PDA

View Full Version : Shias' 'aqeedah of Tahreef (tampering) in Quran



Debater
16th July 2005, 22:28
Rejecting Accuracy/Integrity of Quran-Fundamental Belief of Shi'ism

The most important, oldest and the most reliable book of creed and fiqh (jurisprudence) for jafri shias is Al-Kafi (compiled by Koleni, died in 329 hijri). The part of this book dealing with ‘aqeedah (creed) is known as Usul Kafi and the part related to fiqh (jurisprudence) is called Furu’ Kafi.

We find numerous traditions about Tahreef in Quran in Usul Kafi. In this book there have been put chapters especially on Tahreef in Quran and the effect of such traditions is that the last eminent muhaddith (hadith scholar) of jafri shi’ites, Nuri Tabrasi, in his book Faslul Khitab fee Tahreef Kitab Rabbul Arbab, has not only mentioned 2000 traditions and hadiths of shias over Tahreef in Quran but also stated clearly that all early eminent shia scholars (high ups) except four believe in Tahreef in Quran.

It has also been stated in this book that these four rejectors of Tampering in Quran cannot prove their views using principles of shi’ism.
(In other words their views are based on Taqiyyah so that shias can use their cover at the time of need, saying our these 4 ‘ulama don’t believe in Tahreef in Quran and we also don’t believe in such ‘aqeedah.)

This is not only our claim that (the four) shia ‘ulama who reject tahreef in Quran, do it as Taqiyyah but this fact has been admitted by the famous shia scholar and student of Mulla Baqar Majlisi, Ne’matullah Jazayeri who writes in his book Anwarun Nu’maniyah:

Those who have rejected (‘aqeedah of) Tahreef in Quran (i.e. Shaykh Sudooq, Shareef Murtadha, Tusi and mufassir Tabrasi) have done so due to many considerations (expediency) (i.e. due to taqiyyah to fool sunnis) because they have accommodated such hadiths and traditions in their books in a big number which claim that Quran has undergone tampering and that the so and so verse was revealed this way but later on it was tampered.

(Anwarun Nu’maniyah, printed in Tabrez, 1389 hijri, volume 2, page 257)

Muhaddith Nuri Tabrasi

The importance of muhaddith Nuri Tabrasi one can imagine by the following fact:

Jafri fiqh is based on these 4 books:

1. Kafi
2. Manl-la-yahdharh-al-faqih
3. Tahzib-al-ahkaam
4. Al-istabsar

The collection of all narrations from these books is named as Wasayel-ash-shia which was compiled by Hur ‘Amili.
To this most comprehensive book of shia-hadiths, Nuri Tabrasi has appended a supplement in many volumes with the name of Mustadrak al-wasayel and thus he has perfected shias’ traditions/narrations. On this memorable work of him, he was buried after death near to the presumed shrine of Hadhrat ‘Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu in Najaf, where his grave is the pilgrim centre for everyone.

Three admissions / confessions of shia scholars believing in Tahree of Quran

These scholars of jafri shias who believe in Tahreef of Quran, openly admit it saying

1. We have numerous traditions/narrations concerning tahreef.

2. These narrations of us clearly imply tahreef in Quran.

3. We belief in tahreef of Quran due to these very narrations.

The expert in shialogy, Maulana Abdush Shakoor Lakhnavi who was the first to introduce this book of Shaykh Nuri Tabrasi in the subcontinent, writes in his book Tambihal-Hayerin under the heading of Three Admissions of shia-scholars which was in response to the booklet of his contemporary shia mujtahid, ‘Ali Hayeri Lahori, the booklet was Mau’izah Tahreef Quran:

1. It says in the book, Faslul Khitab, printed in Iran, page 235:

Many hadiths which are authentic and imply the shortfall and loss in the present Quran, other than those hadiths which have been described in the course of prior arguments and imply that this Quran is less than the amount of descent (nuzool) and this shortfall is not specific to some verse or chapter and these hadiths are diffused in such different books in which our religion confides and to whom the followers of our religion refer. I have compiled all those hadiths I came across.

After this he has named numerous books and piled the narrations over tahreef.

2. Moreover on page 31 of the same book, he has quoted the comments of
Muhaddith Jazayeri:

Saiyid Muhammad Jazayeri has written in the book Anwar which means the people of Imamiyah have agreed on the accuracy (authenticity) of these advantageous (mustafeedha) and continued (mutawatir) narrations which clearly imply the Quran being tampered (changed), this tampering is with Quran as well as with parts and with a’rab (vowel points) and Imamians have agreed on the attestation of these narrations.

3. On page 251 of the same Faslul Khitab, he quotes other ‘ulama as well other than muhaddith Jazayeri, saying the narrations of tahreef are mutawatir.
Certainly the narrations on tahreef are numerous even that Saiyid Ne’matullah Jazyeri has written in some of his compilations as is transmitted through them, the narrations which imply the tampering in Quran are more than 2000 and a jama’at (group) has claimed for them to be mustafeedh, for example Mufeed, researcher Damaad and ‘Allamah Majlisi etc. rather the Shaykh in Tabayaan has clearly stated that these narrations are numerous even that a group of hadith scholars has claimed that such narrations are mutawatir which would be discussed later on…

It should be known that hadiths on tahreef (of Quran) have been transmitted from those books in which our fellows trust in order to establish commands of shari’ah and to transmit traditions of Nabawiyah.

3. Afterward the author of Faslul Khitab has fulfilled his promise and in the end of the book has mentioned the names of all those hadith scholars who have referred to narrations of tahreef as mutawatir. With these names is the name of ‘Allamah Majlisi as well and these lines of his text is worth reading:

To me the narrations about tahreef in Quran are really mutawatir (continued), if these narrations are abandoned, it would discredit all our art of hadith, even that according to my knowledge, the narrations about tahreef in Quran are not less than those of the issue of Imamat, therefore if the narrations of Tahreef in Quran are not trusted, the creed of Imamat as well can’t be proven through narrations.

4. ‘Allamah Muhsin Kashi, in the preface of Tafsir Saafi, narrating (filthy) traditions of Tahreef, says on page 32 (printed in Tehran, 1375 hijri):

The meaning of all these narrations as well as the hadiths which have been transmitted with the sanad of Ahl-al-Bayt, is that the Quran which is with us is not exactly as it was descent on Muhammad sallAllahu ‘alayhe wasallam but in it something is opposite to what Allah descent and there are some changes and tampering and certainly much of its content has been removed for example the name of (Imam) ‘Ali from many places, in addition to this it is known from these narrations that the order of this Quran (arrangement of verses and chapters) is not as was agreed by God and His Messenger. This all is agreed upon by ‘Ali bin Ibrahim Qummi.

5. Great mujtahid of the last period, Molvi Dildaar ‘Ali whom shias’ great Imam, Molvi Hamid Husain calls Ayatullah fil ‘aalameen, writes in ‘Emadul Islam:

Ayatullah fil ‘aalameen i.e. Molvi Dildaar ‘Ali says, after quoting some hadiths over Tahreef (in Quran) transmitted from the leaders of creation (i.e. Imams of Ahl-al-Bayt):

The conclusion of these narrations is that there was certainly a tampering (tahreef) in this Quran which is before us, with respect to an addition of some letters (huroof) and a loss of some letters even some words and with respect to the order. In this way after believing in these narrations, there cannot be any doubt in the tampering of Quran. (after this Molvi Dildaar ‘Ali has mentioned forms of tampering which we would see later, inshaAllah)

Debater
16th July 2005, 23:09
Brothers, they all are liars and we can't believe in what they say about their beliefs. They are the replica of Jews about whom you can find out only from their own books (documents) which are published by their own press as like the jews shias do deny allegations based on their books saying these books are not published by a shia-based-press. So only their books published by their own press can prove them wrong.

This nation is of liars who perform Taqiyyah and believe me they all believe in the Tahreef of Quran and all their reliable sources claim that all hadiths which confirm Tahreef in Quran are mutawatir (in continuity) and so they can't be ignored. If a shia on a forum says that such hadiths are not sahih then he is performing Taqiyyah because he can't accept that he believes in Tahreef of Quran otherwise he would simply be kicked out by everyone.

All hadiths of these liars are Sahih and Sacred because they have been fabricated by Kuffar and Munafiqeen and enemies of Allah and His Pious Slaves, the only thing which is not Sahih in their eyes is the Quran.
Believe me or not, you will have to believe me one day, inshaAllah.

The 'aqeedah of Tahreef (tampering) in Quran is as fundamental in shi'ism as is of Imamat and the reason is that all 2000 narrations of shias which prove that Quran has been tampered, are mutawatar that no one can reject them.

Challenge

If shias claim that they believe in the present Quran as free from any tampering, then they must declare that their predecessors who held such beliefs were Kafir and Non-Muslims, and if they don't do that, then we would believe that 'aqeedah of Tahreef in Quran is the fundamental part of shi'ism as is 'aqeedah of Imamat and however shias deny this charge, we won't believe such liars who live with Taqiyyah all the time.

Guest
17th July 2005, 19:33
Debater.

There are probably a grand total of 2 shi'as here. Why dont you go and pester a shi'a forum with all of this? It would make more sense. And as a side issue, do ou believe that Allah smiles upon you whilst you wrote (copied 'n' pasted) that post of yours?

Regards

Debater
17th July 2005, 22:06
By your theory we should stop reading those verses of Quran which deal with Jews and Christians because they don't be with us while we read Quran.

Guest
17th July 2005, 22:23
Show me one verse in the Qur'an which would make a Christian curl up with anger. Look at all of your statements. If i were Shi'a, i would have slapped you silly.

Debater
17th July 2005, 22:29
Read my post no. 4 once again and tell me where I have claimed for those verses to annoy christians and jews.

And yes, read your post no. 3 as well and then check what relevance you have in both of your posts.

BOY-NICE
18th July 2005, 10:19
Shia Believe in the Same in which Sunnis do. There are traditions in the text of Both Shia and Sunni which implies that tehreef has been mde in Quran but such hadiths are rejected in both schools. And of you are adamant to make such traditions to be true in one sect then you will have to choose same for your sect as well. I will post some of the sunni text on tehreef as well but before let me clarify VERY BRIEFLY the Shia belief in the completness of Holy Quran.

Imams of Ahlulbait [as] on Quran


Imam Ali al-Naqi [as] :
“This Quran is the truth (Haq), there is no doubt regarding it, this issue is established for all the sects, and has reached a point of consensus. And all these sects are on the correct path on this (about Quran) consensus, because Holy Prophet [s] has said that his Ummah would never be united upon falsehood, and anything that is agreed upon by all the people without any dispute, that is the truth (Haq).”Ehtijaj al-Tabrisi, volume 2, page 251.

Imam Jafar-e-Sadiq [as]:
“Everything is tested out with reference to the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of Prophet [s], and any narration that is against the Book of Allah is a lie.”
1. Asool-al-Kafi, page 69
2. al-Wafi, page 67

Shia Scholars about completness of Holy Quran

Sheikh-e-Saduq (rah) says:
“Our belief is that the Qur'an which Allah revealed to His Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two covers (daffatayn). And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater in extent than that. The number of Surah's as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen ...And he who asserts that we say that it is greater in extent than that, is a liar.”
E’tiqadaat Sheikh-e-Saduq 93, Published Iran


The teacher of Syed Murtadha Ilm-ul-Huda, and the great Shia Aalim, Sheikh Mufid (rah) says:
“There are no flaws of words, verses, or Surahs in the present Quran.”
Tafseer A’la al-Rehman, page 17

The Belief of Shiekh Fath-Ullah Kashani (d 988 H)

“The Holy Quran is safe from any sort of additions or deletions, and that’s the belief of our sect.”
Tafseer Minhaj ul-Sadiqeen, page 5, published in Iran.

beside these there are number of scholars who have attested the Shia belief in the completness of Quran

Muhammad bin Muhammad ibn Numan Baghdadi -Sheikh-e-Mufid (d. 413 AH)
Syed Murtada Ali bin al Hussain al Musawi known as Ilm ul-Huda (d 436 H)
Sheikh Muhammad bin Hasan Abu Jafar Tusi known as Shiekh al Taifa (d. 460 AH)
Allamah Tabrisi
Qazi Noor Ullah Shostari (1019 H)
Shiekh Muhammad bin Hasan known as Bahauddin al Amali (d 1030)
Allamah Tuni (d 1081 H)
Allamah Mohsin Faiz Kashani (d. 1019 AH)
Shiekh Muhammad bin Hasan al Hur al Amali ( d 1104)
Shiekh Muhammad Baqar Majlisi ( d 1111)
Allamah Sadr-uddin Sheerazi
Allamah Ibn Shehr Ashob
Ibn Abi Jamhoor Ehsai
Allamah Abdullah Bashirni Khurasani
Allamah Muhammad Hussein Ashtiani
of Allamah Abul-Qasim
Sheikh Jaffar Kashif ul-Ghita (d 1228)
...more..

Scholars of Ahle Sunnah also testified Shia Belief in completness of Quran

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Muhhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi in his renowned anti-Shia book writes:

“It is proven from all the traditions of the Imamia that the Ahlulbayt used to recite this same Qur'an and based their decisions in accordance with it. The commentary of Qur'an by Imam Hasan Askari is the commentary of this (same) Qur'an. All his children, relatives and servants studied 'this' Qur'an, and he used to order them to recite this Qur'an when praying. It is due to this fact that Shaykh Ibn Babuya in his book "Al Eitiqad" denied that Qur'an had been altered.”
Tuhfa Ithna Ashari (Urdu), Page 281, Published by Noor Muhammad Kutub khana Karachi

BOY-NICE
18th July 2005, 10:42
Sunni traditions (belief) in Tahreef of Quran

In order to make Naasibis and the naive muslims who come under the influence of Naasibis understand that such traditions have no importance in both schools here i present some of the traditions from authentic sunni text according to which belief in tahreef of Quran can clearly be drawn.

Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik did not believe “Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim” to be the part of Quran

“Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik and Imam Auzai states that neither “Bismillah” is the part of surah Fatihah nor of any other surah of Quran”
Tafseer Khazin, Volume 1 page 12, Muqqadmah

Message for those who leade their lives in Shia hatred:

If according to Imam Abu Hanifa “Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim” is not the part of any Quranic Surah that means that their ulema have committed addition to the Quran while writing “Bismillah” at 114 places and have ditched their Sunni adherents as these naive followers consider “Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim” as the part of every surah !!

Sunni scholars believed that letters have been lost from actual Quran

First of all we would like to mention the proud statement which Al Hafid Jalaluddin Suyuti recorded in the preface of his esteemed book Dur al Manthur:

“Praise be to Allah.... who has given me the tawfiq to do tafseer of his Great Book based on what I have recieved of the transmitted reports with high valued chains”.

In the Muqaddamah of Surah Ahzab Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti records:

“Abd al Razaq narrated from Al Thawry that he said: ‘I have come to know that people from the Sahaba of the Prophet [saws] who used to recite the Quran were killed on the day of Musaylama and with their death letters from the Quran were lost.’”
Tafsir Dur al Manthur, Muqaddamah Surah Ahzab

Whats the Naasibi Fatwa against Hafiz Jalauddin Suyuti, Abd al Razzak and Sufiyan al Thowry ???? Beside issuing takfeer against them they do not get tired of praising them . Then why do Naasibis ask Shias to issue takfseer against Shia scholars ?????? Double standards !


Alteration in the verse of Nikah al Muta’h

We have relied on the following valued books of Ahle Sunah.

1.Tafseer Dur al Manthur Volume 2, page 140 & 141
2.Tafseer al-Tabari, Volume 4 page 14 & 15, verse of Mut`ah
3.Tafseer Al Baghawi, Al Musami Mu'alim al Tanzeel, page 414
4.Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3 page 197
5.Tafseer Mazhari Volume 2 page 4
6.Mustadrak Al Hakim, Volume 2 page 305, tafseer surah Nisa
7.Al Musahif by Abi Bakr Sijistani page 63


We read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur:

“Abd Bin Hameed, Ibn Jarir, Al Anbaari and Hakim have narrated from Ibn Abbas that they would read this verse with the words : “Then as to those whom you profit by, for a prescribed period..”

The Quran we have I our hands have thise verse as follows:

[Shakir 4:24] … Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

Among several we have only cited seven books which clearly proves that the words “for a prescribed period” were also there in Quran in the verse of Mut`ah. Whats the Fatwa of Nasibi cult against Sahaba and Tabaeen who narrated such traditions and then those scholars who recorded such traditions in their authentic text which implies tahreef in Quran ????
Are they going to issue takfeer against them or will they only be yapping at Shia scholars ? Double standards !

Hadrath Ayesha did not believe in the present Quran; a verse has been deleted from it

We read in Quran :

[Shakir 2:238] Attend constantly to prayers and to the middle prayer and stand up truly obedient to Allah.

We are using following prestigious books of Ahle Sunnah as proof.

1.Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 1316 [English]
2.Al Musahif by Abi Bakr Sijistani page 94
3.Tafseer Dur al Manthur Volume 1, page 302, Surah Baqrah Verse 230
4.Tafseer al-Tabari, Volume 3 page 348
5.Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 197 Hadith 4522

Sahih Muslim:
Abu Yunus, the freed slave of 'A'isha said: 'A'isha ordered me to transcribe a copy of the Qur'an for her and said: When you reach this verse:" Guard the prayers and the middle prayer" (ii. 238), inform me; so when I reached it, I informed her and she gave me dictation (like this): Guard the prayers and the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer, and stand up truly obedient to Allah. 'A'isha said: This is how I have heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).


Note: The words “and the afternoon prayer” cannot be found in the verse 2:238 in the Quran compiled.

Are those who love to issue takfeer against Shias for having text which implies tahreef are also going to issue takfeer against their scholars like Imam Muslim who recorded same sort of traditions in their text as well ????? or are they going to show double standards and commit Munaafiqaat !




Sahaba believed that words have been added in Surah Lail and its endorsement by Imam Bukhari

We are quoting from these renowned texts of Ahle Sunnah

1.Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468 [English]
2.Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 6 page 358, Surah wal lail

We read in Sahih Bukhari:
Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them: 'Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:
'By the male and the female.'
Abu Ad-Darda said, "I testify that I heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--
'And by Him Who created male and female.' but by Allah, I will not follow them."

Unlike the followers of Abdullah Ibn Masud, Alqama and Abu Ad-Darda all Muslims today read in Surat Al-Lail (The Night) verse No. 3
وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى

[Pickthal 92:3] And Him Who hath created male and female,

While according to the Ibn Masud’s followers, Alqama and the testimony of Abu Ad-Darda this verse should have been with these words والذكر والأنثى‏
'By the male and the female’

The tradition recorded by Imam Bukhari in his “Sahih” indirectly persuade his adherents to erase out the extra words “Him Who created” from this verse because according to the testimony of companions they heard this verse from Holy Prophet[s] with the words ‘By the male and the female’ . This tradition clearly unveils the belief of Nawasib in the distortion of Quran.

Are Nawasib going to issue takfer against Sahaba and Imam Bukhari ??? If not and they have some shame left in theem then they shud NEVER ask Shias to pass edict against their scholars !!! Double Standards !!





Challenge

If shias claim that they believe in the present Quran as free from any tampering, then they must declare that their predecessors who held such beliefs were Kafir and Non-Muslims, and if they don't do that, then we would believe that 'aqeedah of Tahreef in Quran is the fundamental part of shi'ism as is 'aqeedah of Imamat and however shias deny this charge, we won't believe such liars who live with Taqiyyah all the time.

let me rephrase is for you so that you can easily understand what i have been trying to say:

If YOU and other ppl who hold same views as you do claim that they believe in the present Quran as free from any tampering, then they must declare that their predecessors who held such beliefs were Kafir and Non-Muslims, and if they don't do that, then we would believe that 'aqeedah of Tahreef in Quran is the fundamental part of Salafism/Deobandism/Sunnism as is 'aqeedah of Khilafat and however Salafi/Sunni/Deobandi deny this charge, we won't believe such liars who live with Taqiyyah all the time.

Debater
19th July 2005, 20:08
Shia Believe in the Same in which Sunnis do.
This is a lie.

1. Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulaini on the authority of Jabir that he heard Abu Ja'far saying: "Whoever claims from amongst the people that he has collected the entire Qur'an as Allah has revealed it is a liar. Only 'Ali and the Imams after him had collected it and memorized it as Allah had revealed it."

