Answering-Ansar's Guru says "Pakistan" is mentioned in the Quran of Imam Mehdi [Archive]

JayshAllah

5th November 2007, 05:39 PM

The reason I am upset is because we already discussed this before. You knew my position on the matter. I disagreed with you. Anyways, it's ok. Doesn't matter.

Dont get me wrong I will be also angry if someone said all Christian scholars believe homosexuality is okay when the truth is most dont

This is not a proper example. The proper example would be if someone used a general statement like 'the Christian scholars forbid homosexuality.' You might argue that it is not a proper sentence since not ALL do, but rather only most do. But general terms like 'they believe this' are already known to mean that. Contrary to your beliefs, the vast majority of Shia scholars believe in Tahreef, since it is considered a belief which was mass-transmitted.

Of course you will now begin your arguing that this is not the case, but you will only sound like those naive people who argue and say that 'most shia don't believe in matam', 'taqiyyah is only to save one's life', etc, things which we have proven not to be true. Initially I too was one of those naive people until those superior in knowledge to me showed me the light.

Anyways, I have many articles planned on the topic of Tahreef and eventually you will come to believe me.

Until then, you need not give your input on the matter since you have already done that.

Al-hamdu Lillah I know people who are well-informed on the matter and whose opinion I trust because they have consistently proven themselves to be true.

When I first started studying Shi'ism, I even believed that they were Muslims, and I thought of those who thought of them as kufaar to be extremists. I used to believe that they had the same pillars of faith, that they only differed on minor things, that they didn't openly curse the Sahabah, that they didn't believe in matam, that taqiyyah is only what they say it is, that they don't really encourage mutah, and so many more beliefs...and I too would try sounding like a dispassionate 'academic' like you and say 'let's not say such things or else we will sound unacademic...' and by doing that, I was farting on the dozens upon dozens of scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah who had dedicated their lives to studying Shi'ism and refuting them...I was--in my ignorance--placing myself over and above those who knew.

Then as I studied more and more, I realized that all the things that I was led to believe by the Shia were simply false and that the Sunni scholars were right about them.

What I am saying is that you should lower the wing of humility to those who know more, and that is the scholarship of the Ahl as-Sunnah.

I was talking to an expert on Shi'ism and he said something that really hit me as truthful: "the MORE you study Shi'ism, the more you realize how extreme it is." And this expert had told me long time ago that one day you too will realize and awaken to the true face of Shi'ism (that was when I was a skeptic like you)...but now I believe!

Fi Aman Allah.

ahmedjbh

5th November 2007, 06:09 PM

Yes, the awwam do not believe in Tahreef ,but the scholarship does. That is what is meant by "they" when I say "they believe this."

As for 'haram', then you don't know anything. The scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah surely know more than you, despite you being an 'academic.' There are scholars who have dedicated their entire lives to investigating the Shia fitnah, and they know more than you do.

You annoy me. I've already had this discussion with you, so no need for your 'advice'.

Only in your brain. If all the scholars on earth said the Quran was complete and perfect, you would say, no thats just taqiyah. In every school of thought there are scholars that are extreme or beliefs dont fit inline with the majority of that school.

The simple fact is you only seem interested in saying the real position is that of the minority (or even the non exsistent). Why is that?

I want to know why you cant discuss things in an academic way, without resorting to playground tactics, what are you afraid of?

JayshAllah

5th November 2007, 07:25 PM

Only in your brain. If all the scholars on earth said the Quran was complete and perfect, you would say, no thats just taqiyah. In every school of thought there are scholars that are extreme or beliefs dont fit inline with the majority of that school.

The simple fact is you only seem interested in saying the real position is that of the minority (or even the non exsistent). Why is that?

I want to know why you cant discuss things in an academic way, without resorting to playground tactics, what are you afraid of?

See Abu Malik, these are the type of idiots that agree with you. The confused Shunni, AhmedJ.

ahmedjbh

6th November 2007, 07:01 PM

JayshAllah

6th November 2007, 07:30 PM

from reading this forum if manners are an indicator of faith, i see those who agree with your thinking completely devoid of any faith. You throw around insults with no regard, you avoid discussion the actual points raised.

