Dr. James White and Imam Muhammad Musri discuss 2 topics: the Bible and the Qur’an. The world needs more of this kind of honest and open and respectful discussion! We can disagree strongly without anger, insults, ad hominem arguments, and without violence.
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)
At 54:28, the Imam claims Quran has the fuller complete story of the prophets compares to the Bible.
My review: Unfortunately Dr.White passed the opportunity to press the Imam on the several facts related to this subject ,which are
A)How come Quran mentions ; Adam’s wife without giving any info on her name? the two Adam’s son without giving their name? mentioning Noah’s son without informing their names? Ishmael’s mother w/out giving her name? mentioning yet without informing the name of Jacob’s youngest son (Benjamin in OT) whom they also claim to be prophet?
B) Could Quran inform us on how to conduct religious practice in Jesus and Moses’s time as clear as being described in OT and NT?
C) If Quran was so clear about Jesus’ life then why it couldn’t provide the clear story on what really happen at Jesus’ last days as the Bible tells but instead Quran has brought this ambiguous story of Jesus’s last days with their various opposite interpretations then? (some muslims believe Jesus wasn’t crucified yet some like Shabir Ally believe Jesus was, some believe Jesus had died and again some believe the opposite)
01:02:56-01:05:40, Dr.White asks about the burning of the other mushafs of Quran , the imam then answers by arguing the mushaf which was burned was personal mushaf that contained many personal notes and hadiths within them, and the imam using Ibn Mas’ud’s mushaf as the example.
My review: There are several obvious errors with his answer;
A)Ibn Masu’d mushaf actually doesn’t contain any ‘extra addition’ of verses nor notes but instead it has LESS chapter than the official Uthmanic Quran where Ibn Mas’ud Quran only has 111 Chapters while Uthmans has 114 Chapters.
B)Dr.White is correct when mentioning the variants yet the imam is practically dodges it ( unfortunately to be fair Dr.White also missed the opportunity to press further on this subject). Textual Variant is totally different with Addition. The most obvious example is Surah 92:3 Mas’ud version is written “By male and female” instead of Uthman’s version(By Him who creates male and female) where clearly they shows difference in literal text and meaning between the twos, as being recorded authentically in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari.
C) The Imam argues that most of all sahabas/companions have mushaf with personal notes, however with this argument the imam has simply indirectly accused most of sahabas such as Ali ibn Thalib, Ubay Ibn Kaab and etc for disobeying the sunnah of their prophet.
The prophet said: “Do not write down anything from me except the Quran. Whoever wrote other than that should delete it.” [Sahih Muslim, Book 42, Number 7147, also Ahmed, Vol. 1, Page 171]
Muslim scholars unanimously agree that this hadith was issued by Muhammad to PREVENT any mixing of Quranic text with non-Quranic text(eg.hadiths) within the mushaf of Quran which means it was forbidden for any mushaf to have any other writings written within it besides Quranic text. And even if such thing had occurred before the sunna was issued then of course the mushaf would’ve been revised or deleted instantly within Muhamad’s time because to suggest that Muhammad hadn’t made revision nor deletion of it, would just imply Muhammad as a negligent leader who also had a disobedient followers, meaning = total structural mess.
In fact based on the hadith above it appears Ibn Mas’ud omitted the 3 chapters (surah al-Fatiha, Al-Falaq&An-Nas) for the very reason to obey his prophet ordinance as good muslim since Masu’d seemingly defined those 3 chapters as non-quranic where for Al-Fatiha he regarded it as some sort of or as same as Taawuz prayer ( the non-quranic prayer which being conducted before reciting quran especially at the opening of first chapter by saying: Audzubillahhimina-syaitanhiruujeem = “Protect me from Satan the cursed one”) while for the other Surahs (Al-Falaq&An-Nas) he regarded them also as non quranic prayer recited/conducted to cure his prophet when Muhammad was under magic spell.
If i may give my personal opinion on Masu’ds doubt toward Sura al-Falaq&an-Nas (though personal opinion but I think quite logical) , I think one significant factor to put into consideration is the fact that according to strong chain of narration, Muhammad received those two surahs right in the middle where he was under demonic influence/spell from sorcery. It’s very rational to doubt whether the two surahs really came from God or satan regarding the situation.
Ibn Mas’ud case is actually an extraordinary one since it’s a huge stumbling block for muslims because for discarding him muslims practically has disobeyed and violated the Sunnah of their prophet ;
Hudhayfa (ra) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)
It is reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) also said: “LEARN ( THE QURAN) from four people: ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, Salim the slave of Abu Hudhayfa, Ubay ibn Ka’b, and Mu’adh ibn Jabal (raa).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Sunan al-Tirmidhi).
Another huge subject that can be argued but require a whole other exclusive segment is : ” The Mutawatir Principal actually has no real nor direct authorization from Sunna nor Quran” , especially when through this principle, a verse which was ‘formerly known/acknowledged as word of Allah’ could be stripped out from its ‘word of Allah’ status’ as it failed to provide two people at minimum for the witness.
One of its victim is the degradation of the status of Sura Al-Khul’ and Al-Hafd within Ubay ibn Kaab’s mushaf from formerly know as word of Allah into just a non-quranic prayer recitation called Qunut. Major opinion of muslims scholar agree that those twos were once Quranic but then being abrogated ( can google to islamic website islamqa) while minor opinion consider the twos as ‘pesonal notes of hadith’ (which is a contradiction with Muhammad’s sunna as being described previously at the above paragraph).
We can even argue because of its effect for degrading/blotting out the ‘word of Allah’ then surely this principal is a destructive invention(bida’a) as also being warned by Muhammad himself , “THE WORST OF THINGS ARE THOSE WHICH ARE NEWLY-INVENTED (BID’AA), and every innovation is a going astray” (reported by Sahih Muslim, no. 867) .
If being carefully noticed, the only right and proper Islamic way to compile the Quran according to Sunnah is primarily through Ibn Mas’ud yet strangely he had been discarded by muslim themselves.
01:06:10-01:06:40, As Dr.White asked on the Quran’s differences at Uthman’s time like the one diffrent version possessed by Ubayy, Imam Mashri answered Ubayy was appointed as Imam to lead the Congregational prayer so if he had been wronged the people would’ve corrected him since the people presumably should’ve had memorized the quran by heart.
My Review: I don’t want to touch the ‘they all memorize it myth’ this time but I more prefer to focus on the fact of that recitation differences actually have been tolerated since the time of their prophet till this very present time.
I. Tolerating differences in the wordings&meanings of Quran’s recitation during Muhammad’s time
Ubayy b. Ka’b reported: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Ubayy, I was asked to recite the Qur’an and I was asked: ‘In one mode or two modes?’ The angel that accompanied me said: ‘Say, in two modes’, I said: ‘In two modes’, I was asked again: ‘In two or three modes’. The matter reached up to seven modes. He then said: ‘Each mode is sufficiently health-giving, whether you utter ‘all-hearing and all-knowing’ or instead ‘all-powerful and all-wise’. THIS IS VALID until you finish the verse indicating punishment on mercy and finish the verse indicating mercy on punishment.” [Sunan Abu Dawood Saheeh according to Sheikh Albani]
Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah’s Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, “Who taught you this Surat which I heard you reciting ?” He replied, “Allah’s Apostle taught it to me”. I said, “You have told a lie, for Allah’s Apostle taught it to me in a different way from yours”. So I dragged him to Allah’s Apostle and said, “I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven’t taught me!” On that Allah’s Apostle said, “Release him (Umar) recite, O Hisham!” Then he recited in the same way I heard him reciting. Then Allah’s Apostle said, “It was revealed in this way”, and added, “Recite, O Umar”, I recited it as he had taught me. Allah’s Apostle then said, “It was revealed in this way. This Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you.” [Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 514]
Here we see the differences being tolerated are not dialect but differences in words and meanings (all-hearing and all-knowing’ VS ‘all-powerful and all-wise) and then especially on the second hadith tells us Umar had differences with Hisham in which the fact is they both belong to the same tribe of Quraish.
II. Tolerating differences in the wordings and meanings of Quran’s recitation after Muhammad’s time(Pre-Uthman)
Narrated ‘Alqama: I went to Sham and offered a two-Rak’at prayer and then said, “O Allah! Bless me with a good pious companion.” So I went to some people and sat with them. An old man came and sat by my side. I asked, “Who is he?” They replied, “(He is) Abu-Ad-Darda.’ I said (to him), “I prayed to Allah to bless me with a pious companion and He sent you to me.” He asked me, “From where are you?” I replied, “From the people of Al-Kufa.” He said, “Isn’t there amongst you Ibn Um ‘Abd, the one who used to carry the shoes, the cushion(or pillow) and the water for ablution? Is there amongst you the one whom Allah gave Refuge from Satan through the request of His Prophet. Is there amongst you the one who keeps the secrets of the Prophet which nobody knows except him?” Abu Darda further asked, “How does ‘Abdullah (bin Mas’ud) recite the Sura starting with, ‘By the Night as it conceals (the light).” (92.1) Then I recited before him: ‘By the Night as it envelops: And by the Day as it appears in brightness; And by male and female.’ (91.1-3) On this Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “By Allah, the Prophet made me recite the Sura in this way while I was listening to him (reciting it).” [Sahih Bukhari]
Ibn Mas’ud’s version of Q 92:3 (recited as “By male and female” instead of Uthmans “By Him who create male and female”) was recited by entire region of Kufa.
.
<III. Tolerating difference in the wordings and meanings of Quran’s recitation IN THIS PRESENT DAY
I’m here focusing only on recitation difference which effects the fundamental doctrine of Islam (The Five Pillars) and even DEFECTS the highly most regarded chapter of Quran (Al-Fatiha) yet more than has DEGRADED one of the verse of Uthmanic Quran (Basmalah verse) from its status as word of Allah to just the word of Muhammad.
Shalah is a fundamental obligation for all muslims and the foundation of every Shalah prayer for every moslem in the world is Reciting Surah Al-Fatiha , and if a moslem recites The Fatiha wrongly then all of his/her prayer will be annulled and he has to restart all over again in a correct way.
Now, here’s the problem: Muslim is divided regarding the first verse of Fatiha which is called the Basmalah verse, the Meccan&Medinan Salafist Imams and the school of,Maliki Sunni are in agreement TO REJECT Basmalah as ‘the word of Allah’ within the Fatiha while the Shafii school and non-Meccan and Medinan Salafist insist on defending Basmalah’s status as the word of Allah within the Fatiha with regard to the fact the verse has been written within Uthman’s mushaf.
–Shafii’s recitation of Fatiha follows strictly according to Uthman’s mushaf, so they start their prayer by reciting out loud ,”Bismillaah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem/In the name of God, the infinitely Compassionate and Merciful.”
–Maliki’s recitation of Fatiha regards the second verse of ‘offical’ Fatiha as the first verse, so they start their prayer with reciting “Al hamdu lillaahi rabbil ‘alameen/Praise be to God, Lord of all the worlds.” but out of tolerance they say(out of fear to be exact for their minority status) one might recite the Basmalah in Fatiha but it would be considered makrooh/nearly haraam/
–Mecca&Medinan Imam’s recitation of Fatiha take the middle way by only whisper the Basmalah(no different with not saying it to be exact since no one could hear it). here are some example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPFsnPLX-94 [ Notice : the Meccan Imam started the prayer with Taawuz Allahu’Aqbar then right away start the Fatiha without ever mentioning Basmalah]
The problem doesn’t stop there, since in congregational prayer a moslem has to follow his Imam in front of the mosque and the central mosque of all mosque is Masjidil Haraam in Mecca then every time a moslem from Shafii school conducts his Hajj Pilgrimage he consciously has to violate the ruling on his recitation because the Imam doesn’t pronounce the Basmalah as proper as it use to in Shafii madhabz. Because in Shafii’s school even to pronounce Basmalah with lowered tone compares to other verses would be considered as degrading the Basmallah lower than the other verses within Quran.
However in fact this is the very truth concerning Basmalah in the eyes of Meccan&Medinan Imams and Maliki Madhabz , for them Allah had never brought down the Al-Fatiha Chapter with Basmalah within it ! in other words they degraded Basmalah from its status as word of Allah despite the fact it has been written in official Uthmanic Quran.
All along since Muhammad’s time the Quran has been contradicting and differentiating itself and as time went by these differentiation had been censored especially by Uthman yet still as an imperfect book even the differentiation and its defect still occur after the censoring effort and worst the differentiation&its defect happen to be with the most important chapter in Quran that is the Al-Fatiha which being called the Mother of all book ( Umm Al Kitab).
Mushaf of Mas’ud is just a version according to recitation of Mas’ud, not the dialect of Prophet Muhammad.
“LEARN ( THE QURAN) from four people: ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, Salim the slave of Abu Hudhayfa, Ubay ibn Ka’b, and Mu’adh ibn Jabal.”
First, it doesn’t exactly refer to Qur’an (notice the brackets above), nor to the writing of Mas’ud, but more to his interpretation of Qur’an.
At least 2 referenced persons Ubay and Mu’adh also present when verifying Qur’anic compilation under Uthman. There are at least 4 complete writers of Qur’an at that time: Zayd Ibn Thabit, Abu Zayd, Mu’adh Ibn Jabal and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b.
The immediate diminishing and defacing of a falsified Mushaf is a great Sunnah which Uthman has learned directly from his uncle Abu Sahr who was caught of having falsified Mushaf during the time of Prophet Muhammad.
Mas’ud died while concealing his Mushaf because he was determined to be resurrected with his Mushaf. It is reported that Mas’ud *never* gives his Mushaf to Uthman. Hence, Uthman is totally vindicated from any accusation of burning Mas’ud’s Mushaf. Both Uthman and Mas’ud are among 20 earliest Moslems whom the sure promise of Heaven is fixed upon.
Jami At-Tirmidhi 3104.
Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: ‘O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.’
Uthman doesn’t demand that the concealed Mushaf to be found out. He just burned what is available and known. Uthman doesn’t even know if Mas’ud hides it, let alone its whereabouts somewhere, even Mas’ud can fool everyone by giving a fake book. Uthman never carries out such a massive “searching mission” on the hidden Mushafs, he just demands that the available Mushaf to be burned.
who said, abrogation is a silly myth fabricated by the lazy scholars ….The scholars just test their ability to fool the laymen ?
After I’ve cornered you with the fact:
THE FACT IS FOR HANAFIS & MALIKIS MADHAB = SUNAH ( THE NON PERFECT ORDINANCE) CAN ABROGATE QURAN(THE SUPPOSEDLY PERFECT ORDINANCE)
IF you yourself have already denied any scholarly and authoritative source of your own religion then what is the base for having intellectual discussion then? please terrorizing with empty propaganda just won’t work!
{{{First, it doesn’t exactly refer to Qur’an (notice the brackets above), nor to the writing of Mas’ud, but more to his interpretation of Qur’an.}}} Already DEBUNKED!
The Prophet (SAW) stood and listened to him, then turned to us and said, “Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).” [[Mustadrak al-Haakim (2/246) No. 2893, ad-Dhahabee Classified it SAHEEH]
Masu’d is the best Qiraa or Quran reciter and handpicked recommended personally bu your prophet , Quran recitation is Masud EXPERTISE.
{{{At least 2 referenced persons Ubay and Mu’adh also present when verifying Qur’anic compilation under Uthman}}} DEBUNKED again !
Salim the slave and Muadh ibn Jabal were never being part of the commitee and at the time of Uthman they had been presumably death because no record about them in those particular time, so it remained only Mas’ud and Ubayy, but as we all can see Mas’ud was prioritized as the first&foremost recommended by the prophet.
As the previous Hadith Muhammad clearly ORDERS, “, Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).
And then another Sunnah further strengthened Masud’s position as first and foremost and even solely reciter recommended by Muhammad >Hudhayfa (ra) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)
Muhammad had never told his followers to ACCEPT WHATEVER NARRATIONS from Ubayy or anybody else other than Masud exclusively. , such a highly and exclusive recommendation toward Masud shows Ubayy was just a second line of preference. Noticeably Muhammad himself had never told that Mas’ud needed any agreement from Ubay nor anyone, but in contrary for Ubay or any other muslim it should’ve been an absolute obligation if they wanna hear Quran recitation to be as authentic as it can be then they had to LEARN from Masud ( Quoting the hadith again Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).)
{{[There are at least 4 complete writers of Qur’an at that time: Zayd Ibn Thabit, Abu Zayd, Mu’adh Ibn Jabal and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b.}}} DEBUNKED again!
The info about four writers came from hadith still the Hadith is Sahih but IT IS NOT FROM MUHAMMAD SAYINGS , the fact is, it’s from a companion describing whom the writers were, and there are only two writers recommended (Muadh and Ubay) as being shown in the other hadith but only Ubayy was part of the committee.
Ubayy himself had another huge problem of his own, he had on his mushaf TWO ADDITIONAL Surahs which muslims scholars in majority have regarded them as ORIGINALLY QURANIC SURAHS but then abrogated.
{{{The immediate diminishing and defacing of a falsified Mushaf is a great Sunnah which Uthman has learned directly from his uncle Abu Sahr who was caught of having falsified Mushaf during the time of Prophet Muhammad}}} DEBUNKED again!
What a false statement! first, the story of Abu Sahr mainly being informed from Sirah and not Sunnah. And then secondly to compare false verse to genuine verse (but later abrogated) of Mas’ud and Ubayy as the reason to burn the mushaf is just silliness, thirdly, as far as I know there have been no Islamic scholars who ever based the strong reason for burning of Quran on any particular Hadith nor verses in Quran not even a story from SIRAH.
{{{Mas’ud died while concealing his Mushaf because he was determined to be resurrected with his Mushaf}}} This is just simply a laughable unintelligible argument
{{{It is reported that Mas’ud *never* gives his Mushaf to Uthman}}} whether he did give(which means it was destroyed by fire) or he didn’t , the bottom line is then any trace of what’s in Masud’s Quran ,which by the way the only CLEARLY PREFERRED QURAN by the prophet according to his own Sunnah, had been lost in majority then, and what’s left is just the several ones which right now are being reported from the strong narration sources. And some reports are not pretty.
{{{Uthman doesn’t even know if Mas’ud hides it, let alone its whereabouts somewhere, even Mas’ud can fool everyone by giving a fake book}}} Thank you for admitting intrigues and cunning maneuvers between two supposedly trustworthy spiritual leaders as the background behind the compilation of the allegedly most perfect book from God(sic).. Congrats!
“Uthman rahimullah says: first, the story of Abu Sahr mainly being informed from Sirah and not Sunnah. ”
The falsifying of Mushaf by Abu Sarh is mentioned by Hadith, hence all his writing was quickly defaced. Uthman learnt the error of falsifying the Mushaf directly from his uncle.
Abu Dawud, Book 38, Hadith 4345
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Abdullah ibn Abusarh used to write (the revelation) for the Apostle of Allah. Satan made him slip, and he joined the infidels. The Apostle of Allah commanded to kill him on the day of Conquest (of Mecca). Uthman ibn Affan sought protection for him. The Apostle of Allah gave him protection.
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Hadith 2677
Narrated Sa’d: On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Apostle of Allah gave protection to the People except four men and two women and he named them. Ibn Abusarh was one of them. He then narrated the tradition. He said: Ibn Abusarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan. When the Apostle of Allah called the people to take the oath of allegiance, he brought him and made him stand before the Apostle of Allah. He said: Apostle of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him. He raised his head and looked at him thrice, denying him every time. After the third time he received his oath. He then turned to his Companions and said: Is not there any intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him? They replied: We do not know, Apostle of Allah, what lies in your heart; did you not give us an hint with your eye? He said: It is not proper for a Prophet to have a treacherous eye.
“Uthman rahimullah says: C) If Quran was so clear about Jesus’ life then why it couldn’t provide the clear story on what really happen at Jesus’ last days as the Bible tells but instead Quran has brought this ambiguous story of Jesus’s last days with their various opposite interpretations then?”
Jesus of Qur’an was taken up unconsciously but alive “Mutawaffi” per Q.6, v.60 into God’s “presence” alongside other Prophets (e.g. Abraham, Adam, Enoch, Moses, John, Joseph), hence that’s why Qur’an says he shall literally “die in the future”.
QS.4 v.159. And there is none of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him (Jesus) before his death. And on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness of them.
Everyone tastes a temporal unconsciousness in sleeping.
Q.6, v.60. And it is He who takes your souls (yatawaffakum) by night and knows what you have committed by day. Then He revives you therein that a specified term may be fulfilled. Then to Him will be your return; then He will inform you about what you used to do.
By nature, a man Jesus is mortal.
Q.19, v.33. Thus peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life
Just as the non-existence of Adam prior to the 6th day, a man Jesus was also once non-existent prior to his birth. There’s no such a man as pre-existent Jesus.
Q.21, v.34. We granted not to any man before thee permanent life here.
John proves Jesus is not one of those 24 High Priests of heaven, hence as an eye-witness John absolutely contradicts the book of Hebrew that speculated that Jesus is the “only one” High Priest in heaven.
In Islam, Prophet Muhammad is superior over Jesus:
(i) During Isra’ Miraj, Prophet Muhammad proceeds his Nigh Journey to a place above the throne, but below Allah, it is a place where even Gabriel as Holy Spirit can’t ascend more. Jesus just stays below at the third heaven.
(ii) Jesus in Qur’an is not eternal. Just as the non-existence of Adam prior to the 6th day, a man Jesus was also once non-existent prior to his birth.
“Uthman rahimullah says: B) Could Quran inform us on how to conduct religious practice in Jesus and Moses’s time as clear as being described in OT and NT?”
In terms of Qur’anic definition, “Injil” is strictly Oral Arabic Gospel which was circulated and tried to be “written” – but then burned during Uthman’s time – by Waraqah (one of the last remnant of Jesus’s real Hawariyyun).
Syriac Bible is in category of “Ajami Bible”. Arabs and Qur’an ridiculed it as the book of foreigners and outsiders, hence it was not accepted by Christian Arabs, not even as Apocrypha.
Although the 1st known Arabic Bible appears during the 8th-century Omayyad time, actually such an “Arabic Tanach” had once existed among Arabic Jews – but then burned at the time of Uthman – which was used by Jews and Prophet Muhammad (as Hadith mentioned) in a notorious case of stoning the Jewish adulterers.
In a nutshell, due to the use of Arabic language, mostly the Arabs of Mekka and Medinah during the time of Prophet Muhammad never publicly see and know of the “Ajami Gospel” (Non-Arabic Bible) such as Greek Gospel that Bysantines have canonised, or Syriac Gospel (Tatian’s Gospel), not even Hebrew Gospel. However, certain Arabist translator such as Waraqah maybe has his own Tanach collection in Hebrew and Arabic, or may be not
For sure, throughout Arabia there’s no such an “Ajami Gospel” in the form of a complete book. Arabic Gospel yet existed in Oral version.
IF you yourself have already denied any scholarly and authoritative source of your own religion then what is the base for having intellectual discussion then?
Our Prophet came from a non-scholarly background.