(Usul al-Kafi, Chapter that the Qur'an was not entirely collected except by the Imams, and they only have all knowledge)

2. Kulaini has narrated on the authority of Salim ibn Salamah who said: "A person recited a portion of the Qur'an to Abu 'Abdullah (Imam Ja'far), and I heard that a few words of the Qur'an which the other people did not recite. At this, Imam Ja'far told him: "Refrain from reciting this way, recite like how the common people (sunnis and shias) recite it until the appearance of the saviour (Imam Mahdi). When he appears, recite the Qur'an to its fullest. I will then reveal the manuscript which 'Ali had written. It is the same manuscript, after writing it, he presented it to the people saying: "This is the Book of Allah as was revealed upon Muhammad (S.A.W.). I have gathered it from the tablets." The people told him: "We already have a manuscript in which the entire Qur'an has been collected. We are not in need of yours." At this, 'Ali told them: "By Allah, I will never show it to you after this day. I was charged to inform you of it after I collected it so that you may recite it." (Usul al-Kafi, Indian edition, pge 68)

3. Kulaini has again narrated on the authority of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Nasr who said: "Abu al-Hasan gave me a manuscript and told me to see what was written therein. I opened it, and under the verse "Those who disbelieve will not??.." were written the names of seventy Qurai****es along with the names of their father." (Usul al-Kafi, Indian edition, pge 680)

4. Kulaini again narrates that Abu 'Abdulah said: "Jibra'il descended upon Muhammad with the following verse in this way: "O people of the Book, bring faith in what we have revealed regarding 'Ali, the magnificent light." (Ibid)

5. Some of the Shi'ahs have accused Sayyidian 'Uthman that he had destroyed the original Qur'an by burning it, and all the chapters which contained the virtues of 'Ali and the ahl al-Bait were also destroyed. From amongst these portions is the chapter of wilayat as follows: "In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, Most Merciful. O you who believe, bring faith on the two lights which We have revealed. They will recite My verses to you and will warn you of the punishment of a terrible day. These two lights are of each other, and I am All-Hearing All-Knowing." (Faslul Khitab fi Tahrif Kitab Rabb al-Arbab pge 180)

6. Ahmad ibn Abu Talib Tibirsi narrates on the authority of Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (R.A.): "When the Holy Prophet passed away, 'Ali gathered the Qur'an and produced it to the Emigrants (Muhajirun) and the Helpers (Ansar) as the Holy Prophet had bided him to do so. When Abu Bakr opened the first page, he found some denunciation of the Quraish tribe. At this 'Umar leapt forward and said: "O 'Ali, take it back for we are not in need of it." 'Ali took it back. Just then Zaid ibn Thabit, a prominent reciter of the Qur'an appeared, and 'Umar told him: "'Ali was here a short while back with a Qur'an which despises the Emigrants and the Helpers. I think we should compile such a Qur'an wherein all these aspects are omitted." Zaid agreed with him, but he added: "Once I have completed the Qur'an according to this method and 'Ali sees it, will your version be not invalidated?" 'Umar then asked: "What ruse should we employ then?" Zaid replied: "You know better of such ruses." At this 'Umar said: "There is no ruse but to kill 'Ali and obtain comfort from him in this way." 'Umar then thought of having him killed by Khalid ibn al-Walid, but this plan failed. When 'Umar assumed the leadership after some time, the people asked 'Ali to produce his Qur'an. 'Umar asked him: "O 'Ali, produce the Qur'an which you showed Abu Bakr so that we may agree on it." At this, 'Ali said: "This is not possible, I only showed it to Abu Bakr so that the proof may be established on you people, and so that you may not say on the day of Judgement: "We were unaware of it," "You did not produce it." The Qur'an in my possession will not be touched except by the pure, and the designated ones of my family." 'Umar asked: "Is the time known when it will be produced." Upon this 'Ali replied: "Yes, when the saviour of times emerge, it will be produced and all the people will agree to it." (Al-Ihtijaj, Najaf, pge 225. Also see Tafsir al-Safi pge 11, and Fasl al-Khitab pge 7)

7. Husain al-Nuri al-Tabarsi says: "It has been narrated from many of the Rawafid (shias) of times gone by that the present Qur'an is not the one which was revealed upon Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.). it has been altered, and many words added on and omitted." (Faslul Khitab fi Tahrif Kitab Rabb al-Arbab pge 32) .

The Beliefs of the Shi'ites about the Present Quran

Jabir reported that he heard Imam Baqir saying: 'No one can claim that he has compiled the Quran as Allah revealed except a liar. The only person to compile it and memorise it according to its revelation was Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Imams who succeeded him. (Usole kafi 1:228)

A man said that someone was reciting the Quran in the company of Imam Ja'far. The narrator said that he heard certain verses in the recitation which were not according to the recitation of the people. Imam Ja'far told the person reciting: 'Do not recite like this. Recite as the people recite until the (promised) Mahdi arrives. When the Mahdi arrives, he will recite the Quran according to its original revelation and the Qu,ran compiled by Ali will be brought forward. (Ibid: 2.622)

Allah says in Surah Ale Imraan (32):

"Certainly Allah has chosen Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham and the family of Imraan above the (families of the) worlds."

Allamah Ali ibn Ibrahim AI-Qummi - one of the early Shi'ite commentators of the Quran said concerning this verse:

'The Imam said: 'The words: "The family of Muhammed" were also revealed along with "the family of Ale Imraan." They (referring to the Companions of the Prophet S.A.W.) removed the words "The family of Muhammad" from the original text (Al-Qummi's commentary:308). The allegation of removing the words preempts any possibility of abrogation. It is clear that the commentary is accusing the Companions of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) of distorting the Quran.

Allah says in Surah Taha (115):

"And We had given Adam an order before, but he forgot and We did not find any resolve in him (to disobey the order)."

Imam Ja'far is reported to have said that Allah had revealed this verse with the following words:

"We had ordered Adam before with some words about Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussain and the Imams from their offspring but he (Adam) forgot." Ja'far said: 'By Allah, these were the words which were revealed to Muhammad.' (Usul Kafi: 1:416 and the footnotes of Maqbool's translation: 637)

Allah says in Surah Yusuf (49):

"Then a year will come in which people will be given abundant help and they will press grapes." In AI-Qummi's commentary it is reported from Imam Ja'far that someone recited this verse in the presence of Ali. Ali said: 'What will they press'? Wine?' The person asked how he should read the verse. Ali replied that the verse was revealed thus: "Then a year will come in which people will he given abundant help and in which they will be given abundant rain. (Al-Qummi's commentary: 192)

The word Ya'siroon in the present Quran is in the active voice. According to this commentary it should have been read in the passive voice as Yu'saroon to alter the meaning. In the footnotes to the translation of Maqbool, it is written that this word (Ya'siroon) was changed from the passive voice to the active to suit the fancies of wine-loving khulafa (rulers). (Maqbool's translation: 479)

Allah says in Surah Muhammad (9):

"That is because they resented what Allah revealed, so Allah in turn cancelled their deeds." AI-Qummi has stated that Imam Muhammad Baqir said that Jibreel had transmitted this verse as: 'That is because they resented what Allah revealed about Ali.' But then the apostates removed Ali's name (from the Quran). (Ibid: 1011)

Allah says in Surah Waqi'ah (29):

"And the Companions of the Right Hand. What about the Companions of the Right Hand. They shall be among thornless lote-trees and under clusters of bananas."

One person recited this verse in the presence of Ali. Ali said that the word Talh is not.appropriate and should read Tal'a as in Surah Shu'araa (.........). Some enquired as why the word should not be changed. Ali replied that it was not the right time to do so because correcting the Quran would only confuse common people. He went on to say that among the Imams, only Imam Mahdi will have the right to reintroduce the Quran as it was during the time of the prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). (Ibid: 1067)

Abu Mansur Ahmed Tibrisi, a prominent Shi'ite scholar of the 8th century (H), has written:

'Enumerating the distortions and omissions of this sort (from the present Quran) would become laborious and it will disclose what Taqiyyah (Shi'ite practice to conceal the 'truth' for religious purposes) requires me not to disclose: the good qualities of Allah's friends and the vices of His enemies. (AI-Ihtijaj by Tibrisi: 1:254)

Mullah Muhsin Kashani, an 11th century Shi'ite scholar comments on the above quoted statement:

'It is clear from all of these traditions and quotations from the Family of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) that the present Quran is not the complete Quran which was revealed to the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). In fact, there are verses that contradict that which was revealed; verses that have been distorted and places where omissions have been made such as the names of Ali, the Family of Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and, on several occasions, there were the names of the hypocrites. Moreover, the present order of the Quran is not according to the preferred order of Allah and His Messenger. Ali ibn Ibrahim (a renowned commentator) also holds this opinion.' (Tafseer of Saafi: l:32).

QUR'AAN

(I) Qur'aan - The Shi'ites call the Qur'aan "Note Book of Othman." They consider the present Qur'aan as compiled by, Hazrat Abu Baker (R.A.), Hazrat Omar (R.A.) and Hazrat Othman (R.A.) whom they consider usurpers of Hazrat Ali's (R.A.) caliphate, unbelievers and renegades. (The fact is that the whole Qur'aan was revealed to the Holy Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam who got it written on slabs of bones and stones, parchments etc. and it was memorised by many companions and recited in the presence of the Holy Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).

The Shia belief is that the real Qur’aan was entrusted by the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) to Hazrat Ali (R.A.), but when the enemies did not believe in the same, Hazrat Ali (R.A.) concealed it and entrusted the same to his successor Imaams, and the eleventh Imaam handed it over to the twelfth Imaam - the underground and hidden Imaam. He is keeping the real Qur'aan in his custody, and when he will reappear, he will then reveal the real Qur'aan. The underground Imaam was only a child when he was entrusted with the Holy Qur'aan for safe custody.

The Shias believe that in the real Qur'aan lying with the underground Twelfth Imaam, there is a clear mention of Hazrat Ali (R.A.) and his posterity Imaamat. The present Qur'aan is abridged and the Shias per force believe the same as Qur'aan - but it is only, a stopgap belief. (vide Majalisus - Shia 147-149). (Al Balaghul- Mobin 368) (Ibid 37 Volume Two, 378, 373). (On the other hand, even European Orientalists consider the Qur'aan to be the only religious scripture in the world free from any temperance and existing in its pristine purity).

QUR'AAN: (Conclusion)

1.) Not Completed.
2.) Has 17,000 Aayats.
3.) Our's has 6,666.
4.) Abu Bakr's opposed the text of the Quraan.
5.) Original Quraan with 12th Imaam Mahdi.
6.) Do not produce Haafiz.
7.) Do not perform Taraweeh.
8.) Quraan will be read/ learnt when 12th Imaam brings it.
9.) Ali (R.A) showed original Quraan to Sahabah (R.A) who rejected it.
10.) Passages mentioning virtures of Ali(R.A) has been purposefully deleted from the Quraan.
11.) There are 2,000 shiah traditions making many additions and subtractions in Quraan.
12.) The 'Murtaddeen'- renegrades have removed the name of Ali(R.A).

References:
(1.) Usul Kafi 1:228/ Faslul Kitaab fi Tahrif. Kitaabi Raabul Arbaa of Nuri Tibarsi approved by Khomeni in ' Al- Hukumaat -ul- Islamiyaa".
(2.) Usul Kafi P671.
(3.) Usul Kafi P671.
(4.) Kashful Asraar P111.
(5.) Usul Kafi 2-632.
(6.) See Iran.
(7.) See Iran.
(8.) Usul Kafi - p622.
(9.) Maqbool - 1067 - Usul Kafi Vol1 P228. (10.)Tafseer Ali Qummi-308 /Usul Kafi 1:416/Footnotes of Maqbool's translation 637/ Al- Ihtijaj- Tabarsi- 1-254/ Tafseer of Saafi- 1- 32/ Muqaddamah 6 , from Tafseer Saafi P32 Vol -1.
(11.) Usul Kafi 1:228/ Faslul Kitaab fi Tahrif. Kitaabi Raabul Arbaa of Nuri Tabarsi.
(12.) Surah Muhammad, Ayat 9, Para 26- Molvi Maqbool Dehli P1011.

courtesy: http://www.allaahuakbar.net (allaahuakbar.net)



My Challenge to Boynice

If you are truthful and you are not practising Taqiyyah (lying and deceiving) here with us then after reading the above narrations from shias' Holiest Book, Usool al-Kafi and views of your prominent scholars you must, without any hesitation call

1. Ahmad ibn Abu Talib Tibirsi
2. Husain al-Nuri al-Tabarsi says
3. Allamah Ali ibn Ibrahim AI-Qummi
4. Abu Mansur Ahmed Tibrisi
5. Mullah Muhsin Kashani and
6. Maqbool Dehlavi

Kafir and Rejectors of the Accuracy of the Quran.

And if you don't call these scholars of yours Kafir, then we will believe that you are practising Taqiyyah and fooling us on the footsteps of your predecessors.

Debater
19th July 2005, 20:52
There are traditions in the text of Both Shia and Sunni which implies that tehreef has been mde in Quran but such hadiths are rejected in both schools.
This is another lie.

First of all we don't have narrations of Tahrif in Quran, the only narrations we have, imply that some verses of Quran were cancelled and new verses replaced them (the concept of Nasikh and Mansukh), though a minority of Muslims doesn't accept even these narrations due to certain reasons.
InshaAllah I will discuss those narrations in this thread.

The point is that there is not a single Sunni who believes that the present Quran (which we have with us) is not as it was descent on Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam, on the other hand

all predecessors of shias except (4 Taqiyiites) have the belief in tampering of the Holy Quran, as I have given some of those names in my previous posts.


And of you are adamant to make such traditions to be true in one sect then you will have to choose same for your sect as well.
Off course we don't have narrations of such kind as you have with clearly describe that the present Quran is tampered/changed.


I will post some of the sunni text on tehreef as well but before let me clarify VERY BRIEFLY the Shia belief in the completness of Holy Quran.
Anything else?


Imam Ali al-Naqi [as] :
“This Quran is the truth (Haq), there is no doubt regarding it, this issue is established for all the sects, and has reached a point of consensus. And all these sects are on the correct path on this (about Quran) consensus, because Holy Prophet [s] has said that his Ummah would never be united upon falsehood, and anything that is agreed upon by all the people without any dispute, that is the truth (Haq).”Ehtijaj al-Tabrisi, volume 2, page 251.
The above is a deceiving statement as it is not addressing the Tahreef in Quran but simply says that Quran is truth.
Off course it is truth but which Quran?
The one which was compiled by Imam 'Ali which was passed Imam to Imam and now it is with Imam Mahdi?


Imam Jafar-e-Sadiq [as]:
“Everything is tested out with reference to the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of Prophet [s], and any narration that is against the Book of Allah is a lie.”
1. Asool-al-Kafi, page 69
2. al-Wafi, page 67
The above is another lie.
Shias claim that they accept only those narrations which are in accordance with Quran but they simply lie about it.
They accept every narration which is against Quran and based on those filthy narrations their predecessors e.g. Ibrahim Qummi, Baqir Majlisi (with whom Khomeni was so impressed), Nuri Tibrisi and all of them (except the 4 Taqiyiites) have had beliefs that the Quran was changed by the first 3 Khalifahs of Sunnis.

Not only this but shias reject Quran when compared to the History which has been written by shias themselves. And on the basis of History they call Ummul Momineen 'Aishah Siddiqah radhiyAllahu 'anha a Munafiqah (hypocrite) because they fought against Imam 'Ali (Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu), though Quran has granted the title of Mother of Believers and Ahl-al-Bayt of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam to them.

The truth is that in the eyes of shias everything is authentic except the Holy Quran, and I am not making this statement because of some hatred or biasedness but this statement of mine is based upon facts, Alhamdu Lillah.


Shia Scholars about completness of Holy Quran

Sheikh-e-Saduq (rah) says:
“Our belief is that the Qur'an which Allah revealed to His Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two covers (daffatayn). And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater in extent than that. The number of Surah's as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen ...And he who asserts that we say that it is greater in extent than that, is a liar.”
E’tiqadaat Sheikh-e-Saduq 93, Published Iran
I already have mentioned in the first post of this thread that Shaykh Suduq is one of the 4 Taqiyiites (those who lie to deceive Muslims) who proclaimed that they believed in the authenticity of Quran.


The teacher of Syed Murtadha Ilm-ul-Huda, and the great Shia Aalim, Sheikh Mufid (rah) says:
“There are no flaws of words, verses, or Surahs in the present Quran.”
Tafseer A’la al-Rehman, page 17
One more of the Taqiyiites as mentioned in the first post.


The Belief of Shiekh Fath-Ullah Kashani (d 988 H)

“The Holy Quran is safe from any sort of additions or deletions, and that’s the belief of our sect.”
Tafseer Minhaj ul-Sadiqeen, page 5, published in Iran.
Which holy Quran?
The one which is with Imam Mahdi?

If Fathullah Kashani is right then Ibrahim Qummi, Nuri Tibrisi, Baqir Majlisi etc. were Kafir because they all believed in Tahreef of Quran.
Do you accept it?


beside these there are number of scholars who have attested the Shia belief in the completness of Quran
This is because Taqiyyah (lying and cheating) is 9 tenth of shi'ism.


Muhammad bin Muhammad ibn Numan Baghdadi -Sheikh-e-Mufid (d. 413 AH)
Syed Murtada Ali bin al Hussain al Musawi known as Ilm ul-Huda (d 436 H)
Sheikh Muhammad bin Hasan Abu Jafar Tusi known as Shiekh al Taifa (d. 460 AH)
Allamah Tabrisi
Qazi Noor Ullah Shostari (1019 H)
Shiekh Muhammad bin Hasan known as Bahauddin al Amali (d 1030)
Allamah Tuni (d 1081 H)
Allamah Mohsin Faiz Kashani (d. 1019 AH)
Shiekh Muhammad bin Hasan al Hur al Amali ( d 1104)
Shiekh Muhammad Baqar Majlisi ( d 1111)
Allamah Sadr-uddin Sheerazi
Allamah Ibn Shehr Ashob
Ibn Abi Jamhoor Ehsai
Allamah Abdullah Bashirni Khurasani
Allamah Muhammad Hussein Ashtiani
of Allamah Abul-Qasim
Sheikh Jaffar Kashif ul-Ghita (d 1228)
...more..
Liars!
Baqir Majlisi also believes in Tahreef of Quran.


Scholars of Ahle Sunnah also testified Shia Belief in completness of Quran

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Muhhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi in his renowned anti-Shia book writes:

“It is proven from all the traditions of the Imamia that the Ahlulbayt used to recite this same Qur'an and based their decisions in accordance with it.
What else we are claiming?
We do say that shias' Imams recited the same Quran as we have though they believed that it was not the real Quran.
Isn't it strange?
Nope, it is not, les see again how:

Kulaini has narrated on the authority of Salim ibn Salamah who said: "A person recited a portion of the Qur'an to Abu 'Abdullah (Imam Ja'far), and I heard that a few words of the Qur'an which the other people did not recite. At this, Imam Ja'far told him: "Refrain from reciting this way, recite like how the common people (sunnis and shias) recite it until the appearance of the saviour (Imam Mahdi). When he appears, recite the Qur'an to its fullest. I will then reveal the manuscript which 'Ali had written. It is the same manuscript, after writing it, he presented it to the people saying: "This is the Book of Allah as was revealed upon Muhammad (S.A.W.). I have gathered it from the tablets." The people told him: "We already have a manuscript in which the entire Qur'an has been collected. We are not in need of yours." At this, 'Ali told them: "By Allah, I will never show it to you after this day. I was charged to inform you of it after I collected it so that you may recite it." (Usul al-Kafi, Indian edition, pge 68)


The commentary of Qur'an by Imam Hasan Askari is the commentary of this (same) Qur'an. All his children, relatives and servants studied 'this' Qur'an, and he used to order them to recite this Qur'an when praying. It is due to this fact that Shaykh Ibn Babuya in his book "Al Eitiqad" denied that Qur'an had been altered.”
Tuhfa Ithna Ashari (Urdu), Page 281, Published by Noor Muhammad Kutub khana Karachi
First of all this world doesn't know of any supposed commentary of Imam Hasan Al-Askari, and if some commentary really exists then not in this world, may be in Jupiter.
Shah Abdul Aziz rahimahullah must have quoted some shia scholar otherwise there is no commentary of Quran authored by Hasan Askari.
Moreover we Muslims believe that these people from the progeny of Saiyidina 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu were pious momineen and it is shias who have attributed lies to them.

Anyhow the challenge remains at its own place that if shias are so nice and so good that they all believe that the present Quran is 100% intact and complete and authentic and unaltered then they must declare that those of their predecessors who had such beliefs against Quran (e.g. Ibrahim Qummi, Baqir Majlisi, Nuri Tibrisi, Maqbool Dehlavi) were all Kafir.

Debater
19th July 2005, 21:53
Sunni traditions (belief) in Tahreef of Quran

In order to make Naasibis and the naive muslims who come under the influence of Naasibis understand that such traditions have no importance in both schools here i present some of the traditions from authentic sunni text according to which belief in tahreef of Quran can clearly be drawn.

Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik did not believe “Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim” to be the part of Quran

“Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik and Imam Auzai states that neither “Bismillah” is the part of surah Fatihah nor of any other surah of Quran”
Tafseer Khazin, Volume 1 page 12, Muqqadmah

Message for those who leade their lives in Shia hatred:

If according to Imam Abu Hanifa “Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim” is not the part of any Quranic Surah that means that their ulema have committed addition to the Quran while writing “Bismillah” at 114 places and have ditched their Sunni adherents as these naive followers consider “Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim” as the part of every surah !!
1. Nasibi is a term used by shias for Sunnis. They call them Nasibis because they give the First 3 Caliphs higher rank than Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu. Morever they regard Hadhrat Ameer Ma'aviyah radhiyAllahu 'anhu as Khalifah of Muslims and a pious Sahabi.
Another reason to call Sunnis nasibi is that they don't regard Yazid bin Ma'aviyah as a Kafir as shias believe him to be.

2. I leave the above issue of 'Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahmeem' to my Sunni brothers, as it is the matter of fiqh and no one of us believes that this has been added to Quran by anyone.


Sunni scholars believed that letters have been lost from actual Quran

First of all we would like to mention the proud statement which Al Hafid Jalaluddin Suyuti recorded in the preface of his esteemed book Dur al Manthur:

“Praise be to Allah.... who has given me the tawfiq to do tafseer of his Great Book based on what I have recieved of the transmitted reports with high valued chains”.

In the Muqaddamah of Surah Ahzab Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti records:

“Abd al Razaq narrated from Al Thawry that he said: ‘I have come to know that people from the Sahaba of the Prophet [saws] who used to recite the Quran were killed on the day of Musaylama and with their death letters from the Quran were lost.’”
Tafsir Dur al Manthur, Muqaddamah Surah Ahzab
Before answering to this question, I would ask you a question:
1. Can you prove from a single statement of Suyuti that he believed in Tahreef of Quran?

2. Did, on the basis of the above narration, he expressed any of his views that the present Quran is not complete because of the deaths of those Sahabah?

If you provide us with a single statement, not only from Suyuti but from any of the Non-Shia (see, I am not using the word of Sunni, as even Isma'ilis are not as Infidel as these rejectors of Quran are) that the present Quran is incomplete because some of its letters or words or so were lost and they couldn't be collected, then we openly will call them Kafir.
Just try it!!

Now I am going to comment on the above narration:
Even if we accept this narration to be sahih (authentic) as basically Suyuti has a great inclination towards Tashaiyu' (he accepts shias' narrations a lot), the above narration doesn't prove anything against Quran, as not all sahabah were killed in that mission. Their number who recited, meomorised and wrote Quran were in thousands and not every Sahabi were killed in that mission against Musaylmah, so only idiots or Kuffar would claim that due to the death of those Sahabah part of Quran was lost with them.

And if munafiqeen insist on that with the death of those Sahabah, part of Quran really lost, then they must give us the documentary evidence that only those Sahabah who went on the mission against Musaylmah, memorised the whole Quran.


Whats the Naasibi Fatwa against Hafiz Jalauddin Suyuti, Abd al Razzak and Sufiyan al Thowry ???? Beside issuing takfeer against them they do not get tired of praising them . Then why do Naasibis ask Shias to issue takfseer against Shia scholars ?????? Double standards !
Nasibi fatwa has been issued centuries ago against the rejectors of Quran (shias) that they are out of Islam.


Alteration in the verse of Nikah al Muta’h

We have relied on the following valued books of Ahle Sunah.

1.Tafseer Dur al Manthur Volume 2, page 140 & 141
2.Tafseer al-Tabari, Volume 4 page 14 & 15, verse of Mut`ah
3.Tafseer Al Baghawi, Al Musami Mu'alim al Tanzeel, page 414
4.Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3 page 197
5.Tafseer Mazhari Volume 2 page 4
6.Mustadrak Al Hakim, Volume 2 page 305, tafseer surah Nisa
7.Al Musahif by Abi Bakr Sijistani page 63

We read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur:

“Abd Bin Hameed, Ibn Jarir, Al Anbaari and Hakim have narrated from Ibn Abbas that they would read this verse with the words : “Then as to those whom you profit by, for a prescribed period..”

The Quran we have I our hands have thise verse as follows:

[Shakir 4:24] … Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

Among several we have only cited seven books which clearly proves that the words “for a prescribed period” were also there in Quran in the verse of Mut`ah. Whats the Fatwa of Nasibi cult against Sahaba and Tabaeen who narrated such traditions and then those scholars who recorded such traditions in their authentic text which implies tahreef in Quran ????
Are they going to issue takfeer against them or will they only be yapping at Shia scholars ? Double standards !
Off course such weak or fabricated narrations can be found only in books of Tafsir and I challenge you that in all the hadiths which claim that there has been a tampering in Quran, you will find shia-narrators conditionally.

Present the sanad (chain) of the above narration and all other narrations of the same kind from Sunni sources, you must find shias in their chain of narration.

Moreover I repeat, give us a single statement from any of these mufassirin that they believed like Ibrahim Qummi, Baqir Majlisi etc. that the present Quran is incomplete and altered.


Hadrath Ayesha did not believe in the present Quran; a verse has been deleted from it

We read in Quran :

[Shakir 2:238] Attend constantly to prayers and to the middle prayer and stand up truly obedient to Allah.

We are using following prestigious books of Ahle Sunnah as proof.

1.Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 1316 [English]
2.Al Musahif by Abi Bakr Sijistani page 94
3.Tafseer Dur al Manthur Volume 1, page 302, Surah Baqrah Verse 230
4.Tafseer al-Tabari, Volume 3 page 348
5.Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 197 Hadith 4522

Sahih Muslim:
Abu Yunus, the freed slave of 'A'isha said: 'A'isha ordered me to transcribe a copy of the Qur'an for her and said: When you reach this verse:" Guard the prayers and the middle prayer" (ii. 238), inform me; so when I reached it, I informed her and she gave me dictation (like this): Guard the prayers and the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer, and stand up truly obedient to Allah. 'A'isha said: This is how I have heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).

Note: The words “and the afternoon prayer” cannot be found in the verse 2:238 in the Quran compiled.

Are those who love to issue takfeer against Shias for having text which implies tahreef are also going to issue takfeer against their scholars like Imam Muslim who recorded same sort of traditions in their text as well ????? or are they going to show double standards and commit Munaafiqaat !

1. Though I don't believe in such narrations personally but most of the Sunnis do accept them but they interpret them in a number of ways.

2. I have to repeat again and again because you repeat things again and again, and my answer to your question is that you can't point out a single scholar of Muslims (including Imam Muslim and others) who held such heretic beliefs against Quran as shias' predecessors had.
Collecting a narration is one thing and on the basis of narration making an anti Islamic belief is another thing.

3. Just for your amusement, check the sanad of this narration as well. You must find a shia-touch in it.


Sahaba believed that words have been added in Surah Lail and its endorsement by Imam Bukhari

We are quoting from these renowned texts of Ahle Sunnah

1.Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468 [English]
2.Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 6 page 358, Surah wal lail

We read in Sahih Bukhari:
Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them: 'Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:
'By the male and the female.'
Abu Ad-Darda said, "I testify that I heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--
'And by Him Who created male and female.' but by Allah, I will not follow them."

Unlike the followers of Abdullah Ibn Masud, Alqama and Abu Ad-Darda all Muslims today read in Surat Al-Lail (The Night) verse No. 3
وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى

[Pickthal 92:3] And Him Who hath created male and female,

While according to the Ibn Masud’s followers, Alqama and the testimony of Abu Ad-Darda this verse should have been with these words والذكر والأنثى‏
'By the male and the female’

The tradition recorded by Imam Bukhari in his “Sahih” indirectly persuade his adherents to erase out the extra words “Him Who created” from this verse because according to the testimony of companions they heard this verse from Holy Prophet[s] with the words ‘By the male and the female’ . This tradition clearly unveils the belief of Nawasib in the distortion of Quran.
The narrators/transmitters are responsible for narrations which they attribute to Sahabah or Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam.
As I pointed out, in all such narrations which imply tampering in Quran are from shia sources (shia narrators or at least the people of Kufah and Khurasaan etc.).
Shias, in the guise of Taqiyyah have mixed lots of their lies with our hadith sources, that is why one must reject all narrations from shias even if some of them are in accordance with those of Muslims.

Even with such narrations in our book, not a single Muslim (Sunni) held beliefs in the tampering of Quran as all predecessors of shias held such beliefs (except 4 Taqiyiites).


Are Nawasib going to issue takfer against Sahaba and Imam Bukhari ??? If not and they have some shame left in theem then they shud NEVER ask Shias to pass edict against their scholars !!! Double Standards !!
Every Muslim believes that whoever holds such believes against Quran is a Kafir, be it Imam Bukhari or whoever, but the truth is that you cannot find a single statement from Imam Bukhari or any other sunni scholar or an ordinary sunni that the present Quran is tampered/altered.
Though 'aqeedah of tahreef in Quran is one of the basics of shi'ism.


let me rephrase is for you so that you can easily understand what i have been trying to say:

If YOU and other ppl who hold same views as you do claim that they believe in the present Quran as free from any tampering, then they must declare that their predecessors who held such beliefs were Kafir and Non-Muslims, and if they don't do that, then we would believe that 'aqeedah of Tahreef in Quran is the fundamental part of Salafism/Deobandism/Sunnism as is 'aqeedah of Khilafat and however Salafi/Sunni/Deobandi deny this charge, we won't believe such liars who live with Taqiyyah all the time.
Off course our Prophet sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam didn't teach us to be Liars like Jews, Taqiyyah is the gift Allah has given to shias from Shaytaan.
And we openly declare the one as Kafir who believes that the present Quran is not as it was descent on Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam. All such narrations found in Muslims' (Sunnis') sources which claim that there are some additions or short comings in the present Quran are interpreted by Sunni scholars in the way that Tahreef in Quran can't be established.

I again challenge you that you can't find a single sunni scholar who believed/s in Tahreef of Quran as shias' predecessors held this filthy 'aqeedah.

Ratatosk
20th July 2005, 07:17
Salam Debater,

Strangely, I haven't found any "Shi'a Qur'an". Nor any "Sunni Qur'an", for that matter. All that I've seen are the same.
Off course our Prophet sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam didn't teach us to be Liars like Jews, Taqiyyah is the gift Allah has given to shias from ShaytaanPlease stop this. I don't know why you post the way you do, but in my book it doesn't resemble civil or tactful discourse by any stretch of the imagination. Slander should not be tolerated in any forum. It certainly is not tolerated here. Please refrain from derogatory, sweeping statements that do not have any other function than to ridicule, incite or defame. I will not tolerate such behaviour, by any member. Consider this a heads-up.

Btw, isn't it up to Allah(swt) whether someone is a Kafir or not?

wasalam

Debater
20th July 2005, 14:39
Salam Debater,

Strangely, I haven't found any "Shi'a Qur'an". Nor any "Sunni Qur'an", for that matter. All that I've seen are the same.
Wa alaikum salam

According to their beliefs Imam 'Ali collected/compiled and authored the untampered and real Quran with which he didn't provied to the Ummah because of the fear/oppressions of First 3 Caliphs and that real Quran was 3 or 4 times bigger than this present Quran and that real Quran was passed on to the Imams of shias and finally it reached Imam Mahdi and Imam Mahdi at the age of 5 disappeared with that real Quran some 1300 years ago and till Imam Mahdi reappears shias have been commanded to read the same Quran as Sunnis have.
Please note that all this account has been taken from shias own source (Usool Kafi, which is as authentic for shias as is Bukhari for sunnis).

This is the reason why you haven't seen the shia-Quran because Imam Mahdi hasn't yet reappeared.


Please stop this. I don't know why you post the way you do, but in my book it doesn't resemble civil or tactful discourse by any stretch of the imagination. Slander should not be tolerated in any forum. It certainly is not tolerated here. Please refrain from derogatory, sweeping statements that do not have any other function than to ridicule, incite or defame. I will not tolerate such behaviour, by any member. Consider this a heads-up.
I agree with you but all my hareshness is due to their attacks on Quran, moreover the replies of boynice induced more harshness, anyways, I am sorry for that, and would try to be careful next time and calm and gentle too.


Btw, isn't it up to Allah(swt) whether someone is a Kafir or not?

wasalam
It is upto us to point out the enemies of Allah within our lines who deceive simple Muslims in the guise of Islam.
Allah has condemned Munafiqeen in Quran but if Munafiqeen openly propagate their deviant beliefs amongst Muslims, it becomes the responsibility of every slave of Allah to make his/her brothers and sisters aware of their malicious designs against Islam.

BOY-NICE
20th July 2005, 15:58
This is a lie.

1. Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulaini on the authority of Jabir that he heard Abu Ja'far saying: "Whoever claims from amongst the people that he has collected the entire Qur'an as Allah has revealed it is a liar. Only 'Ali and the Imams after him had collected it and memorized it as Allah had revealed it."

If its a lie (according to ur info) then all the Sunni scholars become gorup of lairs due to the fact that many of them recorded the same fact i.e Ali [as] compiled the Quran. Sources:
- Fat'hul Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v10,
p386
- al-fihrist, by (Ibn) an-Nadim, p30
- al-Itqan, by al-Suyuti, v1, p165
- al-Masahif, by Ibn Abi Dawud, p10
- Hilyatul awliya', by Abu Nu'aym, v1, p67
- al-Sahibi, by Ibn Faris, p79
- 'Umdatul Qari, by al-Ayni, v20, p16
- Kanzul Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v15, pp 112-113
- al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 9, Section 4, p197
- Ma'rifat al-Qurra' al-kibar, by al-Dhahabi, v1, p31


What else we are claiming?
We do say that shias' Imams recited the same Quran as we have though they believed that it was not the real Quran.
Isn't it strange?
Nope, it is not, les see again how:

The sources which say that they didnt believe in this Quran are not accepted and if they are to be accepted then Nawasib abandoning Munafiqat should also accept the traditions present in their "sahihs" about Sahaba reciting the Quran which were different than thhe current one !!!!


2. Kulaini has narrated on the authority of Salim ibn Salamah who said: "A person recited a portion of the Qur'an to Abu 'Abdullah (Imam Ja'far), and I heard that a few words of the Qur'an which the other people did not recite. At this, Imam Ja'far told him: "Refrain from reciting this way, recite like how the common people (sunnis and shias) recite it until the appearance of the saviour (Imam Mahdi). When he appears, recite the Qur'an to its fullest. I will then reveal the manuscript which 'Ali had written. It is the same manuscript, after writing it, he presented it to the people saying: "This is the Book of Allah as was revealed upon Muhammad (S.A.W.). I have gathered it from the tablets." The people told him: "We already have a manuscript in which the entire Qur'an has been collected. We are not in need of yours." At this, 'Ali told them: "By Allah, I will never show it to you after this day. I was charged to inform you of it after I collected it so that you may recite it." (Usul al-Kafi, Indian edition, pge 68)

The narrator if this hadith is Salim bin Samat or Salim bin Abi Salma and it will be sufficient to know about his value even if we refer to a book of Rijal only once. He has been termed weak by prominent Ulemah of Shia such as Abn Ghazairi, Najashi and Allamah Hilli [rh]. See Tanqeh al Maqal, Volume 2 page 4.

And even if we close our eyes from the weakness of these traditions still these traditions do not show that the version of Quran which will be brought by Imam Mahdi [as] will be different than the current Quran rather it means that the sequence and compilation of the version of Imam Mahdi [as] will be different than the present Quran.


3. Kulaini has again narrated on the authority of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Nasr who said: "Abu al-Hasan gave me a manuscript and told me to see what was written therein. I opened it, and under the verse "Those who disbelieve will not??.." were written the names of seventy Qurai****es along with the names of their father." (Usul al-Kafi, Indian edition, pge 680)

Such traditions which shows that the names of man and women were present in Quran ( which are not present today) are not reliable due to the fact that they have been recorded in the Hadith books as weak, Mursal and Marfu and all these three forms of Hadiths are unable to become authority. The first hadith has been taken from the traditions of Sheikh Saffar Qummi and Sheikh Ayashi and it is narrated from Ibrahim bin Umer and there is a difference of opinion about him that whether he was weak or reliable [see Tanqeh al Maqal, Volume 1 page 28].



4. Kulaini again narrates that Abu 'Abdulah said: "Jibra'il descended upon Muhammad with the following verse in this way: "O people of the Book, bring faith in what we have revealed regarding 'Ali, the magnificent light." (Ibid)

This tradition and other tradition like this being unreliable is proven from the clear statement of Allamah Baqar Majlisi. Allamah Majlisi in “Marat al Aqool” has stated in clear words that this tradition is weak. Therefore it is unacceptable.
Similarly Muhaddith Kashani in “Al Waafi, Volume 2 page 273” has also termed such hadiths as unauthentic [not Sahih]. Therefore there remains no need now to examine the chain of each and every tradition of such manner. Sheikh Bahai states:
“The matter which is common among people that the name of Ali has been deleted from Quran is unreliable in the eyes of Shia Ulema”Aala e Rehman, Volume 1 page 26

And if still Nawasib dont abandon their innate hatred towards Shias then they should also pass edict of Kufr against their Imams who clearly stated that the name of Ali [as] were present in some verses. REfs:

1.Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 5 page 192, Surah Ahzab verse 25
2.Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani, page 157, chapter 21, verse 25
3.Ma`arij al Nabuwat, Zikr ghazwah Khandaq

Allamah A`lusi writes in Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani:
Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Ibn Masud that: “We used to recite this verse as: "and enough was Allah for the believers in their fight 'via Ali ibn Abi Talib'.”

many more !!


Allamah Ali ibn Ibrahim AI-Qummi - one of the early Shi'ite commentators of the Quran said concerning this verse:

'The Imam said: 'The words: "The family of Muhammed" were also revealed along with "the family of Ale Imraan." They (referring to the Companions of the Prophet S.A.W.) removed the words "The family of Muhammad" from the original text (Al-Qummi's commentary:308). The allegation of removing the words preempts any possibility of abrogation. It is clear that the commentary is accusing the Companions of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) of distorting the Quran.

First of all traditions which implies Tahrif in Quran are considered deem accorrding to Shias but a dose for Nawasib that same tradition is also present in their text as well.

Allamah Thalabi is the author of renowned commentary of Quran i.e “Al kashf-wal bayan an tafseer al Quran” in which he writes about the verse 33 of surah Aal e Imran.

“Abi Dail narrates that in the Quran of Ibn Masud he saw word “Aal e Muhammad” [descendants of Muhammad] written after the words ‘Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of 'Imran’.”

I hope Nawasib will abandon their MUnafiqat and will issue takfeer against their scholars as well!!!!

BOY-NICE
20th July 2005, 16:17
This is another lie.

First of all we don't have narrations of Tahrif in Quran, the only narrations we have, imply that some verses of Quran were cancelled and new verses replaced them (the concept of Nasikh and Mansukh), though a minority of Muslims doesn't accept even these narrations due to certain reasons.

This is another Munafiqat !!
Tell me which of the single Sunni references i cited about Tahreef in Quran talks about Nasikh Mansukh ?????
As for the reason you have due to which people dont accept those traditions similarly Shia Ulema dont accept shia traditions which implies tahrif as well. Now you cannot choose one thing for your self and prevent another from it !!!



The point is that there is not a single Sunni who believes that the present Quran (which we have with us) is not as it was descent on Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam, on the other hand

What about the ulema like Suyuti, Bukhari, Muslim, Abd al Razzak etc etc whom i quoted and who recorded traditions in their text which clearly implies Tahreef in Quran ????? Why do Nawasib close their eyes when such names are cited to them ????






And of you are adamant to make such traditions to be true in one sect then you will have to choose same for your sect as well.


Off course we don't have narrations of such kind as you have with clearly describe that the present Quran is tampered/changed.

What about the traditions i cited ? Are they telling the sweet stories for children ??? double Standards !!


The above is another lie.
Shias claim that they accept only those narrations which are in accordance with Quran but they simply lie about it.
They accept every narration which is against Quran and based on those filthy narrations their predecessors e.g. Ibrahim Qummi, Baqir Majlisi (with whom Khomeni was so impressed), Nuri Tibrisi and all of them (except the 4 Taqiyiites) have had beliefs that the Quran was changed by the first 3 Khalifahs of Sunnis.

Another stubborn Nasibi Munafiqat !
If everyone here is free to say any useless thnig then I can also say that Nawasib also accept every thing against quran !!!
As for the traditions which says that Quran was changed by the caliphs then Nawasib shud issue takfeer against Ayesha, Ibn Abbas etc who clearly pointed out mistakes in the Mushaf e Uthman.
refs:
1.Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 page 246, Surah Nisa
2.Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 373 by Ibn Hajar Asaqlani
etc...


I already have mentioned in the first post of this thread that Shaykh Suduq is one of the 4 Taqiyiites (those who lie to deceive Muslims) who proclaimed that they believed in the authenticity of Quran.