You have earned yourself such a reputation here that people merely need to see the position you take, and then take the opposite! If you agree with someone on this forum, then that person will hit himself on the head for having YOU as an ally! As for being devoid of faith, that is YOU, you heretic. In an Islamic state, you'd be charged with grand heresy and punished. ANYTHING is better than being a heretic like yourself. I'd rather be an ill-mannered believer than a well-mannered heretic.

ahmedjbh

6th November 2007, 08:11 PM

why am i a heretic?

MohammadMufti

7th November 2007, 09:30 AM

and whats up with the suspicions..."the grand ayatollahs all privately believe in tahreef"...come on dude we're academics...there are other things to attack them for than suspicions...which I think are haram btw

Perhaps you should read their comments and learn to academiclly read between the lines brother. Why do Rafidi ulema allow their sheep to make salah behind an Imami believer in tahrif and forbid salah behind a non-Imami believer in Qur'an??? Why do they forbid disassociation from and takfir of Qur'an deniers? And put this to the fact that all of their major ulema were Qur'an deniars, their books are replete with ahadith on tahrif of Qur'an and they ALL openly making tahrif of ayah 33/33, etc.

ibn 'abd al-jabbaar

7th November 2007, 02:47 PM

Only in your brain. If all the scholars on earth said the Quran was complete and perfect, you would say, no thats just taqiyah. In every school of thought there are scholars that are extreme or beliefs dont fit inline with the majority of that school.

The simple fact is you only seem interested in saying the real position is that of the minority (or even the non exsistent). Why is that?

I want to know why you cant discuss things in an academic way, without resorting to playground tactics, what are you afraid of?

perhaps ahmedjbh will join us in denouncing the Shi'a Allamah, the ideological inspiration of the ithna-ashariyya website answering-ansar.org as they themselves proclaim, as a disbeliever for alleging that the Revelation we have with us today - the untampered and protected Word of Allah - is weak and incomplete?

ahmedjbh

7th November 2007, 11:16 PM

MohammadMufti

8th November 2007, 06:21 AM

You've averted the statement of the Rafidi scholar and didn't even denounce him - so it's clearly an acceptable position in your cult.

"There may be weak or fabricated hadith to suggest otherwise"

Are all of them weak/fabricated?

"it is widely reported in their bukhari book."

There is no reports on tahrif al Qur'an in any of Bukhari's books, there is nask at tilawah which Rafidhi laymen are too incompetent to understand - but no tahrif. In fact, if there is more narrations in our books on tahrif, why does YOUR scholar find 1000+ narrations from you in his books and the one's he finds from the Muslims, he has to rework?

Abu Ma'mar

8th November 2007, 06:33 AM

This is a true fact.

When ever you show a rafidhi a audio tape of a rafidhi preist saying kufr or shirk they allways say he's extreme etc typical taqiyya game.

The acid test is to tell them to make takfeer of these scholars or say that deviant to their deen but they never do it.

ibn 'abd al-jabbaar

8th November 2007, 11:02 AM

The bottom line is shia believe in the quran is complete, and you cant do anything about that. There may be weak or fabricated hadith to suggest otherwise, but there is more of that in the sunni books than anywhere else.

Nobody (except idiots) would accuse a sunni of believing in tahreef, even though it is widely reported in their bukhari book.

Again, I would say it is people like you, the sheer arogance, and underhand tactics or deceit and manipulation that turned me away from the sunni belief, to that of the shia.

this is a red herring.

please address the question directly:

perhaps ahmedjbh will join us in denouncing the Shi'a Allamah, the ideological inspiration of the ithna-ashariyya website answering-ansar.org as they themselves proclaim, as a disbeliever for alleging that the Revelation we have with us today - the untampered and protected Word of Allah - is weak and incomplete?

ibnYaseen

8th November 2007, 07:41 PM

The bottom line is shia believe in the quran is complete, and you cant do anything about that. There may be weak or fabricated hadith to suggest otherwise, but there is more of that in the sunni books than anywhere else.