Our Qur’an criticises the caste of religious scholars in other faiths.
Now, what do scholars say about:
(i) Nobody is certain of “what-and-with-what” the abrogation of the verse is going on (whatever upon whatever), Hence, If there were an abrogation, then a verse about abrogation itself must be the first to be abrogated with.
(ii) Had Hadith abrogated Qur’an, those scholars must have put at least two Hadith’s masterpiece of Bukhari and Muslim right into certain chapters of Qur’an. But they didn’t.
{{Abu Dawud, Book 38, Hadith 4345 , Abu Dawud, Book 14, Hadith 2677}} Where’s the order to burn any mushaf then? you are just making things up try to scratch with any possible way to get you out but you fail miserably & still the bottom line here is:
–ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS BASE FROM QURAN NOR SUNNAH FOR THE BURNING / DISAPPEARING OF MAS’UD’S MUSHAF WHICH CONTAIN THE ONLY RECOMMENDED AUTHENTIC QURAN ACCORDING TO SUNNAH
Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).” [[Mustadrak al-Haakim (2/246) No. 2893, ad-Dhahabee Classified it SAHEEH]
Hudhayfa (ra) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)
1)Could you provide me with ANY SUNNAH POSSIBLE that orders Muslim to ACCEPT WHATEVER NARRATIONS BEING RECITED BY OTHER THAN MASUD?
2)Could you provide me with ANY SUNNAH POSSIBLE that confirm ANY QURAN RECITATION / MUSHAF THAT IS MORE FRESHN&AUTHENTIC OTHER THAN MASUD’S QURAN?
3)Could you provide me with ANY SUNNAH /QURAN POSSIBLE that tells muslim SPECIFICALLY to compile Quran using Mutawatir method.
4) Could you provide me with ANY SUNNAH POSSIBLE that AUTHORIZES TO BLOT OUT ANY WORD OF ALLAH IN QURAN when it doesn’t match the requirement of having two witnesses at minimum?
Other stuff you’re trashing here are just mere empty assumption and basically baseless since you yourself disregard your own scholar.
–Your own scholars and imams are contradicting and confusing each other on Jesus’s last day and you’re just adding gibberish here.
–Waraqa died at the beginning of Muhammad prophethood but you say [ Injil” is strictly Oral Arabic Gospel which was circulated and tried to be “written” – but then burned during Uthman’s time – by Waraqah ] You are just trashing gibberish here! Please stop TERRORIZING !
–Hadith abrogates Quran is a consensus of Hanafy & Maliki Sunni Madhabz and I’ve already gave the example in the other discussion
Btw what are you trying to proof here ? Don’t u realize TERRORIZING won’t work ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: Where’s the order to burn any mushaf then? you are just making things up try to scratch with any possible way to get you out but you fail miserably ”
Burning the religious stuffs that caused or may stir a Fitnah, that is rebellion, dissension, and civil wars, is a Sunnah. Similarly, Moslems are allowed to carefully deface and burn the pieces of old Mushaf that is eaten partly by moths.
Tabari, Volume 9, The last Years of the Prophet, pg 60-61.
When he stopped in Dhu Awan, news of the mosque came to him, and he summoned Malik b. al-Dukhshum, a brother of the Banu Salim b. ‘Awf, and Ma’n b. ‘Adi, or his brother ‘Asim b. ‘Adi, brothers of the Banu al-‘Ajlan, and said, “Go to this mosque whose owners are unjust people and destroy and burn it”. They went out briskly until they came to the Banu Salim b. ‘Awf who were Malik b. al-Dukhshum’s clan. Malik said to Ma’n, “Wait for me until I bring fire from my people.” He went to his kinsfolk and took a palm branch and lighted it. Then both of them ran until they entered the mosque, its people inside, set fire to it and destroyed it and the people dispersed. Concerning this, it was revealed in the Quran…
Early Moslem used to burn the letter that incites a Fitnah in Hadith.
Muslim, Book 037, Hadith 6670.
As I read that letter I said: This is also a calamity, so I burnt it in the oven.
Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 702.
When I read it, I said to myself, ‘This is also a sort of a test.’ Then I took the letter to the oven and made a fire therein by burning it.
Burning the woods of trees for a long-time siege is a Sunnah.
Bukhari, Book 39, Hadith 519.
Narrated ‘Abdullah: The Prophet got the date palm trees of the tribe of Bani-An-Nadir burnt and the trees cut down at a place called Al-Buwaira . Hassan bin Thabit said in a poetic verse: “The chiefs of Bani Lu’ai found it easy to watch fire spreading at Al-Buwaira.”
Uthman rahimullah says: Where’s the order to burn any mushaf then? you are just making things up try to scratch with any possible way to get you out but you fail miserably ”
{{{Moslems are allowed to carefully deface and burn the pieces of old Mushaf that is eaten partly by moths….Go to this mosque whose owners are unjust people and destroy and burn it”…..Early Moslem used to burn the letter that incites a Fitnah in Hadith.
Muslim, Book 037, Hadith 6670…………As I read that letter I said: This is also a calamity, so I burnt it in the oven.Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 702 When I read it, I said to myself, ‘This is also a sort of a test.’ Then I took the letter to the oven and made a fire therein by burning it. .}}} Burning letters that incites Fitna? Burning Mosque? Burning woods? These have nothing to do with the authorization to blot out and degrade the word of Allah and also to burn the companion’s Quran, Practically you’re just throwing gibberish comments .
@Keith Temple I think it would be better that your moderation mode for any comments should be turned on again in order to filter from any rubbish unintelligible comments
“Uthman rahimullah says: Burning letters that incites Fitna? Burning Mosque? Burning woods? These have nothing to do with the authorization to blot out and degrade the word of Allah and also to burn the companion’s Quran, Practically you’re just throwing gibberish comments .
I think it would be better that your moderation mode”
The coward suggestion “I think it would be better that your moderation mode” sounds familiar, is that you, Sam?
Mosques is a place where usually the words of Allah are placed and mentioned.
Burning the Fitnah’s mosque means burning the Mushaf therein.
“Uthman rahimullah says: still have to learn much from him”
Learn to not parrot his mistakes and his nonsensical rebuttals, especially his Deistic belief in “temporal death of 2nd person” of Jesus, and his Marcionite bias.
By hating Allah, Trinitarians hate Jehovah. It is unanimously accepted by Trinitarian apologists that Jehovah of the Old Testament that is the Father of the Trinity has the same character with Allah. Trinitarians never deny that the Father was violent, and Jews don’t deny that Jehovah is violent. Hence, it is acceptable that Religion – system of belief – has faith in the violent Divinity and Divine Judgment.
Moslems are not Allah. Violence by Moslems is different from violence under Divine Judgment. Moslem are commanded via Qur’an to imitate Prophet Muhammad per Q.33, v.21 whom Allah sent as His manifested mercy for all creations in light of Q.21, v.107 – hence it surpasses his Medinah’s epoch – even though his Medinah’s violence was also necessary for justice.
Christians are commanded in the New Testament to imitate the the Father with all his violence, in order to be as equal as His children (Ephesians 5:1).
Aren’t you the one who says, “abrogation is just a myth created by fools? and you also said your own islamic scholars just like to fool the laymen?
How can anyone have a proper intelligible discussion when you yourself has already set in your mind to reject all of your own islamic scholar’s understanding?
How would u understand other belief when you yourself refuse to understand your own belief?
Why won’t you argue within the scope of this topic’s theme then ?
Thank you for keep dodging in and not answering by the way…you’re surely following Muhammad’s step 🙂
“Uthman rahimullah says: How can anyone have a proper intelligible discussion when you yourself has already set in your mind to reject all of your own islamic scholar’s understanding?”
The scholarly conclusion of “Abrogation Theory” is the lowest garbage of thoughts according to the Western academic standard. Scholars who postulate it don’t agree each others.
Also, don’t forget that our Prophet came from a non-scholarly background. Our Qur’an criticises the caste of religious scholars in other faiths.
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]
The scholarly conclusion of “Abrogation Theory” is THE LOWEST GARBAGE OF THOUGHTS according to the Western academic standard
Imam Hanafis and Imam Malikis are not ‘just scholars’ they are founders of 2 Madhab, Hanafii followers stretch from Turkiya, most of former Sovyet countries , Central Asia and to Pakistan-India- Bangladeshi, and for Maliki followers cover almost all of the North Africa.
To say such fowl mouth toward those two Great Imams you would probably be beaten to death if you lived in those area.
However thank you for providing the information to confirm how wreck and messed up Islam is with this abrogation stuff..
“Uthman rahimullah says: However thank you for providing the information to confirm how wreck and messed up Islam is with this abrogation stuff..”
Qur’an denies that Prophet Muhammad can make a new verse equal, or – God forbid – better than Qur’an in light of
Q.10, v.38,
Q.11, v.13,
Q.52, v.33,
Q.10, v.15.
What both Imams said concerning Naskh and Mansukh by Sunnah doesn’t make Sunnah a new Quran. They just remind us a possibility how the Divine Law can be obsolete without getting abrogated by the changes of time, such as how the verses of Jihaad, Jizya, even Sword Verse will be de-facto defunct after the mass-conversion of Jews and Christians into Islam during the second coming of Christ.
“Uthman rahimullah says: You surely understand the word NASKH , right?It means ABOLISH ! or ANNUL !”
Remain calm, no need to get angry. In Islam it must be a couple: Naskh and Mansukh. What replaces what? Whatever upon whatever.
A bar fight of the respectless scholars:
Hibatullah, according to John Burton, lists 237 instances of abrogation, with the verse 9:5.[61]
In contrast, the 10th century scholar Abu Ja’far an-Nahaas stated that there were only 20 cases of abrogation.[62]
Az-Zarqaani concludes that only 12 cases of abrogation have occurred.[62]
The 16th century Islamic scholar Al-Suyuti argued that there are only 20 attested instances of abrogation within Quran.[58]
The 19th century Muslim scholar Shah Wali Allah, have suggested that just five instances of abrogation exist in the Quran.[11]
The 20th century Islamic scholar Sayyid Ahmad Khan stated that “no verse of the Quran is abrogated”.[11]
Hibat Allah and al-Nahhas cite 124 and less than 20 verses, respectively.[58][62]
Ibn al Jawzi counts less than 22 verses.[62]
Mustafa 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]
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]
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]
{{In Islam it must be a couple: Naskh and Mansukh. What replaces what? Whatever upon whatever.}}
The sunna replaces Quran, eg.Eating Two Dead Meat REPLACING/ABOLISHING No Eating Dead Meat
Really?
Thank u by the way for displaying the confusion of which verse abrogate what verse within the quran,
“Uthman rahimullah says: Eating Two Dead Meat REPLACING/ABOLISHING No Eating Dead Meat”
Lawful meat – either dead or slaughtered – needs to be defined by Sunnah.
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. Sunnah makes the lists of category of it.
For instance, Salwa.
You keep parroting yourself that Salwa means quails while in fact it just means Consolation.
It is Sunnah that connects Salwa – Consolation – to the quails in the Bible and the locusts in Hadith.
This eating issues is so much problematic for you because apparently you don’t believe in what Qur’an says. Salwa means Consolation.
{{It is Sunnah that connects Salwa – Consolation – to the quails in the Bible and the locusts in Hadith}} so consolation is an animal then? Locust is the same as bird then? you’re making connection between irrelevant matters, this is just pure lunacy
“Uthman rahimullah says: you are confusing&complicating yourself for trying to connect bird with consolation(state of comfort) and locust(insect) this is just simply lunacy”
The Torah, although disallowing the use of most insects as food, permits the consumption of certain locusts; specifically, the red, the yellow, the spotted grey and the white are considered permissible.
In Islamic jurisprudence, what Jews eat – such as locusts – is considered halal for Moslems.
{{In Islamic jurisprudence, what Jews eat – such as locusts – is considered halal for Moslems}] it’s not about eating Locust meat, it’s about eating carcass of locust , like fish except the Hanafis , its floating carcass is halal by the the other 3 madhabs, the hanafis only wants the one thrown from sea to the shore.
“Uthman rahimullah says: it’s not about eating Locust meat, it’s about eating carcass of locust , like fish except the Hanafis , its floating carcass is halal by the the other 3 madhabs, the hanafis only wants the one thrown from sea to the shore.”
Dead fishes and dead locusts can be eaten because it is impossible to “slaughter each under Allah’s name” every single locust and each fish – think about a swarm of 5,000 anchovies caught in the net of fisherman or a swarm of 1,000 locusts – if it were strictly required before Jews or Moslems eat.
{{{Dead fishes and dead locusts can be eaten because it is impossible to “slaughter each under Allah’s name” every single locust and each fish – think about a swarm of 5,000 anchovies caught in the net of fisherman or a swarm of 1,000 locusts – if it were strictly required before Jews or Moslems eat}}} impossible?? just catch one on the grass and ‘slaugther’ it ! what an unintelligible gibberish , it has nothing to do with slaughtering . it’s about carcass.
land snail (Imam Maliki allows it)and land crab are halal and they need no slaughtering but still their carcasses are forbidden.
“Uthman rahimullah says: it has nothing to do with slaughtering . it’s about carcass.”
“A man may eat fish and locusts whether they are alive or dead and need not scruple” (Terumot 9:6).
Terumot is the sixth tractate of Seder Zeraim (“Order of Seeds”) of the Mishnah and of the Talmud. The laws of Terumah are still applicable to produce grown in the Land of Israel.
It is lawful for Moslems to eat what Ahl alKitab eat in light of Q.5, v,5.
{{A man may eat fish and locusts whether they are alive or dead and need not scruple….It is lawful for Moslems to eat what Ahl alKitab eat in light of Q.5, v,5.}}
THE FISH according to all islamic scholars in the Hadith here also applies to CARCASS OF WHALE (Arabic: Al-Anbar), and WHALE IS NON-KOSHER ACCORDING TO TORAH.
By the way about Surah 5:96 after seeing it thoroughly I must admit there’s nothing in that verse suggests eating carcass is allowed.
Surah 5:96 only tells it’s halal to make food of sea creature as the same as cattle is halal for food in Surah 6:142 , so no notion for permitting carcass from the sea in Surah 5:96
So it’s back to square one again EATING WHALE’S CARCASS IS FORBIDDEN IN QURAN BUT MUHAMMAD ABOLISHED QURAN BY PERMITTING IT !
“Uthman rahimullah says: THE FISH according to all islamic scholars in the Hadith here also applies to CARCASS OF WHALE (Arabic: Al-Anbar), and WHALE IS NON-KOSHER ACCORDING TO TORAH.”
Qur’an has specifically limited the criterion that only what is considered lawful – Kosher – by Jews is also lawful – Halal – for Moslems. Hence, what is “Non-Kosher” according to Jews is not becoming forbidden on Moslems.
“Uthman rahimullah says: Of course, so on what basis you’re permitted to EAT WHALE CARCASS then? since Quran forbid to eat carcass ?”
All fishes (mostly carnivorous, fish eating fish) are lawful for Moslems to eat, regardless whether Jews forbid it for themselves or not.
Only what is Kosher – not Non-Kosher – for Jews is also Halal for Moslems.
“Uthman rahimullah says: ON WHAT BASIS CARCASS OF FISH SUCH AS CARCASS OF CATFISH& CARCASS OF WHALE IS LAWFUL ? QURAN FORBIDS EATING CARCASS !”
You are getting irrelevant and more irrelevant.
(i) Qur’an allows all kind of fishes for Moslems to eat.
(ii) Qur’an also allows whatever is “Kosher food” according to Jews for Moslems to eat, such as the carcasses of locusts.
(iii) Sunnah allows Moslems to eat both carcasses of the fishes and of the locusts.
{{Qur’an allows all kind of fishes for Moslems to eat.}}
Q 35:12 Nor are the two bodies of flowing water alike,- the one palatable, sweet, and pleasant to drink, and the other, salt and bitter. Yet from each (kind of water) do ye eat flesh FRESH and tender, and ye extract ornaments to wear; and thou seest the ships therein that plough the waves, that ye may seek (thus) of the Bounty of Allah that ye may be grateful.
QURAN STRICTLY LIMITS TO FRESH FISH ONLY ! NO FISH CARCASS ALLOWED !
{{(ii) Qur’an also allows whatever is “Kosher food” according to Jews for Moslems to eat}} CARCASS OF CATFISH AND CARCASS OF WHALE ARE NOT KOSHER
{[iii) Sunnah allows Moslems to eat both carcasses of the fishes}}
BUT Q 35 :12 RESTRICTS TO FRESH FISH ONLY, and Q 2:173 FORBIDS EATING CARCASS
“Uthman rahimullah says: {{(ii)CARCASS OF CATFISH AND CARCASS OF WHALE ARE NOT KOSHER
{[iii) BUT Q 35 :12 RESTRICTS TO FRESH FISH ONLY, and Q 2:173 FORBIDS EATING CARCASS”
Carcasses of catfish and whale that are not Kosher for Jews become lawful for Moslems, Q.5, v.96.
Carcasses of locusts that are Kosher for Jews become also lawful for Moslems, Q.5, v.5.
{{ Carcasses of catfish and whale that are not Kosher for Jews become lawful for MoslemsQ.5, v.96}} Nope Q5:96 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CARCASS
“Lawful to you is game from the sea and its food as provision for you”
Carcasses of locusts and fishes that are Kosher for Jews become also lawful for Moslems, Q.5, v.5.
But carcasses of catfish and whale that are not Kosher for Jews are still lawful for Moslems, Q.5, v.96.
“Uthman rahimullah says:COULD U PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY U USING THIS VERSE WHEN NOTHING IN IT MENTIONS CARCASS OF FISH OR CARCASS OF WHALE OR CARCASS OF CATFISH AS LAWFUL?”
Those verses Q.5, v.5 and Q.5, v.96 also don’t talk about Haram or prohibition each. The context of those verses is about the Lawful meat, not anymore about the Unlawful meat (that is in Q.6, v.145, Q.5, v.3).
Uthman rahimullah says:COULD U PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY U USING THIS VERSE WHEN NOTHING IN IT MENTIONS CARCASS OF FISH OR CARCASS OF WHALE OR CARCASS OF CATFISH AS LAWFUL?”
++Those verses Q.5, v.5 and Q.5, v.96 also don’t talk about Haram or prohibition each. The context of those verses is about the Lawful meat, not anymore about the Unlawful meat (that is in Q.6, v.145, Q.5, v.3).++
You’re just circling and dodging as usual since you have nothing to say
SO WHERE THE STATEMENT MAKING CARCASS OF WATER ANIMAL SUCH AS WHALE& CATFISH LAWFUL THEN ? WHERE THE STATEMENT THAT THE CARCASS OF THE SEA LAWFUL TO BE EATEN ?
Uthman rahimullah says: SO WHERE THE STATEMENT MAKING CARCASS OF WATER ANIMAL SUCH AS WHALE& CATFISH LAWFUL THEN ? WHERE THE STATEMENT THAT THE CARCASS OF THE SEA LAWFUL TO BE EATEN ?
Statement for permission of eating all fishes, including catfishes & whales, and their carcasses comes directly from Q.5, v.96 “and its food as provision”.
Statement for permission of eating the carcasses of locusts comes indirectly from “what Ahl-Kitab eat” in light of Q.5, v,5. It is lawful for Moslems to eat what Ahl alKitab eat, such as carcasses of fishes and locusts.
SO WHERE THE STATEMENT MAKING CARCASS OF WATER ANIMAL SUCH AS WHALE& CATFISH LAWFUL THEN ? WHERE THE STATEMENT THAT THE CARCASS OF THE SEA LAWFUL TO BE EATEN ?
+++Statement for permission of eating all fishes, including catfishes & whales, and their carcasses comes directly from Q.5, v.96 “and its food as provision+++
Nope! even SHIA TAFSEER doesn’t agree to such notion, especially when SPECIFIC prohibition for eating CARCASS is right at the same chapter and the other chapter SPECIFICALLY ORDERS MUSLIM TO EAT FRESH FISH
S 16:42 And He it is Who has subjected the sea (to you), that you eat thereof fresh tender meat
S35:12 Yet from each (kind of water) do ye eat flesh FRESH and tender
“Uthman rahimullah says: the other chapter SPECIFICALLY ORDERS MUSLIM TO EAT FRESH FISH”
Where do the verses mention “fishes”?
The phrase “Fresh tender meat” just means being made very much soft, smooth, subtle to touch and eat because of the water.
“Uthman rahimullah says: the other chapter SPECIFICALLY ORDERS MUSLIM TO EAT FRESH FISH”
Where do the verses mention “fishes”?
The phrase “Fresh tender meat” just means being made very much soft, smooth, subtle to touch and eat because of the water.
Do you know as animal died their meat get hardened ? .especially Whale carcass
Uthman rahimullah says:Do you know as animal died their meat get hardened ? .especially Whale carcass”
++The salts and minerals of the sea could maintain a freshness of the dead fishes, or at least delay the hardening process++
Another gibberish, process of fish salting is a process done by human effort and not natural, in fact this process makes the meat even more harder and stiff and in same cases the stifness is almost the same as the rock
My position is Sunnah in some cases is stronger/superior than Quran , and especially since many proofs of Quran’s corruption are based on Sunnah then this point is vital. But in contrary the muslim guy doesn’t want to admit that Sunnah is stronger than Quran (in some cases).
My evidence is, it’s a majority opinion of islamic scholars that Sunna can abrogate the Quran , but he muslim guy (theta) refused to admit that fact in all kind of excuse. Therefore I give him one example, that is the abrogation of the ruling in eating dead meat in Quran by Muhammad’s Sunna.
Quran forbids the eating of the carcass of animal (S5:3), but authentic Hadith abolishes this ruling by permitting two kinds of carcass to be eaten(fish and locust)
the muslim guy argues; the permission is based on (S 5:5) which tells Muslims to eat the same dietary law as Jews do (which is the eating of dead fish and dead locust) , so in that case no verse of Quran being abrogated by Sunna but instead either S5:5 abrogates S5:3 or complements it.
Fyi all islamic schools agree whale and catfish are being defined as fish also and for that their carcass is also halal to be eaten.
However as we all know Jewish dietary law forbids the eating of Whale and Catfish, not to mention their carcass. So of course this notion is false. And as I bring this objection, the muslim guy argues again that all carcass of sea creature are permissible according to (S5:96, “Lawful to you is game from the sea and its food as provision for you”). Yet still I’ve pointed out this verse has no mention about the carcass of sea-creature being made lawful and this interpretation is awkward since:
1. The prohibition for eating carcass is also written specifically at the same chapter (S5 verse 3).
2.The other chapters of Quran also specifically tells muslim to eat the meat of sea-creature in fresh condition
S 16:42 And He it is Who has subjected the sea (to you), that you eat thereof fresh tender meat
S35:12 Yet from each (kind of water) do ye eat flesh FRESH and tender
3. Shia Muslim also interprets S5:96 not as some permission to violate the ruling already specifically written at S5:96, S 16:42 and S35:12
It’s so awkward a specific ordinance has to be ruled out by non specific statement in order to support the notion that Quran can not be abrogated by Sunnah ( more strange in fact in reality many authoritative muslim scholars like Imam Hanafi & Imam Maliki do affirm Sunna can abrogate Quran)
And as you can see the muslim guy is just dodging &circling around with his silly argument unable to seriously respond to the objection
“Uthman rahimullah says: And as you can see the muslim guy is just dodging &circling around with his silly argument unable to seriously respond to the objection”
At least it is a proper response for irrelevant and more irrelevant point of the unimportant issue.
