Do shia belive in present Quran?

[Fatah-Momin]

I have read some comment on the board by the members who claim to be sunnies that talking or raising issues that go against shia is not a good thing to do. Inshallah I will use only shia source to expose the beliefs of shia regarding Qur'an.

Post# 1

Beliefs of Shia about the present Qur'an

1 Mi ibne lbrahim~-Qiimmi relates from Ab a Zar'e Ghaffari that the Holy Prophet, in conunenting on the verse "Yauma Tabyazzat wojoohohum", said: On the Resurrection Day my people will come to me under five different standards and I will ask the group under each standard about what they have done with the Two Precious Legacies which I left among you, ie. The Thaqalain? The people under the first standard will reply, "Of the two precious things which you left behind, the greater one we have distorted and thrown behind our backs and ignored, and the lesser one we opposed or hated" The group under the second standard will reply, "Of the Two Pre~ious Ones, the greater (the Qur'an) we distorted and tore to pieces and went against it, and the lesser one we opposed and waged war against it"

2 Thne Taoos and Seyyed Nairnatullali Jazairi, the two prominent Shia traditionalists relate a lengthy tradition that the Holy Prophet declared to Hozaifatibnul Yamaani that the person who profanes the sanctuary of Islam would make people deviate from the path of God, would distort His Book and would alter the Sunnat (traditions) of the Holy Prophet

3 Sa'd ibne Abdullah-e-Qummi quotes the Fifth Holy Imam of the Ahiul-Bait, Muhammad ibne Ali Al-Baqir, that the Holy Prophet called th~ people of Mina and said: Oh people! I am leaving among you Two precious things and if ye adhere to these ye will never go astray: namely the Book of God and my AhIul- Bait. And, beside these Two, here is the Ka'ba, the Sanctuary (the Holy House) Then the Holy Imam said' "The Book they have distorted, the Jtrat (the AhIul-Bait) they have killed and the Ka'ba they have destroyed, and all the things of God that were with them they threw away and detached themselves from them."

4 Shaikh-e-Sadooq asserts in his Khisaal, through Jabir ibne Abdullab-e-Ansari, that the Holy Prophet said that on the Resurrection Day three entities would complain, the Quran, the Mosque and the Itrat The Quran would say, "Oh my Lord! They distorted me and tore me to pieces." The Mosque would say, "Oh my Lord! They kept me and spoiled me." The Itrat would say, "Oh my Lord! They killed us, drove us out of our homes and made us wander hither and thither."

5 The tradition told by Kaafi and Sadooq from Mi ibne Sowaid says that he wrote to the Seventh Holy 'main, Musa ibne Jafar al-Kazim, while he was in prison and received the following reply: "They were ent"usted with the Book of God and they distorted and altered it." 6 Thne Shhhr Aashoob tells that the Third Holy 'main, Husain ibue Mi, while addressing the enemy army on the day of Aashoora, said:
Ye are of the same rebellious party and the remnant of the infidel allies (against the Holy Prophet), and the remnant of those who threw out the Book (the Holy Qur'an) and were inspired by Satan and the gang of criminals and of those who distorted the Book
7 In the book, Kacirnilur Ziyarah it is said that the Sixth Holy 'main, Jafar ibne Muhammad As-Sadiq, prescribed the following prayer for the pilgrims who entered the shrine of the Holy Irnam~ Hnaain: "Oh God! Curse those who deny Thy Prophets, destroyed Thy House (the Ka'ba) and distorted Thy Book." 8 It is said that the Sixth Holy 'main~ Jafar ibne Muhammad As-Sadiq, said, "The masters of the Arabic language distorted the Word of God from its proper place."

To Be contnd:

[Hannahh]

First Fatih, my hands are kinda tied up on this issue :) Whatever I say can and will be used against me in a court of law.

But if you all promise to realize that I am in no way suggesting a way of practice or belief to you I can relate what I know AND what I believe to be true about the case. My connection to any particular scholarship on the issue is completely limited to the source itself, the Nahjul Balaga and I think that is the safest place to be on the issue. It is ridiculous to think that the Shia doctrine is immune to the forces of politics and agitation, even corruption by the opposing party during the Ottoman Empire. My husband's great grandfather was a Shiekh during the last years of the Empire and in a photograph of him he is wearing the clerical attire of the Sunni because in those days, Shia were largely oppressed and violently by that regime. So he wore that hat to escape persecution. That could be said about some periods during the Ottoman dynasty although their were periods of open ended freedoms and tremendous growth in the Islamic religion (architecture, sciences, etc.) and I imagine oppressions were limited and few.