Nasibi understanding is not accepted by Muslims !


Liars!
Baqir Majlisi also believes in Tahreef of Quran.

Munafiqat !
I cited the belief of Allamah Baqir Majlisi. Now if mind is efftected by Nasibism then no cure !


Anyhow the challenge remains at its own place that if shias are so nice and so good that they all believe that the present Quran is 100% intact and complete and authentic and unaltered then they must declare that those of their predecessors who had such beliefs against Quran (e.g. Ibrahim Qummi, Baqir Majlisi, Nuri Tibrisi, Maqbool Dehlavi) were all Kafir.

para phrasing the statement !

Anyhow the challenge remains at its own place that if Nawasib are so nice and so good that they all believe that the present Quran is 100% intact and complete and authentic and unaltered then they must declare that those of their predecessors who had such beliefs against Quran while they narrated/recorded traditions which implies tahreef in Quran (e.g. Bukhari, Muslim, Suyuti, Abd Razaak, Suleman Sajistani, Abu Daud, Ibn Majah, Qurtubi, Tabari, Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri Deobandi etc etc)
were all Kafir

!!!

BOY-NICE
20th July 2005, 16:42
1. Nasibi is a term used by shias for Sunnis. They call them Nasibis because they give the First 3 Caliphs higher rank than Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu. Morever they regard Hadhrat Ameer Ma'aviyah radhiyAllahu 'anhu as Khalifah of Muslims and a pious Sahabi.
Another reason to call Sunnis nasibi is that they don't regard Yazid bin Ma'aviyah as a Kafir as shias believe him to be.


Extreme lack of Knowledge !
Nasibi are those who prefer Muawia bin Hinda voer Ali bin Abi Talib [as] and those who fought Ali [as]. Shia do not call Sunnis as Nawasib rather Sunnis themselves have issued takfeer against them and their scholars like Muhadith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi comapares them with dogs etc so there is a difference between the two !
As for Yazeed la, both Shia And Sunnis regard him as Fasiq Fajir etc but there are not many clear statements about him being a clear Kaafir rather such disucssions are based on his bad deeds. but thats diff topic !!!


2. I leave the above issue of 'Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahmeem' to my Sunni brothers, as it is the matter of fiqh and no one of us believes that this has been added to Quran by anyone.

Why the Munafiqat here ??? Why not to issue takfeeeer against Ulema who had different views about a verse of Holy Quran i.e whether its a part of Quran or not ??? WHERE THE FAVOURITE DEMAND OF NAWASIB TO ISSUE TAKFEER SGAINST sHIA SCHOLARS GOES WHEN SUCH TRADITIONS ARE SHOWN TO THEM FROM THEIR OWN IMAMS ???? Double Standards !!!


Before answering to this question, I would ask you a question:
1. Can you prove from a single statement of Suyuti that he believed in Tahreef of Quran?

2. Did, on the basis of the above narration, he expressed any of his views that the present Quran is not complete because of the deaths of those Sahabah?

If you provide us with a single statement, not only from Suyuti but from any of the Non-Shia (see, I am not using the word of Sunni, as even Isma'ilis are not as Infidel as these rejectors of Quran are) that the present Quran is incomplete because some of its letters or words or so were lost and they couldn't be collected, then we openly will call them Kafir.
Just try it!!

Nasibi Tactics are not required here !! Tell me why your Imams spend time on collecting thousands of hadiths and compiled "sahihs" ? To throw them away at once ? No ! Such Hadith books portrays the belief of the author who recorded such traditions in their prestigious books while deeming them "sahih" !!!
Such Hadith Books were compiled so that followers can take benefit from the matter inside.

Therefore even if there is no statement by the authors themselves, they recording of such statements and deeming them "sahih" is sufficient to tell the sotry !!!


Now I am going to comment on the above narration:
Even if we accept this narration to be sahih (authentic) as basically Suyuti has a great inclination towards Tashaiyu' (he accepts shias' narrations a lot), the above narration doesn't prove anything against Quran, as not all sahabah were killed in that mission. Their number who recited, meomorised and wrote Quran were in thousands and not every Sahabi were killed in that mission against Musaylmah, so only idiots or Kuffar would claim that due to the death of those Sahabah part of Quran was lost with them.

lol ! your caliph Umer considered it a severe danger of loosing the Quran in that war due to the fact that large number of Qurra were killed in that.
[see Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509].

And by the way i didnt ask your "commentary" on the statement. that was a clear statement by your beloved Imams/ Sahaba. Now you can issue takfeer is you like else no need to cover their sin!



The narrators/transmitters are responsible for narrations which they attribute to Sahabah or Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam.
As I pointed out, in all such narrations which imply tampering in Quran are from shia sources (shia narrators or at least the people of Kufah and Khurasaan etc.).
Shias, in the guise of Taqiyyah have mixed lots of their lies with our hadith sources, that is why one must reject all narrations from shias even if some of them are in accordance with those of Muslims.

Again a Nasibi Munafiqat !

The Sahih Bukhari is deemed authentic book after Quran in Sunni school.
You are the one who always shout to adhere to Sahaba as all Sahaba as like stars etc etc. Now Sahaba clearly testified that what they used to recite in Quran is not found in the present Quran and you are advacing pathetic replies and explainations !
Anyway ! i can understand your frustration!
But remem there are several other traditions like this in your Saha Satta , are all of them from Shias ? Then why do you deem such books to be most authentic after Quran which are filled with Shias ? pathetic !!!


1. Though I don't believe in such narrations personally but most of the Sunnis do accept them but they interpret them in a number of ways.

2. I have to repeat again and again because you repeat things again and again, and my answer to your question is that you can't point out a single scholar of Muslims (including Imam Muslim and others) who held such heretic beliefs against Quran as shias' predecessors had.
Collecting a narration is one thing and on the basis of narration making an anti Islamic belief is another thing.

3. Just for your amusement, check the sanad of this narration as well. You must find a shia-touch in it.

1. Who cares whether you believe or not! As for Sunnis, yes they do believe in it and if some of them interpretates such "sahih" traditions which implies tahreef in Quran in different ways then same is the case in Shia mazhab. Therefore Nawasib shall not create tensions between Sunni and Shia treatment of such traditions.

2. I wont repeate this time i have given answer of this lame excuse above.

3. And yet bunch of these books are the most authentic books after quran and are "sahih" !
A pathetic and ignorant reply one must say!!!

Debater
20th July 2005, 19:28
Extreme lack of Knowledge !
Nasibi are those who prefer Muawia bin Hinda voer Ali bin Abi Talib [as] and those who fought Ali [as].
Alhamdu Lillah I have exposed munafiqeen who always claim that they do respect Mothers of Believers, but one can clearly seen the above official statement that he and his nation regard those as Nasibi (which means worse than Kuffaar) who fought their Imam 'Ali and Muslims should know that those who fought Imam 'Ali are:

1. Ummul Momineen 'Aishah Siddiqah radhiyAllahu 'anha
2. Saiyidina Talha radhiyAllahu 'anhu (one from 'ashrah of mubashirah)
3. Saiyidina Zubayr radhiyAllahu 'anhu (one from 'ashrah of mubashirah)
4. Saiyidina Ameer Ma'aviyah radhiyAllahu 'anhu (agreed Khalifah of all Muslims including Sahabah)
5. Saiyidina 'Amr Ibn Al-'Aas radhiyAllahu 'anhu (conqueror of Misr/Egypt)
6. and others

Now this boynice has accepted in this forum that he is a rafidhi, an enemy of Allah and His Messengers.

Not only this, the truth is what I have posted in the thread

http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?t=1703&page=3&pp=15

in post No. 42. that they hate all Sahabah except 3, those who supported Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu in wars of Jamal and Siffin.


Shia do not call Sunnis as Nawasib rather there is a difference between the two !
Time to expose boynice!

In the same thread: http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?t=1703&page=3&pp=15
post number 41, our beloved Boy-Nice says:

Debater if you have been taught these misconceptions by Nawasib then you should seek to know the truth rather depending on Nasibi mullahs..

One more proof which goes against our sweet Boy-Nice:
http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?t=1703&page=4&pp=15
post number 47

Its the filthy Nawasib who have been spreading misconceptions and propagands against Shias all over the world and they have successfully left behinf Jews who were deemed champion in this field !!

Our Muslim brothers and sisters should know that dear Boy-Nice is calling our Imams and scholars as Nasibis, because I have produced verdicts of Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shafa'i, Imam Malik and lots of great Imams and scholars of Ahlus Sunnah that shias are out of the fold of Islam and boynice claims that he doesn't regard sunnis as Nasibis.
Isn't it an open lie and hypocricy?

How can shias call us Muslims while they call our Imams and leaders as Nasibis?


As for Yazeed la, both Shia And Sunnis regard him as Fasiq Fajir etc but there are not many clear statements about him being a clear Kaafir rather such disucssions are based on his bad deeds. but thats diff topic !!!
The killers of Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu 'anhu were shias themselves. The people of Kufah (so-called shias of 'Ali) invited Hadhrat Husain to Kufah and tempted him to go against the Khalifah of Muslim (Yazid bin Ma'aviyah), and when Hadhrat Husayn arrived near to Kufah, these shias of 'Ali, on the foot steps of their predecessors ('Abdullah ibn Sabah and Malik Ashtar) deceived Hadhrat Husain and betrayed him. The master mind in the murder of Hadhrat Husain was Shimr who was the brother in law and special body guard and close companion of Imam 'Ali and the one who issued orders to kill Hadhrat Husain was 'Ubedullah ibn Ziyad Shia who was another close companion of Imam 'Ali whom Imam 'Ali himself appointed as the Governor of Kufah.
Now one can see, the killers of Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu 'anhu were shias, but to deceive Ummah these shias have turned the focus of their crimes towards Yazid bin Ma'aviyah though we don't have any evidence against him that it was him who issued orders to kill Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu 'anhu.
But lying and slandering is the full time job of shias, you can visit their Holy Site, shiachat.com, and you will find them engaged in tabarra (abusing Sahabah, Ummahat-al-Momineen and scholars of Ahlus Sunnah) all the time.
It is so unfortunate that shias hijacked the history and it was shias who first started to author the so-called History of Islam as the major portion of this history is based on lies upon Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam and false accusations upon Sahabah and their followers.
Not only history but books of seerah and tafsir of Quran are also loaded with fabricated narrations from shias.
And the most cursed and slandered personality in Islam is of Saiyidina Ameer Ma'aviyah radhiyAllahu 'anhu and after him his son Yazid bin Ma'aviyah. Shias have fabricated hundreds of lies against both of them.

And those who want to know the position of Ahlus Sunnah with respect to Yazid ibn Ma'aviyah should consult scholars, off course we don't curse him and we don't believe in fabricated lies which have been spread by shias against him and the Caliphate of Banu Umaiyah.


Why the Munafiqat here ??? Why not to issue takfeeeer against Ulema who had different views about a verse of Holy Quran i.e whether its a part of Quran or not ??? WHERE THE FAVOURITE DEMAND OF NAWASIB TO ISSUE TAKFEER SGAINST sHIA SCHOLARS GOES WHEN SUCH TRADITIONS ARE SHOWN TO THEM FROM THEIR OWN IMAMS ???? Double Standards !!!
There is a consensus of Ummah that there are 6666 verses in the Holy Quran, so you must be lying because lying (taqiyyah) is your religion, if there is really a difference of opinion as if Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem is part of every chapter or of only the first chapter then this is nothing but an issue of jurisprudence, as all of them in any case accept it as the part of Quran, not like shias who believe (I am using the word believe, not saying that they have such narrations) that verses have been removed and added by the first 3 Caliphs of Muslims.

And why to issue fatwa of Kufr against our scholars who never had such heretic beliefs that the present Quran is not as it was descent on Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam.
As I said before, recording a narration is a different thing, as our hadith scholars like (Bukhari or Suyuti etc) have recorded hadiths because they regarded such narrators as reliable or trustworthy and the fact is that they were humans and they could err, they only passed on what they received from some people and even if they deemed those narrations to be authentic, they didn't make their beliefs as if those narrations claim that the present Quran is fabricated rather all sunni scholars have interpreted those narrations in the context of Nasikh and Mansukh that there were some verses Allah descent according to the need of time and then cancelled them and replaced them with new verses.


Nasibi Tactics are not required here !! Tell me why your Imams spend time on collecting thousands of hadiths and compiled "sahihs" ? To throw them away at once ? No ! Such Hadith books portrays the belief of the author who recorded such traditions in their prestigious books while deeming them "sahih" !!!
Such Hadith Books were compiled so that followers can take benefit from the matter inside.
All narrations are started like, so and so narrated this text from so and so and he narrated it from him and so on, which means that a narration is the record of an event which has been witnessed by a number of people (narrators/transmitters) and if Bukhari or Muslim accommodate these narrations in their collections (or sahihs) then they simply accept them on the basis of reliability of narrators which means that they accept the witness of those transmitters according to accepted principles of hadith. You can't claim that each and every narration found in the collection of a hadith scholar is the part of his beliefs. Moreover there are different meanings/interpretations of one hadith as understood by different brains.
For example the narrations found in sunni sources claiming that so and so verse or chapter is not found in the present Quran Muslims and shias both interpret them differently; We say that that verse or chapter would have been cancelled by Allah so it was not collected in the Book as ordered by Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam but shias say that that verse or chapter was removed by the First 3 Caliphs of Sunnis and so the present Quran is incomplete.
This is where shias get themselves turned out of Islam.


Therefore even if there is no statement by the authors themselves, they recording of such statements and deeming them "sahih" is sufficient to tell the sotry !!!
You need some schooling so that you can learn what the difference between authoring and compiling/recording is.
Books of hadiths are not intellectual creations of their compilers, they are simply collections of record with whom the compiler doesn't necessarily agree always.


lol ! your caliph Umer considered it a severe danger of loosing the Quran in that war due to the fact that large number of Qurra were killed in that.
[see Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509].
The hatred of Sahabah makes shias fools.
Off course, if Quran was not appeared in the form of a written book by then, it was really a danger that parts of it might be lost as many Huffaz (those who memorised Quran) were killed and people were continually going to Jihad.
The precautionary measure was to realise the seriousness of situation and so Saiyidina 'Umar Farooq radhiyAllahu 'anhu suggested Saiyidina Abu Bakr radhiyAllahu 'anhu to compile Quran.
(And what Imam 'Ali did, he compiled his Quran and gave that to the jins to hide it from his shias, because he knew that his shias are enemies of Quran)


And by the way i didnt ask your "commentary" on the statement. that was a clear statement by your beloved Imams/ Sahaba. Now you can issue takfeer is you like else no need to cover their sin!
There are no words of any Sahabi recorded directly in this world, so if there is some problem with the test of a narration we would criticise the narrator who narrated such narration.


Again a Nasibi Munafiqat !

The Sahih Bukhari is deemed authentic book after Quran in Sunni school.
You are the one who always shout to adhere to Sahaba as all Sahaba as like stars etc etc. Now Sahaba clearly testified that what they used to recite in Quran is not found in the present Quran and you are advacing pathetic replies and explainations !
Anyway ! i can understand your frustration!
1. Show me where I said that Sahabah are like stars?
2. I would enjoy more, if you got any ability of reasoning.


But remem there are several other traditions like this in your Saha Satta , are all of them from Shias ? Then why do you deem such books to be most authentic after Quran which are filled with Shias ? pathetic !!!
You find those of such kind which are not from shia narrators, I know this is so hard for you to do.

Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are called the most authentic books of hadiths compared to other books, this is because majority of their narrations are sound and authentic, but obviously they are man made books, they must have errors, Allah must make man mistakes otherwise man will claim to be infallible. (though idiots think that 12 men are infallible)


1. Who cares whether you believe or not! As for Sunnis, yes they do believe in it and if some of them interpretates such "sahih" traditions which implies tahreef in Quran in different ways then same is the case in Shia mazhab.
Give me a single interpretation from any recognised Sunni Scholar (don't tell us that Baqir Majlisi is a sunni scholar, it is us who decide who is renouned) whose interpretation of such narrations is the same as are the heretic beliefs of shias.


Therefore Nawasib shall not create tensions between Sunni and Shia treatment of such traditions.

2. I wont repeate this time i have given answer of this lame excuse above.

3. And yet bunch of these books are the most authentic books after quran and are "sahih" !
A pathetic and ignorant reply one must say!!!
Since you are debating with me and I haven't made any comment that Sahih Bukhari is the second authentic Book on earth after Quran. Off course I don't believe in that. There is no comparison of the transmission of Quranic verses with the transmission of any single hadith, so you should not graze from here and there in order to follow your Imams.

And tensions have been created by shias when they attacked the Caliphate system of Islam again and again, first time by murdering Saiyidina 'Uthman radhiyAllahu 'anhu, then their continuous conspiracies against the Caliphate of Banu Umaiyah, their inviting Halaku Khan to attack Baghdad and terminate the Abbasid Caliphate, Imam Meer Jafar (a.s.s) of Mesur (India) who betrayed Tipu Sultan, Imam Meer Sadiq (a.s.s) of Bengal who betrayed Nawab Sirajud Daula, General Agha Yahya Khan Durrani Shia who broke Pakistan, Northern Alliance of shias in Afghanistan who supported Christian-Invasion against Muslims, Shia-Conspiracy against Saddam Husain to fascilitate Christian-Invasion in Iraq and lots of such conspiracies committed by shias.
Not only this but with their abusive religious literature they hurt the religious emotions of Muslims, and responsible for sectarianism within Islamic Countries.

Ratatosk
20th July 2005, 19:33
Salam Debater/BOY-NICE,

You two: calm down.

There are to be no personal attacks on this forum. Not on my watch.

Address issues, not people.

I've mentioned this before. I will not mention it again.

wasalam

Debater
20th July 2005, 19:49
Ok sir/madam

BOY-NICE
21st July 2005, 12:44
Alhamdu Lillah I have exposed munafiqeen who always claim that they do respect Mothers of Believers, but one can clearly seen the above official statement that he and his nation regard those as Nasibi (which means worse than Kuffaar) who fought their Imam 'Ali and Muslims should know that those who fought Imam 'Ali are:

1. Ummul Momineen 'Aishah Siddiqah radhiyAllahu 'anha
2. Saiyidina Talha radhiyAllahu 'anhu (one from 'ashrah of mubashirah)
3. Saiyidina Zubayr radhiyAllahu 'anhu (one from 'ashrah of mubashirah)
4. Saiyidina Ameer Ma'aviyah radhiyAllahu 'anhu (agreed Khalifah of all Muslims including Sahabah)
5. Saiyidina 'Amr Ibn Al-'Aas radhiyAllahu 'anhu (conqueror of Misr/Egypt)
6. and others


Now this boynice has accepted in this forum that he is a rafidhi, an enemy of Allah and His Messengers.

First of all no Shia claim that he/she respect those who fought our Imams , the Ahlulbait [as].

All Praise to Allah [swt] who made the Nasibi admit that their beloved ones had audacity to faught Ali [as]. And the gravity to fight/curse Ali [as] can be found in authentic prophetic traditions.

BTW Rafdis means those who do "Rafd" i.e to reject the caliphate of your caliphs and it has nothing to do with Allah [swt]. And if it is so then Fatima Zahra [as] also clearly rejected to follow the caliphate , now the edict is on the Nawasib.


Our Muslim brothers and sisters should know that dear Boy-Nice is calling our Imams and scholars as Nasibis, because I have produced verdicts of Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shafa'i, Imam Malik and lots of great Imams and scholars of Ahlus Sunnah that shias are out of the fold of Islam and boynice claims that he doesn't regard sunnis as Nasibis.
Isn't it an open lie and hypocricy?

Again the pathetic Nasibi attitude. Quote me where did a call these individuals are "Naisibi" ?????

And as for the Fatawa of these people then it bear no value for us since history is fiilled with the fatwa they issued against eachother !!!



The killers of Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu 'anhu were shias themselves. The people of Kufah (so-called shias of 'Ali) invited Hadhrat Husain to Kufah and tempted him to go against the Khalifah of Muslim (Yazid bin Ma'aviyah), and when Hadhrat Husayn arrived near to Kufah, these shias of 'Ali, on the foot steps of their predecessors ('Abdullah ibn Sabah and Malik Ashtar) deceived Hadhrat Husain and betrayed him. The master mind in the murder of Hadhrat Husain was Shimr who was the brother in law and special body guard and close companion of Imam 'Ali and the one who issued orders to kill Hadhrat Husain was 'Ubedullah ibn Ziyad Shia who was another close companion of Imam 'Ali whom Imam 'Ali himself appointed as the Governor of Kufah.


Mullahs who fed these things to you didnt tell you that the killers of Imam Hussain [as] like Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad are deemed as the "thiqa" and most authentic narrators of hadeeth in your own sect.

