No one can change the words of God! (Part 1)

The Qur’an does confirm the Bible in Surah 5:47 and 10:94 and 2:136 and 29:46 and 5:68.

“no one can change the words of God”
Arabic:
وَلَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ

“And there is no changing the words of Allah” (This phrase is from Surah 6:34, and see 6:115 (116); 10:64 (65); and 18:27

Since we have many older manuscripts than 600 AD, and the Qur’an confirms the Bible at the time of Muhammad, then the Qur’an never says the text of the Injeel or Torah or Zabur of Davood was changed.

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Bible is not corrupted, Historical reliability of the Bible, History, Islam. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to No one can change the words of God! (Part 1)

  1. Ken Temple says:

    [Paul Williams wrote that the 4 gospels are not the injeel of Jesus, but I deleted it because apparently, there is a virus connected with Paul Williams old comments, since he has changed his blog several times and deleted all his old material.]

    Yes they are the Injeel of Jesus! – they are the historical witness to Jesus Al Masih and His life, death on the cross, resurrection, miracles, teachings, and who He is – eternal Son of God, the eternal Word of God who became flesh. There was no other Al Kitab الکتاب from Jesus time to 600 AD. The Qur’an confirms the Injeel revealed to Jesus – John 17:8 – the revelation of words came from the Father to Jesus and Jesus gave those words to the disciples and send the Holy Spirit to bring all things to their remembrance and to lead them into all the truth. John chapters 14-16.

  2. Pingback: No one can change the word of God! (Part 2) | apologeticsandagape

  3. Masoud Christian says:

    Paul Williams: “the four gospels ‘according to…’ are not the injil revealed to Jesus.”

    That false claim and the attempt to distinguish the canonical Gospels from an unseen Gospel that was allegedly revealed to Yeshua contradict the Quranic teaching that “No one can change the word of God”. If Christians indeed replaced the supposedly true Injil with the canonical Gospels, this means that they indeed managed to change the word of God.

  4. Pingback: Debate: “Is Jesus only a prophet or is He also God?” (Sam Shamoun vs. Anjem Choudary) | Apologetics and Agape

  5. Pingback: Debate: "Is Jesus only a prophet or is He also God?" (Sam Shamoun vs. Anjem Choudary)

  6. Pingback: The Qur’an Affirms the Bible | Apologetics and Agape

  7. Uthman rahimullah says:

    No one can change the word of the true God , but certainly Muhammad’s saying can change the word of Allah

    1. The saying of Muhammad PERMITS MUSLIM TO LIE which abrogates Quran’s prohibition for Lying

    Imam Ahmad (26731) narrated that Umm Kalthoom bint ‘Uqbah said: I never heard the Messenger of Allah grant a concession allowing any kind of LYING EXCEPT IN THREE CASES: a man who says something intending thereby to bring about reconciliation; a man who says something at the time of war; and a man talking to his wife or a woman talking to her husband. [Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in as-Saheehah, 545 ]

    And as the matter of fact the Great Shafii Sunnis scholar Imam al-Nawawi has compiled this Sunna in one whole Chapter called ‘FALSEHOOD THAT IS PERMISSIBLE’ in his book Riyadhus As-Sholeeheen.which is one of the most accepted&authoritative book within Sunnis.

    This Muhammad’s order clearly has abolished Quran’ prohibition here are couple of examples about prohibition to lie
    -“O you who believe!Be afraid of Allah& be with those who are true(in word and deeds). (Q9:119)
    -” therefore avoid the uncleanness of the idols and AVOID FALSE WORDS.”(Q 22:30)
    -“Shall I inform you upon whom the devils descend?They descend upon EVERY sinful liar(Q26:221-222)

    .
    .
    2. The saying of Muhammad PERMITS MUSLIM TO STEAL which abrogates Quran’s prohibition for STEALING

    Hind, the mother of Mu’awiya said to Allah’s Apostle, “Abu Sufyan (her husband) is a miser. Am I allowed to take from his money SECRETLY?” The Prophet said to her, “You and your sons may take what is sufficient reasonably and fairly.” [Sahih Bukhari Volume :3 Book – 34 / Sales and Trade -A413 ]

    Hind bint ‘Utba said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Abu Sufyan is a miser and he does not give me what is sufficient for me and my children.Can I take of his property WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE ?” The Prophet said, “Take what is sufficient for you and your children, and the amount should be just and reasonable. [Sahih Bukhari Volume :7 Book – 64 / Supporting the Family -A277]

    clearly abrogates , “As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power” (Q 5:38).