Part of the problem with the Shia doctrine I think issues directly from this self fulfulling prophecy of being "oppressed". Validation of that (as we are seeing in Iraq) doesn't help the matter. The Shia "bias" if you will does not really permit a Shia to 'spread' the word regarding Shi'ism and it obtains a kind of metaphysical association directly related to their silence on the issues. Sufism I often see related to Shi'ism and in reality, Sufism is absolutely discouraged in the doctrine. Absolutely. That a person can 'get closer' to Allah via intoxicants or dancing is simply not a part of that doctrine. Those boundaries however are being blurred by Western media sources who see Sufism as a "friendlier" type of Islam more in line with their societal standards.

Now, I've lived with a Shia for 25 years and I've never really been given the details by him nor by his family. Part of the reason is the language difference but it is more because of the ingrained belief that if a Shia exposes what they really believe to be true about the conflict between Muwaiya and Ali (pbuh) they will be violently oppressed...one of those vicious cycles if you know what I mean. I only know about the core doctrine because I took it upon myself to read the Nahjul. I was aware that there was this concept of a "Shia Koran" however no one would enlighten me even though I questioned them directly. I'd get these dumb stares, a kind of 'shock' that I would dare ask such a question. Why?

The Koran itself is only a representation of the Mother of the Book...we know that for all muslims this is the case and is reflected in the Koran itself. Modern linguistics tells you that no TRUTH can be adequately represented in words which are then subject to PERCEPTION or judgement on the part of the individual reading the words and using their own intellect to 'translate' them into thought and consequently, action. So that much is agreed upon, correct? There does exist a Mother of the Book...not here on this plane of existence but perhaps in paradise.

What you are asking however is did the second level of the Koran, the 'physical' one suffer any kind of change. Hmm. You know I always held by the idea that the Koran we all read is the absolute exact one that was written by the scribes following Mohamed (pbuh) all the time. When I discovered that secular scholars debate this and say that the Koran was actually 'recopied' and what we have now is a different 'edition' if you will...it really was a major attack on my faith. I was greatly disappointed and had no defense to their claims...this was BEFORE I was a committed Shia (for legal reasons) and BEFORE I read the Nahjul (which is only very recently, last month to be specific. Now I can honestly say that the attack against me as a muslim by secularists who are defending the 'literalist' tradition of the Koran make more sense.

The story according to the scholars who study the Koran (not according to Ali(pbuh) is that Othman had the Koran 'recopied' to preserve it and he either destroyed or lost the original papyrus and leather leaflets that the Koran was written on. I think it is safe to say that this is true...we don't have any original documents save for a few that actually came from Mohamed's own handwriting (IF HE COULD WRITE) and we don't really know for sure that he could. He spoke, recited. That much we also, can agree upon regardless of sect right? Karen Armstrong (secular historian) feels however that the literacy of Mohamed seems unlikely because he was known to have a special role even as a child and most likely he must have been educated to some extent (read and write). Now that is where all of us might disagree because to admit something like that into the doctrine (of both camps) would go against the notion of Mohamed having no contact with Christian or Jewish teachings and traditions. So I guess it is up to you to decide whether this canonical text is the real deal. The Shia as a whole completely accept the canonical text and do not differ one bit on what it reveals because to differ on it openly would be to admit division between Shia and all others, including the Sufic disciplines.

I did try to see one of the ?four remaining copies of the Koran (Othman's) while in Istanbul...the first time was ten years ago and we made it just a few minutes too late to see it and the caretaker was closing the room. My last visit to Istanbul however I made it into the room where it is supposedly kept but it wasn't there. Not sure what happened to it but there were simply too many people to question anyone regarding either the "existence" of it or whether it was on loan to another museum. I did see though a few things like beard hairs, plaster casts of Mohamed's footprint and a letter to one of the tribes on the Arabian peninsula that was threatening in nature i.e. that if this tribe failed to adhere to monotheism they would be attacked (and this is an official letter from the prophet or his scribe...at least that is what the museum says about it).