, Ibn Hajr Asqalani states:

“Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad ibn Abi Sufyan…Abu Sabir took traditions from him…he narrated traditions on the authority of Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Mu’awiya, Maqil bin Sayyar and Banu Judha, Ibn Ameer. Hasan Basri and Abu Maleek bin Asma took traditions from him”. (Tahbeel al Munfaath buzwahdh rijaal al Muthaa al rijjaatha page 180).


It is so unfortunate that shias hijacked the history and it was shias who first started to author the so-called History of Islam as the major portion of this history is based on lies upon Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam and false accusations upon Sahabah and their followers.

ignorance continues.

Sunni Ulema Shams al Hind Allamah Shibli Numani:

"Traditions were first formed in book form in the days of Ummayads, who, for about 90 years, throughout their vast dominions stretching from the Indus in India to Asia Minor and Spain, insulted the descendents of Fatima and got Ali openly censured in Friday sermons at the mosques. They had hundreds of saying coined to eulogize Amir Muawiya (taken from Siratun Nabi, By Allamah Shibli Numani English translation, Volume 1 page 60).

Now, lets see who started this tradition of writing:

"Amir Muawiya was the first to encourage writings" (taken from Siratun Nabi, By Allamah Shibli Numani English translation, Vol 1 page 18).


And the most cursed and slandered personality in Islam is of Saiyidina Ameer Ma'aviyah radhiyAllahu 'anhu and after him his son Yazid bin Ma'aviyah. Shias have fabricated hundreds of lies against both of them.

Traditions in the condemnation of these two "noble" personalities are found in the "sahih" sources of Ahle Sunnah. Now dont tell me that your ulema used to call the shia sources as "sahih" !


There is a consensus of Ummah that there are 6666 verses in the Holy Quran,

there are numbers of opinions from the ulema of Ahle Sunnah about the number of verses as well but leave it for a while..



if there is really a difference of opinion as if Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem is part of every chapter or of only the first chapter then this is nothing but an issue of jurisprudence, as all of them in any case accept it as the part of Quran, QUOTE]

The Sunni Imams clearly rejected a verse to be part of Quran then how come a fiqha issue ? If so then the Shia sources are Fiqha issue as well and Nawasib should not bring their usual munafiqat here. (double standards).



All narrations are started like, so and so narrated this text from so and so and he narrated it from him and so on, which means that a narration is the record of an event which has been witnessed by a number of people (narrators/transmitters) and if Bukhari or Muslim accommodate these narrations in their collections (or sahihs) then they simply accept them on the basis of reliability of narrators which means that they accept the witness of those transmitters according to accepted principles of hadith. You can't claim that each and every narration found in the collection of a hadith scholar is the part of his beliefs. Moreover there are different meanings/interpretations of one hadith as understood by different brains.
For example the narrations found in sunni sources claiming that so and so verse or chapter is not found in the present Quran Muslims and shias both interpret them differently; We say that that verse or chapter would have been cancelled by Allah so it was not collected in the Book as ordered by Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam but shias say that that verse or chapter was removed by the First 3 Caliphs of Sunnis and so the present Quran is incomplete.
This is where shias get themselves turned out of Islam.

Those people took trouble to travel here and there in order to record the most authentic traditions from the Sahaba (they loved and followed) so that their followers may drive the deen from the text. Now there are many traditions in such "sahih" sources according to which the present Quran is not the same which was recited by Sahaba and it has got mistakes, additions and deletions as well. The school of the auther can be known from the sources which he recoreded and yet he called them "sahih".


Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are called the most authentic books of hadiths compared to other books, this is because majority of their narrations are sound and authentic, but obviously they are man made books, they must have errors,

Thats the words which i wanted you to utter so that if you have some decency in urself you shud realize the fact that Shia also advance same notion for their books as well. We do not regard the traditionns about tahrif to be true rather we deem them fabricated. Now if you can advance such notion then your opponents reserves certain rights as well.


Allah must make man mistakes otherwise man will claim to be infallible. (though idiots think that 12 men are infallible)

Now we believe that Allah [swt] is capable to make his chosen people as perfect ones and those who dont believe in such capability of Allah [swt] call this idiotic but thats their own ill fate what we can say :)

Debater
21st July 2005, 18:07
The Question which Boy-Nice never Answered

I didn't ask your religion, I just said that Baqir Majlisi, Ibrahim Qummi, Nuri Tibrisi, Maqbool Dehlavi, Kashani, Ne'matullah Jazayeri and all early predecessors of shi'ism and Ayatullas of the present time publicly declare their 'aqeedah that they believe in Tahreef of Quran.
See I don't claim that Koleni is out of Islam because he collected such narrations in his book.

Now would you call Baqir Majlisi, Ibrahim Qummi, Nuri Tibrisi, Maqbool Dehlavi, Kashani, Ne'matullah Jazayeri and all of such Ayatullas as Kafir?

If you can't call them Kafir, or at least their beliefs to be heretic, then could we know why?

BOY-NICE
21st July 2005, 19:31
You should say it like, all shias call those Nasibi and Munafiq and Kafir who were attacked by Imam 'Ali (as in Jamal Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu advanced to attacke the sacred Army of Ummul Momineen and in Siffin Hadhrat 'Ali advanced to attack the Army of Hadhrat Ameer Ma'aviyah radhiyAllahu 'anhu in Shaam (Syria).

And by calling these pious slaves of Allah Kafir, Shias get turned out of the pale of Islam according to Quran.

According to Sunni scholars there are certain definitions for Nasibis and its not that all those who fought Ali [as] are deemed as Nasibis.

"Tadhrib al Radhi" provides the following definition:

"Nasibi ideology means hating Ali and preferring Mu'awiya".
Tadhrib al Radhi" page 311 Allamah Jalaladeen as-Suyuti.

but there are some other definitions too which bring all the those who had hatred towards Ali[as] as Nasibis:

"Nawasib are those who hate Hadhrath Ali, and embrace that hatred as part of their faith"
Lisan al Arab" page 762, by Ibn Manzur.


Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu was neither our God nor a Prophet or an Angel. Majority of Sahabah and whole Ummah didn't support him except a few Companions .

No body said Ali [as] is God or prophet or angel. If majority of Sahabah didnt obey him then it was their own fault. Majority didnt adhered to Harun [as] as well so no wonder.



The first voice against these Munafiqeen of Kufah and Basrah was from Ummul Momineen and their blessed fellows (Saiyidina Talha and Zubayr radhiyAllahu 'anhu), they demanded Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu to punish the Rebles of Islamic Caliphate or at least punish the murderers of Khalifah, but unfortunately Hadhrat 'Ali couldn't do that,

oh yeah, after agitating against Uthman they went out to demand revenge . wow !
And now you accuse Ali [as] for not taking actions against so called rebels ! how he cud have accepted the demands of those who were themselves in the agitation against Uthman.



Same thing happened when Hadhrat 'Ali attacked Hadhrat Ameer Ma'aviyah and the war ended without any result with lots of casualties but later on Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu agreed to divide the Islamic State between himself and Hadhrat Ameer Ma'aviyah radhiyAllahu 'anhu.

The first thing to answer is who gave Muawya bin Hinda right to rebel against your 4rth caliph ??? Where goes the fatwa of kufr now ???


So you are officially admitting/confessing that you and all shias are Rafidis (out of Islam).

Thats shere stupidity. Rafdis are the rejectors of the 3 caliph . And how does it make one Kaafir ??? Is to follow the three caliphs incumbent on one in Islam ? if yes then whats the fatwa against all those who rebel and fought your 4rth caliph ????


Fatimah radhiyAllahu 'anhu is a woman and in the Islamic Caliphate System, Bai'ah of Women is not taken, so you are only joking here.
But since your books are full of such jokes, you are obliged to do that.

where did i mention the bayah of Fatima Zahra [as] ?? And as for jokes, you wont find better than bukhari where Moses hit angel a full hand and sometimes Moses's clothes were taken away etc etc..



You can't find any evidence in this connection from our sound sources that Fatimah radhiyAllahu 'anhu rejected the Khilafah of Saiyidina Abu Bakr radhiyAllahu 'anhu or didn't obey him (though she wasn't covered in the oath of allegiance to the best of my knowledge).

I believe this fact will make you to do Matam that Hadhrat 'Ali or Hadhrat Fatimah didn't do anything against the decision of Hadhrat Abu Bakr that Fadak was not the right of Hadhrat Fatimah.
Can you point out any disobeyance from Fatimah or 'Ali in this regard, my dear?[/




As for pointing out disobeyance then the incident of fadak is suffice to cite. As per you one who rejects caliph is Rafdi hence Kaafir, then FatimaZahra [as] clearly rejected the decision of a caliph not only that but she died angry of him.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:

Narrated Ayesha(mother of the believers),'After the death of Allah's Apostle Fatima,the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her the share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting)which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "the holy prophet(saww) had said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of the Holy prophet(saww).


When Fatima Zahra [as] and Ali [as] testified that Fadak was their right then people who are not even compared to the shoe dust of Ahlulbait [as] may shout how much they want but the facts will never change.

So now you better do Matam if you like. : )


Off course you called them Nasibi Mullas after I quoted Fatwas of Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shafi', Imam Malik and lots of others, but lying and cheating is an ibadat in your religion so you can easily lie in this forum.

Since deception is the innate habit of Nawasib therefore i m not surprised by your mis-quoting of my sentences.



Off course their fatawa don't bear any value for shias, but their Fatawa are taken as Authority for Muslims because all Muslim Scholars of the past and present have issued such verdicts against shi'ism and this is an agreement/consensus of Ummah, no Muslim can go against Ijma' of Ummah.

Then why not to take the fatawa they issued against each other ??? Any wisdom behind it or usual Munafiqat ?


Everytime you speak, you speak a lie, and once again you claim that Ibn Hajr regards 'Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad as thiqah.
Show me the word thiqah in the quote you have provided with.

Read my post again. I pointed out the fact that the main "killers" of Imam Hussain [as] are deemed Thiqa and some other people have relied on them to take hadiths from them . Thiqa includes killers like Sa`d bin Abi Waqas etc and ulema took traditions from those killers without any hesitation like Ibn Ziyad.


What is the name of that source where those traditions have been compiled?
What is the source of the above quote from Shibli Nomani's book?
What if the above quote is from shias?
Give us the complete sanad of the above quote.

Shibli Naumani the lover and strong defender of caliph umer was a scholar who wrote stuff from his research. No Nasibi demand sources from Naumani when he praise his caliph but when it comes to Muawiya bin Hinda then they recall all the excuses.


Your posts explain properly that you are a shia.
Ameer Ma'aviyah radhiyAllahu 'anhu encouraged traditions, in your opinion the traditions about cursing 'Ali and his descendents are the Books of History?

Pathetic thinking!
That doesnt mean he remained there till centuries and monitored what people were writing. He fabricated things in his era for himself and other enemies of Allah [swt] like Abu Sufyan etc.

I know you wont understand this way! Take a example:

"According to you your books contain Shia people as well then how come hundereds of traditions in praise of the enemies of Ahlulbait [as] ??"



Why don't you take some assistance from your learned Ayatullas in order to have a debate with me?
Or all of them are the photo copy of yours?

No Shia need assistance from learned scholars to combat ignorant Nasibis. We are suffice alhamdulilah.




First of all, I don't believe narrations from shias (shia narrators) and undoubtedly the above quotes are from shias, Siratun Nabi itself is based upon books of History and Seerah and
the first Seerah was written by Ibn Ishaq who is alleged to be a Shia.
The first Book of History was written by Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Jareer Tabari. According to Ibn Hiban and others he was a shia and according to Dhahabi and Ibn Hajr he held tashaiyu'.
Mas'udi and Ibn Hishaam who came after them are also shias.

Some more feeding by Mullahs ? ok. i will humiliate your Tabari accusation in a separate post.




there are numbers of opinions from the ulema of Ahle Sunnah about the number of verses as well but leave it for a while..

Why?
Because this will attack another foundation of shi'ism?

lol. read again what i said: I talked about the ulema of Ahle Sunnah who had different views about the number of verses in Quran which can easily question their iman on Quran and you are saying that it wud affect Shia Mazhab ! Hilarious !



You can't understand what fiqh is because your Imams didn't compile any fiqh and the alleged fiqh of Jafar Sadiq is a fabrication of shias, which has nothing to do with Jafar Sadiq rahimahullah. He was a pious Momin and shias used his name after his death and fabricated lies attributing them to him.

If you are from Salafi/Wahabi movements started by British then you wont understand the high status of Imam Jafar al Sadiq [as] in fiqha while Sunni Imams like Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik learnet fiqha from Imam Jaffar Sadiq [as] as well !!!


I think this would be enough for you:
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem is not practically included to any surah / chapter of Quran. You can find this out when you open the Book of Allah.
But this is also true that in all copies of Quran, Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahmeem is written on top of every surah.

Incorrect and lack of knowledge.
Imam Shafi believed Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem as the part of Surah Fatiha and of every surah of Quran.


Now if some people think that Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem is not the part of Quran then clearly, it is practically not included to any surah as part of it. And if other people think that Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem is part of every surah or the first surah then obviously Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem is always on top of every Surah.
Both views can be taken into consideration and this difference of opinion can't imply that those who hold different views are out of Islam, but this issue comes under jurisprudence.

You tried best but sorry to say it was useless.
At one side we have Imam who did not deem a verse to be the part of Quran and at anther side we see a Imam deeming the same verse as the part of Quran.
Simple is that !!




Those people took trouble to travel here and there in order to record the most authentic traditions from the Sahaba (they loved and followed) so that their followers may drive the deen from the text.


It seems as if shias bore all their travelling expenses, that is why you look disappointed.

Not a good reply! Facts remain same!


I didn't ask your religion, I just said that Baqir Majlisi, Ibrahim Qummi, Nuri Tibrisi, Maqbool Dehlavi, Kashani, Ne'matullah Jazayeri and all early predecessors of shi'ism and Ayatullas of the present time publicly declare their 'aqeedah that they believe in Tahreef of Quran.
See I don't claim that Koleni is out of Islam because he collected such narrations in his book.

Now would you call Baqir Majlisi, Ibrahim Qummi, Nuri Tibrisi, Maqbool Dehlavi, Kashani, Ne'matullah Jazayeri and all of such Ayatullas as Kafir?

If you can't call them Kafir, or at least their beliefs to be heretic, then could we know why not?

You didnt ask but Nawasib like Sipah e Sahaba have always been shouting for it.
Anyway, my point remains same, your Sahih Imams collected Sahih Hadith and complied Sahihs which shows that Sahaba did not believe in the Quran we have today. Now thats the tahreef belief, which has been recorded in the principle books from which reliegion is derived and followed !!
simple is that!

So you shud first decalre all such people Kaafir before demanding things from others !



Where did Allah chose your Imams in Quran?
If you believe that Quran is the Book of Allah then find any appointments for your Imams in it.

I think i dont need to cite the verses according to which leaders,imams,guides are chosen/selected/appointed by Allah [swt] . Or do i ??



Now if there is not even the name of any of your 12 Imams in Quran, then there are only possibilities:

From where the names issue comes in ?? Do you have names of your caliph in Quran the disobedience of whom makes one Rafidi hence Kaafir (according to you) ???



1. Your Imams are Fake.
2. Quran is Fake.

Fake Imams are only those who are chosen by ordinary people.

Debater
21st July 2005, 23:07
According to Sunni scholars there are certain definitions for Nasibis and its not that all those who fought Ali [as] are deemed as Nasibis.
Did I demand you for sunnis' definitions?
I used your definition. Read it again:

Nasibi are those who prefer Muawia bin Hinda voer Ali bin Abi Talib [as] and those who fought Ali [as].

(post number:16)


No body said Ali [as] is God or prophet or angel. If majority of Sahabah didnt obey him then it was their own fault. Majority didnt adhered to Harun [as] as well so no wonder.
JEWS ARE ALSO MINORITY.
Know that?

This is our belief system, according to which the action which is performed by majority of Sahabah is an Authority (which is according to Quran).
And Majority of Sahabah and Majority of Muslims didn't give Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu their oath of allegiance except the people of Madinah (which didn't include Sahabah), Criminals/Rebels of Islamic Khilafat and a small group of Sahabah.

In other words Ummah didn't accept the Khilafat of Saiyidina 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu due to the Fitnah raised by shias of 'Abdullah ibn Saba Yahoodi.


oh yeah, after agitating against Uthman they went out to demand revenge . wow !
And now you accuse Ali [as] for not taking actions against so called rebels ! how he cud have accepted the demands of those who were themselves in the agitation against Uthman.
This is the treacherous way of shias that when they commit a crime, they put the blame of that crime to someone(s) whom Ahlus Sunnah don't/can't condemn.
For example, shias ('Ubedullah ibn Ziyad and Shimr, both were great Companions of Imam 'Ali) killed Saiyidina Husain, but shias put the blame of his murder upon Yazid bin Ma'aviyah.

Exactly like that, shias have fabricated lies which Ibn Jarir Tabari has collected in his so-called Tareekh (shia narrations can be caught so easily through the sanad) and according to such narrations Ummul Momineen and Saiyidina Talha and Zubayr ridhwanullahe 'alayhim ajma'een also didn't like Saiyidina 'Uthman radhiyAllahu 'anhu and they also wanted his removal, ma'athAllah.
This lie of shias is refuted by the circumstancial evidence that all these pious slaves of Allah fought against Jewish-Munafiqeen of Kufah and Basrah and Saiyidina Talha and Zubayr radhiyAllahu 'anhum were martyred in Jamal due to the conspiracies of Jewish-Munafiqeen.

Off course it was the murder of the Khalifah and not the murder of an ordinary person. These shias attacked the centre of Khilafat (Madinah), killed the Khalifah and according to the law of Quran and Sunnah, they deserved punishment, and the murderers of Khalifah deserved capital punishment. Unfortunately, Hadhrat 'Ali was badly hijacked by these Munafiqeen, exactly as Jews have hijacked America or American President, he couldn't do anything against these Munafiqeen and they kept playing with him.


The first thing to answer is who gave Muawya bin Hinda right to rebel against your 4rth caliph ??? Where goes the fatwa of kufr now ???
1. If in your religion, Ameer Ma'aviyah is Ma'aviyah bin Hind then what about Imam 'Ali? Is he 'Ali bin Fatimah?

2. Majority of Sahabah and Muslims didn't accept Hadhrat 'Ali to be Khalifah, he could be considered as an Interim-Khalifah after the murder of Hadhrat 'Uthman but his Caliphate couldn't be confirmed because he couldn't establish Religion. He couldn't punish the Rebels, rather he provided them with shelter.
So Hadhrat 'Ali was not the Khalifah of his time, for his own people.
He is regarded as our 4th Khalifah because we don't live in his time.


Thats shere stupidity. Rafdis are the rejectors of the 3 caliph . And how does it make one Kaafir ??? Is to follow the three caliphs incumbent on one in Islam ? if yes then whats the fatwa against all those who rebel and fought your 4rth caliph ????
As I explained above, Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu was not the Khalifah for his own people except a small group of Sahabah and big group of Criminals (Munafiqeen).

Rafidis are Non Muslims because of their heretic beliefs which I have explained in the other parallel thread.


where did i mention the bayah of Fatima Zahra [as] ?? And as for jokes, you wont find better than bukhari where Moses hit angel a full hand and sometimes Moses's clothes were taken away etc etc..
Since you like jokes, I think you would be amused much, when I show you holy narrations according to which Imam Ja'far Sadiq used to take bath naked in the presence of his slave, while smearing lime all over his body.
And holy narrations according to which Holy Imams have issued the licence of anal sex to shia-momineen.

Mohammad bin Tusi writes:

I inquired Abul Hasan Ridha (a.s) if a man does from behind his woman, he replied, ‘This is Halaal by one aayah (verse) of the Book of Allah and that is the saying of Lut (alayhis salam). These are my daughters which are pure / tidy for you, though Lut knew that his nation didn’t like the place of urination’.

(Tahthib-al-Ahkaam, volume 7, page 415)

‘Abdullah bin Abi Ya’fur says, ‘I inquired Abu ‘Abdullah Ja’far about a person who meets the woman from behind, he said, ‘No problem if the woman agrees’.

(Tahthib-al-Ahkaam, volume 7, page 460)


As for pointing out disobeyance then the incident of fadak is suffice to cite. As per you one who rejects caliph is Rafdi hence Kaafir, then FatimaZahra [as] clearly rejected the decision of a caliph not only that but she died angry of him.
A Rafidi is Kafir owing to his hatred towards Sahabah (as according to Quran, disbeliers get angry by Sahabah) and their rejecting the authenticity of Quran, regarding Zina as ibadat etc. etc.

As for Fatimah radhiyAllahu 'anhu, she wasn't the daughter of God (but shias give her the status as if she is the daughter of God), she had to obey the Khalifah, and even if she got angry at the decision of Khalifah, her anger couldn't bring anything to anyone.
Islamic laws are equal for everyone, irrespective of relations and status.


