the other hand -- shia claim the following:
>1. Fatimah and Ali (ra) kept receiving reveleations and compiled
^^^^^^^^^^^
> it in a book {saheefat fatimah]
Reveleation ? What the hell you're talking about? Do you think we
have yet another prohpet after Mohammed (PBUH)?
>2. One of the imam claimed : "We have Mus3af fatimah, it is 10 times
> your mus3af - and it does not have even a word from your mushaf"
I guess you need a lesson in arabic. FYI, Saheefa and Mushaf are
exactly the same. Just like Nafitha and Manfath. vertually same
meaning.
Now, Mushaf Fatima (AS), is totally something different than what you
are trying to say. It is the quran and its' translation (tafseer)
both together in the same binder. And naturaly this is far more
bigger than the quran itself. It has tafseer included in it ,
remember!
On the other hand, Fatima is the prophets daughter and Ali is her
husband, and the prophet was always dictating what he received from
quran to them and explains it as well. They were both writing it in
their private copy of quran along with its explanations (tafseer).
>This is very different than Omar saying there was an ayah in the time
>of the prophet whose ruling is intact but recitation is abrogated. He did
>not hide that - to the contrary he was making it public knowledge, and he
>knew the abrogated ayah "Wa Al-shaikhu wa Al-Shaikhah itha Zanaya
> fa Urjumoohuma ALbattah" - he knew that people at his time has the
> common Quranic sense to recognize that this was an abrogated ayah
> by tilawah.
So, this ayah is missing from the quarn we have now, isn't it? Isn't
this a distortion?
>It seems to me that the shia do not know about this classification of
>abrogation in the Quran:
>1. Abrogation by both text and ruling.
>2. Abrogation by ruling only. Text intact.
>3. Abrogation by text only - ruling intact.
>
Both points 1 & 3 mean that distortion exists. If you change the
text, you basically distort the ayah.
Greetings
Raef
D. Beatty <dia...@holly.ColoState.EDU> wrote in article
<5in4a8$1...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...
[all text deleted]
I do not want to refer to what you have written.
Other brothers have done that very well.
I just want to comment that, do not let your fixation on the issue
of Omar(r) and the other Sahaba(r) blind you from the truth and to admit
the truth.
You and most shia's on news groups are very smart and well knowledge
about Islam
but your sensivity to sahaba(r) blinds your sight and paralyzes your
upright
thinking.
What you have mentioned about Omar(r) only adds to his high qualities
and increase in his honor.
This incident proves the democracy and the honesty the Quran
was gathered and collected. Because if there was any dishonesty
in the incident Omar would have forced the Ayah to be written.
But all the incidents you listed add to the honor of Omar(r) and display
him
as a man of high esteem.
The story of the four witnesses is the greatest lesson that not even a
Khalifa as
strong as Omar(r) can dictate his own will and desire.
Furthermore where is Ali(r) from all this; it is one of the following :
1. These issues did not concern him.
This not true because he was always there to advise.
2. He hid the truth to himself.
This is impossible from Ali to hide the truth, besides it is unislamic.
3. He was afraid for his life and kept quite.
This can not be from the bravest of all.
4. He agreed on what is happening.
This is more like it.
There is enough evidence that Ali(r) was aware and approved all that
happened
and if otherwise quoted will only belittle and put Ali(r) down.
So why do not you heed to the truth and stop trying to bend the facts to
meet
your ends.
The real issue between Sunnis and Shia's is that one group favored Ali(r)
to be
the successor and the other accepted the will of GOD.
That is where the difference stops anything else
is a creation of later history. (not in the Quran nor in the Sunnah)
Jochen Katz
In article <5is6nd$l...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
fha...@sunnah.org (Fouad Haddad) writes:
| It is evident from the sarcasm and what follows it that we are dealing
| with an unscholarly person.
Good to see it isn't my fault but it is just your general nature that
distributes such gracious comments. After all, this one was for somebody
else. You are no foreigner to derogatory comments, plain or sarcastic.
| As I predicted there was no proof to begin with, and there is no proof
| in the end. The hadiths in question are sayings of the Companions
| which constitute their recollection of what was part of the
| revelation before it was abrogated. Between that and claiming "Sahih
| bukhari has hadith claiming Quran was distorted" there is a vast
| difference. Only an ignoramus or one feigning to be one, would confuse
| the two.