The real division however isn't really about the Koran and I think that if you desire that to be the cause of the real division, this is the information YOU will seek about it in order to validate your own opinion. We all do that...tend to look for what we WANT to find out about something. I think it is incredibly important to look for what we DON'T want to find so that we negate ourselves in terms of opinions that are misinformed, misleading or derive from non muslim sources who have had a negative attitude towards Islam.

The real division between us is our opinion regarding Muwaiya.


EDIT: I'd really like to mention here that there are some interesting novelists (modern) who had studied the Moorish literature, lived with it, etc and have made use of this "secrecy" and conflict to concoct some vivid "fairy tales" if you will. Jorge Luis Borges is one of my favorite authors in this. He wrote the mysterious Library of Babylon, The Secret of the Rose, The Zahir and many, many short stories that reveal the metaphysical end of the doctrine (from a mixed Sufi/Shia standpoint it seems). Good old Jorge is dead now but his work is readily available in most bookstores and really pleasant to read...he was a bit of an existentialist although it isn't really clear what his God belief was. Some may find that reading 'kafir' literature is a bad thing but I don't keep anything out of my realm in terms of 'knowing' about external sources. Nietsche is also quite good in Thus Spake Zarathustra...which I have only read bits and pieces of but he utilized concepts from Islam and in his attack on "God" he didn't include Islam, rather focused on the false teachings of the Church, Judaism and the more widely known doctrines of the time. It isn't really clear what his view of Islam was but because he is known as one of the most famous (or infamous) philosophers of modern times it is relatively certain he had some formulated opinions regarding Islam.

[Hannahh]

Accusations of Assassination

Another important point to address here.

A. Two phases of Jihad (as I see it)

B. Accusations and resulting conflicts directly resulting from the second phase.

C. The position of Companionship (?infallibles...a concept I have only rudimentary understanding of) and lineage.

D. Resulting literature and scholarship (includes everything including Imamship, the Mahdi, the 'secret' or 'uttered' Koran, Shia guilt and lamentation, etc.



A. The two phases of Jihad were the first which established Islam itself during the lifetime of the prophet. This culminated in the conversion of the Quraishi tribe and probably the last actual companion to convert (under some duress), Abu Sufyan.

The second phase of Jihad is after the prophet's death and is a result of the accusations of assassination and the arbitration over the Caliphate (which was accepted by Ali(pbuh) although definitely against his will which in turn resulted in the initial accusations.

B. That's the first bit that I'm willing to admit to this conversation. I think it is strange however to say about Ali (pbuh) what would be forbidden to say about any of the four Caliphs. There are two principle players in that, Aisha and then, Muwaiya. I made the mistake of saying out loud to my husband that Othman was corrupt (misappropriated zakat) and he corrected me. Made it perfectly clear that this is not an issue to discuss or render a decision on. It introduces an unfair bias to all parties in his estimation. This has been mentioned by several other posters as being the reason for division when in reality there are only two sides to this issue, right and wrong and the only proper assumption to be made is that NO ONE PERSON assassinated the Caliph. What is appropriate to consider is the arbitration, when it occurred and what evidence might exist in the canonical Koran that indicates that Ali was actually the 'appointed' Imam. I think it quite possible that this was an open ended order by Allah and set in motion a state of affairs that we can now see (in Iraq) as being part and parcel of that conflict. It is completely within reason that part of Allah's test on individuals is to teach them how to differeniate a good case and a bad one using a very flexible means of support (the Koran which in my opinion can reflect just as many issues as a person wants it to depending on their free will).

C. The position of Companionship. I am not really the best candidate to elucidate on this matter. My understanding is that Companionship is confined to the family of the prophet (living with the prophet and/or intermarried with the prophet including wives, including Aisha), the Immigrants and the Ansars and the other Caliphs regardless of their position in any of the other groups.
It must be noted that many of these people were distantly related and it is possible to connect them in previous generations as second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, etc cousins. One can also connect person regarding their position as "milk" brothers and sisters i.e. nursed by a common wetnurse but not technically related by blood ties (sometimes related however by blood ties).

D. Resulting scholarship and literature which spans several centuries to present times and is blurred by various political upheavals, oppressions, etc.

