[ya rasulallah (s.a.w)]

swords_of_sunnah, on 15 August 2010 - 01:33 PM, said:

ya rasulallah (s.a.w), on 15 August 2010 - 05:38 PM, said:

HAHA...your silence IN THE matter I reaised in front of you shows how weak your standpoint is....

as for the question you have asked, ANYBODy, WEATHER IT BE A SCHOLAR OR A LAYMAN, HAS ERRED TO BELIEVE THAT QURAN HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAHREEF......

lol, dont you think that you have proved yourownself to b a fool here ?

Issue about MIlani(which you brought yourself) , and when showed the ugliness of his belief, hiding behind shirazi... lol its showed the humiliation you are undergoing now... (wink)

And my dear Its not an error.. its kufr ........ So thnkss for proving to us that what we say is correct... And in other words you are proved to be a looser... because you wanted a proof , that why we call shias kaafir... We gave it.. you accpt it, and according to you its an error... lol So what, for us its kufr... Case solved...(wink)

your defination of kufr has double standards...just like your belief....when we go against ure 1 "righy guided"..then its wrong...nd when someone u respect goes against ure ver own 4th rightly guided then its ok nd all r right nd fine...inde..even if the wars resultes in many deaths...still according to u they were not fighting for the right...for u they were fighting for fun.......my belief is free from tahreef of quran....no matter what anybody says....u want to accept it or not....u can play with my words nd try to put accusation on me....but this is not gonna change what was in my heart....
similarly will u start believing what ure writer hakim al nishaburi deemed authentic????certainly not....nd u know that the list does not end here....both in ure end nd my end......

[swords_of_sunnah]

ya rasulallah (s.a.w), on 16 August 2010 - 04:19 AM, said:

your defination of kufr has double standards...just like your belief....when we go against ure 1 "righy guided"..then its wrong...nd when someone u respect goes against ure ver own 4th rightly guided then its ok nd all r right nd fine...inde..even if the wars resultes in many deaths...still according to u they were not fighting for the right...for u they were fighting for fun......

Well a stubborn jahil cannot understand those issues.. I will drop the idea of explaining it to you..

By the way from where did this issue came about khaliphs? I no where in this thread hinted it... Lol when you people are left answerless.. this is the same thing you fools do inorder to be saved from humiliation... lol...

Quote

.my belief is free from tahreef of quran....no matter what anybody says....u want to accept it or not....u can play with my words nd try to put accusation on me....but this is not gonna change what was in my heart....

Ofcourse I know that many juhla belief that there is no corruption in quran... I agree with that thats why i said earlier im addressing the shia scholars not the juhla, because atleast they are better than their scholars...

Quote

similarly will u start believing what ure writer hakim al nishaburi deemed authentic????certainly not....nd u know that the list does not end here....both in ure end nd my end......

Where did I say that if some of your scholars believed narrations of kufr to be authentic you too should follow them? No I strongly believe that many scholars did make errors in hadeeth authentification and we should not BEHAVE LIKE BLIND MUQALLIDS.., Infact we should never become a muqallid because scholars are bound to make mistakes...

BUT THE QUESTION HERE WAS OF THOSE SCHOLARS WHO BELLIEVED IN THOSE AHADEES AND THE SCHOLARS WHO BACKED THEM UP AND SOME OF THE SHIAS WHO FOLLOWED THEM... AND FOR US THEY ARE KAAFIRS...

[ya rasulallah (s.a.w)]

Quote

BUT THE QUESTION HERE WAS OF THOSE SCHOLARS WHO BELLIEVED IN THOSE AHADEES AND THE SCHOLARS WHO BACKED THEM UP AND SOME OF THE SHIAS WHO FOLLOWED THEM... AND FOR US THEY ARE KAAFIRS...

you have answered it yourself...

Quote

Where did I say that if some of your scholars believed narrations of kufr to be authentic you too should follow them? No I strongly believe that many scholars did make errors in hadeeth authentification and we should not BEHAVE LIKE BLIND MUQALLIDS.., Infact we should never become a muqallid because scholars are bound to make mistakes...

[swords_of_sunnah]

ya rasulallah (s.a.w), on 16 August 2010 - 12:40 PM, said:

you have answered it yourself...