Leaving the second ad hominem part behind, let's look at the meat:
| `Umar's sayings -- may Allah be well pleased with him -- quoted by
| "D.B." without understanding, were explained in Ibn Hajar's commentary
| on Bukhari as concerning abrogated verses whose legislation is not
| abrogated. There are two types of abrogated verses: those removed
| physically amd those not, and those which are removed physically
| are subdivided into two types: of abrogated and of current
| legislation. The verse of stoning is not in the Qur'an, but it
| nevertheless is law and that is what `Umar was alluding to. I
| strongly suspect all this is news to "D. Beatty."
Whether you want to call it abrogated or something else, this is
the fact:
* These verses were at some time revealed to Muhammad,
* They were part of the Qur'an and they are no longer.
This is not disputed by Mr. Haddad.
Some abrogated verses are only moved from the Qur'an into the hadith
[obvious consequence: the Qur'an is not fully perserved] and others
have even been forgotten completely [even less preserved].
Actually, that might be a good excuse next time I can't answer my
professor's question ... : "Well, this part of the mathematical
theory has just been abrogated in my memory and hence everywhere..."
[abrogated by God, no doubt, and if you don't believe this you are
an infidel].
"God caused these verses to be forgotten" sounds like a real bad
excuse. Why would God reveal verses only that they will be forgotten
soon thereafter?
I have yet to see a good explanation that would make sense of how
the almighty and allknowing Lord can make the blunder of revealing
his word and then having to abrogate it sometimes only hours or
days later. What has taken him so much by surprise that he finds
his laws not working and they need to be changed?
No, this is not the character of God. God is certainly high above
that which they ascribe to him. God gives his eternal law and he
does not abrogate nor is any other able to make it abrogated.
With your whole abrogation theory Islam is making a mockery of
the holy character and attributes of God who is unchanging in his
wisdom and knowledge.
How can somebody say in the Qur'an "we will preserve it" and at the
same time have a theory of abrogation where part of the revelation
is forgotten by divine decree. Obviously the abrogated verses
are not preserved.
More on some forgotten verses and textual changes in the Qur'an
can be found at:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/
| I will stop here because it is with "D. Beatty" as with Jobhen Katz
Has Allah just abrogated the correct spelling of my name as well?
No, and I don't think you did it deliberately. But that is the whole
point. It seems that Muhammad and some companions had forgotten some
verses and since it is too embarrassing to admit to it, the theory is
created that God MADE them forget it so that they are not guilty of
forgetting it. This is pure expediency. You probably wouldn't claim
that because you made a spelling error in my name therefore God has
just changed my name and your error was actually more correct than
the spelling it was like before!! But you would without hesitation it
seems swallow that when Muhammad forgets revelation, it is no problem
to just declare it forgotten by God's will and so there is no problem
since after all, he will replace it with revelation better than the one
he had given before? Is God's revelation not always perfect? How can a
replacement be better than that which was perfect?
| and the rest of their kind: ... Why bother with them?
Hm, and did I read you right in the above that "sarcasm" is a sign of
being unscholarly??
| Blessings and peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions
Blessings on you as well.
You certainly do need them (just as everybody else).
Jochen Katz
Mehdi
For the exceedingly smart person who commented that abrogation
by Allah of his own words is distortion. Let me ask you. Suppose
you are a manager and wanted to issue an order to your employees,
and then gave it to your secretary to type it. She added and removed
words so we can call her act a distoration of your original order.
Now suppose that you wrote an order but then you added and removed
text from your order before you hand it to your sec. can any body
claim that you distorted something? Of course not! because it is still
original coming from you as far as the secretary and the rest of the company
are concerned. And to Allah belong the best parables.
Mahdiyy
Mehdi
se...@netbox.com writes:
>On 14 Apr 1997 03:04:32 GMT, ha...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Mehdi) wrote:
>[snip]
>>This is different than the sayings which fill the books of shia that
>>Quraan was intentionally distorted by the Sahabah and the muslims AFTER
>>the prophet by removing what did not suite them, etc..