[Hannahh]

If you wanted to draw a tree of the schism, the first branch would be the one dividing those who debate assassination claims and those who refuse to admit that as conclusive evidence. Put yourself on one side of that tree or the other. Any muslim must keep in mind a state of "objectivity" towards ALL four caliphs in that matter.

Ali's (pbuh) position is that he made no declaration of Assassination (on one person) and recommended that to all parties (initially but not later on and he resisted naming names or collaborators or those who may have deserted Othman in his time of need). He questioned his own role (in the sermons, communiques of the collection called the Nahjul) in that he had been asked by Othman himself to help sort out the complaints of the people.
He could not 'side' with Othman because he felt that Othman was misappropriating zakat and the complainants had the right to request justice on their own behalf. He questioned his own role because he felt his hands were 'tied' because his opponents accused him of being 'power hungry'. He left the final decision with God, asking all forgivenesses if he had acted in opposition to his faith regarding this: He counselled Othman to stop the misappropriation and Othman agreed but wanted a few days to sort things out. At that time, an advisor (there's always an advisor isn't there?) suggested that he fabricate a story concerning the Egyptians who were asked to wait outside the city for a few days. The people were told that the Egyptians went home and were satisfied that there were no misappropriations. This caused tremendous upheaval, Ali turned away from supporting Othman further in the conflict and Othman's house was eventually 'stormed' by the protesters and he was killed (no one significant person was there to defend him save for one of his wives and some servants). Ali disassociated himself from Othman at the point of the fabrication which was a direct result of some bad advice from someone else. Other people associated with Othman deserted him for other reasons, perhaps even fear of the overwhelming numbers in the throng.

Decide that part of the tree and then you can continue. It isn't appropriate to accuse any one person of the assassination but this has not been the case from the Muwaiya end of it. Muwaiya directly accused Ali and led a revolt against him when he (Ali, pbuh) was made Caliph.

[Abu Omar]

Assalaamu aleykum.

Muawiyah (raa) - to my knowledge - didn't accuse Ali (raa) of being the murderer, he got angry because Ali (raa) seemed unwillingly to catch the murderer and Uthmaan was his kinsman, they were from the same clan, Bani Umayyah, so he refused to swore allegiaence to Ali (raa).

And besides that, Ali (raa) and Muawiyah (raa) never called each other "kaafir" in this conflict. Yes it was a sad conflict, and even Sunnis agree on that Ali (raa) was the one who was right here, and that Muawiyah (raa) did wrong. Besides that, Ali's (raa) son Hasan pledged allegiance to Muawiyah (raa) once Ali (raa) got assasinated.

So you shiites have no right to claim that Abu Bakr (raa), Omar (raa), Muawiyah (raa), Khalid (raa) etc were kuffar. Even Ali (raa) and his family at the time did not do this! Also, there was people at this time who claimed that Ali (raa) was God, so he burned some of them to death.

Lastly, remember what the Prophet (saaws) said about those who abuse his companions:

"Whoever abuses my Companions, upon them is the curse of Allah, the Angles and all the people" (Saheeh, At-Tabaranee)

[Hannahh]

Thanks Abu Omar but I don't think it is up to you to decide what "you Shia" or "you Sunni" believe to be correct and how that impacts our actions.

Do you as a Sunni think it is okay for "you Sunni" to blow up people in their mosques and bomb their funeral processions (mourning those lost in the mosque) in order to prove you are right? Apparently, many of "you Sunni" support that kind of thing because you are unable to differentiate yourselves from your sunnah and your intentions. All the worthwhile effort the Sunni have spent on sorting out differences in opinion regarding ghusl to eating the halal to avoiding the haram apparently haven't done much to preserve the peace of this religion.

Truly if I wanted to define the problem by using the actions of the Sunni in their practices it would be very hard to do because "you Sunni" spend alot of time deciding for other people how to wash their hind parts and have done a great job adding to that body of knowledge. Unfortunately, Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman (peace upon all three of them) did not write a book that we can deduce their principles from and it leaves us completely in the dark in regards to their nature, their stance on arbitration, their stance on revolt or anything else. If you can bring forth a book of wisdom by one of those three Caliphs to shed some light on this issue you are welcome to. For now though we might just have to try to understand each other based on logic instead of emotion. I suggest you give it a chance before you leap into an attack that has been construed as personal (by me) even if you meant it for my own good (like mine above reminding you of the disquiet being caused by Sunni 'activists' in Iraq).