When Fatima Zahra [as] and Ali [as] testified that Fadak was their right then people who are not even compared to the shoe dust of Ahlulbait [as] may shout how much they want but the facts will never change.

So now you better do Matam if you like. : )
1. You didn't yet prove that Fatimah radhiyAllahu 'anhu and 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu are Ahl-al-Bayt according to Quran.
We don't believe in fairy tales of shi'ism.

2. They (Fatimah and 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu) were wrong in their demand of Fadak (they were mere humans not angels) after the Khalifah had explained why they couldn't have it.


Then why not to take the fatawa they issued against each other ??? Any wisdom behind it or usual Munafiqat ?
Show me the Fatwa, Imam Abu Hanifah issued against Imam Shafi' or Imam Ahmad or Imam Malik or vice versa.


Read my post again. I pointed out the fact that the main "killers" of Imam Hussain [as] are deemed Thiqa and some other people have relied on them to take hadiths from them.
Confirmed idiocy!
Give me the meaning of thiqah first of all and then show me where Ibn Hajr said he was thiqah.

There are narrations transmitted by liars for example majority of shias who narrated traditions in sunnis' sources have been called Kazzab (liars) by scholars of Rijaal. Off course there were many people who accepted narrations from liars, because they were mere humans and they were deceived by liars.
Another fact is that shias separated their so-called hadiths ages after Ahlus Sunnah started their hadith-collection.
At the time of Imam Malik and compilers of Sihaah (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi etc.) there was no Usool Kafi, so shia narrators fabricated narrations and provide with them to Muslim compilers of hadith, these shias always remained in the guise of taqiyyah and posed to be so pious and fearing Allah. This is quite natural, that if there was no Usool Kafir (or other shia book of hadith) then shia narrators piled their fabrications in Sunnis' Hadith Books which were created ages before shias started authoring their books.


Thiqa includes killers like Sa`d bin Abi Waqas etc and ulema took traditions from those killers without any hesitation like Ibn Ziyad.
You didn't prove him to be thiqah, and one reason they accepted narrations from him must be that he was one of the closest Companions of Imam 'Ali.


Shibli Naumani the lover and strong defender of caliph umer was a scholar who wrote stuff from his research. No Nasibi demand sources from Naumani when he praise his caliph but when it comes to Muawiya bin Hinda then they recall all the excuses.
Here you are debating with me, you shouldn't talk to yourself.


Pathetic thinking!
That doesnt mean he remained there till centuries and monitored what people were writing. He fabricated things in his era for himself and other enemies of Allah [swt] like Abu Sufyan etc.
Allah favoured Abu Sufyan radhiyAllahu 'anhu and blessed him with Islam, though the father of Imam 'Ali died at Kufr.

I was talking about History, and you talk about mystery.
Fabrication and lying is the part of shi'ism, pious momineen don't follow 'Abdullah ibn Saba Yahoodi.


I know you wont understand this way! Take a example:

"According to you your books contain Shia people as well then how come hundereds of traditions in praise of the enemies of Ahlulbait [as] ??"
1. First resolve the issue of Ahlul Bayt, and tell me who are Ahlul Bayt of Imam 'Ali?

2. The biggest enemy of Family of Imam 'Ali is Imam Hasan who joined hand with the enemy of Imam 'Ali and entrusted to him the Caliphate.
I wonder why shias forget this biggest Enemy of Ahlul Bayt from the House of 'Ali.

3. Obvioulsy there are pious momineen as well, who transmit narrations in our book, along with jewish munafiqeen.


No Shia need assistance from learned scholars to combat ignorant Nasibis. We are suffice alhamdulilah.
Your learned scholars don't know anything except Mut'ah and Matam.


Some more feeding by Mullahs ? ok. i will humiliate your Tabari accusation in a separate post.
We are not guided by 12 Shayateen.


lol. read again what i said: I talked about the ulema of Ahle Sunnah who had different views about the number of verses in Quran which can easily question their iman on Quran and you are saying that it wud affect Shia Mazhab ! Hilarious !
Counting the number of verses of Quran is not the part of Iman.


If you are from Salafi/Wahabi movements started by British then you wont understand the high status of Imam Jafar al Sadiq [as] in fiqha while Sunni Imams like Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik learnet fiqha from Imam Jaffar Sadiq [as] as well !!!
Jafar Sadiq was a pious Muslim, he was not a Rafidi. The fiqh which is attributed to him is a fabrication of shias.


Incorrect and lack of knowledge.
Imam Shafi believed Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem as the part of Surah Fatiha and of every surah of Quran.
Even if he didn't believe in that, Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem is there on top of Surah Fateha and every other surahs.


You tried best but sorry to say it was useless.
At one side we have Imam who did not deem a verse to be the part of Quran and at anther side we see a Imam deeming the same verse as the part of Quran.
Simple is that !!
In any case Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem has been put before the start of every surah since the beginning in all the copies of Quran.


Not a good reply! Facts remain same!
If you talk about the facts then provide me with all those views of scholars regarding Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.


You didnt ask but Nawasib like Sipah e Sahaba have always been shouting for it.
Munafiqeen of Jaafri-Allience are the real Nasibis because they have made Imam 'Ali more than the son of God and they hate Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu exactly as Christians hate Jesus.


Anyway, my point remains same, your Sahih Imams collected Sahih Hadith and complied Sahihs which shows that Sahaba did not believe in the Quran we have today.
There is one solution to this.
We can condemn those Sahabah who spoke against Quran provided you call your Imams Kafir who believed that the present Quran was tampered by the First 3 Caliphs.
In this way all your 12 Imams would be considered as Kafirs because they believed in the tampering of Quran and Shi'ism would be destroyed, we will follow shias, we will also dissociate those sahabah who spoke against Quran.

Now the ball is again in your court..


Now thats the tahreef belief, which has been recorded in the principle books from which reliegion is derived and followed !!
simple is that!
Off course that is tahreef belief, and according to your formula, if we issue verdict of Kufr against those Sahabah who spoke against the authenticity of Quran, all your 12 Imams would also be considered as Kafir as they propagated the most serious lies against Quran.


So you shud first decalre all such people Kaafir before demanding things from others !
Not others, I am talking about your Imams, whose hadiths of Rejecting Quran are found in your Usool Kafi.


I think i dont need to cite the verses according to which leaders,imams,guides are chosen/selected/appointed by Allah [swt] . Or do i ??
Even if leaders, Imams and Guides are chosen by Allah, there is no mention of any of your 12 Imams in the Holy Quran.
Even Abu Lahb is mentioned, but your Imams are never found in Quran.


From where the names issue comes in ?? Do you have names of your caliph in Quran the disobedience of whom makes one Rafidi hence Kaafir (according to you) ???
Our Caliphs are humans, they are not super-natural-ghosts as 12 infallibles are.


Fake Imams are only those who are chosen by ordinary people.
And Rafidis are not only ordinary, they are working-partners of Jews also.

Debater
22nd July 2005, 19:46
So easy challenge

I am making this challenge so easy for Boy-Nice.
If Boy-Nice doesn’t accept this challenge, we will believe that he and all shias like him are rejectors of Quran.

I state that anyone is a Disbeliever and Kafir who believes/believed that the Present Quran is incomplete or verses or chapters are missing or added and so the present Quran is not as Allah ordained it to be.

Now Boy-Nice must state with me that anyone is a Disbeliever and Kafir who believes/believed that the Present Quran is incomplete or verses or chapters are missing or added and so the present Quran is not as Allah ordained it to be and that the real and complete Quran is with Imam Mahdi which was compiled by Imam ‘Ali.

Ratatosk
22nd July 2005, 19:51
Salam Debater,
we will believe that he and all shias like him are rejectorsPlease use first person singular, unless you are refering to an unknown entity or group. It would be of service if you would present the entity or group to the forum, as well.

wasalam

Debater
22nd July 2005, 21:28
Salam Debater,Please use first person singular, unless you are refering to an unknown entity or group. It would be of service if you would present the entity or group to the forum, as well.

wasalam
Off course I am not representing Ratatosk or Ron or any group from this forum, I am sharing beliefs of Muslims.

Our roots lie within Quran, if someone or some group denies that Quran is protected by Allah and the present Quran is incomplete and fabricated, he/she/they is/are definitely out of Islam.

hlatif
22nd July 2005, 21:39
Salaam all,

If you are basing your decision on the Qur'an, then where in the Qur'an did GOD say that the Shia are KUFFAR?

You are deducing your opinion on the opinions of others that wrote on the subject and not on the Qur'an. You are also generalizing about the Shia when some may believe in what you say and others may be different.

Salaam and have a good evening.


Hussein

BOY-NICE
23rd July 2005, 09:51
Did I demand you for sunnis' definitions?
I used your definition. Read it again:

Nasibi are those who prefer Muawia bin Hinda voer Ali bin Abi Talib [as] and those who fought Ali [as].

(post number:16)

You were twisting the facts and calling all Sunnis as Nawasib therefore i made it clear for 'Sunnis' here so that they may not come under your twised information.


JEWS ARE ALSO MINORITY.
Know that?

Stupidity rules ! We are talking about the majority/minority among Muslims!
Prophet [s] had only a few people at once with him. Moreover there less number of supporters of Imam Hussain [as] than Yazeed la , will you compare Imam [as] with jews as well ??? (well, wont be schoked if you do so in love of ur caliph yazeed)


This is our belief system, according to which the action which is performed by majority of Sahabah is an Authority (which is according to Quran).
And Majority of Sahabah and Majority of Muslims didn't give Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu their oath of allegiance except the people of Madinah (which didn't include Sahabah), Criminals/Rebels of Islamic Khilafat and a small group of Sahabah.

Thats the Yazidism ideology which has nothing to do with Muslims particularly Sunnis. Yazid also thought that he ( faiq,fajir, zaani with mothers and sister etc etc) would became the calipf of the religion of Allah [swt] just by gaining the bayah of the people by any means.
On the other hand the 2nd caliph of Ahle Sunnah was directly appointed by previous caliph and 3rd one was selected by the 6 members. Therefore there is a big difference bw your belief and the Sunnis.


This is the treacherous way of shias that when they commit a crime, they put the blame of that crime to someone(s) whom Ahlus Sunnah don't/can't condemn.
For example, shias ('Ubedullah ibn Ziyad and Shimr, both were great Companions of Imam 'Ali) killed Saiyidina Husain, but shias put the blame of his murder upon Yazid bin Ma'aviyah.

They were not the companion of Ali [as] in litral sense while they were with him for power only. And then when power went to some1 else they changed their sides along with the situation. Those two killers of Imam Hussain [as] including others like Umer bin Sa`d , Sabath bin Rabi etc are the narrators of hadeeth (some of them are very thiqa) in your school while Shia ask Allah[swt] wrath on them for the crime they committed.

And since it has not been proved that i was right about your connection with Yazidism, i wud like to refute the Yazidies defense for their caliph against the crimes he committed in Islam particularly the killing of Imam Hussain [as]. Both Ibn ziyad and Shimmer followed the orders of Yazid la to kill Imam Hussain [as] while deeming him la the "ameer al Momineen" !!


Off course it was the murder of the Khalifah and not the murder of an ordinary person. These shias attacked the centre of Khilafat (Madinah), killed the Khalifah and according to the law of Quran and Sunnah, they deserved punishment, and the murderers of Khalifah deserved capital punishment. Unfortunately, Hadhrat 'Ali was badly hijacked by these Munafiqeen, exactly as Jews have hijacked America or American President, he couldn't do anything against these Munafiqeen and they kept playing with him.

this is a challenge to Nawasib of thr world to prove with authyentic sources that Shias were involved in that murder ! Since last 12,5 centuries no Nasibi has ever been able to backed his claim with authentic proof for the same !


As I explained above, Hadhrat 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu was not the Khalifah for his own people except a small group of Sahabah and big group of Criminals (Munafiqeen).

Rafidis are Non Muslims because of their heretic beliefs which I have explained in the other parallel thread.

The definition of "nasibi" righty applies here. Ahle Sunnah shal take note of that, the caliphate of their 4th caliph has indrectly been called illegitimate and the leader of Munafiqeeen !
As much as you post here you are further exposing your baatil beliefs and proving me correct about your Nasibi beliefs.


Rafidis are Non Muslims because of their heretic beliefs which I have explained in the other parallel thread.

We do not want certificate of being a Muslim form a Nasibi, so you better live in paradise of fool !



And holy narrations according to which Holy Imams have issued the licence of anal sex to shia-momineen.

Mohammad bin Tusi writes:

I inquired Abul Hasan Ridha (a.s) if a man does from behind his woman, he replied, ‘This is Halaal by one aayah (verse) of the Book of Allah and that is the saying of Lut (alayhis salam). These are my daughters which are pure / tidy for you, though Lut knew that his nation didn’t like the place of urination’.

(Tahthib-al-Ahkaam, volume 7, page 415)

‘Abdullah bin Abi Ya’fur says, ‘I inquired Abu ‘Abdullah Ja’far about a person who meets the woman from behind, he said, ‘No problem if the woman agrees’.

(Tahthib-al-Ahkaam, volume 7, page 460)

We are talking about Jokes not of Fiqha but anyway since you have initiate then i must respond.

It would have been better if you had done some home work before yapping at Shias. The same act is permissible in your school and your Imams personally were invovled in it:

Tafseer Qurtubi Volume 3 page 93 Ayat Hars:

"Fatwas on the permissibility of sodomy with women Saeed bin Maseeb Nafi, ibn Umar, Muhammad bin Kab, Abdul Malik, Imam Malik, a large group amongst the Sahaba and Tabaeen deemed sodomy to be permissible".

Imam Malik believed sodomy with women was halaal

We read in the following Sunni sources:

Ahkam al Qur'an Volume 1 page 352 Ayat Hars
Tafseer Gharab al Qur'an Volume 2 page 249 Ayat Hars
Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 1 page 111, Ay
Fathul Bari Volume 8 page 190 Kitab Tafseer Ayat Hars


Quoting from Ahkam al Qur'an:

"Sahil asked Imam Malik 'is sodomy with women permissible? Imam Malik replied 'I just did this act and have just washed by sexual organs".


A Rafidi is Kafir owing to his hatred towards Sahabah (as according to Quran, disbeliers get angry by Sahabah) and their rejecting the authenticity of Quran, regarding Zina as ibadat etc. etc.

First of all its not hatred rather the opposition due to some facts and if thise opposition is Kufr then i wud like to know the Nasibi Fatwa against those who opposed and faught their fourth Caliph. After all he was one of the important companion as well.
As for rejection of Quran, then we still are waiting Nawasib to take initiative and decalred all of their Imams to be Kaafir for recording traditions in their "sahis" which clearly implies that this Quran is not same which used to be recited by Sahaba.
Ragarding Zina as Ibadat then i hope you are pointing out towards mutah and (according to ur logic not mine) this will make some popular Sahaba, Tabaeen and Imams of Ahle Sunnah as Zaani due to their deeming of Mutah Halal.


1. You didn't yet prove that Fatimah radhiyAllahu 'anhu and 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu are Ahl-al-Bayt according to Quran.
We don't believe in fairy tales of shi'ism.

ok dont believe in the "fairy tales" of Shias rather believe in "fairy tales" of Imam Muslim, Ibn Kathir, Imam Tirmidi etc etc who clearly recorded the tradition of verse of purifiaction.


2. They (Fatimah and 'Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu) were wrong in their demand of Fadak (they were mere humans not angels) after the Khalifah had explained why they couldn't have it.

Both leader of the woman of paradise Fatima Zahra [as] and Ali [as] were right in their demand while they made it known to everyone that their opponent was wrong in his snatching of the same.



Show me the Fatwa, Imam Abu Hanifah issued against Imam Shafi' or Imam Ahmad or Imam Malik or vice versa.

EG
"…Ahmad bin Hassan Tirmidhi quotes I heard Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal say that Abu Hanifa is a liar".
Tarikh al Baghdad Volume 13 page 418



Confirmed idiocy!
Give me the meaning of thiqah first of all and then show me where Ibn Hajr said he was thiqah.

Thiqa or say extremely reliable.

Ibn Hajar mentions the name of the Imams who took hadiths from him while for Umer Sa`d he wrote that he is deemed Thiqa [Tadheeb al Tadheeb Volume 7 page 450-451]. Same has been recorded by Jamaluddin al Mizzi in his Tahdeeb al Kamal.


Allah favoured Abu Sufyan radhiyAllahu 'anhu and blessed him with Islam, though the father of Imam 'Ali died at Kufr.

Here you go to show your ancesstory with Yazdi and his forefathers. One who brought up Holy Prophet [s] and helped Holy Prophet [s] right throuhout his mission is a Kaafir and one the enemy of Allah [swt] who took part in all missions against Islam and Holy Prophet [s] faught battles with him [s] is a muslim !! Wow ! Thats nothing but the gift from the traditions fabricated by the Nawasib in the era of Banu Ummayah! What one can say!


2. The biggest enemy of Family of Imam 'Ali is Imam Hasan who joined hand with the enemy of Imam 'Ali and entrusted to him the Caliphate.
I wonder why shias forget this biggest Enemy of Ahlul Bayt from the House of 'Ali.

I think this post of your's have made it clear to all Muslims particular to Sunnis the najis belief you adhered to. Imam Hassan [as] according to some Sunnis is believed to be 5th caliph and here we see the follower of Abu Sufyan clan calling him enemy of his own family.
Now coming to the comment, Imam Hassan [as] didnt join hands with the enemy of Imam Ali [as] rather he was forced to step down and thus he had no other choice than to make "treaty" with his opponents just like his grand father and the prophet of Islam [s] made treaty with KUffaar at Hudaibyah! Will you call him [s] also the enemy of Allah [swt] (godforbid)??? (wont be surprised if you do so in love of Yazeed).



3. Obvioulsy there are pious momineen as well, who transmit narrations in our book, along with jewish munafiqeen

And you will accept the tradition which best suits you and will call it a "shia"sources (even it is deemed Sahih by ur Imams) when it does not suit you. Now who Munaafiq here !!


Your learned scholars don't know anything except Mut'ah and Matam.

That was pathetic and non serious reply again. Same cud be said to you that your scholars dont know anything except Halala and Zawaj e Misyaar.



We are not guided by 12 Shayateen.

Ahle Sunnah will again make note of you and your Yazeedi belief as the twelve people you are refering to and calling "Shayateen" are deemed pious among them as well.


Not others, I am talking about your Imams, whose hadiths of Rejecting Quran are found in your Usool Kafi.

Why not others ??? Munafiqat!



Jafar Sadiq was a pious Muslim, he was not a Rafidi. The fiqh which is attributed to him is a fabrication of shias.

Again if you are infected by Nasibi disease you wont understand the high status of Imam Jafar Sadiq [as] in fiqh accepted in both sects Shia and Sunnis.


Even if he didn't believe in that, Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem is there on top of Surah Fateha and every other surahs.

But where goes the Fatawa of believing in Tahreef agains him ???????



There is one solution to this.
We can condemn those Sahabah who spoke against Quran provided you call your Imams Kafir who believed that the present Quran was tampered by the First 3 Caliphs.

Not to condemn ! Declare them Kaafir (the same thing which Nawasib heen bee yapping for Shias). If yes then i will provide list of all Sahaba, Tabaeeen and Scholars/Imams who narrated/recorded or endorsed such hadeeths.


Even if leaders, Imams and Guides are chosen by Allah, there is no mention of any of your 12 Imams in the Holy Quran.
Even Abu Lahb is mentioned, but your Imams are never found in Quran.

You meant to say Quran shud have been revealed like you are demanding ???


And Rafidis are not only ordinary, they are working-partners of Jews also.
The opinions of Najis Nasibi bear no vlaue. Keep it with you.

Debater
23rd July 2005, 17:38
You were twisting the facts and calling all Sunnis as Nawasib therefore i made it clear for 'Sunnis' here so that they may not come under your twised information.
Read it once again what you said:

Nasibi are those who prefer Muawia bin Hinda voer Ali bin Abi Talib [as] and those who fought Ali [as]. (post number 16)

And here you have clarified that you and your shias believe that our Mother Saiyidah ‘Aishah Siddiqah radhiyAllahu ‘anha, great Companions of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, Saiyidina Talha radhiyAllahu ‘anhu (from ‘ashrah of mubashirah), Saiydina Zubayr radhiyAllahu ‘anhu (from ‘ashrah of mubashirah), Saiyidina Ma’aviyah radhiyAllahu ‘anhu (agreed Khalifah of all Muslims), Saiyidina ‘Amr ibn Al-‘Aas radhiyAllahu ‘anhu (conqueror of Egypt) and others were all Nasibis.

Every Muslim loves them and respects them along with others, and your hatred toward Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum is in fact your hatred towards Ahlus Sunnah.

If not then you should love Khawarij who hate Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu.