>Then why did Othman burn (or requested burning) all the copies of
>quran but his own collection ? Isn't it because he was not sure
>wether all those copeis were correct or not ?
>However, distortion stopped after Othman burnt all copies but his own
>collection.
No it is not. It is because these different copies were in different
recitation, with each group of people using the dialect of their
tribes. This was allowed by the prophet (peace be upon him). Uthman
was not alone in this decison and the reason for this step was that
people differed whose recitation is better (dialect) and it was leading
to a lot of dispute, and since recitaions are allowed and not obligatory,
the Sahabah concluded that it is better to keep one dialect which the dialect
of Quraish, the people of the Prophet.
>>On the other hand -- shia claim the following:
>>1. Fatimah and Ali (ra) kept receiving reveleations and compiled
>^^^^^^^^^^^
>> it in a book {saheefat fatimah]
>Reveleation ? What the hell you're talking about? Do you think we
>have yet another prohpet after Mohammed (PBUH)?
What did you leave for Prophets? Yes reveleation. Your Kafi states
that this Mushaf was not tafseer as you cliam but actual reveleation
and that Ali used to hide while Gibreel visits Fatimah and reveeal
to her cerain revelation, and that that was what the Mushaf of
Fatimah contains. Check your Al-Kafi fi Al-Usool.
>>This is very different than Omar saying there was an ayah in the time
>>of the prophet whose ruling is intact but recitation is abrogated. He did
>>not hide that - to the contrary he was making it public knowledge, and he
>>knew the abrogated ayah "Wa Al-shaikhu wa Al-Shaikhah itha Zanaya
>> fa Urjumoohuma ALbattah" - he knew that people at his time has the
>> common Quranic sense to recognize that this was an abrogated ayah
>So, this ayah is missing from the quarn we have now, isn't it? Isn't
>this a distortion?
It siezed to be from Quran. Quran used to increase and decrease
in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) until the dean was
completed and the reveleation seized. However before that the
action of abrogation was not out of question.
When Allah changes an Ayah in the place of another or abrogates an
Ayah from Quran it is not abrogation. Watch your manners with Allah
ya Sinan.
Mahdiy Alarabiyy Alsunniyy
Mehdi
Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> writes:
>I have yet to see a good explanation that would make sense of how
>the almighty and allknowing Lord can make the blunder of revealing
>his word and then having to abrogate it sometimes only hours or
>days later. What has taken him so much by surprise that he finds
>his laws not working and they need to be changed?
I thought I read somewhere in your claimed authentic word of God O Katz
that once upon a time God decreed that the whole earth should be flooded,
only to be very sorry and sad after that and only to promise Noah and
mankind never to do it agian and, to have something to remind him, he
created the rainbow so that whenever he attempts to break his promise,
[or may forget], he will see the rainbow and remember.
Nice day!
Mahdiyy AL3rabiyy Alsunniyy
Jochen Katz
In article <5j0qi5$f...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
ha...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Mehdi) writes:
| For the exceedingly smart person who commented that abrogation
| by Allah of his own words is distortion. Let me ask you. Suppose
| you are a manager and wanted to issue an order to your employees,
| and then gave it to your secretary to type it. She added and removed
| words so we can call her act a distoration of your original order.
| Now suppose that you wrote an order but then you added and removed
| text from your order before you hand it to your sec. can any body
| claim that you distorted something? Of course not! because it is still
| original coming from you as far as the secretary and the rest of the company
| are concerned. And to Allah belong the best parables.
(I am not sure if you responded to me, and I don't want to attribute to
myself a compliment that might not have been intended for me, but I want
to answer to the issue nevertheless.)
Hi Mehdi,
I like your parable. But there is a theological difficulty with this
scenario.
I don't have a problem if a manager changes his mind and changes an
order. He may do so either before or after he handed it to the secretary.
In either case it is his authority to change it and nobody will question
him about it.