Nobody (except idiots) would accuse a sunni of believing in tahreef, even though it is widely reported in their bukhari book.

Again, I would say it is people like you, the sheer arogance, and underhand tactics or deceit and manipulation that turned me away from the sunni belief, to that of the shia.

It's amusing how you keep going on about how the way people behave caused you to adopt the views that you believe in -- that tells us a lot about you, your mentality and the simple-mindedness in the way you think. Tomorrow if a Hindu is too nice to you perhaps you will be defending monkeys and elephants.

Ok Mr Shia Convert, tell us some of the Shiia scholars, alims, Imams, etc that you follow. Name some names, lets see who you are referring to and what exactly your leanings are -- right now you just hide behind this convenient cloak of insulting/attacking random sunni's and blaming their behaviour for the reason why you became Shiia. Not a very intelligent thing.

Abd al-Haqq Marshall

8th November 2007, 08:13 PM

The Akhbari Shi'ah admittedly believe in tahreef.

ahmedjbh

8th November 2007, 09:30 PM

I denounce anyone who believes the quran is incomplete. Also im waiting to here why i am a heretic.

Also there seems to be a fundamental ignorance when it comes to shia hadith collections. There are many many weak hadiths, collected knowing they were weak for the simple purpose of gathering all statements and grading them.

Of the approx 17,000 hadith in kafi, approx 5000 are classed as strong. That is the strongest of the shia hadith books. Unfortunately arogance and ignorance go hand in hand and the loud mouth ignorants refuse to even read this.

There is no reports on tahrif al Qur'an in any of Bukhari's books

Can you tell me where is the verse of stonning that is mentioned in bukhari, or perhaps about the verses a donkey ate which are now lost?

If I was a underhand ignorant man, I would accuse the sunni of belief in tahreef, but as there mainstream scholars, just like the shia, have rejected any such beleifs, even though there are some hadiths to support it, i will not be as silly as some have been on this board and make slander.

Also Im not going to make takfeer on anybody, but if you show me a audiotape that i disagree with, I will say i disagree with it. Just as on this board, scholars are disagreed with all the time, you dont make takfeer on them.

ahmedjbh

8th November 2007, 09:57 PM

It's amusing how you keep going on about how the way people behave caused you to adopt the views that you believe in -- that tells us a lot about you, your mentality and the simple-mindedness in the way you think. Tomorrow if a Hindu is too nice to you perhaps you will be defending monkeys and elephants.

Ok Mr Shia Convert, tell us some of the Shiia scholars, alims, Imams, etc that you follow. Name some names, lets see who you are referring to and what exactly your leanings are -- right now you just hide behind this convenient cloak of insulting/attacking random sunni's and blaming their behaviour for the reason why you became Shiia. Not a very intelligent thing.

Sayid Fadhlullah is a scholar i really respect, as is Ayatollah Khamenei. I enjoy reading books by Shaheed Mutahari, and ibn Sina, Mullah Sadr. I read as much as I can from any sect to be honest, on my shelf I even have kitab al tawheed by wahab. I dont know what you mean by leanings, can you give me a clue?

As far as becoming Hindu, I read about all religions as it happens, and not becuase someone spoke to me in a nice way. I found islam the definite obvious choice, however when I researched about shia/sunni. After starting of to be sunni, whenever i asked about shiasm, i always got the same type of responses "dont listen to them they lie/taqiyah, they dont belief in quran, they worship other than Allah etc etc".

So I decided to find out if these claims are true, and the funny thing is, the very same claims are still being made on this forum even today! Of course when I looked into it, the slander was clear, and there were no such beliefs. This immediately made me negative about sunnis, as I felt why are they saying blatant lies? However when I met some knowledgeable sunnis, they did not make these accusations, but they were all quite different, there seemed to be many differences in the sunni beliefs. Any way I researched more of the individual concepts and I found shiasm to be a better choice.