++At least it is a proper response for irrelevant and more irrelevant point of the unimportant issue++
Look who’s talking….
**As I confront you with the reality that Masud’s Quran is the only Quran which was regarded authentic and SOLELY PREFERRED by Muhammad’s Sunnah
Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).” [[Mustadrak al-Haakim (2/246) No. 2893, ad-Dhahabee Classified it SAHEEH]
Yet you have always tried to dodge out with unintelligible excuses to deny this
**And I ask u to give any version of Quran from any companions regarded by Sunnah in the same way as Masu’d but pitifully you’ve always DECLINED TO ANSWER
**According to your own prophet’s Sunnah, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)
As I challenge you to give any Sunnah which tells muslim TO ACCEPT WHATEVER BEING NARRATED by any person other than Mas’ud , again you decline to answer and tend to making unintelligible comments and excuses to deny this reality.
** When I confronted you with the fact that Mas’ud recitation for Surah 92:3 (Bu Male and Female) according Sahih Bukhari is in fact stronger than Surah 92:3 Uthman version( By Him who creates male and female) on the basis :
1. It’s actually Mutawatir because it has three witness ( Mas’ud, Alqama and Abu Darda), compare to Uthman version which has no recorded witness.
2.It’s actually based on SUNNAH since Abu Darda heard the recitation directly from your prophet in person compare to Uthman’s version which has no record on hearing from who.
But pitifully again you dodge and circle around making silly comments to deny the truth,
**When I confronted you with the fact that based on Sunnah, Muhammad had never intended Quran to be compiled via Mutawatir method but instead Quran should’ve been compiled according to Mas’ud guidance, and I ask for any proof from Sunnah to refute this statement
But again you dodge&circling around , giving silly evidence.
I think you fully aware who’ has been being irrelevant throughout this discussion, agree ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: **According to your own prophet’s Sunnah, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)”
Accept as “what”? as Gospel? as Epistle? as Fatwa? Hadith? Sira? Mushaf? Bid’at? or just as a personal recitation according to Ibn Umm Abd?
Indeed what he narrated is a recitation according to Ibn Umm Abd.
Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).” [[Mustadrak al-Haakim (2/246) No. 2893, ad-Dhahabee Classified it SAHEEH]
According to your own prophet’s Sunnah, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)”
+++Accept as “what”? as Gospel? as Epistle? as Fatwa? Hadith? Sira? Mushaf? Bid’at? or just as a personal recitation according to Ibn Umm Abd+++
Grow up dude…
Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).” [[Mustadrak al-Haakim (2/246) No. 2893, ad-Dhahabee Classified it SAHEEH]
Just summarize those two hadiths: Whatever recitation of Quran being narrated by Mas’ud YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT ! Because Mas’ud Quran is THE MOST FRESH AND AUTHENTIC according to your prophet
“Uthman rahimullah says: FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED”
That’s not a problem. Ibn Mas’ud happens to be a person who believes in Abrogation Theory, so the first-time revealed verse can be altered by the later-time revealing.
That’s why in accordance to his recitation Mas’ud abrogates Fatiha, two last chapters of Qur’an, even he alters personally Q.112, by replacing Q.112, v.1 al-ahad (‘One’) with al-wahid (‘Single’), omitting v.2, and replacing lam yalid wa lam yulad (‘he begets not’) for lam yulad wa lam yulid (‘he is not begotten’).
In a Nutshell, Had Mas’ud not believed in Abrogation Theory, then we Moslems would have truly had a big difficulty of not accepting his version as the most “original” one. Fortunately he believe din Abrogation Theory, so that his version could be subjected to abrogation. What a self-defeating.
{{That’s not a problem. Ibn Mas’ud happens to be a person who believes in Abrogation Theory, so the first-time revealed verse can be altered by the later-time revealing}}
Easily debunked! in that case THE FRESHER AND UPDATED ONE should’ve also been recited by Mas’ud, please notice the phrase FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED and not the oldest , so it absolutely also includes the updated version if there had been any.
“Uthman rahimullah says: FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED”
“It” in the Hadith above doesn’t refer to thousands of later updated verses, but just to 1st “original” Qur’an as a whole in Aboration Theory. Notice, Hadith uses “It”, not “they”.
Uthman rahimullah says: FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED”
++“It” in the Hadith above doesn’t refer to thousands of later updated verses, but just to 1st “original” Qur’an as a whole in Aboration Theory. Notice, Hadith uses “It”, not “they++
Again just playing words and silly excuse, for every each verse can be called IT, either the abrogated or the new one.
Uthman rahimullah says: for every each verse can be called IT, either the abrogated or the new one”
The Hadith just refers to The Qur’an, not to the verses (Ayaat). Okay? ….”WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS”
———————
Easy , of course the hadith also refers to the FRESHEST QURAN
“Uthman rahimullah says: the statement has been clearly stated IF U WANT THE FRESHEST QURAN U HAVE TO HEAR MASUD”
Otherwise if there’s only one Quran – that Mas’ud didn’t believe – Mas’ud happens to contradict his own believe in Abrogation Theory that points out to the existence of many Qurans (freshest and less fresh).
Uthman rahimullah says: the statement has been clearly stated IF U WANT THE FRESHEST QURAN U HAVE TO HEAR MASUD”
+++Otherwise if there’s only one Quran – that Mas’ud didn’t believe – Mas’ud happens to contradict his own believe in Abrogation Theory that points out to the existence of many Qurans (freshest and less fresh)+++
I have told you the stronger notion is , its about the FRESHEST.
“Uthman rahimullah says: there is no two revised, the term revised is only for the updated one only”
You delete certain phrase of Hadith, and add “-est” on the word fresh that doesn’t appear in Hadith. How could you argue with two falsified methods? That is very disgraceful.
Your flawed conclusion “freshest will be one” comes from two falsified premises. So, yours is irrelevant.
++You delete certain phrase of Hadith, and add “-est” on the word fresh that doesn’t appear in Hadith. How could you argue with two falsified methods? That is very disgraceful.
Your flawed conclusion “freshest will be one” comes from two falsified premises. So, yours is irrelevant+.
.FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED
Your prophet emphasize on the FRESH ONE = MOST UPDATED ONE!
It doesn’t matter if there had been millions of previous versions BUT THE UPDATED ONE WILL ALWAYS BE ONE
++Irrelevant. “Fresh” is falsified to be freshest and “fresh one”.++
Realizing the nature of Quran which kept abrogating itself constantly it’s stronger notion that the hadith implies WHOEVER WANTS TO HEAR THE FRESH (UPDATED) ONE JUST HEAR IT FROM MASUD
” Uthman rahimullah says:WHOEVER WANTS TO HEAR THE FRESH (UPDATED) ONE JUST HEAR IT FROM MASUD”
That’s a big problem for Mas’ud himself and Abrogation Theory. Since Updating and Abrogating keep going on, nobody (not even Mas’ud) can be sure that Mas’ud’s “fresh” version is the last or most “freshest” one of all.
++Since Updating and Abrogating keep going on, nobody (not even Mas’ud) can be sure that Mas’ud’s “fresh” version is the last or most “freshest” one of all.++
So the one who issued this statement is a dummy right? Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said ; Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud)
I fully understand your frustration , you ‘re cornered between have to admit Muhammad had made an error for issuing such Sunnah or Uthman and other Caliphs had deliberately violated the Sunnah.
The bottom line is you’re just making silly argument as you want to keep on denying and twisting the word ‘IT’ when in reality seeing the ‘IT’ as ONE collective compilation and representation of the former and newer revelation is the common general understanding from reading the hadith.
Being analyzed further, again on the basis that Quran is a self-abrogating revelation as Muhammad had admitted it himself(sic) and is constantly being changed, another interpretation is the word ‘IT’ is more incline to represent THE ONE CONSTANTLY UPDATED QURAN, and logically the updated version will always be ONE no matter how many abrogation nor revision had been done previously. And in my opinion this interpretation has the stronger notion.
“Uthman rahimullah says: between have to admit Muhammad had made an error for issuing such Sunnah or Uthman and other Caliphs had deliberately violated the Sunnah.”
What is the logics of that argument? By telling Mas’ud’s version as “Fresh” instead of “Most freshest”, Prophet Muhammad just confirmed that it “got updated”, but he doesn’t affirm that it is being the “Last update”.
Mas’ud also doesn’t insist his version to be the last or the most freshest one.
After all, since Prophet Muhammad is not the author of Qur’an – he is just the bringer of it – Prophet Muhammad himself can’t ensure that any updated verse won’t be abrogated (updated again) in near future. Hence, logically he just confirmed that Mas’ud’s version was updated but he can’t ever know or ensure that Mas’ud’s version “must be” the Last Update.
between have to admit Muhammad had made an error for issuing such Sunnah or Uthman and other Caliphs had deliberately violated the Sunnah.”
+++Prophet Muhammad just confirmed that it “got updated”, but he doesn’t affirm that it is being the “Last update”.+++
On the contrary to your assumption, regarding the nature of Quran that constantly abrogating itself and always being revised by Mohammad, the confirmation of updated version means ‘every time any muslim wanted to know the fresh updated revelation then just came to Masud.
+++Mas’ud also doesn’t insist his version to be the last or the most freshest one.+++
Nope even there’s narration on the dispute and dislike of Masud concerning the Quran compiled by head of the commite ( Zayd ibn Thabit) , and your argument is ‘a bit off’, if he didn’t convince with his version as the the most freshest and authentic then there should have not happened any intrigue between Mas’ud and Uthman&Zayd. Sorry, you’re just making empty baseless argument.
++ Hence, logically he just confirmed that Mas’ud’s version was updated but he can’t ever know or ensure that Mas’ud’s version “must be” the Last Update.++++
Aren’t you all so fond of Abrogation? there’s also a principal of Sunna abrogates Sunna
Of course he could, Mas’ud lived very close to your prophet and he lived even after Muhammad had died, Muhammad had so many chance to abrogate his sunnah, just like Mutah or the eating of donkey. And since there had been any Sunnah to abrogate this Sunnah then the Sunna still stands.
Sadly it all comes back to square one:
You gotta choose between have to admit Muhammad had made an error for issuing such Sunnah or Uthman and other Caliphs had deliberately violated the Sunnah.
“Uthman rahimullah says: Of course he could, Mas’ud lived very close to your prophet and he lived even after Muhammad had died, Muhammad had so many chance to abrogate his sunnah, just like Mutah or the eating of donkey. ”
It is ridiculous for Mas’ud a man who lived even after Prophet Muhammad had died, to *forget* mentioning his *famous* variant Q.92, v.3 when initiating to personally come and protest Uthman’s scribes of adding three chapters: 1st, 113th, 114th.
….That he accused Uthman’s scribes of adding three extra suras (1, 113 and 114) that had never been part of the original and of making many other small changes to the text.[54]….
Gilchrist, J. (1989). Jam’ al-Qur’an: The Codification of the Qur’an Text, pp 67ff. Mondeor, R.S.A
Uthman rahimullah says: Of course he could, Mas’ud lived very close to your prophet and he lived even after Muhammad had died, Muhammad had so many chance to abrogate his sunnah, just like Mutah or the eating of donkey. ”
+++It is ridiculous for Mas’ud a man who lived even after Prophet Muhammad had died, to *forget* mentioning his *famous* variant Q.92, v.3 when initiating to personally come and protest Uthman’s scribes of adding three chapters: 1st, 113th, 114th++++
You just don’t get it don’t you?
It’s very logical , Uthman as we all know was a very authoritarian and cunning ruler, the history records that we have right now have been mostly fabricated under his scheme.
Surah Fatiha is the most highly regarded chapter in Quran for many Muslim and is considered as the Mother of Quran (Umm Kitab) , however Masu’d who happened to be the best reciter and solely preferred by your prophet had rejected Fatiha , this is against ‘the taste of majority’ so in fact by bringing this up Uthman in a very cunning way wanted to degrade Mas’ud’s reputation in front of the public and apparently it worked, the taste of majority and opinion of the public won against the true sole version of Quran
Even as a non-muslim I can see in a very LOGIC & FAIR ANALYSIS Surah Al-Fatiha should’ve been erased from Quran because it is obviously the source of huge division and contradiction within Islam itself.
While those who disbelieved and denied Our revelations/ VERSES ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom(S22:57)
One party believes Allah had spoken the Basmalah’s verse within Surah Al-Fatiha as the chapter was being brought down.
BUT
The other party DENIES Allah had ever spoken Basmalah’s verse within Surah Al-Fatiha
The party whom Malikis and Salafist Meccan&Imams descended from HAS DISBELIEVED Basmalah’s VERSE AS PART OF FATIHA if muslims had been consistent with S22:57 they should’ve been defined as cursed people.
And for the surahs of al-mu’awwazatayn, Uthman seemingly has already fabricated a counter information where there he and his co-conspirators has made some hadith that wanna impress us as if Mas’ud had fully agreed with those two chapters ; Narrated Ibn Mas’ud: “Excessively recite two surahs. Allah will make you reach higher ranks in the Hereafter because of them. They are al-mu’awwazatayn” (Kanzul ‘Ummal, Hadith 2743).
What we have right now (Chapters differences and Surah 92:3) are just a remnants and leaks of so many various deviations within the Quran (we have to give the compliment for Uthman nearly successful attempt to cover his scheme). You don’t happen to be so innocence and foolish to believe the historical records about Uthman’s dispute with Mas’ud are all complete and perfectly telling the truth, do you ? especially when we all agree Uthman is a very evil ruler and die as a heretic/mushreekoon as he was buried in a non-muslim(Jewish) cemetery.
And how about Ali ibn Abi Thalib ? could’ve he revised and reconstructed the damage? obviously history shows he could not restore the damage since many evidences had already been burned and seemingly any effort would’ve just divided the Ummah(islam nation) further.
“Uthman rahimullah says: history records that we have right now have been mostly fabricated under his scheme. ”
Yeah, History is written by the winner. Perhaps entire story of Mas’ud’s punishment of not giving up a Mushaf is *also* a similar scheme fabricated by Uthman to scare off his opponents. Once we doubt, we doubt everything, okay? Remember, other Uthman’s scheme just hinted another Conspiracy Theory how Mas’ud used to hold many secrets of Prophet Muhammad.
history records that we have right now have been mostly fabricated under his scheme. ”
+++Yeah, History is written by the winner. Perhaps entire story of Mas’ud’s punishment of not giving up a Mushaf is *also* a similar scheme fabricated by Uthman to scare off his opponents.++
that’s just silly although being narrated that way but Shia muslim still try to give cover for the preservation myth of quran by claiming none was changed, as I’ve already explained the stake here is to keep the religion at least be intact as possible.
Uthman as I’ve explained also before had already degraded Mas’ud credential as the sole reference of Quran according to Sunnah, by bringing up Mas’ud rejection toward Surah Fatiha which is the most favour and highly valued chapter of all by Muslim.
But as we can analyst logically, it is perfect common sense to erase this contradictory Fatiha Chapter
+++Once we doubt, we doubt everything, okay?++
just another silly argument again
++ Remember, other Uthman’s scheme just hinted another Conspiracy Theory how Mas’ud used to hold many secrets of Prophet Muhammad.++
In fact as you read your own respected scholars opinion Masud is considered as one of the most knowledgeable in religion but Uthman’s cunning way had managed to discredit his position as the sole referential as ordered by the Sunnah.
“Uthman rahimullah says: In fact as you read your own respected scholars opinion Masud is considered as one of the most knowledgeable in religion but Uthman’s cunning way had managed to discredit his position as the sole referential as ordered by the Sunnah.”
How do you know that the whole story of Mas’ud is not fabricated by Uthman? Is not Uthman an effective ruler? Why does he not eliminate the supporters that praised Mas’ud?
What do you say if Alqama and Darda’ actually worked for Uthman to invent a weak story – that Mas’ud has a different reading – so that Uthman has a pretext jail him, so that he can rule effectively without other significant rival?
Uthman rahimullah says: In fact as you read your own respected scholars opinion Masud is considered as one of the most knowledgeable in religion but Uthman’s cunning way had managed to discredit his position as the sole referential as ordered by the Sunnah.”
+++How do you know that the whole story of Mas’ud is not fabricated by Uthman? Is not Uthman an effective ruler? Why does he not eliminate the supporters that praised Mas’ud?+++
As I’ve mentioned Uthman was an authoritarian ruthless ruler but also sneaky snake he didn’t want to make Mas’ud looked all bad since all that Uthman wanted was just to throw down Mas’ud from his position as the sole referential to know the genuine updated Quran according to Sunnah.
And further more as I’ve explained what we have now is the leaks, hence although Uthman had managed to fabricate the history but he still human after all. Leaks happen, and from that we can know Uthman devious scheme.
+++What do you say if Alqama and Darda’ actually worked for Uthman to invent a weak story – that Mas’ud has a different reading – so that Uthman has a pretext jail him, so that he can rule effectively without other significant rival?+++ Just another silly fantasy to deny reality especially since ABU DARDA WAS NOT MASUD’S DISCIPLE , IN FACT ABU DARDA SWORE HE HAD HEARD THE VERSION FROM MUHAMMAD HIMSELF.
So many intrigues and political maneuvers just for compiling a book presumably from the divine … pathetic isn’t it ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: So many intrigues and political maneuvers just for compiling a book presumably from the divine ”
Once we doubt, we doubt everything.
It is ridiculous for Uthman to leak a news of Mas’ud accusation of adding three chapters, but suppress information about Mas’ud mentioning his different variant Q.92, v.3.
Indeed no one records that Mas’ud himself accuses Uthman of falsifying Q.92, v.3 in time when accusing him of adding three chapters.
Otherwise, as I said earlier, it is too ridiculous for Mas’ud to *forget* mentioning his *famous* variant Q.92, v.3 when accusing Uthman’s scribes of adding three chapters: 1st, 113th, 114th.
….That he accused Uthman’s scribes of adding three extra suras (1, 113 and 114) that had never been part of the original and of making many other small changes to the text.[54]….
Gilchrist, J. (1989). Jam’ al-Qur’an: The Codification of the Qur’an Text, pp 67ff. Mondeor, R.S.A
++It is ridiculous for Uthman to leak+++
As cunning as he was but he’s still human wasn’t he?
++Otherwise, as I said earlier, it is too ridiculous for Mas’ud to *forget* mentioning his *famous* variant Q.92, v.3 when accusing Uthman’s scribes of adding three chapters: 1st, 113th, 114th.+++
Nope! the Fatiha and 113th&114th are the major parts since they are chapters, in fact it’s necessary for Uthman to refute Mas’ud on this matter.
Like I’ve said all clues that we have right now are just small leaks of evidence , so as cunning as Uthman was he’s just human and the fact is we have the clues , agree?
“Like I’ve said all clues that we have right now are just small leaks of evidence , so as cunning as Uthman was he’s just human”
Hence we should treat the story of Mas’ud as fake. Why? Because the story of “violent Uthman” is absolutely contradictory to other sources that narrate the biography of the “soft Uthman”.
Uthman was depicted by Hadith, Sira, and other sources as the rich philanthropist who – coming from rich family he was not exposed to a violent behavior from childhood – used to simply do certain non-combative roles for Prophet Muhammad, such as being diplomat and negotiator.
+++Hence we should treat the story of Mas’ud as fake. Why? Because the story of “violent Uthman” is absolutely contradictory to other sources that narrate the biography of the “soft Uthman+++
Nope, the intrigue between Uthman and Masud is accepted by all muslim scholars and the burning of mushafs itself is a huge clue although Muslim scholars out of shame and want to save some dignity try to softened the story.
The leaks that we have right now, both the strongly narrated one ( the differences on three chapters of quran and S92:3), not so strongly narrated ( couple of differences in wordings and texts on several ayahs) , do provide us with many clues on Uthman atrocities.
Not to mention the clear Sunnah which makes Masud as the sole referential for the most authentic & updated Quran
“Uthman rahimullah says: Masud as the sole referential for the most authentic & updated Quran ”
You know nothing about Abrogation Theory which Mas’ud himself believe in.
The same scribe Mas’ud didn’t omit any of abrogated verses from his Mushaf. Islamic scholars don’t omit any of abrogated verses. Hence, by supposing that Uthman and others really wrote the “*Old* version of Q.92, v.3 – instead of the *Updated* version of Mas’ud – they aren’t guilty. The old version is still the valid verse, just as Mas’ud didn’t erase the old verses in his Mushaf.
Uthman rahimullah says: Masud as the sole referential for the most authentic & updated Quran ”
++You know nothing about Abrogation Theory which Mas’ud himself believe in.++
mmm…just chill out and don’t be too emotional
–You can not AVOID the reality where the Sunna solely appoints Masud as the sole referential
–You can not AVOID the ACCEPTABLE story of intrigue where Masud refused the Mushaf of Zayd ibn Thabit.
–You can not AVOID the story of differences between the mushafs of companions especially between Masud and Uthman’s versions.
And lastly for the topping of the cake Uthman burned all other mushafs without any clear&direct authorization from Quran nor Sunnah…so many maneuvers just for compiling the supposedly book from heaven…pathetic isn’t it ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: so many maneuvers just for compiling the supposedly book from heaven”
My point is, if Q.92, v.3 were the last (the most freshest one), Masud would be guilty of erasing or deleting or omitting the *Old* verse.
Abrogation Theory is proven as the garbage theory because of this story of Mas’ud’s variant reading.
Let me repeat and rephrase this very important conclusion a little bit:
The same scribe Mas’ud didn’t omit any of abrogated verses from his Mushaf. Islamic scholars don’t omit any of abrogated verses. Hence, by supposing that Uthman and others really wrote the *Old* version of Q.92, v.3 – instead of the *Updated* version of Mas’ud – they aren’t guilty. The old version of Uthman’s Mushaf is still a valid verse, just as Mas’ud didn’t erase the old verses in his Mushaf.
Now, otherwise, if Q.92, v.3 were the last (the most freshest one), Masud must have been guilty of erasing or deleting or omitting the *Old* verse.
++++My point is, if Q.92, v.3 were the last (the most freshest one), Masud would be guilty of erasing or deleting or omitting the *Old* verse++++
.You seem to insist that S92:3 has to be recorded as one of Masud objection toward Uthman version.
This is silly:
–The narration in Sahih Bukhari could probably one of the ‘leaks’ that I’ve mentioned, where despite Uthman vicious effort to cover his dirty scheme but yet the narration about other versions of S92:3 still could slip through to be narrated down.
-Even the narration about differences in three chapters could also another ‘leaks’ that Uthman had never wanted to be transmitted but eventually the information about this had been transmitted.