Yes, and you have proved me correct... YOur apologic replies have proved that we ahle sunnah when declaring shias kaafirs are correct (i.e those scholars and shias who believed in tahreef not juhla who dont believe it)

[Ali Shah Hussain]

ya rasulallah (s.a.w), on 15 August 2010 - 12:38 PM, said:

<br />

Quote

Again im not asking that is it hujjah on you or not, because i know for the lay shias whatever suits their desires they accept it, regardless its daef or sahi... but the question is abot THOSE SCHOLARS WHO BELIEVED THOSE NARRATIONS TO BE AUTHENTIC AND THE SCHOLARS WHO BACKED THEM UP AND THE SHIAS WHO FOLLOW THEM...

<br /><br />HAHA...your silence IN THE matter I reaised in front of you shows how weak your standpoint is....<br /><br />as for the question you have asked, ANYBODy, WEATHER IT BE A SCHOLAR OR A LAYMAN, HAS ERRED TO BELIEVE THAT QURAN HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAHREEF......<br /><br />what answers r u expecting ali shah hussain???? is it this one:<br />

Quote

in one of yours early post you said about Ayseha Sadiqa(r.a) that she is not Momina(Mazallah) because of her err...........................how dare you said that about the Pure wife of Rasoool Allah(pbuh) and the mother of believers???????????????????what you hold opinion about yours Majoosi Shcolars who did err??????????let see how big hypocratic you are................

<br /><br />Since you dont really have shame and curse my SCHOLARS.....I refuse to answwer you untill and unless you dont show akhlaq......U give respect to gain respect....I dont reply to barking dogs!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
This is where i want to take you.............Thanks for proving yours hypocrisy......yours Majoosi Scholars are better then Mother of Believers Syeda Ayesha Sadiqa(r.a).....Mazallah
its not that you wouldnt reply me...they reality is that you are answerless.................................Readers can read.................why Imam Jaffar(r.a) have called you shias hypocrates............pian for yours Majoosi Scholars and no respect what so ever for the Pure wife of Rasool Allah(pbuh)????????now you are proved big time Hypocrate.

[ya rasulallah (s.a.w)]

swords_of_sunnah, on 16 August 2010 - 10:51 AM, said:

<br />

ya rasulallah (s.a.w), on 16 August 2010 - 12:40 PM, said:

you have answered it yourself...

Yes, and you have proved me correct... YOur apologic replies have proved that we ahle sunnah when declaring shias kaafirs are correct (i.e those scholars and shias who believed in tahreef not juhla who dont believe it)<br />

Ya right...now few poeple who say what u want them to say represent the whole of shiaiism....
Islam for us in now based on scholars...Its based on What Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) and his 12 Successors taught us..

Just like you wouldnt take a word by any xyz and call it part of your faith, similarly we wouldnt do the same...but then,....ure double standards has no ending..

[swords_of_sunnah]

ya rasulallah (s.a.w), on 19 August 2010 - 06:44 PM, said:

Ya right...now few poeple who say what u want them to say represent the whole of shiaiism....

Good boy, you are slowly coming on track..

The problem for you is that, though they suppedly for sake of argument those GIANT scholars doesnt represent shiism.. BUT BUT BUT almost majority and important material you have got which you claim to be teaching of ahlebayt is from them.. And for us (for every muslim should be) they are kaafirs because of the belief i mentioned... So the irony now is that, you have got the source of your religion from kaafirs..... lol.. Thats the actual reason you fail to find anyscholars openly accepting that even if their scholars openly admitted belief in tahreef for them they are still muslims...lol.. BUt if someone disrespects ahlebayt they are worst than kaafirs... indeed you people are the greatest hypocrites this earth could ever witness...

Quote

Islam for us in now based on scholars...Its based on What Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) and his 12 Successors taught us..

Sunshine ! lol your source of getting that so called teachings of ahlebayt is from kaafirs..hahaha So how can someone trust that? (wink)

And secondly your GIANT scholars based their view not on their whims but ON THE NARRATIONS which are attributed to ahlebayt regarding tahreef of quran and those muhaddiseen considered it to be authentic... Well now I can only think that the because your whole rijal is kaka...Your scholars during that time followed it as it that time and got the results. But we know how they realized the flaws in it , seeing how it was going to destroy their cult, so they revised it.. And if you want an example... refer rijal najashi im my memory serves well, it gives info about a narrator who died after the writer himself... lol... Hmmm i guess its too much for your tiny brain..