[Far7an]

Assalamu alaikum Hannahh

Are you a shi'aa? or should I mind my own business?

[Hannahh]

No you can ask a question hahaha. I'm a Shia.

What I'm trying to point out to Abu Omar is that his opinion isn't really following along the lines of logic for this discussion and is instead based on his personal hatred of Shia. In my book, bad faith and if I'm to continue I can't really stop to deal with my anger every time he wants to say something out of line.

What he is saying in a nutshell however actually pertains to the "Decision Tree" as I'll call it. A decision tree is used in the medical field to make life and death decisions in a rapid way based on many variables including emotion.
In this case I'm hoping to provide an objective way for a Sunni to find out where they stand on the process...hoping that in the end some might find it useful to sort out their emotions in the case. If I were to try to take Sunni practice and deduce from that their original intention (back in the days of Muwaiya and the first four Caliphs) I'd end up saying that they're not providing the evidence currently that proves that they are the better muslims.
In the end, it isn't about that and it shouldn't be. Shia consider Sunni to be 100% absolutely through and through muslims. Sunni however do not really accept Shia as muslims and this is allowing them to commit outrage against them and crimes against humanity in Iraq. Of course not all Sunni support the actions of Zarqawi in Iraq but not too many of them are happy that they are not going to be allowed to control their Shia brethren there in the future should the United States successfully IMPOSE democracy on them (the second best solution to an Islamic state which is impossible considering the hatreds the two groups have for one another).

Abu Omar has only demonstrated for me that there are some very conservative Sunnis who take the first division upon themselves at the bottom of the decision tree and use excuses for that. Arbitration in the matter of the Caliphate (the first four) was accepted (even if Ali (pbuh) didn't agree with it in his heart), he pledged allegiance to them and they sought his advice frequently regarding matters of state and he never declared war on any of them. The assassination accusation needs to be considered a point that cannot be admitted at evidence because both sides pointed fingers at each other although one of those was Ali (pbuh) himself...a member of the prophets holy family and the other was led by the son of the man of Hebrew origin who converted to Islam towards the end and under much duress (from the Qureshi). Doesn't matter...it is simple enough to reserve one's opinion on that (even though the character of the two witnesses might suggest other wise to you) and continue down the decision tree to find out where the actual split occurs.

Abu Omar has already made his decision and he is willing to back it up.

[Hannahh]

"So you shiites have no right to claim that Abu Bakr (raa), Omar (raa), Muawiyah (raa), Khalid (raa) etc were kuffar. Even Ali (raa) and his family at the time did not do this! Also, there was people at this time who claimed that Ali (raa) was God, so he burned some of them to death."

The use of kafir here is not only inappropriate but it is a modern usage of it. Muwaiya outwardly prayed/fasted/etc. (like many do nowdays). What his goal or belief was between himself and Allah.

Ali (pbuh) and his family did what? And at what time? I think most likely I'm the only person here who has read the treatise! So my apologies Abu Omar...I don't want to make you mad. I don't like being called "you Shia" which is really kind of rude you know. :)

As I stated, Ali accepted the other three caliphs (against his will) and never waged a war on a one of them. Muwaiya however did, after securing allegiance from Al-As who was rewarded for this 'partnership' against the Caliph Ali (pbuh)...we are now talking about him in that particular role...Al-As was given the governorship of Egypt. Now mind you, Muwaiya had no authority to promise this and in order to make good on this promise he had to kill the rightfully appointed governor (and I think he had to kill two of them to get Egypt and give it away to his friend). Now that is pretty serious, don't you think Abu Omar?

I sure do.

And you know...there are Shia who take the same route on that decision tree...they argue over the arbitration and accuse the first three caliphs of collusion...not of being kafir. There is a huge gulf in that understanding Abu Omar. Those are the fundamentalist Shia. And on their immediate left is the fundamentalist Sunni.

[Hannahh]

Leveling the charge of kafir:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/01_abu_bakr.htm#Pre-Islamic%20Period

Here's one. Abu Bakr(pbuh) was Kafir. Before his conversion to Islam. I think sometimes Sunni confuse the notion of the pre Islamic period with the post Islamic. Most Shia make the distinction and in this, Abu Bakr (pbuh) was kafir prior to the advent of Islam. He wasn't a very good kafir however and apparently had a distaste for his father's idols.