I also liked the way the shia discuss things, they are organised and they discuss the issues in an academic islamic way. I never heard them disrespecting or slandering other groups, something i find the sunni appear to do freely.

ibn 'abd al-jabbaar

9th November 2007, 01:23 AM

Can you tell me where is the verse of stonning that is mentioned in bukhari, or perhaps about the verses a donkey ate which are now lost?

If I was a underhand ignorant man, I would accuse the sunni of belief in tahreef, but as there mainstream scholars, just like the shia, have rejected any such beleifs, even though there are some hadiths to support it, i will not be as silly as some have been on this board and make slander. you may need to read MohammadMufti's post more closely, for he has already mentioned the principle of naskh al-tilawa (textual abrogation - a different concept to tahreef/distortion). in any case, your attempted analogy is a non sequitur, for no Sunni believes the Qur'an of today is "weak" and "incomplete".

I denounce anyone who believes the quran is incomplete...

please be specific. will you make takfeer upon someone who says the divinely-protected mus-haf you open before yourself is distorted?

apparently not, as you say:

... Also Im not going to make takfeer on anybody, but if you show me a audiotape that i disagree with, I will say i disagree with it. Just as on this board, scholars are disagreed with all the time, you dont make takfeer on them.you had no difficulty in making takfeer upon people based upon unsubstantiated attributions in the other thread, but apparently takfeer upon a person who declares the Qur'an distorted and "weak" is beyond your threshold. such inconsistency damages your credibility.

ahmedjbh

9th November 2007, 01:57 AM

if someone says Allah is 2, i would say that he has a polytheistic understanding, I have not called them a kafir in the sense that they disbelieve in Allah.

Im not intrested in "jargoning" out of situations, I could quite easily use the same excuse for saying those "distortions" mentioned in weak hadiths are actually abragations. The fact is the first criteria for accepting a hadith is, does it contradict with the quran or not? if it contradicts then it is immediately labeled weak or false in shia classification. I could also refer to several groups such as the 19ers who did believe the quran incomplete and there leader brought other verses, they are supposedly sunni.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashad_Khalifa#Beliefs

I do not however slander the sunni sect with such things because it is out of the scope of their beleifs, as it is with the shia. However we do not see such manners from some people, they insist on labelling the majority with any random beleifs any minority group has had, even if it was a 1000 years ago. I ask why? why is that the case, why are people accusing shia of such things, are the shia saying that is the correct path? No, so why do some people insist on making it a "belief of the shia"?

or he has already mentioned the principle of naskh al-tilawa (textual abrogation - a different concept to tahreef/distortion). in any case, your attempted analogy is a non sequitur, for no Sunni believes the Qur'an of today is "weak" and "incomplete".

please be specific. will you make takfeer upon someone who says the divinely-protected mus-haf you open before yourself is distorted

This whole notion is riduculus, has anyone ever found a quran with different verses in it, ie a shia quran?

If we go to iran and pick up a quran are you claiming that we will find a difference, or it will be written that this quran is not correct or not complete or tampered with?

Nobody who is of any islamic deceny beleives that, and I see no evidence to the contrary. If you think shia dont beleive in the quran, why are there so many hafiz, and why do they study it in detail etc etc.

The fact that you think this way is alarming, as if a man told you the sky was green, but you looked up and saw it was blue, would you think your eyes were lying? Why dont you accept the most likely option here, which is that the overwhelming evidence is that the shia accept the quran as complete and free from distortion.

Or bring evidence to the contrary.

If this was the case, do you think real scholars, like that in Azhar would allow the classification as shia as a fifth madthab? would they allow teaching of the shia school in Azhar?

ibn 'abd al-jabbaar

9th November 2007, 02:37 AM

if someone says Allah is 2, i would say that he has a polytheistic understanding, I have not called them a kafir in the sense that they disbelieve in Allah.

nobody said Allah is 2. that is a claim you made, which you have yet to substantiate. you did not say that such people "had a polytheistic understanding" (euphemism for polytheism, really), you said (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=56469&postcount=124) such people had "becom[e] polytheist".