Stupidity rules ! We are talking about the majority/minority among Muslims!
Prophet [s] had only a few people at once with him. Moreover there less number of supporters of Imam Hussain [as] than Yazeed la , will you compare Imam [as] with jews as well ??? (well, wont be schoked if you do so in love of ur caliph yazeed)
Off course, shias are not amongst Muslims, why would I include you to them? Even if you are considered to be the part of Muslim Ummah for a moment, then you are a Minority like those who follow(ed) liar-claimants-of-Nubuwwah (e.g. Musaylmah Kazzab), so according to your theory Followers of Musaylmah Kazzab and other liars are also on the right path.

Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah don’t support the action of Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu ‘anhu. Our Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam have taught us to obey the ameer / khalifah even if he is not very righteous (his obedience unless he doesn’t demand to obey against Quran and Sunnah). Moreover the Sahabiyat (Companionship) of Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu ‘anhu is not established as by rule he hasn’t seen Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam in the age of discrete (balughat). He was not an angel or a Prophet that he can’t make any mistakes or he can’t go wrong.

We are not the worshippers of 12 gods, that we should believe that Hadhrat Husain was always right.
May Allah curse the followers of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba Yahoodi who bear malice towards Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum and Khulafa of Muslims, Aameen.


Thats the Yazidism ideology which has nothing to do with Muslims particularly Sunnis. Yazid also thought that he ( faiq,fajir, zaani with mothers and sister etc etc) would became the calipf of the religion of Allah [swt] just by gaining the bayah of the people by any means.
Off course Ijma’ of Ummah is the 3rd way to follow after following Quran and Sunnah amongst Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah (even their name refers to Jama’ah which means consensus of Ummah), you call it Yazidism because you are not from us and you have nothing to do with Islam. Shi’ism is the anti-Islam movement started by Jews with the partnership of Majoos (fire-worshippers) of Iran.


Yazid also thought that he ( faiq,fajir, zaani with mothers and sister etc etc) would became the calipf of the religion of Allah [swt] just by gaining the bayah of the people by any means.
May Allah curse you and your Satanic Imams (‘Abdullah Ibn Saba, Malik Ashtar, Ibrahim Qummi, Koleni, Baqir Majlisi, Khomeni, and your Dajjal-Mahdi and lots of other Shayateen), Aameen.

The Mother of Yazid bin Ma’aviyah was a Sahabiyah, Saiyidah Hind radhiyAllahu ‘anha who was the mother of Mother of Believers, Ummul Momineen Umm Habibah radhiyAllahu ‘anhu. But Shia Kuffaar, may Allah burn them along with their Imams in the hell fire forever, abuse and slander them with their filthy tongues.

To Ron and other Mods

Please open your eyes, and read yourselves how this Shia-Kafir is abusing and slandering Companions of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.


On the other hand the 2nd caliph of Ahle Sunnah was directly appointed by previous caliph and 3rd one was selected by the 6 members. Therefore there is a big difference bw your belief and the Sunnis.
The above you mentioned is not the part of belief system, but this is the procedure a Khalifah is appointed or chosen. Exactly as you can go to masjid on foot, on a motor bike or by a car etc.


They were not the companion of Ali [as] in litral sense while they were with him for power only.
They might not be Companions of Imam ‘Ali in your eyes, but the fact is that Imam ‘Ali made them his Close Companions, and the proof is that he appointed his beloved Companions, Ayatulla ‘Ubedullah ibn Ziyad as the Governor of Kufah and Ayatulla Shimr as his body guard, not only this but Imam ‘Ali married with Shimr’s sister as well.

According to the heretic beliefs of shias, all of their 12 Imams have the knowledge of Unseen (confirmed Kufr), so Imam ‘Ali should have known that both of these Companions of him would kill his own son afterward.

And then when power went to some1 else they changed their sides along with the situation.
Exactly the same is the truth for all shias.

Shias of Kufah invited Imam Husain to Kufah to struggle against the Caliphate of Yazid and when Imam arrived there, all pious shia momineen of Kufah betrayed him on the foot steps of their Jewish forefathers. Exactly the same thing was done by Close Companions of Imam ‘Ali, they killed their own Imam. That is why I say that Betrayal and Treachery is in the blood of shias which they have received from Jews spiritually and through genes of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba and his likes physically.

Shi’ism in fact is the movement which was initiated by Jews to stop the spread of Islam World Wide. Jews couldn’t oppose Islam directly as they didn’t have any powers in the age of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and his pious successors. So they planned to hatch a conspiracy and they easily got their partners from Iranis.

Saiyidina ‘Umar Ibn Khattab radhiyAllahu 'anhu, the 2nd Khalifah of Islam conquered Iran and a good number of the Majoos (fire worshippers) of Iran accepted Islam in order to deceive Muslims and take revenge of their defeat. Islamic Caliphate was the bond which united Muslim Ummah together, so a Jew ‘Abdullah ibn Saba started his movement against it and started raising the status of Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu over all Sahaba and he was welcomed by the people of Kufah and Basrah (iranis) etc. This is how shi’ism started and its only goal was to weaken the Khilafah which was the real strength of Muslims.

Since Majoos of Iran were defeated by Saiyidina ‘Umar radhiyAllahu ‘anhu, all shias hate him the most. But basically they hate all Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum and the Mothers of believers especially those who were unfortunately attacked by Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu. This is because shi’ism could work only if shias took the cover of some higher personalities of Islam, so as guided by Jews, they picked up Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu and his family. Though the History itself is a witness that these were the shias who themselves killed those whom they call their infallible Imams. For example Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu ‘anhu was killed (martyred) by Khawarij who are a branch of shi’ism. Saiyidina Hasan radhiyAllahu 'anhu was poisoned by shias because his crime was that he wished for the unity of Ummah and he made peace with the Enemy of Jews and Shias, Saiyidina Ameer Ma’aviyah radhiyAllahu 'anhu. Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu 'anhu were treacherously invited by Shias of Kufah because they wanted to kill him as they killed his father and his brother. So even shias’ own history is the witness that shias turned back from their oath of allegiance which they took to Saiyidina Husain. Not only this but when Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu 'anhu tried to go to Syria in order to give bai’ah to Yazid bin Ma’aviyah (because he was the Khalifah of Muslims), shias killed him at the place of Karbala.

So if I say that shias themselves are the killers of their Imams and they always have put the blame of their crimes at the door of Saiyidina Ma’aviyah and Yazid bin Ma’aviyah especially and Banu Umaiah generally.


Those two killers of Imam Hussain [as] including others like Umer bin Sa`d , Sabath bin Rabi etc are the narrators of hadeeth (some of them are very thiqa) in your school while Shia ask Allah[swt] wrath on them for the crime they committed.
Off course we don’t trust liars whose religion is based upon lying and cheating (betrayal) and betrayal but here I demand for the sources where the above named person has been called thiqah by hadith scholars.


And since it has not been proved that i was right about your connection with Yazidism, i wud like to refute the Yazidies defense for their caliph against the crimes he committed in Islam particularly the killing of Imam Hussain [as]. Both Ibn ziyad and Shimmer followed the orders of Yazid la to kill Imam Hussain [as] while deeming him la the "ameer al Momineen" !!
This filthy language is the way shi’ism preaches its dirty beliefs to human beings. This is an undeniable truth that shi’ism is the only religion on earth which is based upon ideas which are condemned by the humanity. One of such ideas is abusing which is called Tabarra by shias, in which they abuse pious slaves of Allah and Muslims who go against them, for example readers can read the language Boy-Nice is using for Yazid bin Ma’aviyah.

He can never prove through any documented evidence that it was Yazid bin Ma’aviyah who issued orders to kill Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu 'anhu. Rather historic and circumstancial evidences all go against shias’ allegation over Yazid bin Ma’aviyah.

If it was for Yazid, then there was no need at all to kill Saiyidina Husain, as shias of Kufah already abandoned the Rebllion against the Caliphate, and Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu 'anhu didn’t have any support against the Caliphate. Now there were two possibilities:

1. Yazid was foolish, so he issued orders to kill Saiyidina Husain but killing of the grandson of Prophet would turn majority of Muslims against Yazid bin Ma’aviyah, and he was in the course of collecting support from all Muslims, therefore killing Saiyidina Husain would spoil the position of Yazid and people would trun against him.

2. The only group which could get benefits from the killing of Husain radhiyAllahu 'anhu were those who hated Banu Umaiyah and didn’t want them to rule Muslim Ummah. And history is the witness that Banu Umaiyah were the only force of Islam which stops the fitnah of shi’ism due to which 100,000 people were killed during the Caliphate of Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu. Therefore all the circumstances and facts point out that it was shias who killed Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu 'anhu in order to defame Yazid bin Ma’aviyah and to stop Banu Umaiyah from getting hold of governance of Muslim Ummah.


this is a challenge to Nawasib of thr world to prove with authyentic sources that Shias were involved in that murder ! Since last 12,5 centuries no Nasibi has ever been able to backed his claim with authentic proof for the same !
Off course, the Rebels from Kufah and Basrah were led by Malik Ashtar Munafiq who is an accepted Imam of all shias on earth. And these were the Rebels and Criminals who murdered the Khalifah, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affaan radhiyAllahu 'anhu in the Capital of Khilafah. And after this rebellion against Islamic Caliphate, these Criminals hijacked Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu and Saiyidina ‘Ali had to accept their offer under obligation, I believe that he wanted to stop this fitnah which was started by shias. And interestingly all these Criminals / Rebels called themselves Shias of ‘Ali. Even shias’ own sources are filled with these facts, but Boy-Nice here is denying the truth because he doesn’t have anything left to defend crimes of his forefathers against Islam.


The definition of "nasibi" righty applies here. Ahle Sunnah shal take note of that, the caliphate of their 4th caliph has indrectly been called illegitimate and the leader of Munafiqeeen !
As much as you post here you are further exposing your baatil beliefs and proving me correct about your Nasibi beliefs.
This is a historical fact that Majority of Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum and Ummah didn’t accept the Khilafah of Hadhrat ‘Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu by not giving bai’ah to him just because it was the time of fitnah. So the Caliphate of Saiyidina ‘Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu can’t be equivalent to that of the agreed Khilafah of first 3 Caliphs. Since this period in which we are living, doesn’t belong to the period of ‘Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu, all Muslims accept him as their 4th Khalifah including me.


We do not want certificate of being a Muslim form a Nasibi, so you better live in paradise of fool !
Read the institutions which certify that Shias are out of Islam:

1) Imam Ash-Shafi'i: On one occasion Imam Shafi'ee said concerning the Shia, "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidi* Shia." and on another occasion he said; "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except for the Raafidi* Shia, because they invent ahaadeeth and adopt them as part of their religion." (Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah)

*(Some shia at the time of the Alid Imam Zayd ibn 'Ali demanded that he make a declaration of innocence (tabarra) from whoever disagreed with 'Ali's right to be Imaam. When Zayd refused, they rejected him, and became known as the "Raafida" or rejectors. Those who followed Imaam Zayd became known as Zaydis, and have very little difference from mainstream Islam. The Raafidi evolved into the the various Imaami shia sects, the largest of which is the Ithna 'Ashari.)

2) Imam Abu Haneefah: It is reported that often Imam Abu Hanifah used to repeat the following statement about the Raafidi Shia; "Whoever doubts whether they are disbelievers has himself committed disbelief."

3) Imam Malik: Once when asked about the Raafidi Shia, Imam Malik said; "Do not speak to them or narrate from them, for surely they are liars." During one of Imam Malik's classes, it was mentioned that the raafidi Shia curse the sahaba. Imam Malik recited the verse, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." (48:29) He then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahâbah are mentioned is the one about whom the verse speaks."
(Tafseer al-Qurtubi)

4) Imam Ibn al- MUBAARAK: was reported to have said "Religion is gained from Ahl al-Hadeeth, scholastic theology, and crafty exemptions from religious ordinances from Ahl-ar-ray and lies from the Raafidite Shi'ites.

5) Abu Zur'ah ar-Razi: He said of the raafidi Shia doctrine of cursing the Sahâbah, "If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the Prophet SAWS know that he is a disbeliever. Because the Prophet SAWS was real, what he brought was the truth and all of it was conveyed to us by way of the Sahâbah. What those disbelievers wish to do is cast doubt on the reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the Qur'an and Sunnah. Thus the disbelievers are the ones most deserving of defamation."

6) Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi: During the period of Muslim rule in Spain, Imam Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm would often debate with the Catholic priests about their religious texts. He brought before them evidence of textual distortions in the Bible and the loss of the original manuscripts. When they replied by pointing out the Shia claims that the Qur'an has been distorted and altered, Ibn Hazm informed them that Shia claims were not valid evidence because the Shia were not themselves Muslims.

7) Imam Al-Alusi: He declared the raafidi Shia disbelievers because of their defamation of the Sahaba. His position was based on the rulings of Imam Malik and other scholars. In response to their claim to be followers of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet's SAWS family) Al-Alusi said, "No, they are really followers of the devils and the Ahl al-Bayt are innocent of them."

8) Muhammad Rasheed Rida: This scholar was among those who worked sincerely for rapproachment between the shia and the sunni, and they in turn pretended moderation for his benefit. However, in the midst of his efforts, they caught him by surprise by presenting him with a number of their books which slander Islam. He then replied in a paper called As-Sunnah wa Ash-Shia in which he exposed their false doctrines and idolatrous practices.

9) Dr. Hilali: After living close to the shia for some years, the famous Moroccan scholar, Dr. Hilali wrote a paper on them in which he declared them to be disbelievers.

10) Abul-A'la Maududi: wrote an introduction to the book, "Ar-Riddah bain al-Ams wa al-Yaum" In it was written, regarding the Imami Ja'fari Shia, "despite their moderate views (relative to other shi'ia sects), they are swimming in disbelief like white bloodcells in blood or like fish in water."

11) Among the other contemporary scholars who have expressed similar views are: Sheikh Abdul 'Aziz ibn Baz, Sheikh Nassiruddin Al-Albaanee, Allama Ash-Shanqiti, Sheikh An-Nashashibi, Imam Ahmad Ameen, and Dr. Rashaad Salim.

courtesy

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/what_do_scholars_of_ahlusunnah_tell_about_shias.ht m

Debater
23rd July 2005, 17:52
I will get back to you later inshaAllah in response of the rest of your Kufr which your 12 Shayateen ('Abdullah ibn Saba, Malik Ashtar and other Jews and Majoos) taught you, for now reminding you of the challenge:



But where goes the Fatawa of believing in Tahreef agains him ???????

Not to condemn ! Declare them Kaafir (the same thing which Nawasib heen bee yapping for Shias). If yes then i will provide list of all Sahaba, Tabaeeen and Scholars/Imams who narrated/recorded or endorsed such hadeeths.

]So easy challenge

I am making this challenge so easy for Boy-Nice.
If Boy-Nice doesn’t accept this challenge, we will believe that he and all shias like him are rejectors of Quran and so the Worst Kuffaar.

I state that anyone is a Disbeliever and Kafir who believes/believed that the Present Quran is incomplete or verses or chapters are missing or added and so the present Quran is not as Allah ordained it to be.

Now Boy-Nice must declare that anyone is a Disbeliever and Kafir who believes/believed that the Present Quran is incomplete or verses or chapters are missing or added and so the present Quran is not as Allah ordained it to be and that the real and complete Quran is with Imam Mahdi which was compiled by Imam ‘Ali.

Ron
23rd July 2005, 19:06
Debater,

For a person that doesn't even know the correct usage of "masha'Allah" and instead uses "ma'azallah," you sure do have a lot of knowledge regarding other sects. You belong to some Qur'an-only group and come here talking about unity while trying to outcast a whole group of people based on your (or those you follow) views of what they believe.

You have disregarded the warnings. You are not welcomed here any more.

BOY-NICE
23rd July 2005, 19:55
And here you have clarified that you and your shias believe that our Mother Saiyidah ‘Aishah Siddiqah radhiyAllahu ‘anha, great Companions of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, Saiyidina Talha radhiyAllahu ‘anhu (from ‘ashrah of mubashirah), Saiydina Zubayr radhiyAllahu ‘anhu (from ‘ashrah of mubashirah), Saiyidina Ma’aviyah radhiyAllahu ‘anhu (agreed Khalifah of all Muslims), Saiyidina ‘Amr ibn Al-‘Aas radhiyAllahu ‘anhu (conqueror of Egypt) and others were all Nasibis.

Open you eyes i quoted Sunni ref it wasnt from me!!!


May Allah curse the followers of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba Yahoodi who bear malice towards Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum and Khulafa of Muslims, Aameen.

Ameen !


Off course, shias are not amongst Muslims, why would I include you to them? Even if you are considered to be the part of Muslim Ummah for a moment, then you are a Minority like those who follow(ed) liar-claimants-of-Nubuwwah (e.g. Musaylmah Kazzab), so according to your theory Followers of Musaylmah Kazzab and other liars are also on the right path.

Who the heck is asking you Nasibi to give certificate to some1 for being a Muslim or not ???? You need to first clear yourself from Yazidism than talk about others !!


We are not the worshippers of 12 gods, that we should believe that Hadhrat Husain was always right.
May Allah curse the followers of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba Yahoodi who bear malice towards Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum and Khulafa of Muslims, Aameen.

No one is the worshipper of 12 Gods. Same cud be said to you that you are the worshipper of 4/5/12.. Gods (as the number of caliphs are diff among diff sects)

As for the Curse on supposed Abdullah Ibn Saba then Ameeen!



Yazid also thought that he ( faiq,fajir, zaani with mothers and sister etc etc) would became the calipf of the religion of Allah [swt] just by gaining the bayah of the people by any means.


May Allah curse you and your Satanic Imams (‘Abdullah Ibn Saba, Malik Ashtar, Ibrahim Qummi, Koleni, Baqir Majlisi, Khomeni, and your Dajjal-Mahdi and lots of other Shayateen), Aameen.


For the supposed Abdullah Ibn Saba character Ameen.

Thanx to Allah [swt] that I exposed the filthy face of this Nasibi who on hearing the true but harsh facts about his beloved Yazeed la suddenly forgot all the etiquettes of discussion and jumped to slander the scholars of opponents ! I can also resiprocate same things for you but that will be useless to the narrow-minded people like you therefore i have decided to further expose your Imam Yazeed la :) so that more you utter slander and more you are exposed to the Ahle Sunnah.

In Tafseer Ruh al Maani it is stated clearly:

"Allamah Alusi stated, Yazeed the impure denied the Prophethood of Rasulullah (s). The treatment that he meted out to the people of Makka, Medina and the family of the Prophet proves that he was a kaafir".

Yazeed used to copulate with his mother and sisters:

Tabaqath al Kabeera Volume 5 page 66 Dhikr Abdullah bin Hanzala and Volume 4 page 283
Tareekh ul Khulafa, (Urdu), page 210 Dhikr Yazeed
Sawqih al Muhriqa page 132 Dhikr Yazeed
Mustadrak al Hakim Volume page 522
Al Isaba Volume 3 page 469
Ya Nabi al Mawaddath page 326
Tareekh Ibn Asakir Volume 7 page 275
Fatawi Abdul Hai page 79
Tareekh al Islam Volume 2 page 356
Al Masalaik Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik page 435

We read in Tabaqath:

"Abdullah bin Hanzala the Sahaba stated 'By Allah we opposed Yazeed at the point when we feared that stones would reign down on us from the skies. He was a fasiq who copulated with his mother, sister and daughters, who drank alcohol and did not offer Salat"


Ibn Atheer's comments on Yazeed:

In Tareekh al Kamil Volume 3 page 450 Ibn Atheer narrates from Munzir bin Zabeer:

"Verily Yazeed rewarded me with 100,000 dirhams but this cannot stop me from highlighting his state, By Allah he is a drunkard"

Allamah Dhahabi's naration and verdict on Yazeed

In "Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala" Volume 4 pages 37-38, Dhahabi narrates:

"Ziyad Hurshee narrates 'Yazeed gave me alcohol to drink, I had never drunk alcohol like that before and I enquired where he had obtained its ingredients'. Yazeed replied 'it is made of sweet pomegranate, honey from Isfahan, sugar from Hawaz and grapes from Burdah…Yazeed indulged in alcohol and would participate in actions that opposed the dictates set by Allah (swt)".

The Fatwas of Ulema e Ahle Sunnah deeming it permissible to curse Yazeed

Ibn Kathir writes in Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah:

"Whoever frightens Medina incurs the wrath of Allah, His Angels and all the people". Those people who deem it permissible to curse Yazeed bin Muawiyah deem this and other similar kinds of hadiths as base and this tradition is from Ahmad ibn Hanbal and have been taken by Alkhilal, Abu Bakr Abdul Aziz, Qadhi Abu Laila and his son Qadhi Abul Husayn. Abul Faraj Ibn Jauzi wrote a seperate book deeming it permissible to curse Yazeed".
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1148, Nafees Academy Karachi



To Ron and other Mods

Please open your eyes, and read yourselves how this Shia-Kafir is abusing and slandering Companions of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam

Wow, Imam Hussain [as] is not a companion in the eyes of THis Nasibi but Yazeed is! gr8


They might not be Companions of Imam ‘Ali in your eyes, but the fact is that Imam ‘Ali made them his Close Companions, and the proof is that he appointed his beloved Companions, Ayatulla ‘Ubedullah ibn Ziyad as the Governor of Kufah and Ayatulla Shimr as his body guard, not only this but Imam ‘Ali married with Shimr’s sister as well.