What the Shia notion of this is pertains to the conversion of Ali (pbuh) who never existed in any other state. He was not raised in either a pagan, Jewish or Christian atmosphere. He grew up with the prophet and is widely known as the second muslim after Khadija.

I think you are getting those ideas confused Abu Omar but sometimes it takes me a bit to sort out what a person is saying because it seems that you are relating something you've overheard and failed to investigate because your bias runs quite deep. Remember, what you WANT to believe is often a bit different from what you might believe if you gather your facts first!

Ali (pbuh) was the immediate first cousin of the prophet while Abu Bakr was related distantly to the eighth generation. This is the problem when as it pertains to the arbitration of the other three.

(By the way...this isn't my information but I asked my mother in law...who is illiterate and wanted to know what the difference is between the first three caliphs and the fourth. She is the one who related the notion that Ali(pbuh) had a book of wisdom, the others didn't and that Ali (pbuh) was the only one who had no previous experience in any type of religion, pagan or otherwise. I take it that her opinion is more the type of hearsay you are looking for and looked into that list of Companions I provided to Ron in another thread when it hit me. My mother-in-law is a devout Shia and has absolute respect for Sunni muslims and I've never heard her say anything about ANY of the folks involved. I think it is really important to get the view of a moderate instead of relying on things you hear from Shia fundamentalists when making your statements. And yes, there are Shia fundamentalists...no one doubts that. It's just they aren't involved (to any significant degree) in suicide bombing against Sunnis (moderate, pious and otherwise).

I hope this helps.

[BOY-NICE]

to fitna-maker Fatah-Momin

you have opened this topic once again but never completed it before and ran away. referring to http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?t=1948

anyway the topic has already been discussed in this forum at http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?t=1891

[Ron]

Salam All,

Welcome back Boy-Nice. I agree that this has been dealt with and Fatah-Momin I am asking you kindly not to repost matters dealt with.

Maybe one day you would consider all the problems we already have; why do you choose to add more. Posts like yours I give part credit to when some choose to blow themselves up in mosques. While I know you think you're doing something good, I hope that your posts aren't heaping guilt upon your shoulders.

[Fatah-Momin]

Asalaam Alikum

My mistake and I apologize

[Fatah-Momin]

I give part credit to when some choose to blow themselves up in mosques.
This is an anti muslims statement, do not forget that this board is for understanding Islam, unless and untill one does not expose and admit to the frictions that exists, one is in state of denial, as long as one is in denial nothing can be solved.

[Ron]

This is an anti muslims statement, do not forget that this board is for understanding Islam, unless and untill one does not expose and admit to the frictions that exists, one is in state of denial, as long as one is in denial nothing can be solved.
Your very presence is an "anti-Muslim" statement. Your existence here has been hate, division, destruction and "friction." Your the epitome of dismemberment of the Ummah and you could careless about Muslims and obviously Islam. Your mission to disintegrate Muslims would be highly regarded by those who wish to exterminate Islam and Muslims. Indeed, I do give you and the likes of you partial credit for instigating and provoking those who lack the mental capacity to think for themselves and kill people by blowing themselves up or by other means causing death to innocents. Satan's work is well exemplified in the people who tread the path of sowing the seeds of hate and destruction...the wicked one smiles...

[Fatah-Momin]

^ and this atitude of yours will unite the Ummah? I will continue this interaction through PM as it does not look good for a member to question an admin of the board on the open forum.

[Ron]

^ and this atitude of yours will unite the Ummah? .
No, it'll exclude all those bent on destroying it.

I will continue this interaction through PM as it does not look good for a member to question an admin of the board on the open forum
It's your opinion that it's not appropriate. You worry about what "doesn't look good" but posting hate and calling for death and destruction "looks good?" Try to be productive.

[Hannahh]

Well, like usual I'm a bit slow on the uptake. I appreciate the support here and had no idea that Fatih was just trying to make trouble.

I agree with what someone in another thread said....no more of this Sunni-Shia thing. It isn't going to help anyone or anything and only causes distrust and emnity.

Thank you Ron very much though for your kindness and your wisdom.