Im not intrested in "jargoning" out of situations, I could quite easily use the same excuse for saying those "distortions" mentioned in weak hadiths are actually abragations. with abrogation (i.e. naskh al-tilawa), it is a divine prescription for the text to be removed, as was the case with the verse of rajm you cite. with tahreef, verses that were supposed to have stayed did not e.g. due to alleged tamperings during the compilation by `Uthman etc. thus, there is a stark difference between the two principles.

I could also refer to several groups such as the 19ers who did believe the quran incomplete and there leader brought other verses, they are supposedly sunni. erm... Khalifites are not Sunni. they call themselves "submitters", reject ahadith in totality, and are considered by most to be non-Muslims - precisely due to the reasons that they believe in tahreef and deny the validity of the sunnah.

This whole notion is riduculus, has anyone ever found a quran with different verses in it, ie a shia quran?

If we go to iran and pick up a quran are you claiming that we will find a difference, or it will be written that this quran is not correct or not complete or tampered with?

Nobody who is of any islamic deceny beleives that, and I see no evidence to the contrary. If you think shia dont beleive in the quran, why are there so many hafiz, and why do they study it in detail etc etc.this really isn't the focus of my comments. my questions in this thread have pertained to the specific views of the Allamah. your main contention here has been that shia (yourself included) don't believe in that kind of stuff - for the purpose of this discussion i have accepted that premise.

thus, i had asked whether you would join us in making takfeer upon someone like Allamah Mushtaq who attacks people (not just Sunnis really, but everyone who believes in the completeness of Allah's Revelation) as having "weak faith" for believing in a "weak" Qur'an.

all of the succeeding comments i have made have been in that context. with that in mind, you may wish to consider re-addressing my previous post (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=57033&postcount=22).

MohammadMufti

9th November 2007, 10:16 AM

if someone says Allah is 2, i would say that he has a polytheistic understanding, I have not called them a kafir in the sense that they disbelieve in Allah.

Polytheists also believe in Allah (swt), what makes the mushrik mushrik is his association of additional deities. Saying someone is polytheistic, or attributing non-repentant shirk akbar to them IS takfir.

if it contradicts then it is immediately labeled weak or false in shia classification.

That's a completely baseless cop-out excuse, when Rafidi "ahadith" contradict Qur'an, than you simply re-interpret the Qur'anic ayat in question - and with regards to the particular belief in tahrif, according to the Rawafid who hold it, it does not contradict the Qur'an. Their argument is that though the Qur'an is protected, and nothing false can come to it (by the 2 verses on this matter), this doesn't mean that tahrif was not made be removal or reorganization of content.

However we do not see such manners from some people, they insist on labelling the majority with any random beleifs any minority group has had, even if it was a 1000 years ago.

Nobody did this, we only labeled your ulema as such, and ulema, even talib e ilm are a minority in Shi'ism :)

This whole notion is riduculus, has anyone ever found a quran with different verses in it, ie a shia quran?

Uh, since the Mehdi of 12ers has it with him in his cave (or ghayba in general), there is no doubt that nobody has seen it. Has anyone seen mushaf e Fatima (ra) that Rafidha believe in? No. But do they believe in it anyways though considering it hidden? Yes.

why are there so many hafiz...

Please do bring a self-proclaimed hafidh e Qur'an from Rafidha.

If this was the case, do you think real scholars, like that in Azhar would allow the classification as shia as a fifth madthab? would they allow teaching of the shia school in Azhar?

Scholars make mistakes - we're Muslims afterall, we don't attribute infallibility to them as you do to your "proofs" of God. Some scholars made the mistake of allowing khamr (Iraq), some made the mistake of allowing music (Hejaz), etc. We don't follow on mistakes and minority opinions generally. As for the fatwa, Al Azhar as an institute has moved drasticlly away from that mistake - and further, it contradicts the authentic positions of hundreds of scholars. If there is a "fifth" madhab than the Zahiri's would qualify a hundred years before you and the Zaydi Shi'a before you also.