Combining with the other facts :
— the reality where the Sunna solely appoints Masud as the sole referential for knowing the updated Quran
– the story of intrigue where Masud refused the Mushaf of Zayd ibn Thabit.
– the story of differences between the mushafs of companions especially between Masud and Uthman’s versions.
And lastly for the topping of the cake Uthman burned all other mushafs without any clear&direct authorization from Sunna nor Quran.
It’s very logical to see the atrocities being made by Uthman and the corruption of Quran.
“Uthman rahimullah says: You seem to insist that S92:3 has to be recorded as one of Masud objection toward Uthman version.”
Yes, it is Abrogation Theory all about, the old and new ones must be intact in writing. Hence, very gladly it is proven Abrogation Theory is a garbage theory. Because of this story of Mas’ud’s vs. Uthman, both theory and variant reading become nonsense.
The old version of Uthman’s Mushaf is still a valid verse, just as Mas’ud didn’t erase the old verses off his Mushaf.
Uthman rahimullah says: You seem to insist that S92:3 has to be recorded as one of Masud objection toward Uthman version.”
++Yes, it is Abrogation Theory all about, the old and new ones must be intact in writing. +++
Nope that’s only your silly wish, there’s no obligation the old and new to be intact writing especially consider the situation where Uthman is so influential in corrupting the Quran and destroying the evidences.
++Hence, very gladly it is proven Abrogation Theory is a garbage theory. Because of this story of Mas’ud’s vs. Uthman, both theory and variant reading become nonsense+++
First, you yourself have admitted that abrogation UNTIL NOW STILL A PAINSTAKING DILEMMA WITHIN THE ISLAM (Especially the learned and scholarly ones).
Second, All scholasr admit there are differences between companions and again your silly denial from reality
Third, YOU ALSO CAN’T REFUTE THE DEEP PROBLEM WITH SURAH FATIHA WHERE INFLUENTIAL MADHABZ SUCH AS MALIKI & MECCAN-MEDINAN SALAFIST OPENLY DENIES BASMALAH AS VERSE WITHIN SURAH FATIHA.
So Masu’d’s reason to ERASE AL- FATIHA IS ACTUALLY VALID
“Uthman rahimullah says: YOU ALSO CAN’T REFUTE THE DEEP PROBLEM WITH SURAH FATIHA ”
Irrelevant arguments concerning Abrogation Theory and Mas’ud variant reading just deserve a non-serious response actually.
I have refuted the argument on Q.1, v.1 (Basmalah).
Substantially, None dares to omit Basmalah from Qur’an and Mushaf. Everyone could just listen the scholar’s Quranic recitation of Basmalah *outside* of prayer throughout Arabia and other areas.
As long as a person doesn’t omit Basmalah from Q.1, v.1, yes basically he agrees that Basmalah is the valid opener of Fatiha. As long as he doesn’t object that Basmala is placed on the first order Q.1, v.1 that opens Fatiha in Qur’an, he doesn’t degrade it but honors it instead.
Basmalah is really a part of Fatiha of Qur’an, that’s why it is placed on Q.1, v.1. But it is preferable to recite it softly in prayer.
The scholars don’t deny that Basmalah is really a part of Qur’an. At most they just opine a theory that makes a differentiation between Fatiha and Basmalah, and it is acceptable though, not sin.
It is a bad invention to produce a newly religious “negative judgment” on the rite – let alone prayer – such as “Makruh” on reciting Basmalah softly, which ironically neither Prophet Muhammad nor early Moslems dare to create such a great judgment upon.
Early Moslems such as Anas, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman just do what Prophet Muhammad did on praying, but nobody invents a negative judgment.
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,”not mentioning “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the first of the recital or the last of it [and in another version, “I didn’t hear any of them recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’”] (Muslim, 1.299)”
Theirs is a preferable rite, even in the city of Mekka and Medinah it has been a canonical practice since 1,400 years ago.
However they also *never rebuked* those who recite Q.1, v.1 in loud voice. Reciting it aloud during prayer is *not preferable* but not either disallowed. Why? Because Q.1, v.1 is used in Qur’an as a goodwill gesture for the foreigners (story of king Solomon with Sheba queen) whereas among the allies and the close friends (as rite of Anas, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman) it is preferable to praise God.
Throughout Hadith we never read or know of the “battle” over such a recitation by the early Moslems. Apparently Prophet Muhammad gives the options on it, even perhaps he practiced both options in separate occasion, as he didn’t quite strict on the gesture and the recitation of prayer.
It is not a sin for Moslems to not recite Basmalah loudly in 5 times prayer to Allah.
Also, it is not a sin for not reciting again Basmalah when reciting other verses after Fatiha in prayer.
Q.1, v.2 is also a part of Fatiha though.
Based on Sunnah, Moslems have two valid options for the prayer (preferable as in Mekka and Medinah and common one), but there’s no another third or fourth option.
After all, when reciting other verses after Fatiha there’s no strict requirement to recite them completely from the beginning of the chapter to the end of it.
Uthman rahimullah says: YOU ALSO CAN’T REFUTE THE DEEP PROBLEM WITH SURAH FATIHA
++Irrelevant arguments concerning Abrogation Theory and Mas’ud variant reading just deserve a non-serious response actually.++
Apparently it has became your habit to become silly (not serious) when the argument HURTS you 🙂
++As long as he doesn’t object that Basmala is placed on the first order Q.1, v.1 that opens Fatiha in Qur’an, he doesn’t degrade it but honors it instead.+++
While those who disbelieved and denied Our revelations/ VERSES ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom(S22:57)
Then they’re actually conducting denial toward the verse though it’s written, THE STRONGEST PROOF IS BY REGARDING THE RECITATION OF BASMALAH AS MAKROOH.
I know you fully aware the recitation of Quranic ayah is so sacred , and to define the recitation of any ayah as MAKROOH is so unimaginable , but it happens according to Malikis according to the teaching of Imam Malik.
at minute 7:07 in this video , Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi confirms the mushaf in North Africa if being open then you will find ALL-HAM-DULEELAH AS THE FIRST VERSE IN FATIHA
And it’s certainly related with the refusal of Masud to put Fatiha within Mushaf because the confusion this chapter has .
“Uthman rahimullah says: mushaf in North Africa if being open then you will find ALL-HAM-DULEELAH AS THE FIRST VERSE IN FATIHA”
Too east. In terms of Mushaf, both Malik and Hanifa *never* produce Mushaf. Uthman does.
Let’s take a look on Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:
Notice:
,ٱلرَّحِيمِl…………(ar-rahim) ==> Part of Basmala
…………………………… ==> Hamdalah is unreadable.
ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ……………. ==> Fatiha Q.1, v.3 is still intact and complete.
++Let’s take a look on Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:++
Such a pathetic joke, I’m not talking about Uthmanic Mushaf
Sorry, I am focusing on what your respective and authoritative scholars teach ,
YOUR OWN RESPECTIVE AND AUTHORITATIVE SCHOLARS TEACH THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE FOR SOME MAJOR PART OF MUSLIM SCHOOLS DON’T BELIEVE BASMALAH AS THE FIRST VERSE IN FATIHA AND EVEN REJECT IT FROM BEING PART OF SURAH FATIHA.
I have shown with evidence after evidences , and you just keep on denying , dodging and circling around try to save the expose of your wreck religion
Yasir Qadhi is a prominent and respective scholar of Sunni, at minute 07:05 he confirm WHEN YOU OPEN THE MUSHAF IN NORTH AFRICA ( HE IS THE ONE USING THE TERM MUSHAF) IT HAS ALL-HAM-DOH-LEE-LAH AS THE FIRST VERSE AND NOT BASMALAH
The North African are using Qiraat Warsh and Qaloon both REJECT ALLAH HAD EVER SENT DOWN VERSE OF BASMALAH WITHIN THE SURAH FATIHA.
If Muslim Sunni thoroughly consistence then the Maliki North African Sunnis should’ve been condemned as shameful doomed people according to this verse; “While those who disbelieved and denied Our revelations/ VERSES ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
But apparently not! Now unfortunately not only Sunna but even IJMA(Consensus) also can abrogate Quran’s ruling seeing this clear obvious evidence.
Another prominent respective scholar Sheikh Aseem al-Hakim also teaches BASMALAH IS NOT A VERSE WITHIN AL-FATIHA
I’m using evidences of your own respected authoritative scholars and what you do is just circling around spouting your empty baseless argument to deny the truth.
IT’S AN IJMA (CONSENSUS) IN SUNNI MUSLIM THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO DENY THE BASMALAH AS ONE OF ALLAH’S VERSE WITHIN FATIHA
THIS MEANS EVEN IJMA CAN ABROGATE THE QURAN “While those who disbelieved and denied Our revelations/ VERSES ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
“Uthman rahimullah says: The North African are using Qiraat Warsh and Qaloon both REJECT ALLAH HAD EVER SENT DOWN VERSE OF BASMALAH WITHIN THE SURAH FATIHA.”
Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb who participated in writing Uthmani Mushaf in the Qurayshic dialect (Hafs) is the reciter of both Warsh and Qalun.
Although Warsh and Qalun are two dialects of Madinah through Ubayy Ibn Ka’b, yet Ka’b himself wrote Uthmani Mushaf in Hafs (Qurayshic) dialect with other main Qurayshic scribes, such as Zayd Ibn Thabit.
Hence, Ka’b – who is the 1st reciter of Warsh and Qalun – approves Uthmani Mushaf where Fatiha is started with Basmala.
Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb acted as a scribe of Prophet Muhammad in Medinah. Ubayy was one of few Moslems who put Qur’anic verses into a writing, hence he had a Mushaf of his own, and he was one of twenty five Moslems who memorise Qur’an completely.
Medinah’s dialect of Wars and Qalun is popularised by Nafi Ibn Naim. Both dialects came from Hurayrah, Ibn Abbas, and Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb (Medinah scribe) from Prophet Muhammad.
Are you deaf or deafening your ears and blinding your eyes since the truth hurts?
Yasir Qadhi is a prominent and respective scholar of Sunni, at minute 07:05 he confirm WHEN YOU OPEN THE MUSHAF IN NORTH AFRICA ( HE IS THE ONE USING THE TERM MUSHAF) IT HAS ALL-HAM-DOH-LEE-LAH AS THE FIRST VERSE AND NOT BASMALAH
The North African Maliki Sunnis school REJECT ALLAH HAD EVER SENT DOWN VERSE OF BASMALAH AS PART OF THE SURAH FATIHA.
“While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
IT’S AN IJMA (CONSENSUS) IN SUNNI MUSLIM THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO DENY THE BASMALAH AS ONE OF ALLAH’S VERSE WITHIN FATIHA
THIS MEANS EVEN IJMA CAN ABROGATE THE QURAN (S22:57)
“Uthman rahimullah says: IT’S AN IJMA (CONSENSUS) IN SUNNI MUSLIM THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO DENY THE BASMALAH AS ONE OF ALLAH’S VERSE WITHIN FATIHA”
It is consensus of all Moslems that Basmala is placed before Hamdala in Mushaf and for Qur’anic recitation outside of prayer. The term “Verse” belongs to Scripture, not to prayer.
++It is consensus of all Moslems that Basmala is placed before Hamdala in Mushaf and for Qur’anic recitation outside of prayer. The term “Verse” belongs to Scripture, not to prayer.++
Are you experiencing some sort of brain malfunction or something ? are you too shock that you can’t even listen to your own scholars who has CLEARLY STATED THAT VERSE OF BASMALAH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT PART OF AL-FATIHA ?
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
IT’S AN IJMA (CONSENSUS) IN SUNNI MUSLIM THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO DENY THE BASMALAH AS ONE OF ALLAH’S VERSE WITHIN FATIHA
THIS MEANS EVEN IJMA CAN ABROGATE THE QURAN (S22:57)
Yasir Qadhi is a prominent and respective scholar of Sunni, at minute 07:05 he confirm WHEN YOU OPEN THE MUSHAF IN NORTH AFRICA ( HE IS THE ONE USING THE TERM MUSHAF) IT HAS ALL-HAM-DOH-LEE-LAH AS THE FIRST VERSE AND NOT BASMALAH
The Maliki Sunnis school REJECT ALLAH HAD EVER SENT DOWN VERSE OF BASMALAH AS PART OF THE SURAH FATIHA.
“While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
IT’S AN IJMA (CONSENSUS) IN SUNNI MUSLIM THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO DENY THE BASMALAH AS ONE OF ALLAH’S VERSE WITHIN FATIHA
THIS MEANS EVEN IJMA CAN ABROGATE THE QURAN (S22:57)
Are you experiencing some sort of brain malfunction or something ? are you too shock that you can’t even listen to your own scholars who has CLEARLY STATED THAT VERSE OF BASMALAH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT PART OF AL-FATIHA ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: Please be smart for once and hear your own scholar”
No matter how great a scholar is, he can’t find the term “Al-Fatiha” itself in Qur’an.
Hence it is okay to have a disputation of it, and its beginning.
++No matter how great a scholar is, he can’t find the term “Al-Fatiha” itself in Qur’an.
Hence it is okay to have a disputation of it, and its beginning++
LOL… poor you 🙂
It’s so crystal clear no sophistication needed to hear the admission from your scholar
AT minute 07:05 Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY ADMITTED QURAN IN NORTH AFRICA PUT ALL-HAM-DOH-LEE-LAH AS THE FIRST VERSE IN FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN INSTEAD OF BASMALAH..
The painstaking matter for you is, this is not some ‘minor theoretical dispute’ but WHOLE VAST MASS OF PEOPLE REJECT BASMALAH AS VERSE FROM ALLAH IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN.
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
The Maliki and the Imams of Mecca&Medina SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE ACCORDING TO S22:57, but apparently NOT, this means Sunni has consensus to tolerate any muslim who denies Basmalah as the verse within THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN.
THIS MEANS IJMA ALSO ABROGATES QURAN (S22:57)
Please I encourage to keep denying repeatedly so all who read this will be more firm to acknowledge the retard mind of muslim who will still deny the so clear obvious fact presented in front of their face.
“Uthman rahimullah says: The Maliki and the Imams of Mecca&Medina SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE ACCORDING TO S22:57, but apparently NOT, this means Sunni has consensus to tolerate any muslim who denies Basmalah as the verse within THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN.”
No, we don’t condemn two Imams for something – a title of Al-Fatihah – that is not mentioned ever, not even once, by Qur’an.
(i) In terms of dialects, indeed both Imams Malik and Hanifa just follow two Medinah’s dialects of Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb (Wars and Qalun) where Fatiha is not started with Basmala.
Both dialects came from Hurayrah, Ibn Abbas, and Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb (Medinah scribe) from Prophet Muhammad.
However, although Ka’b is the reciter – even probably the sole writer – of both dialects Warsh and Qalun, he also participated in writing Uthmani Mushaf in the Qurayshic dialect (Hafs).
Ka’b himself wrote for Uthmani Mushaf in a Hafs (Qurayshic) dialect along with other main Qurayshic scribes, such as Zayd Ibn Thabit.
Hence, Ka’b (mentor of both Malik and Hanifa) just approves Uthmani Mushaf in which Fatiha is started with Basmala, though Medinah’s dialects do not start it with Basmala.
Medinah’s dialect of Ka’b – Wars and Qalun – is popularised later by Nafi Ibn Naim.
(ii) In terms of Mushaf, both Imams Malik and Hanifa followed Uthmani Mushaf which Ka’b wrote with other scribes, even though he recites two different Medinah’s dialects.
Malik and Hanifa *never* produce Mushaf. Uthman does. A Moslem doesn’t go to the later Imams to know about Mushaf of Qur’an. We just go to Uthman on that.
Let’s take a look on Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:
qurango.com/images/u/002.jpg
Notice:
,ٱلرَّحِيمِl…………(ar-rahim) ==> Part of Basmala
…………………………… ==> Hamdalah is unreadable.
ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ……………. ==> Fatiha Q.1, v.3 is still intact and complete.
++No, we don’t condemn two Imams for something – a title of Al-Fatihah – that is not mentioned ever, not even once, by Qur’an++
What a stupid and lame excuse,
Don’t matter what you want to call THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN , you can not deny the fact :
QURAN OF NORTH AFRICAN PEPOLE REJECT BASMALAH TO BE WRITTEN AS PART OF VERSE IN FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN .
I dare you as good muslim will you apply While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57) toward the Maliki Sunnis for PUTTING ALHAMDOHLEELAH AS FIRST VERSE IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN INSTEAD OF BASMALAH ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: I dare you as good muslim will you apply While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57) toward the Maliki Sunnis for PUTTING ALHAMDOHLEELAH AS FIRST VERSE IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN INSTEAD OF BASMALAH ?”
Why would we condemn Malik and Hanifa for truthfully approving our Uthmani Mushaf which was also written by their mentor Ka’b?
Both Imams Malik and Hanifa followed Uthmani Mushaf which Ka’b wrote, in which Fatiha is started with Basmala, even though two Medinah’s dialects (of Ka’b, Malik and Hanifa) do not start Fatiha with Basmala.
“Uthman rahimullah says: 7:05 Basmalah is not written as a verse within the First Chapter of Quran of Malikis madhab”
Malik and Hanifa don’t write any Mushaf, rather they approves Uthmani Mushaf which their mentor Ka’b wrote, in which Fatiha is started with Basmala.
“Uthman rahimullah says: So You don’t mind Basmalah is not a verse in the first Chapter of Quran then? and you don’t mind a verse from Allah be rejected then ?”
It doesn’t matter because it never happens. The term “Verse” belongs to a Mushaf, not a dialect.
Uthman rahimullah says: So You don’t mind Basmalah is not a verse in the first Chapter of Quran then? and you don’t mind a verse from Allah be rejected then ?”
++It doesn’t matter because it never happens. The term “Verse” belongs to a Mushaf, not a dialect++
Nope! VAST MAJOR OF MUSLIM REJECT BASMALAH TO BE AN AYAH IN FIRST SURAH OF QURAN ( AYAH IS A QURANIC TERM BY THE WAY ).
AND BY THE WAY QIRAAT IMAM NAFI ABSOLUTELY REJECT BASMALAH TO BE AN AYAH WITHIN FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN
THIS MEANS UBAY IBN KAAB TRANSMITTED TWO AMBIGUOUS NARRATIONS !
“Uthman rahimullah says: THIS MEANS UBAY IBN KAAB TRANSMITTED TWO AMBIGUOUS NARRATIONS !”
Yes, you can blame that to Ka’b.
However the proponent of Abrogation Theory conveniently say that Ka’b’s Warsh and Qalun dialects were abrogated later by a Hafs dialect of Uthmani which Ka’b learned from Zayd and other scribes.
++Warsh and Qalun dialects were abrogated later by a Hafs dialect of Uthmani which Ka’b learned from Zayd and other scribes.++
1) I know you are fully aware that you are willfully making yourself as dumb as possible to deny the truth when you’re claiming REJECTING VERSE OF BASMALAH IN FATIHA IS JUST A MATTER OF DIALECT.
2) You are of course should’ve been aware that whatever argument you would throw, yet for REJECTING BASMALAH AS AN AYAH WITHIN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN then according to S 22:57 ALMOST ALL SUNNI PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NORTH AFRICA SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS HERETIC.
3) By not following Surah 22:57, you also fully realize there’s a consensus (Ijma) to TOLERATE WHOMEVER WHO DENIES BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN
MEANING IJMA / CONSENSUS CAN ABROGATE QURAN ( S 22:57)
“Uthman rahimullah says: ALMOST ALL SUNNI PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NORTH AFRICA SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS HERETIC.”
They just follow “two abrogated dialects” of Malik and Hanifa who followed Ubayy Ibn Ka’b who later wrote a Hafs dialect for Uthmani in which Fatiha is started with Basmala.
Uthman rahimullah says: ALMOST ALL SUNNI PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NORTH AFRICA SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS HERETIC.”
+++They just follow “two abrogated dialects” of Malik and Hanifa who followed Ubayy Ibn Ka’b who later wrote a Hafs dialect for Uthmani in which Fatiha is started with Basmala.++
1) I know you are fully aware that you are willfully making yourself as dumb as possible to deny the truth when you’re claiming REJECTING VERSE OF BASMALAH IN FATIHA IS JUST A MATTER OF DIALECT.
2) You are of course should’ve been aware that whatever argument you would throw, yet for REJECTING BASMALAH AS AN AYAH WITHIN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN then according to S 22:57 ALMOST ALL SUNNI PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NORTH AFRICA SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS HERETIC.
3) By not following Surah 22:57, you also fully realize there’s a consensus (Ijma) to TOLERATE WHOMEVER WHO DENIES BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN
MEANING IJMA / CONSENSUS CAN ABROGATE QURAN ( S 22:57)
QURAN OF NORTH AFRICAN REJECT BASMALAH AS A VERSE / AYAH WITHIN FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
“Uthman rahimullah says: there’s a consensus (Ijma) to TOLERATE WHOMEVER WHO DENIES BASMALAH”
All Moslems, even Ka’b, Malik, Hanifa, and including North African Moslems, never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b.
Uthman rahimullah says: there’s a consensus (Ijma) to TOLERATE WHOMEVER WHO DENIES BASMALAH”
++All Moslems, even Ka’b, Malik, Hanifa, and including North African Moslems, never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b++
the video 07:04 your own respected scholar said it differently
In NORTH AFRICAN QURAN DOESN’T CONTAIN BASMALAH WRITTEN AS FIRST AYAH OF FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN
You are of course should’ve been aware that whatever argument you would throw, yet for REJECTING BASMALAH AS AN AYAH WITHIN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN then according to S 22:57 ALMOST ALL SUNNI PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NORTH AFRICA SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS HERETIC.
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
But since no fatwa has ever issued condemning those who deny the Basmalah as ayah in Fatiha then the conclusion is IT’S A CONSENSUS TO TOLERATE THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH IN FATIHA
“Uthman rahimullah says: But since no fatwa has ever issued condemning those who deny the Basmalah as ayah in Fatiha then the conclusion is”
All Scholars who produce Fatwa know better how in reality Ka’b, Malik, Hanifa, including all North African Moslems, never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b.
++never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b++
you are twisting and dodging words as usual , it’s not about North African tolerate the other but about THE OTHER MUSLIM TOLERATE the North African muslim.