[Fatah-Momin]

Please find history of the image posted previously by me of shia Quran


History of "SURA WILAYAT"

One of the most famous and respected Shi'ite scholars, from
Najaf, Mirza Husain bin Muhammad Taqi An-Nawari At-Tabarsi, wrote
in 1292 A.H. the book faslul-Khitaab fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaab
Rabbil-Arbaab (The Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book
of the Lord of Lords). In this book he compiled hundreds of texts writ-
ten by Shi'ite scholars in different eras alleging that the Qur'an has
been tampered with, that there have been both additions to it and
omissions from it.

At-Tabarsi's book was printed in Iran, in 1298 A.H., and its
appearance attracted much attention, frustrating the intention of cer-
tain Shi'ites that their doubts about the authenticity of the Qur'an
should be restricted to the elite of religious scholars and personalities.
They preferred that these allegations not be brought together in a
single volume, and widely disseminated, as it could be used as a proof
against them by their opponents. When the scholars made public their
criticism, At-Tabarsi responded with another book entitled Raddu
ba'dush-Shubahaati 'an Faslil-Khitaabi fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaabi
Rabbil-Arbaab (Refutation of Some Specious Arguments Regarding the
Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book of the Lord of the
Lords). He wrote this defense of his original book two years before his
death. In order to show their appreciation of his contribution to the at-
tempt to prove that the Qur'an had been altered, the Shi'ites buried
him in one of their most prominent religious shrines, at Najaf.

Among the proofs offered by At-Tabarsi in his attempt to show
that the Qur'an had been altered, was a quotation from what the
Shi'ites consider to be a missing part of the Qur'an, called by them
Suratul-Wilaayah (see the following page). It mentions the granting of
wilaayah (sovereignty) to 'Ali as follows: "O believers, believe in the
Prophet and the wali, the two whom We sent to guide you to the
straight path..."

[Fatah-Momin]

Now let us continue one step further and quote directly from shia source if shia believe Quran is the last testement of Allah or not, at the end conclusion is Shia do not believe Quran to be the last testement.

http://www.balagh.net/english/ahl_bayt/fat...gracious/17.htm



Actually, Fatima lived seventy-five days after the Prophet's death; when she was intensely depressed, Gabriel would visit and condole her on the Prophet's death. He would cheer her up by mentioning the good situation her father was enjoying, and tell her what would come to pass after her death. Imam Ali (A.S.) wrote what Gabriel said, and this is Fatima's book.

It continues to argue:




There remains a need for an explanation of what is meant by "It was revealed to her."

This explanation can be derived from the Quranic verses that revelation is not confined to prophets; but rather Allah, the Exalted, reveals to some chosen people as mentioned in the following verses:

A. "So Zakariya came out to his people from his chamber; told them by signs to celebrate God's praises in the morning and in the evening." (19: 11)

B. "So He completed them as seven firmaments in two days, and

(92)

He assigned to each Heaven its duty and command." (41: 12)

C. 'And behold! 1 inspired the Disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Apostle." (5: 114)

D. "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): '1 am with you; give firmness to the Believers." (8: 12)

E. "And thy Lord taught the bee to build its cells in hills." (16: 68)

F. "So we sent this inspiration to the mother of Moses: 'Suckle (thy child)." (28: 7)

G. "And indeed We conferred a favor on thee another time (before)" (20: 38)

Moreover, these verses state that revelation is not confined to mankind, but it also includes other creatures such as: the Heavens, the Disciples, the angels, the bees, and Musa's mother.

Therefore, there can be no doubt that Allah, the Exalted, sent revelations to the Mistress of Women and daughter of the Master of Prophets, as he revealed to Musa's mother or Maryam Bint Imran.

In conclusion, Fatima's book is enormous, and includes detailed information about the legal punishments and the Islamic penal code, whether major or minor.

It was also declared that her book lists the names of kings who ruled and will rule on Earth until the Day of Resurrection. All this was according to the will of Allah the Knowing, the Omniscient. The book also contains descriptions of all-important events that will take place throughout history.

Fatima's book was not a Quran, as is clearly stated in the traditions of Ahlul-Bayt, in spite of the claims of the enemies of the Shiite who argue that the Shiites believe in another divine book called Fatima's book, with the intention of undermining their authentic faith.


the word inspired as explained in english dictionary


v. in·spired, in·spir·ing, in·spires
To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.
To stimulate to action; motivate: a sales force that was inspired by the prospect of a bonus.
To be the cause or source of; bring about: an invention that inspired many imitations.
To draw in (air) by inhaling.