[ya rasulallah (s.a.w)]

You have assumed wrongly that Sheikh Kulayni and all the major shia scholars believe in tahreef.....I have given u a list of major scholars (in one of the links posted above) who dint believe in tahreef.....and the list is surly not limited to that.....but you are quite blind to see that...You can assume ure jingles all day....I just pointed a single flaw in ure system as well...however...just few doesnt represent the massess....However there arent any sahi hadith from Imam (a.s) which confirms tahreef in quran.....so u can stay blind all day, while I have clearly shown u just few links which refute ure BS....you can try to put words into my mouth all day..It wont help.....Your ignorance has reached a level where you have surpassed the stage of a proper discussion...all you people do is abuse..... with no propper standpoint on ure basis....or even you dont have the true basis to call us kaafir.....just assumptions....u just see few quotes and genralise it...you know what, u all better start accepting the fact that Shia Islam do have a strong point which have alhamdulillah converted loads of people...Your biggest mistake is to think we are V.Weak.....and look at the result of ure assumptions.....for that reason, your scholars plead and cry cuz they are jelous for the work alhamdulillah our scholars have done and are doing inshallah......nd yeh...dont ever mistake to think that i would assume the jamaaáh to be weak....I have known how much recently you all have responded to the "shia" threat which does terrorize u...

[swords_of_sunnah]

ya rasulallah (s.a.w), on 20 August 2010 - 02:23 AM, said:

You have assumed wrongly that Sheikh Kulayni and all the major shia scholars believe in tahreef.....I have given u a list of major scholars (in one of the links posted above) who dint believe in tahreef.....and the list is surly not limited to that.....but you are quite blind to see that...You can assume ure jingles all day....I just pointed a single flaw in ure system as well...however...just few doesnt represent the massess....However there arent any sahi hadith from Imam (a.s) which confirms tahreef in quran.....so u can stay blind all day, while I have clearly shown u just few links which refute ure BS....you can try to put words into my mouth all day..It wont help.....Your ignorance has reached a level where you have surpassed the stage of a proper discussion...all you people do is abuse..... with no propper standpoint on ure basis....or even you dont have the true basis to call us kaafir.....just assumptions....u just see few quotes and genralise it...you know what, u all better start accepting the fact that Shia Islam do have a strong point which have alhamdulillah converted loads of people...Your biggest mistake is to think we are V.Weak.....and look at the result of ure assumptions.....for that reason, your scholars plead and cry cuz they are jelous for the work alhamdulillah our scholars have done and are doing inshallah......nd yeh...dont ever mistake to think that i would assume the jamaaáh to be weak....I have known how much recently you all have responded to the &quot;shia&quot; threat which does terrorize u..

Well what else can we expect from puppets?

If i say that I believe that a hadees which says that prophet(saw) can error..is "SAHI" then its sufficient to prove that its my belief.. ONly juhla and people with no academic knowledge can raise such foolish arguments... And providing links that so and so didnt believe in tahreef is another stupidity when the OP is refuting your PS.. with the solid and direct statements of those scholars.. And if you insist I can even provide you "link" to websites runned by shias which say that Kulayni too believed in tahreef... but even for that jaw breaking answer you will come up with another idiocy...

And the fact is that it was saduq who actually rejected tahreef going against the mutawattir narrations about tahreef... BUT we know his unshia beliefs like he even believed in certain things that majority of the shias as well as their scholars still dont believe it by heart... like he believed prohets can error, imams can error... So he was the one who raised those objection deviating from the majority of shia scholars....

[mohammadfarhan]

!

This post has been edited by mohammadfarhan: 20 August 2010 - 03:37 PM

[ya rasulallah (s.a.w)]

you have tried to falsly show that the belief of completness in the quran is some kind of very rare in our belief....however I have shown you a big list of major scholars who have denied and proved your claim to be wrong....as for Sheikh kulayni belief on tahreef, it is enough for one to know that Sheikh Kulayni in his own book states the hadith should be given a litmus test through Quran.....He wouldnt have doen that untill and unless he believed the quran to be the word of Allah (s.w.t)...However I have shown you clear proof on what we all believed....but its just that you will read one or two quotes and just genralise it....