Sheer stupidity. Your making them His "close" companion will not change the facts. They were power greedy people who came to Ali [as] and when the power went into another hands they also likewise chanhged their sides.As for the Shimmer, Ali[as] was married to a woman of a tribe and Shimmer was also from the same tribe. She was not his sister. And it was not that "Ali [as] married the sister of Shimer " .I dont know when Nawasib will stop twisting facts.


According to the heretic beliefs of shias, all of their 12 Imams have the knowledge of Unseen (confirmed Kufr), so Imam ‘Ali should have known that both of these Companions of him would kill his own son afterward.

Since in your sect Prophet [s] is considered to be an ordinary man like any of us but Ahle Sunnah believe that Prophet [s] had the knowledge of unseen then didnt he know that some of his companions will change into Munaafiqs and will become threat to Islam ? [ for proof read Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 428 the examepl of 'Abdullah bin Ubai].



Shias of Kufah invited Imam Husain to Kufah to struggle against the Caliphate of Yazid and when Imam arrived there, all pious shia momineen of Kufah betrayed him on the foot steps of their Jewish forefathers.

I shall expose your Munafiqat here as well. This Nasibi has been shouting for the respect of Sahabba now when it somes the love of Yazeed la he himself turned against Sahaba and called them the followers of Jews!


Dhahabi writes as follows:

“Sulayman bin Surad, the Leader of the al Khuza’i in Kufa, was a Sahabi of Rasulullah, hadith have been narrated on his authority. Ibn Barr states ‘He (Sulayman) was amongst those that wrote to Imam Husayn [r] and gave him bayya. They were unable to support him and greatly regretted this, and subsequently waged war. I am of the opinion that he was a pious religious individual, he joined the army on account of his sin of failing to support Husayn [r], he made tauba (asked for forgiveness) and left to avenge the shedding of his (Husayn’s) blood, this army was known as the army of the Tawabun”Sira Alam an Naba Volume 3 page 394 (Beirut edition)

Imam Yaafi Yamani Makki states:

“Sulayman (ra) was a Sahabi of the Prophet (s) hadith have been narrated on his authority”.
Meerath al Janaan Volume 1 page 141 – Hyderabad edition

Ibn Barr writing on Sulayman bin Surad states:

“Sulayman bin Surad was a good, pious and religious man. During jahiliyya his name was ‘Laseer’ – Rasulullah (s) changed it to Sulayman. He was amongst those that wrote to Husayn ibn ‘Ali [r] and invited him to Kufa. When he [Husayn] arrived he was killed, although they did not participate in his murder, Sulayman bin Surad, Museeb bin Najeeb, Najab Furdhee and others expressed regret for having failed aid Husayn [r] and die with him”.
al Istiab Volume 2 pages 43-44



Shi’ism in fact is the movement which was initiated by Jews to stop the spread of Islam World Wide. Jews couldn’t oppose Islam directly as they didn’t have any powers in the age of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and his pious successors. So they planned to hatch a conspiracy and they easily got their partners from Iranis.

Oh yeah? Thats why Allah [swt] revealed verse in praise of the Shia of Ali [as] and Prophet [s] gave glad tidings to them ?



So if I say that shias themselves are the killers of their Imams and they always have put the blame of their crimes at the door of Saiyidina Ma’aviyah and Yazid bin Ma’aviyah especially and Banu Umaiah generally.

Ibn Ziyad, Shimmer, Umer bin Sa`d bin Abi Waqas etc were directly involved in the murder of Imam Hussain [as] on the orders of Yazeed la womh they deemed their Ameer al Momineen! This is historical fact among Ahle Sunnah and Shias but since Nawasib also deem Yazeed to be their Ameer al Momineen following the foot steps of their forefathers they obviously try their best to put Yazeed la as innocent.



This filthy language is the way shi’ism preaches its dirty beliefs to human beings. This is an undeniable truth that shi’ism is the only religion on earth which is based upon ideas which are condemned by the humanity. One of such ideas is abusing which is called Tabarra by shias, in which they abuse pious slaves of Allah and Muslims who go against them, for example readers can read the language Boy-Nice is using for Yazid bin Ma’aviyah.

Alhamdullilah, you have been exposed as true Yazeedi now. BTW some of the scholars of Ahle Sunnah (not Nawasib) have used more severe language for Yazeed la than me.



He can never prove through any documented evidence that it was Yazid bin Ma’aviyah who issued orders to kill Saiyidina Husain radhiyAllahu 'anhu. Rather historic and circumstancial evidences all go against shias’ allegation over Yazid bin Ma’aviyah.

We read in al Bidayah Dhikr 63 Hijri:

"When Yazeed wrote to Ibn Ziyad ordering him to fight Ibn Zubayr in Makka, he said 'I can't obey this fasiq. I killed the grandson of Rasulullah (s) upon his orders, I'm not now going to assault the Kaaba'.

Testimony of Ibn Abbas that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain[as]:

We read in Tareekh Kamil Volume 4 page 69:

Ibn Abbas replied to a letter of Yazeed stating 'You killed Husayn ibn 'Ali as well as the youth from Banu Abdul Muttalib, who were beacons of guidance."

Yazeed's own admission that he killed the family of the Prophet (s):

We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 73:

"Following the murder of Husayn, Yazeed said 'I avenged the killing of my kaafir relatives in Badr through killing the family of the Prophet".

Debater2
25th July 2005, 16:14
Posted by Boy-Nice

Since in your sect Prophet [s] is considered to be an ordinary man like any of us but Ahle Sunnah believe that Prophet [s] had the knowledge of unseen then didnt he know that some of his companions will change into Munaafiqs and will become threat to Islam ? [ for proof read Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 428 the examepl of 'Abdullah bin Ubai].
Off course Ahlus Sunnah are not Disbelievers like shias to believe that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam had the knowledge of unseen. Even if we accept your theory then Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam didn’t appoint ‘Abdullah bin Ubai at any post in the Islamic State of Madinah unlike Imam ‘Ali who favoured killers of his own son.


I shall expose your Munafiqat here as well. This Nasibi has been shouting for the respect of Sahabba now when it somes the love of Yazeed la he himself turned against Sahaba and called them the followers of Jews!
Certainly it was shias of Kufah to invite Saiyidina Husain to Kufah, and Saiyidina Husain couldn’t go to Kufah on invitation of just one person (suppose he was a Sahabi). Even shias themselves accept this fact that their own shias invited Imam Husain to Kufah, and the most interesting thing is that this alleged Sahabi who wrote letters to Imam Husain is not proven to betray Imam. So in any case those who betrayed and deceived Imam Husain were shias only. And this is what is the way of Jews, because shi’ism is the mixture of Judaism and Majoosism.

Oh yeah? Thats why Allah [swt] revealed verse in praise of the Shia of Ali [as] and Prophet [s] gave glad tidings to them ?
In whose Koran? Koran of your Coward-12th-Imam?


Ibn Ziyad, Shimmer, Umer bin Sa`d bin Abi Waqas etc were directly involved in the murder of Imam Hussain [as] on the orders of Yazeed la womh they deemed their Ameer al Momineen! This is historical fact among Ahle Sunnah and Shias but since Nawasib also deem Yazeed to be their Ameer al Momineen following the foot steps of their forefathers they obviously try their best to put Yazeed la as innocent.
Shias of Kufah deceive and betrayed Imam Husain and the best shias of Imam ‘Ali (Ibn Ziyad and Shimr) killed Imam Husain. Now lets see if they did that on order of Yazid or it was the main objective of shias.

Alhamdullilah, you have been exposed as true Yazeedi now. BTW some of the scholars of Ahle Sunnah (not Nawasib) have used more severe language for Yazeed la than me.
And those scholars must have used that kind of language on the basis of lies (fabricated narrations) of shias.


We read in al Bidayah Dhikr 63 Hijri:

"When Yazeed wrote to Ibn Ziyad ordering him to fight Ibn Zubayr in Makka, he said 'I can't obey this fasiq. I killed the grandson of Rasulullah (s) upon his orders, I'm not now going to assault the Kaaba'.
Ibn Kathir has taken many narrations from shias, for example one shia, Abul Makhnaf Lut bin Yahya who is recognized as a Liar by scholars of Rijaal, has many narrations in al badayah wan nahayah. For this reason if the above account is from a Shia Liar then it can’t be accepted, as shias killed Imam Husain and accused Yazid of his murder, and to prove Yazid the killer of Imam Husain these shia kuffaar have fabricated lots of narrations because their religion is based upon lying and cheating.

According to Imam Ash-Shafi'i:
"I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidi Shia." and on another occasion he said; "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except for the Raafidi Shia, because they invent ahaadeeth and adopt them as part of their religion."
(Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah)


Testimony of Ibn Abbas that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain[as]:

We read in Tareekh Kamil Volume 4 page 69:

Ibn Abbas replied to a letter of Yazeed stating 'You killed Husayn ibn 'Ali as well as the youth from Banu Abdul Muttalib, who were beacons of guidance."
Give me the sanad of the above which must be from some Shia Rafidhi.


Yazeed's own admission that he killed the family of the Prophet (s):

We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 73:

"Following the murder of Husayn, Yazeed said 'I avenged the killing of my kaafir relatives in Badr through killing the family of the Prophet".
As Above.

Debater2
25th July 2005, 16:16
Debater,

For a person that doesn't even know the correct usage of "masha'Allah" and instead uses "ma'azallah," you sure do have a lot of knowledge regarding other sects. You belong to some Qur'an-only group and come here talking about unity while trying to outcast a whole group of people based on your (or those you follow) views of what they believe.

You have disregarded the warnings. You are not welcomed here any more.
Mr Genius!

Masha Allah and Ma'athAllah both are different terms. By the way who the idiot is who gave you the charge of this forum?

BOY-NICE
25th July 2005, 18:37
As I said above, there exists not a single narration of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam which allows this dirty act of sodomy, and as I said before that this is the way of shias that when Muslims accused them of committing a crime or of doing some shameful acts as this sodomy, they fabricated lies (narrations) and attributed them to Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum and scholars of Ahlus Sunnah. Their lies can easily be caught when we check the sanad (chain) of the narration as in the above quotes, this is my guarantee that shias have narrated the above lie and mufassireen have recorded them in their books of tafsir. This is a well known fact that narrations from liars and kazibeen (shias) have been accepted in tafasir of Quran unfortunately e.g. Saddi, Kalbi, Waqadi and loads of shia-liars.


Since you are a thick Nasibi and call every source which is against you as a "shisa source" but the sources had posted are from Authentic text of Ahle Sunnah. Since you deem your scholars of Ahle Sunnah like Qurtubi, Ibn Hajr Qasqalani, Ibn Kathir, Hafiz Suyuti etc as Juhla who cudnt figure out whether the soruce was free from Shia or not while only YOU can do so therefore its useless on your part to call any source as a Shia source without authentic proof. And if you are still adamant on your claim then PROVE them to be false. Since you have pasted the previous thing again therefore my response will be the same. with some extra bits.


Tafseer Qurtubi Volume 3 page 93 Ayat Hars:

"Fatwas on the permissibility of sodomy with women Saeed bin Maseeb Nafi, ibn Umar, Muhammad bin Kab, Abdul Malik, Imam Malik, a large group amongst the Sahaba and Tabaeen deemed sodomy to be permissible".

Imam Malik believed sodomy with women was halaal

We read in the following Sunni sources:

Ahkam al Qur'an Volume 1 page 352 Ayat Hars
Tafseer Gharab al Qur'an Volume 2 page 249 Ayat Hars
Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 1 page 111, Ay
Fathul Bari Volume 8 page 190 Kitab Tafseer Ayat Hars

Quoting from Ahkam al Qur'an:

"Sahil asked Imam Malik 'is sodomy with women permissible? Imam Malik replied 'I just did this act and have just washed by sexual organs".

Imam Sha'afi deemed sodomy to be permissible!

Please see the following Sunni texts:

Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 1 page 266, Ayat Hars
Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani page 125, Ayat Hars
Tafseer Ahkam al Qur'an Volume 1 page 265
Tafseer Qasmi Volume 2 page 228 Baqarah Verse 223
Al Mahzoorath page 268


We read in Tafseer Durre Manthur:

"On sodomy with women, Imam Sha'afi no Sahih narration's have reached us from Rasulullah (s) as to whether it is halaal or haraam and logic suggests that this halaal".


Off course there were disagreements between Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum as well but we can’t name their disagreement as their malice towards each other.

No need to post fairy tales from munafiqeen like amr bin al aas etc etc.
The hatred of Muawiya bin Hinda towards Ali bin Abi Talib [as] is proved in history.


As I always have explained that they (e.g Imam Bukhari) did record such narrations but they interpreted those narrations in the context of Nasikh

We do not find a single comment from Imam Bukhari etc about those "sahih" traditions being interpretated as Nuskh !!! So keep your justifications to your self.



And there is no doubt that all of these shias are confirmed Kafir and those shias who don’t call their scholars/imams Kafir are also confirmed Kafir because they also believe in Tahrif of Quran and they deceive Muslims in the guise of taqiyyah by denying this dirty belief of themselves.

If its so than najis Nawasib shud also throw edict on their Imams as well for recording traditions in their "sahih" text which implies that there has been clear tahreef in Quran and the present Quran is not the same which used to be recited by the Sahaba.


They drank wine before it was made Haraam but no one can call them Drunkard because of their actions in the past. This is why I asked you a question if you would call your Imam ‘Ali a Drunkard as he might have drun wine before it was made haraam. Same is the case with Mut’ah.

Since you have a najis nasibi blood flowing into your viens therefore your again and again attack of Ali bin Tabi Talib [as] who is first Caliph of Shia and 4rth of Ahle Sunnah, it does not surprise Muslims at all.
And as for Drinking wine Before it was made Haram, prove it that Sahaba and Tabaeen also deemed it Haram after the "supposed" prohibation of Mutah according to you. On the contrary i proved it that Sahaba and Tabeen believe Mutah to be halal and they practiced it. Lets keep everything at one side. Tell me If Mutah was not Haram during the reign of your Imam Muawya bin Hinda???? If yes then did he not commit Zina by performing Mutah with a woman of Taif ??????

"And DONT even try to call the Mutah of Muawya as false and source of Shia otherwise i will provide such an authentic source from Ahle Sunnah along with oneline link which will make you exposed as clear Munaafiq to all MUslims here. "


All narrations of mantle (kisa) have been narrated by shias, even the one from Sahih Muslim. And so in any case this is a fairy tale of shias because Majoos (old shias) are masters in story making.

I dont know from which ignorant Nasibi Madressa you have took lessons as they told you the one answer for any truth you face "its a shia source" . Anyway i m happy with you appraoch cuz you are making yourself isolated from exposed as Nasibi who deem all the sources as true and Sahih.


And those scholars must have used that kind of language on the basis of lies (fabricated narrations) of shias.

It seems that your Nasibi life is based on probabilities like "must have" "would have" etc etc. Anyway, alhamdulilah Ahle Sunnah and Shia are aware of the notorious and noxious character of Yazeed la. We dont need any justification from any Yazeedi.


. We don’t read in Quran that Fatimah radhiyAllahu 'anha is the leader of women of paradise and the only narration in Sahih Bukhari which claims so has been narrated by the shia who is in the chain of that narration, moreover the narrator himself is not sure what the actual title was, either the leader of the women of paradise or leader of all Muslim women. In short Muslims can’t accept the witness of shias whose religion is based upon lying, cheating and fraud.

now you are making me go laugh in circles. :cheer: Anyway, i think i better start calling Sahih Bukhari and Muslim as "Shia Bukhari" and "Shia Muslim" since every narration contain a Shia narrator and not a single scholar of Ahle Sunnah was ever able to point out that but here we have a Nasibi in this century who knows more than Imam Bukhari and Muslim himself. Great!@@


Though I don’t trust any narration from shias (because they are religiously liars) but in this case, even if the above is correctly stated and quoted, it doesn’t claim that one regarded the other as Kafir. Rather this is established that all of them (scholars and imams of Ahlus Sunnah) unanimously declared shias as Kafir.

When he has been called as "lair" than how come his Fatwa becomes true :S ????


I asked you to give me the words of Ibn Hajr where he said the ‘Ubedullah ibn Ziyad was thiqah. But you are a shia kafir whose religion is based upon twisting the facts.

Here i repeat myself for Debater najis Nasibi to check again what i had wrote !! Asqalani wrote the narrators of Ahle Sunnah who took traditons from Ibn ziyad while asqalani not only mentioned the Imams of Ahle Sunnah who recorded traditions from Umer bin Sa`d bin Abi Waqas rather he also called him Thiqa as well.


First of all this is not established through reliable sources that it was Hadhrat Abu Talib who took Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam under his guardianship after Hadhrat ‘Abdal Muttalib. Even if we accept this theory presented by shias then this is somewhat like Fir’aun provided shelter to Hadhrat Musa ‘alayhis salam. Off course it is Allah who provided shelter to both Hadhrat Musa ‘alayhis salam and Hadhrat Muhammad sallAllahu alayhe wasallam through those who were not blessed with Iman (faith).

Well, i really dont want to debate on the issue of the uncle of Prophet [s] Hdrath Abu Talib [as] with Najis Nasibi who deem the parents of Holy Prophet [s] as kaafir. As for your example of Firawn , prove that he also recited the nikah of Musa.


Off course, this is what is the belief of shias that Hadhrat Hasan radhiyAllahu 'anhu was the enemy of Ahlul Bayt, that is the reason why they poisoned him and deprived his progeny from Imamat forever.
Can you deny that? No way!

lool . Thats why i have been asking you to change your minhaj/madressa from Nasibi cult so that you may learn some Shia belief as well (not the one which are fed you up by the Nasibi mullahs). As for the murderer of Imam Hassan [a] than we are fully ware of that person who had audacity to poison him [as] in order to pave the way for the caliphate for his Fasiq,Fajir,Zaani, etc son.
As for Imamat, since we believe that Imamat is granted by Allah [swt] therefore no one on this earth can have the capability to deprive some1 of what has been bestowed by Allah [swt].



In Hudaybiyah, Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam made an agreement with Kuffar in order to perform Hajj and on issues of infiltration of their men etc. Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam never entrusted his Caliphate (of Allah) or he never transferred powers (of the Islamic State of Madinah) to Kuffaar.

Because He [s] was not forced to do so unlike the situation of Imam Hassan [as].



You are intentionally diverting the issue because you belong to the religion of Shaytaan. I said earlier that not a Single Sahabi reported any narration directly, all narrations come from a series of narrators who attribute the narration to Companions. Therefore if a fatwa is issued it would target the final (terminal) narrator of such narrations. Same principle can be followed for shias’ dirty narrations (as they bear explicit filth and kufr with them unlike narrations of Ahlus Sunnah).

As for Shaytaan than Alhamdulilah Shia are not the folllower of Yazid's family rather you are since you deem that fasiq, fajiq as your caliph.

Thats your individual opinion. Ahle Sunnah do not ascribe to that view. I have presented many traditions from "sahih" which clearly implies tahreef in Quran and the testimony of Sahaba which shows that the present Quran is not the same which used to be recited by Sahaba. Therefore if fatwa of Kufr is to be issued than it shud be issued against each and every Sahabi, Tabai, Imams who narrated and recorded such traditions in ther "sahih" Text so that the condistions of justice shud met. Else Najis Nawasib shall stop barking at Shias to issue takfeer agianst their scholars.



But this is my another challenge that you will never call your scholars Kafir (who held/hold belief in Tahrif of Quran), because you believe that the same is the ‘aqeedah of your Satanic-Imams and you are the worshipper of Shaytaan i.e a shia kafir.

Alhamdulilah you have proved your self once again that you are a clear cut thick Nasibi who called my Imams like Imam Ali bin Abi Talib [as], Imam Hassan [as] and Imam Hussain [as] as "Satanic" means from Shaytaan, which is suffice to make distinction bewteen Ahle Sunnah and you Nasibi.

Ron
25th July 2005, 21:18
Debater2,

Mr Genius!

Masha Allah and Ma'athAllah both are different terms. By the way who the idiot is who gave you the charge of this forum?
Maybe it's your Urdu way of spelling "Ma'athAllah" as "ma'zallah" as you have before, now you spelled it correct and you blame me? As for idiots you obviously would know best so I will leave that to you. Why are you so pressed and desparate to return to a place you're not wanted?