According to : While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
All who deny AN AYAH WITHIN QURAN should be defined as SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE
BUT BECAUSE YOU AND ANY OTHER MUSLIM REFUSE TO FOLLOW QURAN
IT MEANS THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
θ says: Moslems outside of North Africa never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b.
you are twisting and dodging words as usual , it’s only not about tolerating other mushaf but THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER IS ABOUT TOLERATING the North African muslim.WHO REJECT AN AYAH IN SURAH FATIHA
According to : While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
All who deny AN AYAH WITHIN QURAN should be defined as SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE
BUT BECAUSE YOU AND ANY OTHER MUSLIM REFUSE TO FOLLOW QURAN
IT MEANS THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
θ says: Moslems outside of North Africa never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b.
you are twisting and dodging words as usual THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER IS ABOUT TOLERATING the North African muslim.WHO REJECT A VERSE ( AYAH ) IN SURAH FATIHA
According to : While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
All who deny AN AYAH WITHIN QURAN should be defined as SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE
BUT BECAUSE YOU AND ANY OTHER MUSLIM REFUSE TO APPLY S22:57 ON MALIKI MADHAB WHO DENIES BASMALAH AS A VERSE / AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
IT MEANS THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA, MEANING CONSENSUS ALSO CAN ABROGATE QURAN S22:57</em
“Uthman rahimullah says: THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA”
You begin to sound like Sam Shamoun who keep parroting a same irrelevant nonsense. Since No one rejects Uthmani Mushaf hence no one rejects placing Basmala to open Fatiha.
++Since No one rejects Uthmani Mushaf hence no one rejects placing Basmala to open Fatiha.++
You’re now acting like whining child,
–OTHER MUSLIM ACCEPT VERSE OF BASMALAH FROM ALLAH WITHIN FATIHA
— MALIKI MUSLIM DENIES VERSE OF BASMALAH FROM ALLAH WITHIN FATIHA DESPITE BASMALAH IS WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAD
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
According to S22:57 FOR DENYING VERSE/AYAH OF BASMALAH WITHIN FATIHA DESPITE IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF then THE MALIKIS SHOULD’VE BEEN CALLED SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE
But since their belief IS TOLERATED THEN it means THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
MEANING CONSENSUS ALSO CAN ABROGATE QURAN S22:57
Everyone in healthy mind can see that you’re willfully making yourself as dumb as possible to deny this obvious fact
“Uthman rahimullah says: Everyone in healthy mind can see that ”
Unanimously all Moslems – either who reject Basmala in “prayer” or not – never rejects Uthmani Mushaf hence unanimously no one rejects placing Basmala to open Fatiha.
++Unanimously all Moslems – either who reject Basmala in “prayer” or not – never rejects Uthmani Mushaf hence unanimously no one rejects placing Basmala to open Fatiha.+++
That’s my point
MALIKI MADHAB considers ALLAH NEVER SENT AN AYAH OF BASMALAH WITHIN FATIHA DESPITE THE AYAH IS WRITTEN IN MUSHAF
ANY HEALTHY MIND CLEARLY CAN SEE THIS AS DENIAL BY THE MALIKIS TOWARD AN AYAH FROM ALLAH.
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
According to S22:57 FOR DENYING VERSE/AYAH OF BASMALAH WITHIN FATIHA DESPITE IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF then THE MALIKIS SHOULD’VE BEEN CALLED SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE
But since their belief IS TOLERATED THEN it means THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
MEANING CONSENSUS ALSO CAN ABROGATE QURAN S22:57
Everyone in healthy mind can see that you’re willfully making yourself as dumb as possible to deny this obvious fact
++The word “despite” saves Malikis and Hanafis from a baseless accusation of denying Allah’s verses++
What a stupid excuse , IN FACT FOR THE VERY REASON IT’S WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF THEN MALIKI & HANAFIS SHOULD’VE BEEN CONDEMNED FOR DENYING THE BASMALAH AS AYAH IN FATIHA
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
However since there’s none such condemnation then the conclusion is
THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
MEANING CONSENSUS ALSO CAN ABROGATE QURAN S22:57
Everyone in healthy mind can see that you’re willfully making yourself as dumb as possible to deny this obvious fact
“Uthman rahimullah says: IN FACT FOR THE VERY REASON IT’S WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF THEN MALIKI & HANAFIS SHOULD’VE BEEN CONDEMNED FOR DENYING THE BASMALAH AS AYAH IN FATIHA”
Maliks and Hanafis never deny Ka’b’s Uthmani Mushaf.
“Uthman rahimullah says: ONLY A VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PERSON DEFINES ‘ REJECTION OF VERSE (AYAH) OF BASMALAH IN FATIHA AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES.”
Yes, it is called Ka’b’s dialect of Medinah, even it is split into two: Warsh and Qalun.
“Uthman rahimullah says: Bismallah-arRahman-arRaaheem is A VERSE AND NOT DIALECT”
In Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all Moslems around the world yes it is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha, but unfortunately it is not a “part” of dialect in Ka’b’s dialects of Warsh and Qalun.
θ says: but unfortunately it is not a “part” of dialect in Ka’b’s dialects of Warsh and Qalun.
QURAN IS NOT TALKING ABOUT DENYING A MUSHAF, BUT DENYING AN AYAH”
Bismallah-arRahman-arRaaheem is A VERSE AND NOT DIALECT
ONLY A VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PERSON DEFINES ‘ REJECTION OF VERSE (AYAH) OF BASMALAH IN FATIHA AS DIALECT DIFFERENCE
θ says: All Moslems even Malikis and Hanafis believe that both Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b – in which Basmala is absent – are just 2 or many “DIALECTS” (Qira’at).
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCE
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH)”
Irrelevant.
Even Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that both Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b – in which Basmala turns to be absent part of the whole entire dialect – are just 2 of many “dialects” (Qira’at).
Even Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
Indeed, both Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
θ says: Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
Remember , please be a good muslim and apply this VERSE While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are not Uthmani Mushaf.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
Moslems alongside both Malikis and Hanafis themselves define entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b as dialects.
Both Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
θ says: Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
Remember , please be a good muslim and apply this VERSE
,While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
In Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all good Moslems around the world yes it is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha, but unfortunately it is not a “part” of dialect in Ka’b’s dialects of Warsh and Qalun.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are not Uthmani Mushaf.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
Moslems alongside both Malikis and Hanafis themselves define entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b as dialects.
Both Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
θ says:Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
Remember , please be a good muslim and apply this VERSE
,While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
You begin to sound like Sam Shamoun who keeps parroting a same irrelevant nonsense.
In Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all good Moslems around the world yes Basmala is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha, but unfortunately it is not a “part” of dialect in Ka’b’s dialects of Warsh and Qalun.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are not Uthmani Mushaf.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
Moslems alongside both Malikis and Hanafis themselves define entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b as dialects.
Both Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
Dialect is absolutely not Uthmani Mushaf that all good Moslems accept.
You begin to sound like Sam Shamoun who keeps parroting a same irrelevant nonsense.
In Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all good Moslems around the world yes Basmala is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha, but unfortunately it is not a “part” of dialect in Ka’b’s dialects of Warsh and Qalun.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are not Uthmani Mushaf.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
Moslems alongside both Malikis and Hanafis themselves “define” entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b as dialects.
Both Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
Substantially, None dares to omit Basmalah from Mushaf.
In Uthmani Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all good Moslems around the world, yes Basmala is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha.
But in the prayer it is *more preferable* to recite Basmala softly, or even not recite Basmala – just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun – when praying with the closest friends, because:
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,”not mentioning “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the first of the recital or the last of it [and in another version, “I didn’t hear any of them recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’”] (Muslim, 1.299)”
Hence, Uthman himself who authorised Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – didn’t recite Basmala in prayer.
Let’s take a look at Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:
qurango.com/images/u/002.jpg
Notice:
,ٱلرَّحِيمِl…………(ar-rahim) ==> Part of Basmala
…………………………… ==> Hamdalah is unreadable.
ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ……………. ==> Fatiha Q.1, v.3 is still intact and complete.
Reciting Basmala aloud during prayer is *not preferable* but not either disallowed. Throughout Hadith we never read or know of any “battle” over such a differing recitation by the early Moslems. Apparently Prophet Muhammad gives the options on it, even perhaps he practiced both options in separate occasion, as he isn’t quite strict on the gesture and the recitation of prayer. Basmala is used in Qur’an as a goodwill gesture for the foreigners (story of king Solomon with Sheba queen) whereas among the allies and the close friends (as rite of Anas, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman) it is preferable to praise Allah.
θ says: Substantially, None dares to omit Basmalah from Mushaf.
LOL
poor you… you against your own religion for this denial because your own religion affirm through the SCHOLARLY LECTURE of Imam Yasir Qadhi BASMALAH IS NOT WRITTEN AS THE FIRST VERSE OF FATIHA IN NORTH AFRICAN MUSHAF.
at 07:04 Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY&LITERALLY ADMITTED The Mushaf(he himself using this terminology) in North Africa DOESN’T HAVE BASMALAH as THE FIRST VERSE in Al-Fatiha but instead ALLHMDOLEELAH(which is supposed to be the second verse in Uthman version)
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT BThe Malikis& Meccan-Medinan Imams REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran
>>The logical conclusion is: Maliki and Meccan-Medinan Imams are DISBELIEVERS
Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR for your refusal to this clear fact ,
I prayed with the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,”not mentioning “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the first of the recital or the last of it [and in another version, “I didn’t hear any of them recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’”] (Muslim, 1.299).
Hence, Uthman himself who authorised Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – didn’t recite Basmala in prayer, just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun.
Let’s take a look at Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:
qurango.com/images/u/002.jpg
Notice:
,ٱلرَّحِيمِl…………(ar-rahim) ==> Part of Basmala
…………………………… ==> Hamdalah is unreadable.
ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ……………. ==> Fatiha Q.1, v.3 is still intact and complete.
θ says: Substantially, None dares to omit Basmalah from Mushaf.
LOL
poor you… you against your own religion for this denial because your own religion affirm through the SCHOLARLY LECTURE of Imam Yasir Qadhi BASMALAH IS NOT WRITTEN AS THE FIRST VERSE OF FATIHA IN NORTH AFRICAN MUSHAF.
at 07:04 Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY&LITERALLY ADMITTED The Mushaf(he himself using this terminology) in North Africa DOESN’T HAVE BASMALAH as THE FIRST VERSE in Al-Fatiha but instead ALLHMDOLEELAH(which is supposed to be the second verse in Uthman version)
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT BThe Malikis& Meccan-Medinan Imams REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran
>>The logical conclusion is: Maliki and Meccan-Medinan Imams are DISBELIEVERS
Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR for your refusal to this clear fact ,
Uthman himself who authorised Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – didn’t recite Basmala in prayer, just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun.
“Uthman rahimullah says: Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR”
Prophet Muhammad also didn’t recite Basmala in prayer:
I prayed with the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman,……
Uthman himself who authorised Mushaf and Ka’b who wrote it – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – didn’t recite Basmala in prayer, just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun.
Maliks and Hanafis never reject Uthmani Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – that their mentor Ka’b has written down.
The MALIKIS REJECT THE BASMALAH BY NOT WRITING IT AS VERSE IN CHAPTER OF FATIHA IN THEIR QURAN
at 07:04 Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY&LITERALLY ADMITTED The Mushaf(he himself using this terminology) in North Africa DOESN’T HAVE BASMALAH as THE FIRST VERSE in Al-Fatiha but instead ALLHMDOLEELAH(which is supposed to be the second verse in Uthman version)
I know beyond any doubt you obviously fully aware after being confronted with this clear fact , you’ve been just making yourself as dumb as possible hoping this bitter truth would just go away
But sorry though it’s BITTER but it’s the truth
IT’S NOT ABOUT PRAYER BUT REJECTING A VERSE WITHIN QURAN as also being confirmed by Sheihk aL-Uthayymeen from Mecca , FATIHA HAS 7 VERSES, but BASMALAH IS NOT PART OF ANY OF IT.
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT BThe Malikis& Meccan-Medinan Imams REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran
>>The logical conclusion is: Maliki and Meccan-Medinan Imams are DISBELIEVERS
Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR ,
QURAN TELLS YOU TO CONDEMN SUCH DENIER,
REPENT & OBEY YOUR QURAN !
NOPE! you do not reject a prayer by not WRITING IT AS A VERSE
The MALIKIS REJECT THE BASMALAH BY NOT WRITING IT AS VERSE IN CHAPTER OF FATIHA IN THEIR QURAN, so clearly this is not about prayer.
at 07:04 Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY&LITERALLY ADMITTED The Mushaf(he himself using this terminology) in North Africa DOESN’T HAVE BASMALAH as THE FIRST VERSE in Al-Fatiha but instead ALLHMDOLEELAH(which is supposed to be the second verse in Uthman version)
I know beyond any doubt you obviously fully aware after being confronted with this clear fact , you’ve been just making yourself as dumb as possible hoping this bitter truth would just go away
But sorry though it’s BITTER but it’s the truth
IT’S NOT ABOUT PRAYER BUT REJECTING A VERSE WITHIN QURAN as also being confirmed by Sheihk aL-Uthayymeen from Mecca , FATIHA HAS 7 VERSES, but BASMALAH IS NOT PART OF ANY OF IT.
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT BThe Malikis& Meccan-Medinan Imams REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran
>>The logical conclusion is: Maliki and Meccan-Medinan Imams are DISBELIEVERS
Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR ,
QURAN TELLS YOU TO CONDEMN SUCH DENIER,
REPENT & OBEY YOUR QURAN !
So by those assertion WHY DON’T YOU APPLY S29:47 TO THE PRESENT MALIKIS THEN ?
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT B The PRESENT MALIKI SUNNI REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran BY NOT WRITING BASMALAH AS VERSE IN FATIHA WITHIN THEIR MUSHAF
CONCLUSION: THE PRESENT MALIKI SUNNIS REJECT ARE DISBELIEVER ACCORDING TO QURAN
QURAN TELLS YOU TO CONDEMN SUCH PEOPLE
REPENT AND OBEY YOUR QURAN!
“Uthman rahimullah says: So by those assertion WHY DON’T YOU APPLY S29:47 TO THE PRESENT MALIKIS THEN ?”
Today’s Malikis *never* deny Uthmani Mushaf. They just wrote a dialect without ever denying the Basmala being the opener of Fatiha in Mushaf written by K’b.
++They just wrote a dialect without ever denying the Basmala being the opener of Fatiha in Mushaf++
Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY STATED PRESENT MALIKIS BELIEVE BASMALAH IS NOT PART OF CHAPTER OF FATIHA AND EVEN IT’S NOT WRITTEN AS VERSE IN FATIHA WITHIN NORTH AFRICAN QURANIC MUSHAF
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT B The PRESENT MALIKI SUNNI REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran BY NOT WRITING BASMALAH AS VERSE IN FATIHA WITHIN THEIR MUSHAF
CONCLUSION: THE PRESENT MALIKI SUNNIS ARE DISBELIEVER ACCORDING TO QURAN
QURAN TELLS YOU TO CONDEMN SUCH PEOPLE
REPENT AND OBEY YOUR QURAN!
Let me summarise:
Substantially, None dares to omit Basmalah from Mushaf.
In Uthmani Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all good Moslems around the world, yes Basmala is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha.
But in the prayer it is *more preferable* to recite Basmala softly, or even not recite Basmala – just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun – when praying with the closest friends, because:
I prayed with the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,”not mentioning “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the first of the recital or the last of it [and in another version, “I didn’t hear any of them recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’”] (Muslim, 1.299).
Prophet Muhammad also didn’t recite Basmala in prayer, just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun.
Uthman himself who authorised Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – didn’t recite Basmala in prayer.
Prayer is not Qur’an.
A writing of dialects is not a Mushaf.
Malikis and Hanafis never reject Uthmani Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – that their mentor Ka’b has written down.
There’s no the Maliki’s own official Fatwa of denying Mushaf.
Ka’b, Malik, Hanifa *never* produce Mushaf. Uthman does. A Moslem doesn’t go to the later Imams to know about Mushaf of Qur’an. We just go to Uthman on that.
Let’s take a look at Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:
qurango.com/images/u/002.jpg
Notice:
,ٱلرَّحِيمِl…………(ar-rahim) ==> Part of Basmala
…………………………… ==> Hamdalah is unreadable.
ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ……………. ==> Fatiha Q.1, v.3 is still intact and complete.
Reciting Basmala aloud during prayer is *not preferable* but not either disallowed. Throughout Hadith we never read or know of any “battle” over such a differing recitation by the early Moslems. Apparently Prophet Muhammad gives the options on it, even perhaps he practiced both options in separate occasion, as he isn’t quite strict on the gesture and the recitation of prayer. Basmala is used in Qur’an as a goodwill gesture for the foreigners (story of king Solomon with Sheba queen) whereas among the allies and the close friends (as rite of Anas, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman) it is preferable to praise Allah.
1. It’s admitted by Imam YAsir Qadhi the prominent scholar of Sunni The Maliki Sunnis NOW DON’T WRITE BASMALAH AS VERSE OF FATIHA IN THEIR QURAN AND INSTEAD REPLACE IT WITH VERSE ALHHMDOLEELAH
2. Imam Yasir Qadhi also has admitted THE MALIKI SUNNI NEVER REGARD BASMALAH AS VERSE WITHIN FATIHA MEANING THEY REJECT THE BASMALAH AS VERSE OF FATIHA.
Confronted with: None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
IT’S NEVER ABOUT REJECTING MUSHAF , BUT REJECTING A VERSE( AYAH) IN QURAN
And ONLY A RETARD WHO WILL CLAIM: REJECTING THE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE IS JUST DIALECT DIFFERENCES
To obey Quran : Either you condemn such people who REJECT THE VERSE of Allah or you condemn such who TOLERATE THE REJECTION OF THIS VERSE
Apologetics and Agape 
Pingback: Two respectful and peaceful discussions about the Bible and the Qur'an
At 54:28, the Imam claims Quran has the fuller complete story of the prophets compares to the Bible.
My review: Unfortunately Dr.White passed the opportunity to press the Imam on the several facts related to this subject ,which are
A)How come Quran mentions ; Adam’s wife without giving any info on her name? the two Adam’s son without giving their name? mentioning Noah’s son without informing their names? Ishmael’s mother w/out giving her name? mentioning yet without informing the name of Jacob’s youngest son (Benjamin in OT) whom they also claim to be prophet?
B) Could Quran inform us on how to conduct religious practice in Jesus and Moses’s time as clear as being described in OT and NT?
C) If Quran was so clear about Jesus’ life then why it couldn’t provide the clear story on what really happen at Jesus’ last days as the Bible tells but instead Quran has brought this ambiguous story of Jesus’s last days with their various opposite interpretations then? (some muslims believe Jesus wasn’t crucified yet some like Shabir Ally believe Jesus was, some believe Jesus had died and again some believe the opposite)
01:02:56-01:05:40, Dr.White asks about the burning of the other mushafs of Quran , the imam then answers by arguing the mushaf which was burned was personal mushaf that contained many personal notes and hadiths within them, and the imam using Ibn Mas’ud’s mushaf as the example.
My review: There are several obvious errors with his answer;
A)Ibn Masu’d mushaf actually doesn’t contain any ‘extra addition’ of verses nor notes but instead it has LESS chapter than the official Uthmanic Quran where Ibn Mas’ud Quran only has 111 Chapters while Uthmans has 114 Chapters.
B)Dr.White is correct when mentioning the variants yet the imam is practically dodges it ( unfortunately to be fair Dr.White also missed the opportunity to press further on this subject). Textual Variant is totally different with Addition. The most obvious example is Surah 92:3 Mas’ud version is written “By male and female” instead of Uthman’s version(By Him who creates male and female) where clearly they shows difference in literal text and meaning between the twos, as being recorded authentically in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari.
C) The Imam argues that most of all sahabas/companions have mushaf with personal notes, however with this argument the imam has simply indirectly accused most of sahabas such as Ali ibn Thalib, Ubay Ibn Kaab and etc for disobeying the sunnah of their prophet.
The prophet said: “Do not write down anything from me except the Quran. Whoever wrote other than that should delete it.” [Sahih Muslim, Book 42, Number 7147, also Ahmed, Vol. 1, Page 171]
Muslim scholars unanimously agree that this hadith was issued by Muhammad to PREVENT any mixing of Quranic text with non-Quranic text(eg.hadiths) within the mushaf of Quran which means it was forbidden for any mushaf to have any other writings written within it besides Quranic text. And even if such thing had occurred before the sunna was issued then of course the mushaf would’ve been revised or deleted instantly within Muhamad’s time because to suggest that Muhammad hadn’t made revision nor deletion of it, would just imply Muhammad as a negligent leader who also had a disobedient followers, meaning = total structural mess.
In fact based on the hadith above it appears Ibn Mas’ud omitted the 3 chapters (surah al-Fatiha, Al-Falaq&An-Nas) for the very reason to obey his prophet ordinance as good muslim since Masu’d seemingly defined those 3 chapters as non-quranic where for Al-Fatiha he regarded it as some sort of or as same as Taawuz prayer ( the non-quranic prayer which being conducted before reciting quran especially at the opening of first chapter by saying: Audzubillahhimina-syaitanhiruujeem = “Protect me from Satan the cursed one”) while for the other Surahs (Al-Falaq&An-Nas) he regarded them also as non quranic prayer recited/conducted to cure his prophet when Muhammad was under magic spell.
If i may give my personal opinion on Masu’ds doubt toward Sura al-Falaq&an-Nas (though personal opinion but I think quite logical) , I think one significant factor to put into consideration is the fact that according to strong chain of narration, Muhammad received those two surahs right in the middle where he was under demonic influence/spell from sorcery. It’s very rational to doubt whether the two surahs really came from God or satan regarding the situation.
Ibn Mas’ud case is actually an extraordinary one since it’s a huge stumbling block for muslims because for discarding him muslims practically has disobeyed and violated the Sunnah of their prophet ;
Hudhayfa (ra) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)
It is reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) also said: “LEARN ( THE QURAN) from four people: ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, Salim the slave of Abu Hudhayfa, Ubay ibn Ka’b, and Mu’adh ibn Jabal (raa).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Sunan al-Tirmidhi).
Another huge subject that can be argued but require a whole other exclusive segment is : ” The Mutawatir Principal actually has no real nor direct authorization from Sunna nor Quran” , especially when through this principle, a verse which was ‘formerly known/acknowledged as word of Allah’ could be stripped out from its ‘word of Allah’ status’ as it failed to provide two people at minimum for the witness.
One of its victim is the degradation of the status of Sura Al-Khul’ and Al-Hafd within Ubay ibn Kaab’s mushaf from formerly know as word of Allah into just a non-quranic prayer recitation called Qunut. Major opinion of muslims scholar agree that those twos were once Quranic but then being abrogated ( can google to islamic website islamqa) while minor opinion consider the twos as ‘pesonal notes of hadith’ (which is a contradiction with Muhammad’s sunna as being described previously at the above paragraph).
We can even argue because of its effect for degrading/blotting out the ‘word of Allah’ then surely this principal is a destructive invention(bida’a) as also being warned by Muhammad himself , “THE WORST OF THINGS ARE THOSE WHICH ARE NEWLY-INVENTED (BID’AA), and every innovation is a going astray” (reported by Sahih Muslim, no. 867) .
If being carefully noticed, the only right and proper Islamic way to compile the Quran according to Sunnah is primarily through Ibn Mas’ud yet strangely he had been discarded by muslim themselves.
01:06:10-01:06:40, As Dr.White asked on the Quran’s differences at Uthman’s time like the one diffrent version possessed by Ubayy, Imam Mashri answered Ubayy was appointed as Imam to lead the Congregational prayer so if he had been wronged the people would’ve corrected him since the people presumably should’ve had memorized the quran by heart.