[ya rasulallah (s.a.w)]

you have tried to falsly show that the belief of completness in the quran is some kind of very rare in our belief....however I have shown you a big list of major scholars who have denied and proved your claim to be wrong....as for Sheikh kulayni belief on tahreef, it is enough for one to know that Sheikh Kulayni in his own book states the hadith should be given a litmus test through Quran.....He wouldnt have doen that untill and unless he believed the quran to be the word of Allah (s.w.t)...However I have shown you clear proof on what we all believed....but its just that you will read one or two quotes and just genralise it....

[Ali Shah Hussain]

ya rasulallah (s.a.w), on 21 August 2010 - 09:34 PM, said:

<br />you have tried to falsly show that the belief of completness in the quran is some kind of very rare in our belief....however I have shown you a big list of major scholars who have denied and proved your claim to be wrong....as for Sheikh kulayni belief on tahreef, it is enough for one to know that Sheikh Kulayni in his own book states the hadith should be given a litmus test through Quran.....He wouldnt have doen that untill and unless he believed the quran to be the word of Allah (s.w.t)...However I have shown you clear proof on what we all believed....but its just that you will read one or two quotes and just genralise it....<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Well if Sheikh Kulayni believed that Quran is the word of Allah as you have stated despite that he has given Hadees of Infallibles that Quran is tammpered with..........it is enough proof that he was hypocrate and havnt had believe that Quran is free of tammpering...this prove him to be among those, who said that Quran is Tammpered...mazallah

[swords_of_sunnah]

ya rasulallah (s.a.w), on 22 August 2010 - 02:34 AM, said:

you have tried to falsly show that the belief of completness in the quran is some kind of very rare in our belief....however I have shown you a big list of major scholars who have denied and proved your claim to be wrong....as for Sheikh kulayni belief on tahreef, it is enough for one to know that Sheikh Kulayni in his own book states the hadith should be given a litmus test through Quran.....He wouldnt have doen that untill and unless he believed the quran to be the word of Allah (s.w.t)...However I have shown you clear proof on what we all believed....but its just that you will read one or two quotes and just genralise it....

listen fool... have heard of akhbaris? They openly say day and night that every hadees should be tested according to quran, so does that mean they believe in quran to be uncorrupted? If yes then you are welcome I will how you the real shia world... from their own websites , where they too say that its corrupted, So saying that if one makes quran to be criteria to judge a hadees means he believes in quran to be uncorrupted ("when that person himself accepts and acknowledges ahadees about tahreef to be sahi ") is nothing but studpidity and turning away from truth...

And yes indeed belief that quran was not in proper order when comes its verses.. was something that was common in the sight of classical shia scholars...

And let me give you another teaching today:

your scholars are divided in 3 categories regarding quran

1.. a minor grop which believes that nothing has been added to quran and nothing have been taken out from it and the verses are also in correct order..

2. a major grop which believes that nothing has been added to quran and nothing have been taken out from it BUT the verses are not in correct order.. like verse of tatheer etc

3... another minor group which believes that many thing were taken out from quran and itys verses too are not in correct order...

And most of your great scholars are from the second group... And the statements you people quote are often from the words of these scholars, where they deny that there is addition or subraction in quran... BUt you fail to see that though they believed this but they even believed that the verses of quran were not in proper order...

[ya rasulallah (s.a.w)]

swords_of_sunnah, on 22 August 2010 - 02:42 PM, said:

<br />

ya rasulallah (s.a.w), on 22 August 2010 - 02:34 AM, said:

you have tried to falsly show that the belief of completness in the quran is some kind of very rare in our belief....however I have shown you a big list of major scholars who have denied and proved your claim to be wrong....as for Sheikh kulayni belief on tahreef, it is enough for one to know that Sheikh Kulayni in his own book states the hadith should be given a litmus test through Quran.....He wouldnt have doen that untill and unless he believed the quran to be the word of Allah (s.w.t)...However I have shown you clear proof on what we all believed....but its just that you will read one or two quotes and just genralise it....