    .
    .
    3. The saying of Muhammad abrogates Quran by Permitting TO EAT FISH & LOCUST’S CARCASS which abolishes Quran’s prohibition to EAT ALL CARCASSES.

    Forbidden to you (for food) are: DEAD MEAT, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah.”(S 5:3)

    Ibn Umar narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Permitted upon you, two CARCASSES and two bloods, the two CARCASSES are FISHES and LOCUSTS and the two bloods are liver and spleen.” (Ibn Majah, Ahmad).

    (p.s muslims might try to argue that the term ‘dead meat’ applies to fish ,sea invertebrate and locust because they couldn’t be slaughtered physically as cattle could, however this argument is false since land invertebrate like land snail and land crab is also allowed to be eaten yet with the exception are their carcass unlike fish and locust. Muslim might also try using Q 5:96 but no allowing for eating carcass mentioned in literal text ).

    .
    .
    4. The saying of Muhammad abrogates Quran by Either Forbidding or Legalizing Mutah
    A) Both Sunni & Shia agree Muhammad made Mut’ah lawful during the early periode of Islam but Sunni believes Muhammad then in the end forbade it at the time of war at Khaybar. However this concludes that Muhammad had deliberately violated Quran’s ruling about the sanctity of marriage in Surah al-Mu’minoon “And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame;But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors” [al-Mu’minoon 23:5-7]

    Sura 23 is a Meccan chapter which means it’s far before time of Khaybar war yet Q 23:5-7 was abrogated by Sunna which came after
    Narrated Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). “Shall we castrate ourselves?” But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he(the Prophet) allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: “O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.[Sahih Bukhari]

    The line “We used to participate in holy wars, shows the temporary marriage was conducted AFTER Q 23:5-7 had been received by Muhammad which means although now Sunni believes Mut’ah is forbidden however by Sunni’s own authentic record Muhammad had deliberately abolished Surah 23:5-7 temporarily in certain period and even taught&spread the ruling which violated Surah 23:5-7.

    B) Interestingly The Shias believe Sura 4:24 as The Ruling for Mutah, [Forbidden to you] are married woman, except what your right hand possesses. This Allah has written for you, and all other women besides these are permitted to you, so that you may seek them out with your wealth, seeking chastity and not fornication. So when you have contracted temporary marriage [istimt’atum] with them, then give them their words. There is no sin on you for whatever you agree to after this. Indeed, Allah is Knowing, Wise.[Shia’s translation]

    Shias argues The unlawful relationship prohibited in Surah 23:5-7 had beed abrogated or at least to be revised by the ruling in Surah 4:24 because Surah 4 is a Medinan Chapter.

    However Sunni argues whatever ordinance about Mut’ah had been abolished by Muhammad according to Sahih hadith Ali said:“The Messenger of Allah had forbidden Mutah on the day of Khaybar and had forbidden the eating of the meat of domestic donkeys.” [Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizy, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i]

    Therefore what we could conclude here: if S 4:24 was truly about Mut’ah then the only thing that abrogated this verse was inevitably Muhammad own words and not Allahs since Surah 4 is a Medinan Chapter and after that there were no words from Allah within Quran to abrogate Surah 4:24, Meaning another proof that Muhammad’s word is more powerful than Allahs

    • Uthman rahimullah says:

      SUNNA ( THE LESS PERFECT ORDINANCE) DEFINITELY CAN ABROGATE QURAN (THE SUPPOSEDLY MOST PERFECT ORDINANCE )