My Review: I don’t want to touch the ‘they all memorize it myth’ this time but I more prefer to focus on the fact of that recitation differences actually have been tolerated since the time of their prophet till this very present time.
I. Tolerating differences in the wordings&meanings of Quran’s recitation during Muhammad’s time
Ubayy b. Ka’b reported: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Ubayy, I was asked to recite the Qur’an and I was asked: ‘In one mode or two modes?’ The angel that accompanied me said: ‘Say, in two modes’, I said: ‘In two modes’, I was asked again: ‘In two or three modes’. The matter reached up to seven modes. He then said: ‘Each mode is sufficiently health-giving, whether you utter ‘all-hearing and all-knowing’ or instead ‘all-powerful and all-wise’. THIS IS VALID until you finish the verse indicating punishment on mercy and finish the verse indicating mercy on punishment.” [Sunan Abu Dawood Saheeh according to Sheikh Albani]
Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah’s Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, “Who taught you this Surat which I heard you reciting ?” He replied, “Allah’s Apostle taught it to me”. I said, “You have told a lie, for Allah’s Apostle taught it to me in a different way from yours”. So I dragged him to Allah’s Apostle and said, “I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven’t taught me!” On that Allah’s Apostle said, “Release him (Umar) recite, O Hisham!” Then he recited in the same way I heard him reciting. Then Allah’s Apostle said, “It was revealed in this way”, and added, “Recite, O Umar”, I recited it as he had taught me. Allah’s Apostle then said, “It was revealed in this way. This Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you.” [Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 514]
Here we see the differences being tolerated are not dialect but differences in words and meanings (all-hearing and all-knowing’ VS ‘all-powerful and all-wise) and then especially on the second hadith tells us Umar had differences with Hisham in which the fact is they both belong to the same tribe of Quraish.
II. Tolerating differences in the wordings and meanings of Quran’s recitation after Muhammad’s time(Pre-Uthman)
Narrated ‘Alqama: I went to Sham and offered a two-Rak’at prayer and then said, “O Allah! Bless me with a good pious companion.” So I went to some people and sat with them. An old man came and sat by my side. I asked, “Who is he?” They replied, “(He is) Abu-Ad-Darda.’ I said (to him), “I prayed to Allah to bless me with a pious companion and He sent you to me.” He asked me, “From where are you?” I replied, “From the people of Al-Kufa.” He said, “Isn’t there amongst you Ibn Um ‘Abd, the one who used to carry the shoes, the cushion(or pillow) and the water for ablution? Is there amongst you the one whom Allah gave Refuge from Satan through the request of His Prophet. Is there amongst you the one who keeps the secrets of the Prophet which nobody knows except him?” Abu Darda further asked, “How does ‘Abdullah (bin Mas’ud) recite the Sura starting with, ‘By the Night as it conceals (the light).” (92.1) Then I recited before him: ‘By the Night as it envelops: And by the Day as it appears in brightness; And by male and female.’ (91.1-3) On this Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “By Allah, the Prophet made me recite the Sura in this way while I was listening to him (reciting it).” [Sahih Bukhari]
Ibn Mas’ud’s version of Q 92:3 (recited as “By male and female” instead of Uthmans “By Him who create male and female”) was recited by entire region of Kufa.
.
<III. Tolerating difference in the wordings and meanings of Quran’s recitation IN THIS PRESENT DAY
I’m here focusing only on recitation difference which effects the fundamental doctrine of Islam (The Five Pillars) and even DEFECTS the highly most regarded chapter of Quran (Al-Fatiha) yet more than has DEGRADED one of the verse of Uthmanic Quran (Basmalah verse) from its status as word of Allah to just the word of Muhammad.
Shalah is a fundamental obligation for all muslims and the foundation of every Shalah prayer for every moslem in the world is Reciting Surah Al-Fatiha , and if a moslem recites The Fatiha wrongly then all of his/her prayer will be annulled and he has to restart all over again in a correct way.
Now, here’s the problem: Muslim is divided regarding the first verse of Fatiha which is called the Basmalah verse, the Meccan&Medinan Salafist Imams and the school of,Maliki Sunni are in agreement TO REJECT Basmalah as ‘the word of Allah’ within the Fatiha while the Shafii school and non-Meccan and Medinan Salafist insist on defending Basmalah’s status as the word of Allah within the Fatiha with regard to the fact the verse has been written within Uthman’s mushaf.
–Shafii’s recitation of Fatiha follows strictly according to Uthman’s mushaf, so they start their prayer by reciting out loud ,”Bismillaah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem/In the name of God, the infinitely Compassionate and Merciful.”
–Maliki’s recitation of Fatiha regards the second verse of ‘offical’ Fatiha as the first verse, so they start their prayer with reciting “Al hamdu lillaahi rabbil ‘alameen/Praise be to God, Lord of all the worlds.” but out of tolerance they say(out of fear to be exact for their minority status) one might recite the Basmalah in Fatiha but it would be considered makrooh/nearly haraam/
–Mecca&Medinan Imam’s recitation of Fatiha take the middle way by only whisper the Basmalah(no different with not saying it to be exact since no one could hear it). here are some example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPFsnPLX-94 [ Notice : the Meccan Imam started the prayer with Taawuz Allahu’Aqbar then right away start the Fatiha without ever mentioning Basmalah]
The problem doesn’t stop there, since in congregational prayer a moslem has to follow his Imam in front of the mosque and the central mosque of all mosque is Masjidil Haraam in Mecca then every time a moslem from Shafii school conducts his Hajj Pilgrimage he consciously has to violate the ruling on his recitation because the Imam doesn’t pronounce the Basmalah as proper as it use to in Shafii madhabz. Because in Shafii’s school even to pronounce Basmalah with lowered tone compares to other verses would be considered as degrading the Basmallah lower than the other verses within Quran.
However in fact this is the very truth concerning Basmalah in the eyes of Meccan&Medinan Imams and Maliki Madhabz , for them Allah had never brought down the Al-Fatiha Chapter with Basmalah within it ! in other words they degraded Basmalah from its status as word of Allah despite the fact it has been written in official Uthmanic Quran.
here’s a clear doctrinal lesson by a Salafist’s Sheikh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd1WgE0InFQ
All along since Muhammad’s time the Quran has been contradicting and differentiating itself and as time went by these differentiation had been censored especially by Uthman yet still as an imperfect book even the differentiation and its defect still occur after the censoring effort and worst the differentiation&its defect happen to be with the most important chapter in Quran that is the Al-Fatiha which being called the Mother of all book ( Umm Al Kitab).
Mushaf of Mas’ud is just a version according to recitation of Mas’ud, not the dialect of Prophet Muhammad.
“LEARN ( THE QURAN) from four people: ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, Salim the slave of Abu Hudhayfa, Ubay ibn Ka’b, and Mu’adh ibn Jabal.”
First, it doesn’t exactly refer to Qur’an (notice the brackets above), nor to the writing of Mas’ud, but more to his interpretation of Qur’an.
At least 2 referenced persons Ubay and Mu’adh also present when verifying Qur’anic compilation under Uthman. There are at least 4 complete writers of Qur’an at that time: Zayd Ibn Thabit, Abu Zayd, Mu’adh Ibn Jabal and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b.
The immediate diminishing and defacing of a falsified Mushaf is a great Sunnah which Uthman has learned directly from his uncle Abu Sahr who was caught of having falsified Mushaf during the time of Prophet Muhammad.
Mas’ud died while concealing his Mushaf because he was determined to be resurrected with his Mushaf. It is reported that Mas’ud *never* gives his Mushaf to Uthman. Hence, Uthman is totally vindicated from any accusation of burning Mas’ud’s Mushaf. Both Uthman and Mas’ud are among 20 earliest Moslems whom the sure promise of Heaven is fixed upon.
Jami At-Tirmidhi 3104.
Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: ‘O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.’
Uthman doesn’t demand that the concealed Mushaf to be found out. He just burned what is available and known. Uthman doesn’t even know if Mas’ud hides it, let alone its whereabouts somewhere, even Mas’ud can fool everyone by giving a fake book. Uthman never carries out such a massive “searching mission” on the hidden Mushafs, he just demands that the available Mushaf to be burned.
Aren’t u the same guy at https://badmanna.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/a-dawagandist-proves-that-christ-is-the-uncreated-word-of-god-pt-1-a-post-by-sam-shamoun/#comment-6690
who said, abrogation is a silly myth fabricated by the lazy scholars ….The scholars just test their ability to fool the laymen ?
After I’ve cornered you with the fact:
THE FACT IS FOR HANAFIS & MALIKIS MADHAB = SUNAH ( THE NON PERFECT ORDINANCE) CAN ABROGATE QURAN(THE SUPPOSEDLY PERFECT ORDINANCE)
IF you yourself have already denied any scholarly and authoritative source of your own religion then what is the base for having intellectual discussion then? please terrorizing with empty propaganda just won’t work!
{{{First, it doesn’t exactly refer to Qur’an (notice the brackets above), nor to the writing of Mas’ud, but more to his interpretation of Qur’an.}}} Already DEBUNKED!
The Prophet (SAW) stood and listened to him, then turned to us and said, “Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).” [[Mustadrak al-Haakim (2/246) No. 2893, ad-Dhahabee Classified it SAHEEH]
Masu’d is the best Qiraa or Quran reciter and handpicked recommended personally bu your prophet , Quran recitation is Masud EXPERTISE.
{{{At least 2 referenced persons Ubay and Mu’adh also present when verifying Qur’anic compilation under Uthman}}} DEBUNKED again !
Salim the slave and Muadh ibn Jabal were never being part of the commitee and at the time of Uthman they had been presumably death because no record about them in those particular time, so it remained only Mas’ud and Ubayy, but as we all can see Mas’ud was prioritized as the first&foremost recommended by the prophet.
As the previous Hadith Muhammad clearly ORDERS, “, Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).
And then another Sunnah further strengthened Masud’s position as first and foremost and even solely reciter recommended by Muhammad
>Hudhayfa (ra) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)
Muhammad had never told his followers to ACCEPT WHATEVER NARRATIONS from Ubayy or anybody else other than Masud exclusively. , such a highly and exclusive recommendation toward Masud shows Ubayy was just a second line of preference. Noticeably Muhammad himself had never told that Mas’ud needed any agreement from Ubay nor anyone, but in contrary for Ubay or any other muslim it should’ve been an absolute obligation if they wanna hear Quran recitation to be as authentic as it can be then they had to LEARN from Masud ( Quoting the hadith again Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).)
{{[There are at least 4 complete writers of Qur’an at that time: Zayd Ibn Thabit, Abu Zayd, Mu’adh Ibn Jabal and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b.}}} DEBUNKED again!
The info about four writers came from hadith still the Hadith is Sahih but IT IS NOT FROM MUHAMMAD SAYINGS , the fact is, it’s from a companion describing whom the writers were, and there are only two writers recommended (Muadh and Ubay) as being shown in the other hadith but only Ubayy was part of the committee.
Ubayy himself had another huge problem of his own, he had on his mushaf TWO ADDITIONAL Surahs which muslims scholars in majority have regarded them as ORIGINALLY QURANIC SURAHS but then abrogated.
{{{The immediate diminishing and defacing of a falsified Mushaf is a great Sunnah which Uthman has learned directly from his uncle Abu Sahr who was caught of having falsified Mushaf during the time of Prophet Muhammad}}} DEBUNKED again!
What a false statement! first, the story of Abu Sahr mainly being informed from Sirah and not Sunnah. And then secondly to compare false verse to genuine verse (but later abrogated) of Mas’ud and Ubayy as the reason to burn the mushaf is just silliness, thirdly, as far as I know there have been no Islamic scholars who ever based the strong reason for burning of Quran on any particular Hadith nor verses in Quran not even a story from SIRAH.
{{{Mas’ud died while concealing his Mushaf because he was determined to be resurrected with his Mushaf}}} This is just simply a laughable unintelligible argument
{{{It is reported that Mas’ud *never* gives his Mushaf to Uthman}}} whether he did give(which means it was destroyed by fire) or he didn’t , the bottom line is then any trace of what’s in Masud’s Quran ,which by the way the only CLEARLY PREFERRED QURAN by the prophet according to his own Sunnah, had been lost in majority then, and what’s left is just the several ones which right now are being reported from the strong narration sources. And some reports are not pretty.
{{{Uthman doesn’t even know if Mas’ud hides it, let alone its whereabouts somewhere, even Mas’ud can fool everyone by giving a fake book}}} Thank you for admitting intrigues and cunning maneuvers between two supposedly trustworthy spiritual leaders as the background behind the compilation of the allegedly most perfect book from God(sic).. Congrats!
“Uthman rahimullah says: first, the story of Abu Sahr mainly being informed from Sirah and not Sunnah. ”
The falsifying of Mushaf by Abu Sarh is mentioned by Hadith, hence all his writing was quickly defaced. Uthman learnt the error of falsifying the Mushaf directly from his uncle.
Abu Dawud, Book 38, Hadith 4345
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Abdullah ibn Abusarh used to write (the revelation) for the Apostle of Allah. Satan made him slip, and he joined the infidels. The Apostle of Allah commanded to kill him on the day of Conquest (of Mecca). Uthman ibn Affan sought protection for him. The Apostle of Allah gave him protection.
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Hadith 2677
Narrated Sa’d: On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Apostle of Allah gave protection to the People except four men and two women and he named them. Ibn Abusarh was one of them. He then narrated the tradition. He said: Ibn Abusarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan. When the Apostle of Allah called the people to take the oath of allegiance, he brought him and made him stand before the Apostle of Allah. He said: Apostle of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him. He raised his head and looked at him thrice, denying him every time. After the third time he received his oath. He then turned to his Companions and said: Is not there any intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him? They replied: We do not know, Apostle of Allah, what lies in your heart; did you not give us an hint with your eye? He said: It is not proper for a Prophet to have a treacherous eye.
“Uthman rahimullah says: C) If Quran was so clear about Jesus’ life then why it couldn’t provide the clear story on what really happen at Jesus’ last days as the Bible tells but instead Quran has brought this ambiguous story of Jesus’s last days with their various opposite interpretations then?”
Jesus of Qur’an was taken up unconsciously but alive “Mutawaffi” per Q.6, v.60 into God’s “presence” alongside other Prophets (e.g. Abraham, Adam, Enoch, Moses, John, Joseph), hence that’s why Qur’an says he shall literally “die in the future”.
QS.4 v.159. And there is none of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him (Jesus) before his death. And on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness of them.
Everyone tastes a temporal unconsciousness in sleeping.
Q.6, v.60. And it is He who takes your souls (yatawaffakum) by night and knows what you have committed by day. Then He revives you therein that a specified term may be fulfilled. Then to Him will be your return; then He will inform you about what you used to do.
By nature, a man Jesus is mortal.
Q.19, v.33. Thus peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life
Just as the non-existence of Adam prior to the 6th day, a man Jesus was also once non-existent prior to his birth. There’s no such a man as pre-existent Jesus.
Q.21, v.34. We granted not to any man before thee permanent life here.
John proves Jesus is not one of those 24 High Priests of heaven, hence as an eye-witness John absolutely contradicts the book of Hebrew that speculated that Jesus is the “only one” High Priest in heaven.
In Islam, Prophet Muhammad is superior over Jesus:
(i) During Isra’ Miraj, Prophet Muhammad proceeds his Nigh Journey to a place above the throne, but below Allah, it is a place where even Gabriel as Holy Spirit can’t ascend more. Jesus just stays below at the third heaven.
(ii) Jesus in Qur’an is not eternal. Just as the non-existence of Adam prior to the 6th day, a man Jesus was also once non-existent prior to his birth.
“Uthman rahimullah says: B) Could Quran inform us on how to conduct religious practice in Jesus and Moses’s time as clear as being described in OT and NT?”
In terms of Qur’anic definition, “Injil” is strictly Oral Arabic Gospel which was circulated and tried to be “written” – but then burned during Uthman’s time – by Waraqah (one of the last remnant of Jesus’s real Hawariyyun).
Syriac Bible is in category of “Ajami Bible”. Arabs and Qur’an ridiculed it as the book of foreigners and outsiders, hence it was not accepted by Christian Arabs, not even as Apocrypha.
Although the 1st known Arabic Bible appears during the 8th-century Omayyad time, actually such an “Arabic Tanach” had once existed among Arabic Jews – but then burned at the time of Uthman – which was used by Jews and Prophet Muhammad (as Hadith mentioned) in a notorious case of stoning the Jewish adulterers.
In a nutshell, due to the use of Arabic language, mostly the Arabs of Mekka and Medinah during the time of Prophet Muhammad never publicly see and know of the “Ajami Gospel” (Non-Arabic Bible) such as Greek Gospel that Bysantines have canonised, or Syriac Gospel (Tatian’s Gospel), not even Hebrew Gospel. However, certain Arabist translator such as Waraqah maybe has his own Tanach collection in Hebrew and Arabic, or may be not
For sure, throughout Arabia there’s no such an “Ajami Gospel” in the form of a complete book. Arabic Gospel yet existed in Oral version.
IF you yourself have already denied any scholarly and authoritative source of your own religion then what is the base for having intellectual discussion then?
Our Prophet came from a non-scholarly background.
Our Qur’an criticises the caste of religious scholars in other faiths.
Now, what do scholars say about:
(i) Nobody is certain of “what-and-with-what” the abrogation of the verse is going on (whatever upon whatever), Hence, If there were an abrogation, then a verse about abrogation itself must be the first to be abrogated with.
(ii) Had Hadith abrogated Qur’an, those scholars must have put at least two Hadith’s masterpiece of Bukhari and Muslim right into certain chapters of Qur’an. But they didn’t.
{{Abu Dawud, Book 38, Hadith 4345 , Abu Dawud, Book 14, Hadith 2677}}
Where’s the order to burn any mushaf then? you are just making things up try to scratch with any possible way to get you out but you fail miserably & still the bottom line here is:
–ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOUS BASE FROM QURAN NOR SUNNAH FOR THE BURNING / DISAPPEARING OF MAS’UD’S MUSHAF WHICH CONTAIN THE ONLY RECOMMENDED AUTHENTIC QURAN ACCORDING TO SUNNAH
Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).” [[Mustadrak al-Haakim (2/246) No. 2893, ad-Dhahabee Classified it SAHEEH]
Hudhayfa (ra) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)
1)Could you provide me with ANY SUNNAH POSSIBLE that orders Muslim to ACCEPT WHATEVER NARRATIONS BEING RECITED BY OTHER THAN MASUD?
2)Could you provide me with ANY SUNNAH POSSIBLE that confirm ANY QURAN RECITATION / MUSHAF THAT IS MORE FRESHN&AUTHENTIC OTHER THAN MASUD’S QURAN?
3)Could you provide me with ANY SUNNAH /QURAN POSSIBLE that tells muslim SPECIFICALLY to compile Quran using Mutawatir method.
4) Could you provide me with ANY SUNNAH POSSIBLE that AUTHORIZES TO BLOT OUT ANY WORD OF ALLAH IN QURAN when it doesn’t match the requirement of having two witnesses at minimum?
Other stuff you’re trashing here are just mere empty assumption and basically baseless since you yourself disregard your own scholar.
–Your own scholars and imams are contradicting and confusing each other on Jesus’s last day and you’re just adding gibberish here.
–Waraqa died at the beginning of Muhammad prophethood but you say [ Injil” is strictly Oral Arabic Gospel which was circulated and tried to be “written” – but then burned during Uthman’s time – by Waraqah ] You are just trashing gibberish here! Please stop TERRORIZING !
–Hadith abrogates Quran is a consensus of Hanafy & Maliki Sunni Madhabz and I’ve already gave the example in the other discussion
Btw what are you trying to proof here ? Don’t u realize TERRORIZING won’t work ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: Where’s the order to burn any mushaf then? you are just making things up try to scratch with any possible way to get you out but you fail miserably ”
Burning the religious stuffs that caused or may stir a Fitnah, that is rebellion, dissension, and civil wars, is a Sunnah. Similarly, Moslems are allowed to carefully deface and burn the pieces of old Mushaf that is eaten partly by moths.
Tabari, Volume 9, The last Years of the Prophet, pg 60-61.
When he stopped in Dhu Awan, news of the mosque came to him, and he summoned Malik b. al-Dukhshum, a brother of the Banu Salim b. ‘Awf, and Ma’n b. ‘Adi, or his brother ‘Asim b. ‘Adi, brothers of the Banu al-‘Ajlan, and said, “Go to this mosque whose owners are unjust people and destroy and burn it”. They went out briskly until they came to the Banu Salim b. ‘Awf who were Malik b. al-Dukhshum’s clan. Malik said to Ma’n, “Wait for me until I bring fire from my people.” He went to his kinsfolk and took a palm branch and lighted it. Then both of them ran until they entered the mosque, its people inside, set fire to it and destroyed it and the people dispersed. Concerning this, it was revealed in the Quran…
Early Moslem used to burn the letter that incites a Fitnah in Hadith.
Muslim, Book 037, Hadith 6670.
As I read that letter I said: This is also a calamity, so I burnt it in the oven.
Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 702.
When I read it, I said to myself, ‘This is also a sort of a test.’ Then I took the letter to the oven and made a fire therein by burning it.
Burning the woods of trees for a long-time siege is a Sunnah.
Bukhari, Book 39, Hadith 519.
Narrated ‘Abdullah: The Prophet got the date palm trees of the tribe of Bani-An-Nadir burnt and the trees cut down at a place called Al-Buwaira . Hassan bin Thabit said in a poetic verse: “The chiefs of Bani Lu’ai found it easy to watch fire spreading at Al-Buwaira.”
Uthman rahimullah says: Where’s the order to burn any mushaf then? you are just making things up try to scratch with any possible way to get you out but you fail miserably ”
{{{Moslems are allowed to carefully deface and burn the pieces of old Mushaf that is eaten partly by moths….Go to this mosque whose owners are unjust people and destroy and burn it”…..Early Moslem used to burn the letter that incites a Fitnah in Hadith.
Muslim, Book 037, Hadith 6670…………As I read that letter I said: This is also a calamity, so I burnt it in the oven.Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 702 When I read it, I said to myself, ‘This is also a sort of a test.’ Then I took the letter to the oven and made a fire therein by burning it. .}}} Burning letters that incites Fitna? Burning Mosque? Burning woods? These have nothing to do with the authorization to blot out and degrade the word of Allah and also to burn the companion’s Quran, Practically you’re just throwing gibberish comments .
@Keith Temple
I think it would be better that your moderation mode for any comments should be turned on again in order to filter from any rubbish unintelligible comments
“Uthman rahimullah says: Burning letters that incites Fitna? Burning Mosque? Burning woods? These have nothing to do with the authorization to blot out and degrade the word of Allah and also to burn the companion’s Quran, Practically you’re just throwing gibberish comments .
I think it would be better that your moderation mode”
The coward suggestion “I think it would be better that your moderation mode” sounds familiar, is that you, Sam?
Mosques is a place where usually the words of Allah are placed and mentioned.