But the manager is human and as such makes error. Why would he change the
order? Because he realized that he made a mistake. Maybe a big mistake,
maybe only a small mistake. But certainly he recognized he can improve
on what ordered before and that is the reason he changes it.
I hope you see my problem. If God comes to the conclusion that he has to
abrogate and make new orders then this is admitting that he made mistakes.
It shows that what he gave before was not perfect. It could be improved.
Your scenario accuses God of making mistakes. No way around it.
And God is all-knowing, he is not surprised by new circumstances and
new ideas. It is against the nature and attributes of God to change
his mind. And clearly, if God had changed the Qur'an before he revealed
it then we would never have known about the change. Because we know
the abrogated and abrogating verses [at least some] therefore it is
clear that you accuse God not only of changing his mind just for himself,
but that he took rather long to find out that it was wrong. After all,
the Qur'an is uncreated and was with God for eternity, how come he just
found out that some things have to be changed after he revealed it to
Muhammad?
To me, this does not make sense. It is derogatory of the holy and supreme
God. It attributes mistakes to him and that he didn't know what he was
doing in the first place. And then he has to abrogate to clean up the
mess of wrong revelation.
That is what I cannot accept.
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
Dareer
Salaam alaikum:
In the name of Allah the benificent the Merciful.
Zaman wote:
Z: Dareer wrote a brief summary of the facets of knowledge etc....then
Z: defined "ladunni" which is important....please read on.....
D:>"Ladunni" which is the knowledge that man recieves directly from Allah
D:>(swt). Man does not learn it through letters and words but recieves it
D:>directly from the Allah (swt). As Allah Told us in the Holy Qur'an: "
And
D:>whom we had taught Knowledge from ourselves" (18:65)
Z: shia`a do not claim that "ladunni" knowledge is resident in the
Z: prophets or their imams....as seen below:
No Mr. Zaman I never said that at all, it is your slow comprehension of
what you read that made you understand it wrong. you could not even keep
up with my definitions. What I said was as follows:
Shi'as do not believe that knowledge of the unseen was **self existent**
in
the holy prophet and the Imams, or they understood the unseen as Allah
(SWT) does, what the Shi'a say that Allah(swt) can give this power to any
one he wishes. Some times Allah (SWT) give this knowledge through a
teacher or directly through himself. This directly bestowed knowledge is
the Knowledge of the Unseen.
So as you see from the above I reffered to **self existent** knowledge
which I defined under the "Dhati" Knowledge which is the Knowledge that
only Allah (swt) posses and no one else. You built your whole argument in
your posting based on Ladunni Knowledge, thinking that I reffered to
Ladunni Knowledge. I will copy the definitions for you again so please
read carefully:
Knowledge is a series of types; and for people who post articles like this
may benifit from the definition of knowledge and it's sources. Let us
start briefly by the two types of knowledge. The knowledge of "Dhati" and
the knowledge of "Arzi".
"Dhati" is a self existant knowledge and peculiar to allah(SWT). We can
aknowledge it but can not comprehend its reality. It is beyond Human
comprehension.
You see zaman I reffered to the prophets and our Imams as not having the
self existent knowledge which is Dhati not Ladunni as you claim.
Z:He then quotes an example of this from the Qur'an:
>"The Knower of the unseen! So does not reveal his secrets to any except
to
>him whom he chooses as an apostle; for surely he makes a gaurd to march
>before him, so that he may know that they delivered the message of their
>lord, and he encompasses what is with them, and He records the number of
>all things." (72:26-28)
Z:This is from surat al Jinn and actually reads,
Z:"`aalimu-l ghaybi fa laa yuTH-hiru `ala ghaybihee aHada..illa
Z:mani-rtaDa mi-RASOOLin......"
Z:Literally:
Z:"Knower of the Unseen, He does not show his unseen to anyone. Except
Z:from the RASOOLS who he has chosen...."
Z:However, the little mistake he makes is that he quotes an aya which
Z:specifically talks about "RASOOL". Is he prepared to say that the 12
Z:imams each had the title of "rasooli-Llah". This is is turning out to
Z:be quite revealing of their perspective and its dangers.