MohammadMufti

9th November 2007, 10:19 AM

Sayid Fadhlullah is a scholar i really respect, as is Ayatollah Khamenei. I enjoy reading books by Shaheed Mutahari, and ibn Sina, Mullah Sadr. I read as much as I can from any sect to be honest, on my shelf I even have kitab al tawheed by wahab. I dont know what you mean by leanings, can you give me a clue?

You're being asked which marjahs' you take from - not who's book's you've read, I've read Tao te Ching, am I Taoist now? I've read the books of various Jews, but does that mean I take my religion from Maimonides? Do you make taqleed in Fadlallah, Sistani, Lankarani (etc.) - who?

MohammadMufti

9th November 2007, 10:32 AM

I could also refer to several groups such as the 19ers who did believe the quran incomplete and there leader brought other verses, they are supposedly sunni.

I missed this! The 19ers are a Neo-Shi'i sect, not from us - so it's ironic that you bring them as a proof against us when in fact they are closer to yourselves. See from their own website:

...The committee of scribes finally came to Sura 9, and put it in its proper place. One of the scribes suggested adding a couple of verses to honor the Prophet. The majority of scribes agreed. `Ali was outraged. He vehemently maintained that the word of God, written down by the hand of His final prophet, must never be altered...

http://www.submission.org/tampering.html

The extracts of Khalifa go on to confirm his Shi'ism by his definition of ahlel bayt (which is in line with the 12er redefinition of a universal phrase) and also mentions all of these men and women (ra) as martyrs - an oddity as he doesn't recognize ahadith but he apparently does except athar and 12er pseudo-tarikh. The man had a short stint in the Libyan govt. of Qaddafi also (which can explain his Shi'i tendencies) although I can't remember exactly what department therein he worked.

nobody

9th November 2007, 07:11 PM

you are most welcome muhammad.

ahmedjbh

9th November 2007, 07:50 PM

nobody said Allah is 2.

If you read the speach from Imam Ali, you will see the point clearly. I will write it again for you. If you say Allah is in some places and not others, and different parts of Him are in some places and not others, then you have split Allah. Refer to the whole speach for the rest of it, its actually self explanatory and Im struggling to see why you continue to bring up this point.

erm... Khalifites are not Sunni. they call themselves "submitters", reject ahadith in totality, and are considered by most to be non-Muslims - precisely due to the reasons that they believe in tahreef and deny the validity of the sunnah.

That is my point......Im saying that as they dont reflect the believes of the sunnis it would be wrong of me to accuse the sunnis of believing things that only a minority extremist group beleive. Im trying to hint at showing the illogical nature of the accusations that are being put forward, that the shia dont beleive in the quran we have today, becuase a couple of people in history didnt, therefore the "logic" of silly people is that, all shias dont beleive in the quran, and if they deny it, they are using taqiyah. The classic silly argument.

Quote:
if it contradicts then it is immediately labeled weak or false in shia classification.
That's a completely baseless cop-out excuse,

Haha, sorry to upset you, but im afraid thats the truth.

Scholars make mistakes

The irony is laughable. Here we are discusing how 1 shia scholar has a wrong beleif, then suddenly everybody is lumped with that beleif, yet all along he believed "scholars make mistakes", is that just sunnis scholars?

So let me get this straight, sunnis scholars make mistakes, and shia scholars commit kufr? is that how it works? Let me guess, you are also the one who judges what is a mistake and what is kufr?

Amazing.