<br /><br />listen fool... have heard of akhbaris?  They openly say day and night that every hadees should be tested according to quran, so does that mean they believe in quran to be uncorrupted? If yes then you are welcome I will how you the real shia world... from their own websites , where they too say that its corrupted, So saying that if one makes quran to be criteria to judge a hadees means he believes in quran to be uncorrupted (&quot;when that person himself accepts and acknowledges ahadees about tahreef to be sahi &quot;) is nothing but studpidity and turning away from truth...<br /><br />And yes indeed belief that quran was not in proper order when comes its verses.. was something that was common in the sight of classical shia scholars... <br /><br />And let me give you another teaching today:<br /><br />your scholars are divided in 3 categories regarding quran<br /><br />1.. a minor grop which believes that nothing has been added to quran and nothing have been taken out from it and the verses are also in correct order..<br /><br />2. a major grop which believes that nothing has been added to quran and nothing have been taken out from it BUT the verses are not in correct order.. like verse of tatheer etc<br /><br />3... another minor group which believes that many thing were taken out from quran and itys verses too are not in correct order...<br /><br />And most of your great scholars are from the second group... And the statements you people quote are often from the words of these scholars, where they deny that there is addition or subraction in quran... BUt you fail to see that though they believed this but they even believed that the verses of quran were not in proper order...<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Your mental immaturity in dealing with a discussion shows by how you started your post....but aanyways..

you have well rightly said that there are three categories....the akhbaris usually fall in the last category....and for the fact, the real akhbaris dont exist at ALL...what exist today is fake akhbari'ism....(discussion irrelevent to the topic)

the major question is, is believing "changes in order" a form of kufr??? there is no explicit proof of that....
I know many of our scholars falls in the second category...However i think most of them falls in the 1st one....Wallahu Aalam...

So in short, you have also accepted that tahreef (distortion), as in nothing has been added or subtracted from quran is what we believe in....but i dont know why you show your hypocricy in accepting the views of all those anti shia websites....

[swords_of_sunnah]

ya rasulallah (s.a.w), on 22 August 2010 - 11:15 PM, said:

Your mental immaturity in dealing with a discussion shows by how you started your post....but aanyways..

I deal with people how they deserve... (wink)

Quote

you have well rightly said that there are three categories....the akhbaris usually fall in the last category....and for the fact, the real akhbaris dont exist at ALL...what exist today is fake akhbari'ism....(discussion irrelevent to the topic)

you are right... and it will be another stupidity of yours if you go into that deeper, the only reason I quoted about akhbaris is to answer your foolish argument that because kulayni believed that every narration must pass the quranic test , then only its sahi its proves that he believed in quran to be protected.. So I answered it by quoting you the akhbaris who also openly declare that they believe in corruption of quran, yet they TOO LIKE KULAYNI believe that every narration should pass the quranic test, so your defence of kulayni was shattered...

Quote

the major question is, is believing "changes in order" a form of kufr??? there is no explicit proof of that....
I know many of our scholars falls in the second category...However i think most of them falls in the 1st one....Wallahu Aalam...

Its indeed kufr.. if i change the place of word of a prophet with name of abu lahab , then what will be the condition of the statement?

for eg:
I say: zulfiqar is bad boy and Ali is good boy.... Now

Now even if you dont add anything nor sbtract any thing but just change the words..it can become

Ali is bad boy and zulfiqar is good boy...

So does it remains as my kalam? Can anyone say that even after this change its still the same what sword of sunnah had said? No not at all, its not my kalam..

Similarly if you believe that the verses of quran are in not proper order , which should have been, then you indirectly say that its not the message of Allah, that what Allah wanted pople to follow, ITS HAS BECOME THE MESSAGE OF HUMANS WHO CHANGED ITS PLACES ACCORDING TO THEIR DESIRES...

Quote

So in short, you have also accepted that tahreef (distortion), as in nothing has been added or subtracted from quran is what we believe in....but i dont know why you show your hypocricy in accepting the views of all those antishia websites.....

Lol, 5 + 5 = 10 and also 7 + 3 = 10 ...

Both the groups are kaafir because even it may look different outwardly but infact , both the believes, WHICH YOU TOO HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED i.e I know many of our scholars falls in the second category are kufr....

So as the matter and our motive is proved... there nothing left with the OP except silly excuses.. thus the thread is closed now...