Not at all again, what my posting was proving to you that prophets had
Ladunni knowledge. But in your original posting you litrally denied that
this knowledge was made avialable to any human being. Then I reffered to
the Ayat regarding the Khider(as) to prove to you that Ladunni Knowledge
also was made avialable to none prophets. After I reffered you tio the
Ayats I said; Read carefully again please:
D:Here we also see that Allah (SWT) tells us that he gives the Knowledge
of the D:useen to whom he chooses from his apostles. *** So we settled the
issue of the D:knowledge of the unseen with regards too the prophets
(pbut)***. Now let us D:examine the same for the Imams (as).
So you see brother Zaman, you did not only mislead yourself when you
misunderstood my definitions, and posting in general, but you tried to
build a false argument around the way you undertstood my posting. It seems
to be a habit of yours to misunderstand postings. Then you reffered to the
following:
At 09:06 AM 4/10/97 -0800, dia...@holly.ColoState.EDU wrote:
>No shia source is sahih. Al Kulayni has numerous mistakes in it that
>shias do not believe in. Sahih bukhari has hadith claiming Quran was
>distorted, but do sunnis believe Quran was distorted? No. Likewise,
>just because there is some weirdo stuff in al Kulayni, you cannot say
that
>shias believe all of it.
What D. Beaty was telling you indeed that the Shi'a only refer to the
Qur'an as being a sahih book. We do not blindly call Al Kafi a sahih book
and we admit it is far from it. We also say that Al Bukhari is also not a
Sahih book and also far from it, but you sunni brothers insist that
Al-Bukhary is 100% sahih. That is Tunnel vision and blind following..
Very amazing and amusing indeed.
With your reply you also elected not to respond to what Al Shafi'i(ra)
said In Imam Ali (as). Was that he was a Sunni scholar... Or ooops sorry
I know you do not like us to give refferences from sunni scholars where
our points are made very clearly....
Wa'l salaam upon those who understand what they read.
Dareer Al Amily Al Muhib Li-Rasool allah Wa Aly Bayteh WA A3dow A3da'ihim.
Shahryar Razmafrooz
In the name of Him, the most High,
Salaam to all brothers and sisters.
Zaman wrote:
:Then again, Ali (r) did say about his "shi'a", "Oh you look to be men
but
:are not men. You posess only the minds of children and the reasoning of
:unwise women.....May Allah destroy you!.....You have shattered my mind
by
:disobeying me and betraying me...."
This is a generalization. I havent had time to look it up but even from
your
own text it is clear that Imam Ali(as) didnt say that ABOUT his shia
(followers). He said that TO his audience who happened to be shia.
There
is a difference.
Mehdi wrote:
:This is different than the sayings which fill the books of shia that
:Quraan was intentionally distorted by the Sahabah and the muslims AFTER
:the prophet by removing what did not suite them, etc..
THAT IS A LIE. (Sorry brother Mehdi, but I couldnt find a politically
correct word that would describe it better.)
:We believe that the Quran as the
:prophet (peace be upon him) left it to us is what we have today.
So do we Shiites.
:On the other hand -- shia claim the following:
:1. Fatimah and Ali (ra) kept receiving reveleations and compiled
: it in a book {saheefat fatimah]
THAT IS AGAIN ANOTHER MOST OUTRAGEOUS AND COMPLETE LIE.
:What prevented Omar if he wanted (when he was in full power) to
reinstate
:the ayah in the Quran when he knew it and nobody objected to him, and
he
:was not a tyrant.
What prevented him? The will of God.
It's an irony isnt it? I bet you are about to shout that how come we
dont
sit quiet and accept the will of God when Abu Bakr became Caliph instead
of
Ali(as).
You see? We do believe in the will of God. But we dont sit quiet when
someone's right and society/religion's good is on stake. To sit and
watch at
all times would be believing in total predestination and having no
regard
for Man's will power. Shiites believe in a balance between the two.
I give you an example. After the tragedy of Karbala, Zeynab(as) (the
sister
of Imam Husain(as) ) was told in front of Yazeed that "Did you see what
God
did to your family and friends?" whereas she answers: "I have not seen
anything but mercy and compassion from God", meaning that what you did
was
your own deeds and according to your will power.