Burning the Fitnah’s mosque means burning the Mushaf therein.
{{{sounds familiar, is that you, Sam?}}}
ha.ha.ha.ha…..are u on of those muslim having Sam-Phobia?
Sorry dude, I’m way younger than him & still have to learn much from him
{{ Burning the Fitnah’s mosque means burning the Mushaf therein.}} Here’s how The best brain of Islam answers, Congratz !
“Uthman rahimullah says: still have to learn much from him”
Learn to not parrot his mistakes and his nonsensical rebuttals, especially his Deistic belief in “temporal death of 2nd person” of Jesus, and his Marcionite bias.
By hating Allah, Trinitarians hate Jehovah. It is unanimously accepted by Trinitarian apologists that Jehovah of the Old Testament that is the Father of the Trinity has the same character with Allah. Trinitarians never deny that the Father was violent, and Jews don’t deny that Jehovah is violent. Hence, it is acceptable that Religion – system of belief – has faith in the violent Divinity and Divine Judgment.
Moslems are not Allah. Violence by Moslems is different from violence under Divine Judgment. Moslem are commanded via Qur’an to imitate Prophet Muhammad per Q.33, v.21 whom Allah sent as His manifested mercy for all creations in light of Q.21, v.107 – hence it surpasses his Medinah’s epoch – even though his Medinah’s violence was also necessary for justice.
Christians are commanded in the New Testament to imitate the the Father with all his violence, in order to be as equal as His children (Ephesians 5:1).
Aren’t you the one who says, “abrogation is just a myth created by fools? and you also said your own islamic scholars just like to fool the laymen?
How can anyone have a proper intelligible discussion when you yourself has already set in your mind to reject all of your own islamic scholar’s understanding?
How would u understand other belief when you yourself refuse to understand your own belief?
Why won’t you argue within the scope of this topic’s theme then ?
Thank you for keep dodging in and not answering by the way…you’re surely following Muhammad’s step 🙂
“Uthman rahimullah says: How can anyone have a proper intelligible discussion when you yourself has already set in your mind to reject all of your own islamic scholar’s understanding?”
The scholarly conclusion of “Abrogation Theory” is the lowest garbage of thoughts according to the Western academic standard. Scholars who postulate it don’t agree each others.
Also, don’t forget that our Prophet came from a non-scholarly background. Our Qur’an criticises the caste of religious scholars in other faiths.
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]
The scholarly conclusion of “Abrogation Theory” is THE LOWEST GARBAGE OF THOUGHTS according to the Western academic standard
Imam Hanafis and Imam Malikis are not ‘just scholars’ they are founders of 2 Madhab, Hanafii followers stretch from Turkiya, most of former Sovyet countries , Central Asia and to Pakistan-India- Bangladeshi, and for Maliki followers cover almost all of the North Africa.
To say such fowl mouth toward those two Great Imams you would probably be beaten to death if you lived in those area.
However thank you for providing the information to confirm how wreck and messed up Islam is with this abrogation stuff..
“Uthman rahimullah says: However thank you for providing the information to confirm how wreck and messed up Islam is with this abrogation stuff..”
Qur’an denies that Prophet Muhammad can make a new verse equal, or – God forbid – better than Qur’an in light of
Q.10, v.38,
Q.11, v.13,
Q.52, v.33,
Q.10, v.15.
What both Imams said concerning Naskh and Mansukh by Sunnah doesn’t make Sunnah a new Quran. They just remind us a possibility how the Divine Law can be obsolete without getting abrogated by the changes of time, such as how the verses of Jihaad, Jizya, even Sword Verse will be de-facto defunct after the mass-conversion of Jews and Christians into Islam during the second coming of Christ.
You surely understand the word NASKH , right?
It means ABOLISH ! or ANNUL !
Sheikh Aseem Al-Hakeem has already gave the example concerning DEAD MEAT which is applicable right now.
Don’t fantasize too much…..
“Uthman rahimullah says: You surely understand the word NASKH , right?It means ABOLISH ! or ANNUL !”
Remain calm, no need to get angry. In Islam it must be a couple: Naskh and Mansukh. What replaces what? Whatever upon whatever.
A bar fight of the respectless scholars:
Hibatullah, according to John Burton, lists 237 instances of abrogation, with the verse 9:5.[61]
In contrast, the 10th century scholar Abu Ja’far an-Nahaas stated that there were only 20 cases of abrogation.[62]
Az-Zarqaani concludes that only 12 cases of abrogation have occurred.[62]
The 16th century Islamic scholar Al-Suyuti argued that there are only 20 attested instances of abrogation within Quran.[58]
The 19th century Muslim scholar Shah Wali Allah, have suggested that just five instances of abrogation exist in the Quran.[11]
The 20th century Islamic scholar Sayyid Ahmad Khan stated that “no verse of the Quran is abrogated”.[11]
Hibat Allah and al-Nahhas cite 124 and less than 20 verses, respectively.[58][62]
Ibn al Jawzi counts less than 22 verses.[62]
Mustafa 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]
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]
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]
{{In Islam it must be a couple: Naskh and Mansukh. What replaces what? Whatever upon whatever.}}
The sunna replaces Quran, eg.Eating Two Dead Meat REPLACING/ABOLISHING No Eating Dead Meat
Really?
Thank u by the way for displaying the confusion of which verse abrogate what verse within the quran,
“Uthman rahimullah says: Eating Two Dead Meat REPLACING/ABOLISHING No Eating Dead Meat”
Lawful meat – either dead or slaughtered – needs to be defined by Sunnah.
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. Sunnah makes the lists of category of it.
For instance, Salwa.
You keep parroting yourself that Salwa means quails while in fact it just means Consolation.
It is Sunnah that connects Salwa – Consolation – to the quails in the Bible and the locusts in Hadith.
This eating issues is so much problematic for you because apparently you don’t believe in what Qur’an says. Salwa means Consolation.
{{It is Sunnah that connects Salwa – Consolation – to the quails in the Bible and the locusts in Hadith}} so consolation is an animal then? Locust is the same as bird then? you’re making connection between irrelevant matters, this is just pure lunacy
Arabic word for quail is sumān.
Arabic: سمان m pl (sumān) = quail
ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/السمان
السمان : Coturnix coturnix) (بالإنجليزية: Common Quail)
you are confusing&complicating yourself for trying to connect bird with consolation(state of comfort) and locust(insect) this is just simply lunacy
“Uthman rahimullah says: you are confusing&complicating yourself for trying to connect bird with consolation(state of comfort) and locust(insect) this is just simply lunacy”
The Torah, although disallowing the use of most insects as food, permits the consumption of certain locusts; specifically, the red, the yellow, the spotted grey and the white are considered permissible.
In Islamic jurisprudence, what Jews eat – such as locusts – is considered halal for Moslems.
{{In Islamic jurisprudence, what Jews eat – such as locusts – is considered halal for Moslems}] it’s not about eating Locust meat, it’s about eating carcass of locust , like fish except the Hanafis , its floating carcass is halal by the the other 3 madhabs, the hanafis only wants the one thrown from sea to the shore.
“Uthman rahimullah says: it’s not about eating Locust meat, it’s about eating carcass of locust , like fish except the Hanafis , its floating carcass is halal by the the other 3 madhabs, the hanafis only wants the one thrown from sea to the shore.”
Dead fishes and dead locusts can be eaten because it is impossible to “slaughter each under Allah’s name” every single locust and each fish – think about a swarm of 5,000 anchovies caught in the net of fisherman or a swarm of 1,000 locusts – if it were strictly required before Jews or Moslems eat.
{{{Dead fishes and dead locusts can be eaten because it is impossible to “slaughter each under Allah’s name” every single locust and each fish – think about a swarm of 5,000 anchovies caught in the net of fisherman or a swarm of 1,000 locusts – if it were strictly required before Jews or Moslems eat}}} impossible?? just catch one on the grass and ‘slaugther’ it ! what an unintelligible gibberish , it has nothing to do with slaughtering . it’s about carcass.
land snail (Imam Maliki allows it)and land crab are halal and they need no slaughtering but still their carcasses are forbidden.
“Uthman rahimullah says: it has nothing to do with slaughtering . it’s about carcass.”
“A man may eat fish and locusts whether they are alive or dead and need not scruple” (Terumot 9:6).
Terumot is the sixth tractate of Seder Zeraim (“Order of Seeds”) of the Mishnah and of the Talmud. The laws of Terumah are still applicable to produce grown in the Land of Israel.
It is lawful for Moslems to eat what Ahl alKitab eat in light of Q.5, v,5.
{{A man may eat fish and locusts whether they are alive or dead and need not scruple….It is lawful for Moslems to eat what Ahl alKitab eat in light of Q.5, v,5.}}
THE FISH according to all islamic scholars in the Hadith here also applies to CARCASS OF WHALE (Arabic: Al-Anbar), and WHALE IS NON-KOSHER ACCORDING TO TORAH.
By the way about Surah 5:96 after seeing it thoroughly I must admit there’s nothing in that verse suggests eating carcass is allowed.
Surah 5:96 only tells it’s halal to make food of sea creature as the same as cattle is halal for food in Surah 6:142 , so no notion for permitting carcass from the sea in Surah 5:96
So it’s back to square one again EATING WHALE’S CARCASS IS FORBIDDEN IN QURAN BUT MUHAMMAD ABOLISHED QURAN BY PERMITTING IT !
“Uthman rahimullah says: THE FISH according to all islamic scholars in the Hadith here also applies to CARCASS OF WHALE (Arabic: Al-Anbar), and WHALE IS NON-KOSHER ACCORDING TO TORAH.”
Qur’an has specifically limited the criterion that only what is considered lawful – Kosher – by Jews is also lawful – Halal – for Moslems. Hence, what is “Non-Kosher” according to Jews is not becoming forbidden on Moslems.
{{{Non-Kosher” according to Jews is not becoming forbidden on Moslems.}}}
Of course, so on what basis you’re permitted to EAT WHALE CARCASS then? since Quran forbid to eat carcass ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: Of course, so on what basis you’re permitted to EAT WHALE CARCASS then? since Quran forbid to eat carcass ?”
All fishes (mostly carnivorous, fish eating fish) are lawful for Moslems to eat, regardless whether Jews forbid it for themselves or not.
Only what is Kosher – not Non-Kosher – for Jews is also Halal for Moslems.
Can you read this clearly:
ON WHAT BASIS CARCASS OF FISH SUCH AS CARCASS OF CATFISH& CARCASS OF WHALE IS LAWFUL ? QURAN FORBIDS EATING CARCASS !
“Uthman rahimullah says: ON WHAT BASIS CARCASS OF FISH SUCH AS CARCASS OF CATFISH& CARCASS OF WHALE IS LAWFUL ? QURAN FORBIDS EATING CARCASS !”
You are getting irrelevant and more irrelevant.
(i) Qur’an allows all kind of fishes for Moslems to eat.
(ii) Qur’an also allows whatever is “Kosher food” according to Jews for Moslems to eat, such as the carcasses of locusts.
(iii) Sunnah allows Moslems to eat both carcasses of the fishes and of the locusts.
{{Qur’an allows all kind of fishes for Moslems to eat.}}
Q 35:12 Nor are the two bodies of flowing water alike,- the one palatable, sweet, and pleasant to drink, and the other, salt and bitter. Yet from each (kind of water) do ye eat flesh FRESH and tender, and ye extract ornaments to wear; and thou seest the ships therein that plough the waves, that ye may seek (thus) of the Bounty of Allah that ye may be grateful.
QURAN STRICTLY LIMITS TO FRESH FISH ONLY ! NO FISH CARCASS ALLOWED !
{{(ii) Qur’an also allows whatever is “Kosher food” according to Jews for Moslems to eat}} CARCASS OF CATFISH AND CARCASS OF WHALE ARE NOT KOSHER
{[iii) Sunnah allows Moslems to eat both carcasses of the fishes}}
BUT Q 35 :12 RESTRICTS TO FRESH FISH ONLY, and Q 2:173 FORBIDS EATING CARCASS
So you agree now, that SUNNA ABOLISHES QURAN ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: {{(ii)CARCASS OF CATFISH AND CARCASS OF WHALE ARE NOT KOSHER
{[iii) BUT Q 35 :12 RESTRICTS TO FRESH FISH ONLY, and Q 2:173 FORBIDS EATING CARCASS”
Carcasses of catfish and whale that are not Kosher for Jews become lawful for Moslems, Q.5, v.96.
Carcasses of locusts that are Kosher for Jews become also lawful for Moslems, Q.5, v.5.
{{ Carcasses of catfish and whale that are not Kosher for Jews become lawful for MoslemsQ.5, v.96}} Nope Q5:96 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CARCASS
“Lawful to you is game from the sea and its food as provision for you”
Where’s THE CARCASS ?
Don’t fantasize too much 🙂
“Uthman rahimullah says: Where’s THE CARCASS ?”
Carcasses of locusts and fishes that are Kosher for Jews become also lawful for Moslems, Q.5, v.5.
But carcasses of catfish and whale that are not Kosher for Jews are still lawful for Moslems, Q.5, v.96.
{{But carcasses of catfish and whale that are not Kosher for Jews are still lawful for Moslems, Q.5, v.96}} YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY , AIN’T U?
S5:96 “Lawful to you is game from the sea and its food as provision for you”
COULD U PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY U USING THIS VERSE WHEN NOTHING IN IT MENTIONS CARCASS OF FISH OR CARCASS OF WHALE OR CARCASS OF CATFISH AS LAWFUL?
I know you have this childish habit but please grow up…..
.
“Uthman rahimullah says:COULD U PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY U USING THIS VERSE WHEN NOTHING IN IT MENTIONS CARCASS OF FISH OR CARCASS OF WHALE OR CARCASS OF CATFISH AS LAWFUL?”
Those verses Q.5, v.5 and Q.5, v.96 also don’t talk about Haram or prohibition each. The context of those verses is about the Lawful meat, not anymore about the Unlawful meat (that is in Q.6, v.145, Q.5, v.3).
Uthman rahimullah says:COULD U PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY U USING THIS VERSE WHEN NOTHING IN IT MENTIONS CARCASS OF FISH OR CARCASS OF WHALE OR CARCASS OF CATFISH AS LAWFUL?”
++Those verses Q.5, v.5 and Q.5, v.96 also don’t talk about Haram or prohibition each. The context of those verses is about the Lawful meat, not anymore about the Unlawful meat (that is in Q.6, v.145, Q.5, v.3).++
You’re just circling and dodging as usual since you have nothing to say
SO WHERE THE STATEMENT MAKING CARCASS OF WATER ANIMAL SUCH AS WHALE& CATFISH LAWFUL THEN ? WHERE THE STATEMENT THAT THE CARCASS OF THE SEA LAWFUL TO BE EATEN ?
Have some dignity and man up please…….
Uthman rahimullah says: SO WHERE THE STATEMENT MAKING CARCASS OF WATER ANIMAL SUCH AS WHALE& CATFISH LAWFUL THEN ? WHERE THE STATEMENT THAT THE CARCASS OF THE SEA LAWFUL TO BE EATEN ?
Statement for permission of eating all fishes, including catfishes & whales, and their carcasses comes directly from Q.5, v.96 “and its food as provision”.
Statement for permission of eating the carcasses of locusts comes indirectly from “what Ahl-Kitab eat” in light of Q.5, v,5. It is lawful for Moslems to eat what Ahl alKitab eat, such as carcasses of fishes and locusts.
SO WHERE THE STATEMENT MAKING CARCASS OF WATER ANIMAL SUCH AS WHALE& CATFISH LAWFUL THEN ? WHERE THE STATEMENT THAT THE CARCASS OF THE SEA LAWFUL TO BE EATEN ?
+++Statement for permission of eating all fishes, including catfishes & whales, and their carcasses comes directly from Q.5, v.96 “and its food as provision+++
Nope! even SHIA TAFSEER doesn’t agree to such notion, especially when SPECIFIC prohibition for eating CARCASS is right at the same chapter and the other chapter SPECIFICALLY ORDERS MUSLIM TO EAT FRESH FISH
S 16:42 And He it is Who has subjected the sea (to you), that you eat thereof fresh tender meat
S35:12 Yet from each (kind of water) do ye eat flesh FRESH and tender
“Uthman rahimullah says: the other chapter SPECIFICALLY ORDERS MUSLIM TO EAT FRESH FISH”
Where do the verses mention “fishes”?
The phrase “Fresh tender meat” just means being made very much soft, smooth, subtle to touch and eat because of the water.
“Uthman rahimullah says: the other chapter SPECIFICALLY ORDERS MUSLIM TO EAT FRESH FISH”
Where do the verses mention “fishes”?
The phrase “Fresh tender meat” just means being made very much soft, smooth, subtle to touch and eat because of the water.
Do you know as animal died their meat get hardened ? .especially Whale carcass
what a joke….
“Uthman rahimullah says:Do you know as animal died their meat get hardened ? .especially Whale carcass”
The salts and minerals of the sea could maintain a freshness of the dead fishes, or at least delay the hardening process.
Uthman rahimullah says:Do you know as animal died their meat get hardened ? .especially Whale carcass”
++The salts and minerals of the sea could maintain a freshness of the dead fishes, or at least delay the hardening process++
Another gibberish, process of fish salting is a process done by human effort and not natural, in fact this process makes the meat even more harder and stiff and in same cases the stifness is almost the same as the rock
what a joker..
I have not had time to read or comprehend what you guys are arguing about, especially the later stuff about Hallal and Haram foods, etc.
“Uthman rahimullah says: in fact this process makes the meat even more harder and stiff and in same cases the stifness is almost the same as the rock”
On the contrary, the stale flesh of fishes in the water tends to be more and more soft and elastic.
@Ken Temple
Here let me summarize it:
My position is Sunnah in some cases is stronger/superior than Quran , and especially since many proofs of Quran’s corruption are based on Sunnah then this point is vital. But in contrary the muslim guy doesn’t want to admit that Sunnah is stronger than Quran (in some cases).
My evidence is, it’s a majority opinion of islamic scholars that Sunna can abrogate the Quran , but he muslim guy (theta) refused to admit that fact in all kind of excuse. Therefore I give him one example, that is the abrogation of the ruling in eating dead meat in Quran by Muhammad’s Sunna.
Quran forbids the eating of the carcass of animal (S5:3), but authentic Hadith abolishes this ruling by permitting two kinds of carcass to be eaten(fish and locust)
the muslim guy argues; the permission is based on (S 5:5) which tells Muslims to eat the same dietary law as Jews do (which is the eating of dead fish and dead locust) , so in that case no verse of Quran being abrogated by Sunna but instead either S5:5 abrogates S5:3 or complements it.
Fyi all islamic schools agree whale and catfish are being defined as fish also and for that their carcass is also halal to be eaten.
However as we all know Jewish dietary law forbids the eating of Whale and Catfish, not to mention their carcass. So of course this notion is false. And as I bring this objection, the muslim guy argues again that all carcass of sea creature are permissible according to (S5:96, “Lawful to you is game from the sea and its food as provision for you”). Yet still I’ve pointed out this verse has no mention about the carcass of sea-creature being made lawful and this interpretation is awkward since:
1. The prohibition for eating carcass is also written specifically at the same chapter (S5 verse 3).
2.The other chapters of Quran also specifically tells muslim to eat the meat of sea-creature in fresh condition
S 16:42 And He it is Who has subjected the sea (to you), that you eat thereof fresh tender meat
S35:12 Yet from each (kind of water) do ye eat flesh FRESH and tender
3. Shia Muslim also interprets S5:96 not as some permission to violate the ruling already specifically written at S5:96, S 16:42 and S35:12
It’s so awkward a specific ordinance has to be ruled out by non specific statement in order to support the notion that Quran can not be abrogated by Sunnah ( more strange in fact in reality many authoritative muslim scholars like Imam Hanafi & Imam Maliki do affirm Sunna can abrogate Quran)
And as you can see the muslim guy is just dodging &circling around with his silly argument unable to seriously respond to the objection
“Uthman rahimullah says: And as you can see the muslim guy is just dodging &circling around with his silly argument unable to seriously respond to the objection”
At least it is a proper response for irrelevant and more irrelevant point of the unimportant issue.
++At least it is a proper response for irrelevant and more irrelevant point of the unimportant issue++
Look who’s talking….
**As I confront you with the reality that Masud’s Quran is the only Quran which was regarded authentic and SOLELY PREFERRED by Muhammad’s Sunnah
Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).” [[Mustadrak al-Haakim (2/246) No. 2893, ad-Dhahabee Classified it SAHEEH]
Yet you have always tried to dodge out with unintelligible excuses to deny this
**And I ask u to give any version of Quran from any companions regarded by Sunnah in the same way as Masu’d but pitifully you’ve always DECLINED TO ANSWER
**According to your own prophet’s Sunnah, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)
As I challenge you to give any Sunnah which tells muslim TO ACCEPT WHATEVER BEING NARRATED by any person other than Mas’ud , again you decline to answer and tend to making unintelligible comments and excuses to deny this reality.
** When I confronted you with the fact that Mas’ud recitation for Surah 92:3 (Bu Male and Female) according Sahih Bukhari is in fact stronger than Surah 92:3 Uthman version( By Him who creates male and female) on the basis :
1. It’s actually Mutawatir because it has three witness ( Mas’ud, Alqama and Abu Darda), compare to Uthman version which has no recorded witness.
2.It’s actually based on SUNNAH since Abu Darda heard the recitation directly from your prophet in person compare to Uthman’s version which has no record on hearing from who.
But pitifully again you dodge and circle around making silly comments to deny the truth,
**When I confronted you with the fact that based on Sunnah, Muhammad had never intended Quran to be compiled via Mutawatir method but instead Quran should’ve been compiled according to Mas’ud guidance, and I ask for any proof from Sunnah to refute this statement
But again you dodge&circling around , giving silly evidence.
I think you fully aware who’ has been being irrelevant throughout this discussion, agree ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: **According to your own prophet’s Sunnah, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)”
Accept as “what”? as Gospel? as Epistle? as Fatwa? Hadith? Sira? Mushaf? Bid’at? or just as a personal recitation according to Ibn Umm Abd?
Indeed what he narrated is a recitation according to Ibn Umm Abd.
Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).” [[Mustadrak al-Haakim (2/246) No. 2893, ad-Dhahabee Classified it SAHEEH]
According to your own prophet’s Sunnah, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “WHATEVER ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) NARRATES TO YOU, ACCEPT IT! ” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)”
+++Accept as “what”? as Gospel? as Epistle? as Fatwa? Hadith? Sira? Mushaf? Bid’at? or just as a personal recitation according to Ibn Umm Abd+++
Grow up dude…
Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).” [[Mustadrak al-Haakim (2/246) No. 2893, ad-Dhahabee Classified it SAHEEH]
Just summarize those two hadiths:
Whatever recitation of Quran being narrated by Mas’ud YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT ! Because Mas’ud Quran is THE MOST FRESH AND AUTHENTIC according to your prophet
“Uthman rahimullah says: FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED”
That’s not a problem. Ibn Mas’ud happens to be a person who believes in Abrogation Theory, so the first-time revealed verse can be altered by the later-time revealing.