Meaning of revelation in englilsh dictionary



The act of revealing or disclosing.
Theology. A manifestation of divine will or truth.
Revelation Abbr. Rev. or Rv. Bible.


Meaning on word dictated


v. dic·tat·ed, dic·tat·ing, dic·tates
To say or read aloud to be recorded or written by another: dictate a letter.

Now let us see what is being claimed in an hadith of the Imam, is the book inspired as claimed in the article or is it revealed and dictated.
It has been narrated in v. 10 of A-Bihar that Imam Sadiq (A.S.) said to Abu Basir:

"... We also possess Fatima's book Mushaf, and had they known about the book of Fatima!!! It is three times the size of your Quran; and by Allah, it has not a letter of your Quran; rather it was dictated and revealed to her by Allah ...."


It is very clear from the hadith of the infalible imam that mus-haf Fatima was not a inspired book, as the person on the shia site is claiming it to be as he is trying to explain the hadith, in which imam state that this book was dictated [To say or read aloud to be recorded or written by another] and revealed [Theology. A manifestation of divine will or truth. Revelation].

This goes to prove that Shia do not believe in present Quran, but have another divine Book that as revealed to Hz. Fatima[ra] during the six month period that she lived after the Nabi Allah[saw] though whole Quran was revealed in 23 yrs.

Inshall more to follow.

[khalid zaheer]

Assalaam o alaikum Fatah

The Shia sect believe in this Quran but with a little changes. They believe this Quran in incomplete because there are many things omitted by Abu bakar (ra) and Umer (ra). The original Quran was of 40 chapters instead of 30. According to Shia sect "the 40 chapter Quran was written by Ali (ra) and now a days that is in possession of Imam Mahdi, He will show it when He will appear near to judgement day.

I can provide number of evidences from the books of Shia sect to prove such things. But it does not mean that Shia dont accept this Quran, they believe upon it but do claim "it is not complete".

Allah hafiz

[BOY-NICE]

Assalaam o alaikum Fatah

The Shia sect believe in this Quran but with a little changes. They believe this Quran in incomplete because there are many things omitted by Abu bakar (ra) and Umer (ra). The original Quran was of 40 chapters instead of 30. According to Shia sect "the 40 chapter Quran was written by Ali (ra) and now a days that is in possession of Imam Mahdi, He will show it when He will appear near to judgement day.


Excuse me. Like Sunni traditions there exists Shia traditions as well which shows that the Quran is incomplete or so but such traditions are rejecteb by the majority of Shia ulema and they are solved on taweel. As for the 40 parah thing as i said there such traditions exists in sunni text as well which says that to recite 30 parahs is sufficient among the 40. etc etc.



Assalaam o alaikum Fatah

I can provide number of evidences from the books of Shia sect to prove such things. But it does not mean that Shia dont accept this Quran, they believe upon it but do claim "it is not complete".

Allah hafiz

And as i said such reports are useless untill they are not agreed upon by the ulema.
The topic was discussed in detail here but as usual such topics doesnt give postive results. http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?t=1891

[Hannahh]

Leave religion out of this hahaha.

First, the actual rendition of the Koran by the Companions...who put it onto leather and papyrus....is not available. If it were Fatah I guarantee you it would have travelled the world over as a real sacred document. It would be like having a real copy of the Bible. So...the Second Koran doesn't exist that we know of. The First copy is with Allah and we cannot access that. The third copy was originated by ?Othman and it is the universally accepted written Koran period. I'm sure if the Shia had the Second Koran (the one on leather and leaves) then I've little doubt they would have shown it to a Sunni scholar or two. We share you know...

So actually...this is not a topic about the literal sense of the Koran. It is about one sects understanding of what is written in the universally accepted Koran combined with the Shia notion that a line of Imams existed and was occulted...that knowledge isn't with any sect. It is hidden (if it exists).

I'm pretty sure though that the Koran I READ isn't the same one you read or anyone else reads. That is called perception and we all have it. It is based on our own personal experience and everything that entails from our public school education to what we ate for breakfast (if I liked my breakfast I'm more likely to agree with your interpretation than if I didn't like my breakfast today).