D.Beatty in her post quoted some brother saying:
-the shia believe the Quran was cut short by the Sahabah, and
-this thing about their belief that the Quran is preserved, I take
-only as taqiyyah because this is what the shia are recommended to do
-until the Mahdiyy come and bring out the real 'Quran' as they
-claim. may Allah guide you and them.
Shiites dont believe the Quran was distorted, period. There is no
Taqiyyah
in this. Whoever claims otherwise about shia has ill motives or is
ill-informed. Please stop telling us what we believe. A lot of your info
is
passed thru a filter of hate. It is your information which is distorted.
It is easy to accuse us of doing Taqiyyah. (Taqiyyah means to deny your
belief if you saw that your life was in danger. The first person who did
that and was approved by the prophet was Ammar Yassir when Rassool Allah
was
still in Mecca.). But we are all voluntarily and freely telling you that
we
dont believe Quran is distorted. What more do you want?
If you say that shiites believe "A" and I agree; then you have it your
way.
If you say that shiites believe "B" and I say no we dont; you will say
that
shiites are doing Taqiyyah and shiites do indeed believe in "B"!!!
Please tell me if that is fair. This is not the way to do discussions.
Raef wrote:
:I just want to comment that, do not let your fixation on the issue
:of Omar(r) and the other Sahaba(r) blind you from the truth and to
admit
:the truth.
What a marvelous suggestion. I agree with Raef 100 percent. But please
do
allow me to request the same from my sunni brothers. When we say that:
we dont believe that Imams received Wahy (revelation) or were
prophets,
we dont believe that sunnis are Kafir (apostate??),
we dont believe that Angel Gabriel made a mistake in delivering the
message to Rasool Allah,
we dont believe that Allah has 3 dimensions,
we dont believe that anyone who commits a sin less than "shirk"
(taking partners for God) is a kafir ( this is for my dear
brother Mehdi (:->) ),
we are asking you to not let your fixation on what you read or were told
by
your sheikhs about shiites blind you from the truth and to admit the
truth.
:This incident proves the democracy and the honesty the Quran
:was gathered and collected. Because if there was any dishonesty
:in the incident Omar would have forced the Ayah to be written.
No, he couldnt have. Or else he would have been stronger than Allah.
Cause
Allah has promised he will protect the Quran. Whether Omar tried to is
of
course only speculation.
:Furthermore where is Ali(r) from all this; it is one of the following :
:
:1. These issues did not concern him.
: This not true because he was always there to advise.
I am not so sure. Ali (as) is a bright example of trusting in God. He
may
have been sure that noone would have been able to harm the Quran.
Taz wrote:
:The Qur'an says that KhiDr had "ladunni" knowledge. Dareer says that
:shia`a don't believe the 12 imams had that. Kulayni says that Abu
:Abdullah said that he not only HAD the same kind of knowledge but that
:he had MORE than KhiDr ***AND*** Moses (as) put together.
:Inconsistency? Indeed...
That is not true. How did you come up with this conclusion? Read
Dareer's
post again. He says:"Shi'as do not believe that knowledge of the unseen
was
self existent in the holy prophet and the Imams, or they understodd the
unseen as Allah (SWT) does, what the shi'a say that Allah (swt) can give
this power to anyone he wishes. Some times Allah (SWT) give his
knowledge
through a teacher or directly through himself. This directly bestowed
knowledge is the knowledge of the unseen".
If you want it in a summary here it is: God gives from his knowledge to
whomever he wishes. It can be his rasools (prophets) or it can be
others. If
Quran says "rasools" in one ayat, it doesnt mean that he wont give his
knowledge to others as well. (it wouldnt mean that even if there were no
ayats that would say that God gives from his knowledge to people (not
just
rasools). The only case where it would mean that others wont receive
from
God's knowledge would be if Allah had said that He gives from his
knowledge
to rasools ONLY)
:Then also in Bukhari in the
:same subject the Prophet (s) says "al immati li quraysh" meaning "The
:position of leadership is for the Quraysh". This includes Yazeed. Do
:they want to still use it as a proof for the 12 imams? Was Yazeed
:elligible to be one of the 12 imams then? Ask them...and see their
:reply or lack thereof.