      Now I present a little scholarly Islamic lesson from a respected and prominent scholar of Sunni Muslim, Sheikh Asseem al-Hakeem (graduated from Umm al-Qura University in Makkah, Saudi Arabia in 1998) who’s also presently hold position as Imam at the Mosque of Jeddah giving scholarly INTELLECTUAL lectures

      {It is an issue of dispute among scholars. The most authentic opinion is that it is possible for the Sunnah to abrogate the Quran. It is noteworthy to say that specifying a general statement is considered to be a form of abrogation. For example, when Allah tells us that it is forbidden for us to consume dead meat, blood, swine meat etc, this is a general statement. The Prophet salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam has told us that there were two dead and two blood made permissible for us; the fish and the locust, and the liver and the spleen. Also when Allah mentioned the inheritance, the Prophet abrogated that when he said that a Muslim doesn’t inherit a kafir.

      And Allah knows best}
      source: http://www.assimalhakeem.net/can-the-sunnah-of-the-prophet-saws-abrogate-verses-from-the-quraan-as-a-local-sheikh-was-giving-an-example-about-inheritence-i-was-not-sure-as-i-heard-many-scholars-say-this-can-not-happen-please-ca/

      Let me elaborate again ABROGATE IN ARABIC IS NASKH meaning ABOLISH / ANNUL

      SO THAT DOES IT FOLKS!
      The Word of True God Can Not Be Changed but according to Islam Authoritative & Respected Scholars MUHAMMAD’S WORD CAN ABOLISH / ANNUL THE WORD OF ALLAH

      • Uthman rahimullah says:

        Muslim Sunnis have a very confusing DILEMMA

        -One side of Sunni, believes Allah sent down Surah Fatiha Chapter with VERSE(AYAH) of BASMALAH WITHIN IT.

        -The Other Sunnis( Maliki school and Meccan&Medinan Imams) REJECT ANY NOTION of Allah sent down Surah Fatiha Chapter with VERSE BASMALAH IN IT

        MEANING THE MALIKI AND THE MECCAN&MEDINAN IMAMS REJECT ONE VERSE WITHIN THE CHAPTER OF AL- FATIHA

        as being explained by this video

        Those who reject EVEN ONE VERSE IN QURAN are DEEMED AS UNBELIEVERS ; And none reject Our verses except the disbelievers (S29:47)
        While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)

        However since there’s no condemnation toward the Malikis school and Meccan&Medinan Imams for denying Verse of Basmalah as part of Fatiha this means THERE HAS BEEN A CONSENSUS TO COMPROMISE & TOLERATE THOSE WHO REJECT A VERSE or AYAH IN QURAN which CONSEQUENTLY ABROGATE QURAN S29:47 & S22:57

        CONCLUSION:
        EVEN A CONSENSUS OF IMPERFECT HUMAN BEING CAN ABROGATE QURAN S29:47 & S22:57

      • Ninja says:

        Muslim is faced with a dilemma it’s true

        How can Surah al-Fatiha The Mother of a Book (Ummul Kitab) is defected ? because the truth is, verse of Basmalah is REJECTED as verse within Chapter of al-Fatiha

        And none REJECT Our VERSES except the disbelievers (S29:47)

        But no one wants to apply S29:47 on the one who REJECTS VERSE of Basmalah

  8. θ says:

    “Uthman rahimullah says: Let me elaborate again ABROGATE IN ARABIC IS NASKH meaning ABOLISH / ANNUL”

    Are Jews allowed to eat the carcasses of Salwa (herbivorous birds) or did they slaughter them first? Moslems are allowed to eat what Jews eat. Sunnah is needed to explain it.

    Q.6, v.145 mentions a phrase “To the one who would eat it” – Ta’imin Yat’amuhu in Arabic – that refers obviously to the “Lawful meats” for eating. Ta’imin Yat’amuhu needs to be explained by Sunnah.
    Sunnah is needed to explain what Ta’imin Yat’amuhu is about, including which the lawful herbivorous birds is allowed for Muslims to eat.