As for the 19ers they were an example of a minority group, i dont care what they are all about, only that their beleives are deviant, so it would be wrong to say for example, "all muslims beleive what the 19ers say", just because they say they are muslims.

nobody

9th November 2007, 08:58 PM

in kitabul tafsir of sahih bukhari there are narrations about the role of shaikhain, may Allah be pleased with them and destroy those who curse them, in the collection of Qu'ran. now as the rafdis say that naudubillah they became apostates or atleast they were liars. why would they believe that the quran, they ordered and advised to collect (to zaid bin thabit), is not distorted ?

ahmedjbh

9th November 2007, 09:35 PM

ibn imam, can you explain a little more please, thanks.

ibn 'abd al-jabbaar

9th November 2007, 11:06 PM

That is my point......Im saying that as they dont reflect the believes of the sunnis it would be wrong of me to accuse the sunnis of believing things that only a minority extremist group beleive. Im trying to hint at showing the illogical nature of the accusations that are being put forward, that the shia dont beleive in the quran we have today, becuase a couple of people in history didnt, therefore the "logic" of silly people is that, all shias dont beleive in the quran, and if they deny it, they are using taqiyah. The classic silly argument.
your comparison with the Khalifites is a false analogy. the Khalifites weren't a sect of Sunnism, nor ever claimed to be Sunni. but i for one (and i think many others here) understand the general point you are trying to make.

If you read the speach from Imam Ali...

i suspect you are well aware of what i have said (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=57028&postcount=205) regarding this "speach" [sic], the attribution of which you have failed to verify. perhaps if you consider addressing what i wrote regarding it, you won't find that you are repeating yourself.

similarly, if you consider addressing my comments directly and fully, instead of giving the impression that you are evading particular ones for whatever reason, i won't need to repeat myself with every post. here is a summary of what you have thus far avoided:

a. you have/had accused certain people here of being polytheists. you have done this without any evidence or substantiation (claims like "... they say His attributes are everywhere ..." remain unfounded), and cite a dubious quote from a dubious source as your justification.

b. in spite of the above precedent, you do not find the same ease in making takfeer upon someone whose statements have actually been verified, confirming that this individual who is an ideological inspiration for certain Twelvers believes the Qur'an has been distorted. your reluctance to call him a disbeliever for ridiculing the Qur'an of today (as well as those who believe in it) as "weak" and "incomplete" raises eyebrows amongst those of us who are willing to accept your vehement denials that shia believe such heretical nonsense.

if you want to talk about irony, then the dichotomy between your two contradictory stances (a. and b.) may be more pertinent for discussion here.

the question still stands:
will you join us in denouncing the Shi'a Allamah Mushtaq, the ideological inspiration of the ithna-ashariyya website answering-ansar.org as they themselves proclaim, as a disbeliever for alleging that the Revelation we have with us today - the untampered and protected Word of Allah - is weak and incomplete?

ahmedjbh

9th November 2007, 11:51 PM

I find dichotomy at all, i only see your attempt to create one.

as for a) I repeat again , for the third time now, i felt that people were describing Allah in parts, which I believe to be splitting Him. Abu Abdullah spoke about this matter :

He Himself hears and He Himself sees" does not mean that He is a thing and His-self is another thing but that I only meant to express my self thereby as I was questioned and explained to you as you had asked a question. Thus, I can say that He hears with the whole of His-self but not in the sense that His whole self has parts but that I intended to explain it to you and to express my self. All I meant thereby is that He does hear, see and He is all-knowing and is the expert in knowing without any multiplicity in His-self or meaning.

as for b), I have already said I disagree with him, I am not a takfeeri. Especially from internet sources, which seem to be at best third hand.

I am glad however you are starting to realise the truth in the matter, and that the shia do beleive in the quran is complete, perhaps expecting more in this climate is ambitious.

How many slanderous accusations have been made against the shia in this nature are amazing, perhaps you will now follow your own logic and call them liars, as you are so keen on labeling people.

ibn 'abd al-jabbaar

10th November 2007, 12:50 AM

as for a) I repeat again , for the third time now, i felt that people were describing Allah in parts, which I believe to be splitting Him. Abu Abdullah spoke about this matter :

He Himself hears and He Himself sees" does not mean that He is a thing and His-self is another thing but that I only meant to express my self thereby as I was questioned and explained to you as you had asked a question. Thus, I can say that He hears with the whole of His-self but not in the sense that His whole self has parts but that I intended to explain it to you and to express my self. All I meant thereby is that He does hear, see and He is all-knowing and is the expert in knowing without any multiplicity in His-self or meaning.