Brother Zaman, forgive me but your logic doesnt even qualify for a good
Fallacy. You see, all soccer balls are round, but not all round things
are
soccer balls. If position of leadership is for the tribe of Quraysh,
Yazeed's being from the Quraysh is by no means REASON ENOUGH for him to
be
an Imam. I hope this counts as a reply.
Mehdi wrote:
>No shia source is sahih. Al Kulayni has numerous mistakes in it that
:This is definitely true - no shia source is correct/Sahih.
Alhamdulillah
:that you know that at least.
Is that the best you have got? You know better what she is saying.
D.Beatty
is comparing Shiite sources to Quran, the only completely sahih(correct)
book. Your taking advantage of this is not commended.
Zaman wrote:
>No shia source is sahih. Al Kulayni has numerous mistakes in it that
>shias do not believe in. Sahih bukhari has hadith claiming Quran was
>distorted, but do sunnis believe Quran was distorted? No. Likewise,
>just because there is some weirdo stuff in al Kulayni, you cannot say that
>shias believe all of it.
:No source for the Bukhari claim....admitting the shia`a are DEVOID of
:any authentic sources....Amazing....
Amazing is that some vocal opponents of Shiites in this newsgroup can't
resist scoring points from a rather grammatical error. I guess you
desparately need to score a point somewhere.
Fouad wrote:
>> >Sahih bukhari has hadith claiming Quran was distorted,
:It is understandable that such claims are never backed with an
authentic
:reference from the text, else all would see their falsehood on the
spot,
:which would work against the purpose of the writer.
So Sahih Bukhari is not that sahih (correct) after all, either.
>Oh, but I thought you knew! Here are a few of the hadith for you if you
>cannot find them for yourself.
:It is evident from the sarcasm and what follows it that we are dealing
:with an unscholarly person.
Is scoring points from someone's admitting that no book is Sahih
compared
to Quran scholarly?
I would like to clarify something for those who might have gotten the
wrong
impression. D.Beatty has never said Quran was distorted. She has said
that a
sunni reference mentions how the second caliph would have liked to add a
verse to the Quran. And that IF WE WANT TO BELIEVE THAT SUNNI REFERNCE,
it
would mean that there had been a verse sent to the prophet by revelation
(like the rest of the Quran) but was forgotten by the prophet, however,
Omar
remembered it and wanted to add it to the Quran.
In the end, I would like to point out something.
Why wasnt I surprised to see Jochen join the thread? Dont get me wrong.
I am
not saying we shouldnt discuss these things. On the contrary, I found
this
thread very interestinig. And I actually welcome Jochen's participation
in
this thread. But my point is that Jochen is a nice guy. He is harmless.
And
our discussion is also a theological one (A fair person would need to
change
the subject of the thread, though). But what would happen if we let hate
blind us and if Jochen (sorry mate, it's only for the sake of example)
sold
us weapons and another Jochen, with backing of the first, stole our
land,
our holy shrine, raped our women in Bosnia, massacared us in
Afghanistan,...?
Food for thought?
Regards to all
Shahryar Razmafrooz
Raef
AsSalaam Alaikum,
As I said in my previous posts that I am not trying to start a debate
because our ancestors have done a good job and volumes of books
have been written.
Here we go bashing our heads against the wall and against each other.
However the basics are not answered.
Let me give an example.
You can not call a beautiful house beautiful and the foundations of
the house are a miss.
Take christainity for example :
It has preoduced great knowledgable men.
These men have produced some of the most
valuable peace of works in all aspects of life.
But the truth is that however beautiful christianity may look,
it is built on a false foundation.
Wrong principles, that Jesus is son of or god himself.
All the ideology that is built on top of that however beautiful
or convincing may it seem can not be taken for granted since
it is based on false foundation.
Did jesus say what the christians say, certainly not.
He might have said what might have been understood to
mean what later meant the today doctrines.
was understood that way by the early christinas, not
really it all started a couple of hundred years later.