    Basically the Lawful animal that has neck needs to be slaughtered by name of Allah, including birds and fowls.
    Locust is herbivorous, and it can be eaten by Moslems without having to kill it.

    The fowls that do not hunt with their claws and do not prey on other animals, but just eat grains and crop, are all considered Halal, such as a chicken, duck, pigeon, dove, sparrow et cetera.
    Abu Musa al-Ash’ari says: “I saw the Messenger of Allah consuming (the meat of) chicken.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 5198)

    From the categories of the Lawful meat according to Sunnah, the fowls need to be slaughtered properly by name of Allah, whereas the dead locusts can be eaten.

    The locust is permitted because it is a genus of “Salwa” quail in Q.2, v.57.

  9. Uthman rahimullah says:

    {{Sunnah is needed to explain what Ta’imin Yat’amuhu is about, including which the lawful herbivorous birds is allowed for Muslims to eat}}

    {{The locust is permitted because it is a genus of “Salwa” quail in Q.2, v.57.}}
    SALWA IS A BIRD! you’re just spouting gibberish, Locust is not A BIRD.

    {{Basically the Lawful animal that has neck needs to be slaughtered by name of Allah, including birds and fowls. Locust is herbivorous, and it can be eaten by Moslems without having to kill it.}}

    The Maliki Sunnis Madhab EAT LAND SNAIL who is HERBIVOROUS AND HAS NO NECK BUT STILL LAND SNAIL’S CARCASS IS FORBIDDEN, UNLIKE LOCUST WHOSE CARCASS ALLOWED TO BE EATEN.

    From the Scholarly Lecture of Shaikh Aseem-Al Hakeem , the prohibition for eating dead meat /carcass in Quran has been ABOLISHED / ANNULED (NASKH) by Muhammad’s SUNNA recorded in Musnad Ahmad and Ibn Madjah (The Prophet salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam has told us that there were TWO DEAD and two blood MADE PERMISSIBLE for us; the fish and the locust, and the liver and the spleen)

    Whatever nonsense you try to bring here , you can’t cover the fact that your own respected and authoritative scholars have agree in majority SUNNA CAN ABOLISH / ANNUL (NASKH) THE QURAN

  10. θ says:

    “Uthman rahimullah says: SALWA IS A BIRD! you’re just spouting gibberish, Locust is not A BIRD.”

    You don’t know much about Arabic do you? origin of Salwa in Q.2, v.57 سلو means Consolation.

  11. Uthman rahimullah says:

    {{You don’t know much about Arabic do you? origin of Salwa in Q.2, v.57 سلو means Consolation}} I’m speaking contextually from ALL AVAILABLE TAFSEERS, and ALL AGREE IT’S A BIRD.

    And worst , you’re just making it more&more irrelevant by connecting Locust with Consolation..Masha Alaa InnailahiWaeenaaeelahiRozeeuuun

    Thank you btw for exposing how ‘sophisticated’ is the intellect of muslim 🙂

  12. θ says:

    “Uthman rahimullah says: And worst , you’re just making it more&more irrelevant by connecting Locust with Consolation..”

    What connects Arabic word “Salwa” (Consolation) to the quails in the Bible and to the locusts in Hadith is the explanation of Sunnah.

  13. Uthman rahimullah says:

    Uthman rahimullah says: And worst , you’re just making it more&more irrelevant by connecting Locust with Consolation..”

    {{What connects Arabic word “Salwa” (Consolation) to the quails in the Bible and to the locusts in Hadith is the explanation of Sunnah.}} You’re just getting more and more unintelligible!

    YOU SURELY UNDERSTAND THE WORD NASKH , right?