Abu Abdullah's comments doesn't correspond with your unsubstantiated allegations. you claim that you aren't a "takfeeri", but you pronounced takfeer on very shaky premises.

I am glad however you are starting to realise the truth in the matter, and that the shia do beleive in the quran is complete, perhaps expecting more in this climate is ambitious.

How many slanderous accusations have been made against the shia in this nature are amazing, perhaps you will now follow your own logic and call them liars, as you are so keen on labeling people.many Shi'a are simply ignorant of what their Imams preach. the case of twelver Imam Mushtaq illustrates that quite well.

as for b), I have already said I disagree with him, I am not a takfeeri. Especially from internet sources, which seem to be at best third hand.
your shying away from an authentic denouncement of a disbeliever in the Qur'an of today is intriguing. perhaps you believe it's not kufr for shias to express these heresies (i.e. one can believe the Qur'an is distorted and still be a Muslim). whatever the case, i think everyone here can see that such inconsistency, evasive behaviour and refusal to call a spade on matters so crystal clear only serves to impede your claims that such positions aren't tolerated in Shi'ism.

my initial enquiry was a simple one. several pages and lots of wriggling later, it seems we have an answer: ahmedjbh will not pronounce takfeer upon a shia whose belief in tahreef al-Qur'an is confirmed, but will make takfeer on salafis even if his evidence is subjective (as he admits) and virtually non-existent. as such, i think we can now conclude this sub-discussion. :)

by the way, jazaakAllahu khairain for the article brother JayshAllah.

MohammadMufti

10th November 2007, 06:43 AM

The irony is laughable. Here we are discusing how 1 shia scholar has a wrong beleif, then suddenly everybody is lumped with that beleif, yet all along he believed "scholars make mistakes", is that just sunnis scholars? So let me get this straight, sunnis scholars make mistakes, and shia scholars commit kufr? is that how it works? Let me guess, you are also the one who judges what is a mistake and what is kufr?

Disbelief in the Qur'an is not comparable to the 'mistake' of a scholar (i.e. music, khamr) and in our particular case, classifying Shi'a as a "fifth madhab". Only in your mind, and that of the number of 12er scholars can the Holy Qur'an be equated with fiqh with regards to music...

And even if we were to accept the old and outdated fatwa from Al Azhar which was corrected by subsequent scholars (even from Al Azhar itself) than it is still only an umbrella definition and doesn't cover the various absurdities of 12ers nor legitimize those views it doesn't count on.

therefore the "logic" of silly people is that, all shias dont beleive in the quran

Perhaps you didn't read brother JayshAllah's article and thought yourself fit to comment on it before reading it. The point of the article is:

A) Such and such leader is major leader/influence on such and such party.
B) Such and such party make claim 1
C) Such and such leader makes opposite claim 2

He wasn't commenting on the Rafidha mass and brother JayshaAllah said very clearly his opinion on the mass of 12er taqlidi laymen who don't know the religion save the prayers and kalima.

Heading back to the problem raised and avoided, in words of the brother ibn abd-alJabar, his " initial enquiry was a simple one. several pages and lots of wriggling later, it seems we have an answer: ahmedjbh will not pronounce takfeer upon a shia whose belief in tahreef al-Qur'an is confirmed, but will make takfeer on salafis even if his evidence is subjective (as he admits) and virtually non-existent. as such, i think we can now conclude this sub-discussion."

nobody

13th November 2007, 06:41 PM

ibn imam, can you explain a little more please, thanks.

zaid bin thabit collected Quran into one mushaf. he was ordered by Abu bakr who was advised by umar ra. may Allah be pleased with all the ashab of the prophet saw. now the rafidi heads know this. and according to them abu bakr and umar were lairs oppressors and apostates. so they believe that Quran was distorted by them, al ayazu billah. there are many proofs of this. (Quran collected by zaid on the orders of abu bakr and rafidi belief that quran was distorted). those among rawafid who do not believe in this in deep their hearts are less evil. may Allah guide us all.