Similarly bahai's, Qadiani's propagte the most peaceful and
promissing ideas does that make them true, of course not.
Now let us take the example of the shia's, and all what they call
for, is not clear cut in the Quran or the sunnah. It is all interpolations
and many things could mean the opposite. There is no clear proof
it is all deductions.
Do not start filling your post with Ghadeer Khum and the rest.
This does not explain two main issues :
1. How come 70,000 or 100,000 people who were present in Gadeer Khum
as it has been stated never understood what the shia understood a couple of
hundred years later.
2. How come Ali and his followers did not stand for the truth, do not start
talking
about taqiya. Hussain prefered t have his head cut than keep quite.
3. The prophet, ALI and many others and God knew Ghayb and what Abu Bakr
and Omar are going to do and nothing was done about it, however they were
the
most trusted by All. Later they were called so many things by you except
trustworthy, well I must say you later shia's had more courage than Ali,
the Prophet and certainly said what Ali, the Prophet and God did not dare
to say about them.
4. The prophet was too nice hearted to expose his supposedly beloved wife
Aisha
and you did it for him. We are sure happy you did.
Allah exposed the wifes of Noah and Lot yet he kept quite about Aisha, I
wonder why.
You can build all the beautiful houses you can build, write the most
convincing
logical articles about immamt, this will not resolve the above points and
others.
I suggest for you people to think before you utter these horrific words,
that you have to account for. Just ask yourselves why in all previous
messages the best people are
the companions of the prophet except in Islam according to you they are the
worst.
Now forget all the books, just hink for yourselves, how could be, is it
possible.
When the people of Moses refused to obey and order he raised the mountain
above their heads and when they refused to follow him they were lost for
forty
years. And you say that the companions of the prophet refused to fulfil the
prophets'
wish and yet they where entrusted with Khilafah.
I have many examples like this without even refering to any book of hadith
just lessons from history.
Raef
Mohandes Ardabili wrote in article <5jnp3j$6...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...
>yIn article <5jh8m8$9...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> you wrote:
>: AsSalaam Alaikum,
>
Regarding me having questions, I have had those long time ago, and I got
them answered having read all points of view.
I posted these questions for you to ponder upon.
>I am not going to get into a debate with this. But there are 2,000,000
>billion christians around the world. We should not condemn them as
>following a false religion.
>THe quran has many ayahs about christians and how if they adhere to their
>own tenents and article of faith, they shall be saved.
>here is one from Surah of "the cow":
Are you trying to get the sympathy of 2,000,000,000
people by making me sound unfair.
What I said is that their belief is based on a false dogma which
Jesus son of God or God. Can you deny that.
I did not talk about judgement, that is a different topic.
[Deleted Text]
>
>Yes so this also could mean that sunnism is all interpolation, since
>sunnism has really no proof what so ever from the Quran. It is based on
>hadeeth. There is no line in the quran saying "follow the sahabah"
>or "believe in the four kaliphs after ..".
>Infact the word sunni, like the other words you mentioned "qadiani" or
>"ahmadi" is not even mentioned. Words "shia" , "Imam" "ithna ashari",
>have been mentioned in the quran. So the point being: Sunnism has no
>clear proof from the quran, and it is based on deductions as well.
>Doesn't make it false though.
[Deleted Text]
Unlike you we know that God created the world and everthing matters
in this world. And everycreature whether human or else has it's weight
in this creation.
Similarly all the sahabas have good virtues and we accept them all.
some are very pious others are weak.
>faghad arafa rabbah" which is narrarated in both sunni and shia books.
So
>by keeping in mind that the shia faith is based on the idea of
>"perfection" and "perfection" is reached through the guidance of
>the Imams(AS) or an owlya that is connected with an Imam(AS) and when one
>has reached perfection he will know the Imam(AS) consciously, this is all
>in shia hadeeth if you need refrences just ask for them.
No thanks, I wonder if the above represents and is approved by the other
Shia's
on the net.
Because perfection to sunnis is through knowing God through the example of
Mohammad. From above no wonder some shia extremist believe Ali is better
than the prophets and other Ghulat think he is GOD.