    When Muhammad can NASKH the word of Allah it means Muhammad is greater than your Allah

    I know It’s surely frustrating when your own respected & authoritative scholar confirms MUHAMMAD’S SAYINGS CAN ABOLISH / ANNUL THE WORD OF ALLAH

  14. θ says:

    “Uthman rahimullah says: It’s surely frustrating when your own respected & authoritative scholar”

    It’s surely more frustrating when scholars don’t respect each others. It is like a bar fight instead.
    A group of scholars allegedly claimed that it abrogated dozens of verses enjoining the umma’s peacable conduct towards outside groups: Hibat Allāh and al-Nahhās cite 124 and less than 20 verses, respectively.[58][62] Ibn al Jawzī[disambiguation needed] counts less than 22 verses[62] while Mustafā Zayd counts less than 6 cases.[62] The 11th century Muslim scholar Makki bin Abi Talib stated, according to Louay Fatoohi, that verse 9.5 abrogated “all pardoning, amnesty and forgiveness” that Muslims had previously been asked to show to non-Muslims by earlier Quranic verses.[59] In contrast, az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any verse.[62] According to the 12th century Islamic scholar Ibn Al-Arabi, states Fatoohi, this sword verse abrogated “every mention in the Quran of showing amnesty to the disbelievers, ignoring and turning away from them”.[59] The Orientalist Thomas Walker Arnold explains that verses enjoining peaceful conduct were also found abundance in non-Meccan Surahs.[64] However, most of these claims of abrogation cannot be considered as legitimate in the least. In point of fact, some of them merely apply to situations other than those that they were revealed for. Almost all of these ‘abrogated’ verses can still be said to apply when the Muslims are in a situation similar to the situation in which these verses were revealed.[62] This claim of abrogation of tolerance of non-Muslims by Muslims, because of the sword verse, according to Fatoohi, has become relevant in recent times as it has been referred to by terrorist outfits, jihadists and individuals who justify their atrocities against non-Muslims by referring to this verse.[59]
    Fatoohi includes examples of verses abrogated by 9:5 to be 3:186, 53.29, 43:89, adding Tabari listed 9:5 to be abrogating 15 Quranic verses, Al-Balkhi suggested it abrogated 16 verses, Ibn Hazm claimed it abrogated 94 Quranic verses, Ibn Khuzayma concluded 9:5 abrogated 116 Quranic verses, while Ibn Salama and Ibn al-Arabi stated that it abrogated 124 verses.[59][60] Various medieval Islamic scholars, but not all, considered verse 9:5 abrogated Quranic verse 2:256 (there is no compulsion in religion).[65] Fatoohi adds that regardless of historical scholarship, it is a serious flaw to suggest that Quranic verse 9:5 abrogated commands in older Quranic revelations that Muslims should be tolerant of non-Muslims, when verse 9:5 is studied in the context of nearby verses and the fact that the Islamic scholars disagree with each other.[66] Yaser Ellethy states that historical exegesis included Jews and Christians as the “Others” in the scope of abrogating verse 9:5, however, the historical analysis by Islamic scholars of “abrogating tolerance against Others” was baseless according to Ellethy.[60]

  15. Uthman rahimullah says:

    No one can change the word of true God but apparently OPINIONS OF SCHOLARS ALSO CAN ABROGATE THE WORD OF ALLAH

    {[A group of scholars allegedly claimed that it abrogated dozens of verses enjoining the umma’s peacable conduct towards outside groups: Hibat Allāh and al-Nahhās cite 124 and less than 20 verses, respectively.[58][62] Ibn al Jawzī[disambiguation needed] counts less than 22 verses[62] while Mustafā Zayd counts less than 6 cases.[62] The 11th century Muslim scholar Makki bin Abi Talib stated, according to Louay Fatoohi, that verse 9.5 abrogated “all pardoning, amnesty and forgiveness” that Muslims had previously been asked to show to non-Muslims by earlier Quranic verses.[59] In contrast, az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any verse }}

    So many persons can abrogate Allah’s word:
    –STARTING FORM MUHAMAD’ SAYINGS such as Sunnah to LIE that ABROGATES Quran prohibition to lie, then Sunnah to eat Carcass that abrogates Quran’s prohibition for eating carcass.

    –CONSENSUS OF MUSLIM also ABROGATES Quran (none Reject Our verses except the disbelievers S29:47) Because Maliki Sunnis REJECT VERSE of Basmalah in Chapter of Fatiha But still considered as devout muslim.

    –Opinion of scholars , as being presented by the muslim guy.

  16. θ says:

    “Uthman rahimullah says: OPINIONS OF SCHOLARS ALSO CAN ABROGATE THE WORD OF ALLAH”

    All fallible scholars who just have a very brief time – less than 100 years – to learn and to live, can never afford to recollect so many rich knowledge of Islam since 1,400 years ago, let alone to abrogate Qur’an.
    If Hadith were to abrogate Qur’an, then the scholars must have placed at least Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim into certain chapters and verses in Qur’an.
    Why?
    Because the Abrogation Theory makes it obligatory for both the abrogated verses and the new abrogating “verses” to be placed altogether in Qur’an.

  17. Uthman rahimullah says:

    ++All fallible scholars who just have a very brief time++

    Just another example of fanatical mind stubbornly chooses to be dumb instead of enlightened

    While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations(BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)

    And none REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS (S29:47)

    You yourself don’t have any gut to apply the above verses toward the Maliki Sunnis who REJECT A VERSE within A Chapter in Quran

    You are fully aware there has been CONSENSUS TO SOFTLY ABROGATE S22:57 & S29:47, because THE OPTIONS EITHER YOU SUNNIS VIOLATE QURAN CONSCIOUSLY OR MUST ABROGATE IT TO JUSTIFY YOUR TOLERANCE TOWARD THE MALIKI SUNNIS

  18. Ninja says:

    Syakh at-Uthaymeen affirms BASMALAH IS NOT PART OF VERSES IN AL-FATIHA….It’s firmly established that Fatiha consists of 7 verses and Basmalah hence Basmalah is not part of it

  19. Ninja says:

    Excerpted from OFFICIAL SUNNI WEBSITE

    [ The well-known opinion of the Maaliki School is that the Basmalah IS NOT A VERSE OF THE QURAN except in Soorah An-Naml, where it is part of a verse,

    http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=260482 ]

    ===================================
    This means THE MALIKI SUNNI Rejects 114 VERSES of Quran !

    …And none REJECT Our VERSES except the disbelievers (S29:47)
    BUT No Sunni wants to apply S29:47 on the Malikis, because

    That can only means one thing ,

    THE SUNNIS ARE ACTUALLY AGREEING TO ABROGATE THE RULING OF QURAN S29:47

  20. θ says:

    Malikis still believe that Basmala is Allah’s verse, even Basmala preceded Qur’an.
    Malikis don’t reject Basmalah as one of Allah’s *verses*.
    What Allah condemns the unbelievers upon is their rejection of Allah’s Verses, not particularly a verse of Qur’an.

    Q.29, v.47. And none rejects Our verses except the disbelievers.

    What Allah condemns about is the rejection of His “verses”, not particularly a Qur’an. For certain, Basmalah has existed in the past as one of Allah’s *verse* in the time of Solomon and Queen Sheba.

  21. Ninja says:

    Q.29, v.47. And none rejects Our VERSES except the disbelievers.

    VERSES contain verse, IT’S FOOLISH TO SAY REJECTING ONE VERSE IS OK and not implying for DEFECTING THE WHOLE VERSES

    It’s clearly you’re admitting now that the Maliki Sunni Reject The verse of Basmalah as the fist verse in every 114 Chapters of Quran ,

    but to say rejecting 114 verses in Quran is just the same as NOT REJECTING THE ALL of ALLAH’s VERSES at all is just lunacy.

    What you’re arguing is not suitable for any healthy brain.

    Q.29, v.47. And none rejects Our VERSES except the disbelievers.

    You can’t deny there’s a SILENT CONSENSUS TO ABOLISH THE RULING IN SURAH 29:47,

    EVEN The MALIKI considers MAKROOH to recite Basmalah in prayer ( the same as PERMITTING the EATING PORK when the situation is urgent )

    It’s so clear

Comments are closed.