That’s why in accordance to his recitation Mas’ud abrogates Fatiha, two last chapters of Qur’an, even he alters personally Q.112, by replacing Q.112, v.1 al-ahad (‘One’) with al-wahid (‘Single’), omitting v.2, and replacing lam yalid wa lam yulad (‘he begets not’) for lam yulad wa lam yulid (‘he is not begotten’).
In a Nutshell, Had Mas’ud not believed in Abrogation Theory, then we Moslems would have truly had a big difficulty of not accepting his version as the most “original” one. Fortunately he believe din Abrogation Theory, so that his version could be subjected to abrogation. What a self-defeating.
{{That’s not a problem. Ibn Mas’ud happens to be a person who believes in Abrogation Theory, so the first-time revealed verse can be altered by the later-time revealing}}
Easily debunked! in that case THE FRESHER AND UPDATED ONE should’ve also been recited by Mas’ud, please notice the phrase FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED and not the oldest , so it absolutely also includes the updated version if there had been any.
“Uthman rahimullah says: FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED”
“It” in the Hadith above doesn’t refer to thousands of later updated verses, but just to 1st “original” Qur’an as a whole in Aboration Theory. Notice, Hadith uses “It”, not “they”.
Uthman rahimullah says: FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED”
++“It” in the Hadith above doesn’t refer to thousands of later updated verses, but just to 1st “original” Qur’an as a whole in Aboration Theory. Notice, Hadith uses “It”, not “they++
Again just playing words and silly excuse, for every each verse can be called IT, either the abrogated or the new one.
Grow up…
“Uthman rahimullah says: for every each verse can be called IT, either the abrogated or the new one”
The Hadith just refers to The Qur’an, not to the verses (Ayaat). Okay? ….”WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS”
Uthman rahimullah says: for every each verse can be called IT, either the abrogated or the new one”
The Hadith just refers to The Qur’an, not to the verses (Ayaat). Okay? ….”WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS”
———————
Easy , of course the hadith also refers to the FRESHEST QURAN
pathetic….
“Uthman rahimullah says: Easy , of course the hadith also refers to the FRESHEST QURAN”
If there were many Quran(s), Hadith should have said …when “they” were revealed…
“Uthman rahimullah says: Easy , of course the hadith also refers to the FRESHEST QURAN”
++If there were many Quran(s), Hadith should have said …when “they” were revealed++
as contrary in fact the stronger notion is IF U WANT THE FRESHEST QURAN U HAVE TO HEAR MASUD
pathetic……..
“Uthman rahimullah says: IF U WANT THE FRESHEST QURAN”
Abrogation Theory – that Ibn Mas’ud also believed – makes it obligatory to say “….when they (Qurans) were revealed…”
Uthman rahimullah says: IF U WANT THE FRESHEST QURAN”
++Abrogation Theory – that Ibn Mas’ud also believed – makes it obligatory to say “….when they (Qurans) were revealed…”+++
you’re just playing silly game
the statement has been clearly stated IF U WANT THE FRESHEST QURAN U HAVE TO HEAR MASUD
“Uthman rahimullah says: the statement has been clearly stated IF U WANT THE FRESHEST QURAN U HAVE TO HEAR MASUD”
Otherwise if there’s only one Quran – that Mas’ud didn’t believe – Mas’ud happens to contradict his own believe in Abrogation Theory that points out to the existence of many Qurans (freshest and less fresh).
Uthman rahimullah says: the statement has been clearly stated IF U WANT THE FRESHEST QURAN U HAVE TO HEAR MASUD”
+++Otherwise if there’s only one Quran – that Mas’ud didn’t believe – Mas’ud happens to contradict his own believe in Abrogation Theory that points out to the existence of many Qurans (freshest and less fresh)+++
I have told you the stronger notion is , its about the FRESHEST.
THE FRESHEST WILL ALWAYS BE ONE
pls use some brain ok ?.
“Uthman rahimullah says: THE FRESHEST WILL ALWAYS BE ONE”
Please notice the phrase “FRESH” AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED….not freshest as when they were revealed.
Uthman rahimullah says: THE FRESHEST WILL ALWAYS BE ONE”
++Please notice the phrase “FRESH” AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED….not freshest as when they were revealed++
there is no two revised, the term revised is only for the updated one only
THE FRESHEST QURAN WILL ALWAYS BE ONE
pathetic…..
“Uthman rahimullah says: there is no two revised, the term revised is only for the updated one only”
You delete certain phrase of Hadith, and add “-est” on the word fresh that doesn’t appear in Hadith. How could you argue with two falsified methods? That is very disgraceful.
Your flawed conclusion “freshest will be one” comes from two falsified premises. So, yours is irrelevant.
Repeating a flawed conclusion “freshest will be one” from two falsified premises is a proof of irrelevance.
++You delete certain phrase of Hadith, and add “-est” on the word fresh that doesn’t appear in Hadith. How could you argue with two falsified methods? That is very disgraceful.
Your flawed conclusion “freshest will be one” comes from two falsified premises. So, yours is irrelevant+.
.FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED
Your prophet emphasize on the FRESH ONE = MOST UPDATED ONE!
It doesn’t matter if there had been millions of previous versions BUT THE UPDATED ONE WILL ALWAYS BE ONE
pathetic……
Irrelevant. “Fresh” is falsified to be freshest and “fresh one”.
++Irrelevant. “Fresh” is falsified to be freshest and “fresh one”.++
Realizing the nature of Quran which kept abrogating itself constantly it’s stronger notion that the hadith implies WHOEVER WANTS TO HEAR THE FRESH (UPDATED) ONE JUST HEAR IT FROM MASUD
” Uthman rahimullah says:WHOEVER WANTS TO HEAR THE FRESH (UPDATED) ONE JUST HEAR IT FROM MASUD”
That’s a big problem for Mas’ud himself and Abrogation Theory. Since Updating and Abrogating keep going on, nobody (not even Mas’ud) can be sure that Mas’ud’s “fresh” version is the last or most “freshest” one of all.
++Since Updating and Abrogating keep going on, nobody (not even Mas’ud) can be sure that Mas’ud’s “fresh” version is the last or most “freshest” one of all.++
So the one who issued this statement is a dummy right?
Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said ; Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud)
I fully understand your frustration , you ‘re cornered between have to admit Muhammad had made an error for issuing such Sunnah or Uthman and other Caliphs had deliberately violated the Sunnah.
The bottom line is you’re just making silly argument as you want to keep on denying and twisting the word ‘IT’ when in reality seeing the ‘IT’ as ONE collective compilation and representation of the former and newer revelation is the common general understanding from reading the hadith.
Being analyzed further, again on the basis that Quran is a self-abrogating revelation as Muhammad had admitted it himself(sic) and is constantly being changed, another interpretation is the word ‘IT’ is more incline to represent THE ONE CONSTANTLY UPDATED QURAN, and logically the updated version will always be ONE no matter how many abrogation nor revision had been done previously. And in my opinion this interpretation has the stronger notion.
“Uthman rahimullah says: between have to admit Muhammad had made an error for issuing such Sunnah or Uthman and other Caliphs had deliberately violated the Sunnah.”
What is the logics of that argument? By telling Mas’ud’s version as “Fresh” instead of “Most freshest”, Prophet Muhammad just confirmed that it “got updated”, but he doesn’t affirm that it is being the “Last update”.
Mas’ud also doesn’t insist his version to be the last or the most freshest one.
After all, since Prophet Muhammad is not the author of Qur’an – he is just the bringer of it – Prophet Muhammad himself can’t ensure that any updated verse won’t be abrogated (updated again) in near future. Hence, logically he just confirmed that Mas’ud’s version was updated but he can’t ever know or ensure that Mas’ud’s version “must be” the Last Update.
between have to admit Muhammad had made an error for issuing such Sunnah or Uthman and other Caliphs had deliberately violated the Sunnah.”
+++Prophet Muhammad just confirmed that it “got updated”, but he doesn’t affirm that it is being the “Last update”.+++
On the contrary to your assumption, regarding the nature of Quran that constantly abrogating itself and always being revised by Mohammad, the confirmation of updated version means ‘every time any muslim wanted to know the fresh updated revelation then just came to Masud.
+++Mas’ud also doesn’t insist his version to be the last or the most freshest one.+++
Nope even there’s narration on the dispute and dislike of Masud concerning the Quran compiled by head of the commite ( Zayd ibn Thabit) , and your argument is ‘a bit off’, if he didn’t convince with his version as the the most freshest and authentic then there should have not happened any intrigue between Mas’ud and Uthman&Zayd. Sorry, you’re just making empty baseless argument.
++ Hence, logically he just confirmed that Mas’ud’s version was updated but he can’t ever know or ensure that Mas’ud’s version “must be” the Last Update.++++
Aren’t you all so fond of Abrogation? there’s also a principal of Sunna abrogates Sunna
Of course he could, Mas’ud lived very close to your prophet and he lived even after Muhammad had died, Muhammad had so many chance to abrogate his sunnah, just like Mutah or the eating of donkey. And since there had been any Sunnah to abrogate this Sunnah then the Sunna still stands.
Sadly it all comes back to square one:
You gotta choose between have to admit Muhammad had made an error for issuing such Sunnah or Uthman and other Caliphs had deliberately violated the Sunnah.
My condolences….
Sorry, have to revised this typo
And since there had(NOT) been any Sunnah to abrogate this Sunnah then this Sunna still stands.
“Uthman rahimullah says: Of course he could, Mas’ud lived very close to your prophet and he lived even after Muhammad had died, Muhammad had so many chance to abrogate his sunnah, just like Mutah or the eating of donkey. ”
It is ridiculous for Mas’ud a man who lived even after Prophet Muhammad had died, to *forget* mentioning his *famous* variant Q.92, v.3 when initiating to personally come and protest Uthman’s scribes of adding three chapters: 1st, 113th, 114th.
….That he accused Uthman’s scribes of adding three extra suras (1, 113 and 114) that had never been part of the original and of making many other small changes to the text.[54]….
Gilchrist, J. (1989). Jam’ al-Qur’an: The Codification of the Qur’an Text, pp 67ff. Mondeor, R.S.A
Uthman rahimullah says: Of course he could, Mas’ud lived very close to your prophet and he lived even after Muhammad had died, Muhammad had so many chance to abrogate his sunnah, just like Mutah or the eating of donkey. ”
+++It is ridiculous for Mas’ud a man who lived even after Prophet Muhammad had died, to *forget* mentioning his *famous* variant Q.92, v.3 when initiating to personally come and protest Uthman’s scribes of adding three chapters: 1st, 113th, 114th++++
You just don’t get it don’t you?
It’s very logical , Uthman as we all know was a very authoritarian and cunning ruler, the history records that we have right now have been mostly fabricated under his scheme.
Surah Fatiha is the most highly regarded chapter in Quran for many Muslim and is considered as the Mother of Quran (Umm Kitab) , however Masu’d who happened to be the best reciter and solely preferred by your prophet had rejected Fatiha , this is against ‘the taste of majority’ so in fact by bringing this up Uthman in a very cunning way wanted to degrade Mas’ud’s reputation in front of the public and apparently it worked, the taste of majority and opinion of the public won against the true sole version of Quran
Even as a non-muslim I can see in a very LOGIC & FAIR ANALYSIS Surah Al-Fatiha should’ve been erased from Quran because it is obviously the source of huge division and contradiction within Islam itself.
While those who disbelieved and denied Our revelations/ VERSES ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom(S22:57)
One party believes Allah had spoken the Basmalah’s verse within Surah Al-Fatiha as the chapter was being brought down.
BUT
The other party DENIES Allah had ever spoken Basmalah’s verse within Surah Al-Fatiha
The party whom Malikis and Salafist Meccan&Imams descended from HAS DISBELIEVED Basmalah’s VERSE AS PART OF FATIHA if muslims had been consistent with S22:57 they should’ve been defined as cursed people.
And for the surahs of al-mu’awwazatayn, Uthman seemingly has already fabricated a counter information where there he and his co-conspirators has made some hadith that wanna impress us as if Mas’ud had fully agreed with those two chapters ; Narrated Ibn Mas’ud: “Excessively recite two surahs. Allah will make you reach higher ranks in the Hereafter because of them. They are al-mu’awwazatayn” (Kanzul ‘Ummal, Hadith 2743).
What we have right now (Chapters differences and Surah 92:3) are just a remnants and leaks of so many various deviations within the Quran (we have to give the compliment for Uthman nearly successful attempt to cover his scheme). You don’t happen to be so innocence and foolish to believe the historical records about Uthman’s dispute with Mas’ud are all complete and perfectly telling the truth, do you ? especially when we all agree Uthman is a very evil ruler and die as a heretic/mushreekoon as he was buried in a non-muslim(Jewish) cemetery.
And how about Ali ibn Abi Thalib ? could’ve he revised and reconstructed the damage? obviously history shows he could not restore the damage since many evidences had already been burned and seemingly any effort would’ve just divided the Ummah(islam nation) further.
“Uthman rahimullah says: history records that we have right now have been mostly fabricated under his scheme. ”
Yeah, History is written by the winner. Perhaps entire story of Mas’ud’s punishment of not giving up a Mushaf is *also* a similar scheme fabricated by Uthman to scare off his opponents. Once we doubt, we doubt everything, okay? Remember, other Uthman’s scheme just hinted another Conspiracy Theory how Mas’ud used to hold many secrets of Prophet Muhammad.
history records that we have right now have been mostly fabricated under his scheme. ”
+++Yeah, History is written by the winner. Perhaps entire story of Mas’ud’s punishment of not giving up a Mushaf is *also* a similar scheme fabricated by Uthman to scare off his opponents.++
that’s just silly although being narrated that way but Shia muslim still try to give cover for the preservation myth of quran by claiming none was changed, as I’ve already explained the stake here is to keep the religion at least be intact as possible.
Uthman as I’ve explained also before had already degraded Mas’ud credential as the sole reference of Quran according to Sunnah, by bringing up Mas’ud rejection toward Surah Fatiha which is the most favour and highly valued chapter of all by Muslim.
But as we can analyst logically, it is perfect common sense to erase this contradictory Fatiha Chapter
+++Once we doubt, we doubt everything, okay?++
just another silly argument again
++ Remember, other Uthman’s scheme just hinted another Conspiracy Theory how Mas’ud used to hold many secrets of Prophet Muhammad.++
In fact as you read your own respected scholars opinion Masud is considered as one of the most knowledgeable in religion but Uthman’s cunning way had managed to discredit his position as the sole referential as ordered by the Sunnah.
typho ANALYST = ANALYZE
“Uthman rahimullah says: In fact as you read your own respected scholars opinion Masud is considered as one of the most knowledgeable in religion but Uthman’s cunning way had managed to discredit his position as the sole referential as ordered by the Sunnah.”
How do you know that the whole story of Mas’ud is not fabricated by Uthman? Is not Uthman an effective ruler? Why does he not eliminate the supporters that praised Mas’ud?
What do you say if Alqama and Darda’ actually worked for Uthman to invent a weak story – that Mas’ud has a different reading – so that Uthman has a pretext jail him, so that he can rule effectively without other significant rival?
Uthman rahimullah says: In fact as you read your own respected scholars opinion Masud is considered as one of the most knowledgeable in religion but Uthman’s cunning way had managed to discredit his position as the sole referential as ordered by the Sunnah.”
+++How do you know that the whole story of Mas’ud is not fabricated by Uthman? Is not Uthman an effective ruler? Why does he not eliminate the supporters that praised Mas’ud?+++
As I’ve mentioned Uthman was an authoritarian ruthless ruler but also sneaky snake he didn’t want to make Mas’ud looked all bad since all that Uthman wanted was just to throw down Mas’ud from his position as the sole referential to know the genuine updated Quran according to Sunnah.
And further more as I’ve explained what we have now is the leaks, hence although Uthman had managed to fabricate the history but he still human after all. Leaks happen, and from that we can know Uthman devious scheme.
+++What do you say if Alqama and Darda’ actually worked for Uthman to invent a weak story – that Mas’ud has a different reading – so that Uthman has a pretext jail him, so that he can rule effectively without other significant rival?+++ Just another silly fantasy to deny reality especially since ABU DARDA WAS NOT MASUD’S DISCIPLE , IN FACT ABU DARDA SWORE HE HAD HEARD THE VERSION FROM MUHAMMAD HIMSELF.
So many intrigues and political maneuvers just for compiling a book presumably from the divine … pathetic isn’t it ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: So many intrigues and political maneuvers just for compiling a book presumably from the divine ”
Once we doubt, we doubt everything.
It is ridiculous for Uthman to leak a news of Mas’ud accusation of adding three chapters, but suppress information about Mas’ud mentioning his different variant Q.92, v.3.
Indeed no one records that Mas’ud himself accuses Uthman of falsifying Q.92, v.3 in time when accusing him of adding three chapters.
Otherwise, as I said earlier, it is too ridiculous for Mas’ud to *forget* mentioning his *famous* variant Q.92, v.3 when accusing Uthman’s scribes of adding three chapters: 1st, 113th, 114th.
….That he accused Uthman’s scribes of adding three extra suras (1, 113 and 114) that had never been part of the original and of making many other small changes to the text.[54]….
Gilchrist, J. (1989). Jam’ al-Qur’an: The Codification of the Qur’an Text, pp 67ff. Mondeor, R.S.A
++It is ridiculous for Uthman to leak+++
As cunning as he was but he’s still human wasn’t he?
++Otherwise, as I said earlier, it is too ridiculous for Mas’ud to *forget* mentioning his *famous* variant Q.92, v.3 when accusing Uthman’s scribes of adding three chapters: 1st, 113th, 114th.+++
Nope! the Fatiha and 113th&114th are the major parts since they are chapters, in fact it’s necessary for Uthman to refute Mas’ud on this matter.
Like I’ve said all clues that we have right now are just small leaks of evidence , so as cunning as Uthman was he’s just human and the fact is we have the clues , agree?
“Like I’ve said all clues that we have right now are just small leaks of evidence , so as cunning as Uthman was he’s just human”
Hence we should treat the story of Mas’ud as fake. Why? Because the story of “violent Uthman” is absolutely contradictory to other sources that narrate the biography of the “soft Uthman”.
Uthman was depicted by Hadith, Sira, and other sources as the rich philanthropist who – coming from rich family he was not exposed to a violent behavior from childhood – used to simply do certain non-combative roles for Prophet Muhammad, such as being diplomat and negotiator.
+++Hence we should treat the story of Mas’ud as fake. Why? Because the story of “violent Uthman” is absolutely contradictory to other sources that narrate the biography of the “soft Uthman+++
Nope, the intrigue between Uthman and Masud is accepted by all muslim scholars and the burning of mushafs itself is a huge clue although Muslim scholars out of shame and want to save some dignity try to softened the story.
The leaks that we have right now, both the strongly narrated one ( the differences on three chapters of quran and S92:3), not so strongly narrated ( couple of differences in wordings and texts on several ayahs) , do provide us with many clues on Uthman atrocities.
Not to mention the clear Sunnah which makes Masud as the sole referential for the most authentic & updated Quran
“Uthman rahimullah says: Masud as the sole referential for the most authentic & updated Quran ”
You know nothing about Abrogation Theory which Mas’ud himself believe in.
The same scribe Mas’ud didn’t omit any of abrogated verses from his Mushaf. Islamic scholars don’t omit any of abrogated verses. Hence, by supposing that Uthman and others really wrote the “*Old* version of Q.92, v.3 – instead of the *Updated* version of Mas’ud – they aren’t guilty. The old version is still the valid verse, just as Mas’ud didn’t erase the old verses in his Mushaf.
Uthman rahimullah says: Masud as the sole referential for the most authentic & updated Quran ”
++You know nothing about Abrogation Theory which Mas’ud himself believe in.++
mmm…just chill out and don’t be too emotional
–You can not AVOID the reality where the Sunna solely appoints Masud as the sole referential
–You can not AVOID the ACCEPTABLE story of intrigue where Masud refused the Mushaf of Zayd ibn Thabit.
–You can not AVOID the story of differences between the mushafs of companions especially between Masud and Uthman’s versions.
And lastly for the topping of the cake Uthman burned all other mushafs without any clear&direct authorization from Quran nor Sunnah…so many maneuvers just for compiling the supposedly book from heaven…pathetic isn’t it ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: so many maneuvers just for compiling the supposedly book from heaven”
My point is, if Q.92, v.3 were the last (the most freshest one), Masud would be guilty of erasing or deleting or omitting the *Old* verse.
Abrogation Theory is proven as the garbage theory because of this story of Mas’ud’s variant reading.
Let me repeat and rephrase this very important conclusion a little bit:
The same scribe Mas’ud didn’t omit any of abrogated verses from his Mushaf. Islamic scholars don’t omit any of abrogated verses. Hence, by supposing that Uthman and others really wrote the *Old* version of Q.92, v.3 – instead of the *Updated* version of Mas’ud – they aren’t guilty. The old version of Uthman’s Mushaf is still a valid verse, just as Mas’ud didn’t erase the old verses in his Mushaf.
Now, otherwise, if Q.92, v.3 were the last (the most freshest one), Masud must have been guilty of erasing or deleting or omitting the *Old* verse.
++++My point is, if Q.92, v.3 were the last (the most freshest one), Masud would be guilty of erasing or deleting or omitting the *Old* verse++++
.You seem to insist that S92:3 has to be recorded as one of Masud objection toward Uthman version.
This is silly:
–The narration in Sahih Bukhari could probably one of the ‘leaks’ that I’ve mentioned, where despite Uthman vicious effort to cover his dirty scheme but yet the narration about other versions of S92:3 still could slip through to be narrated down.
-Even the narration about differences in three chapters could also another ‘leaks’ that Uthman had never wanted to be transmitted but eventually the information about this had been transmitted.
Combining with the other facts :
— the reality where the Sunna solely appoints Masud as the sole referential for knowing the updated Quran
– the story of intrigue where Masud refused the Mushaf of Zayd ibn Thabit.
– the story of differences between the mushafs of companions especially between Masud and Uthman’s versions.
And lastly for the topping of the cake Uthman burned all other mushafs without any clear&direct authorization from Sunna nor Quran.
It’s very logical to see the atrocities being made by Uthman and the corruption of Quran.
“Uthman rahimullah says: You seem to insist that S92:3 has to be recorded as one of Masud objection toward Uthman version.”
Yes, it is Abrogation Theory all about, the old and new ones must be intact in writing. Hence, very gladly it is proven Abrogation Theory is a garbage theory. Because of this story of Mas’ud’s vs. Uthman, both theory and variant reading become nonsense.
The old version of Uthman’s Mushaf is still a valid verse, just as Mas’ud didn’t erase the old verses off his Mushaf.
Uthman rahimullah says: You seem to insist that S92:3 has to be recorded as one of Masud objection toward Uthman version.”
++Yes, it is Abrogation Theory all about, the old and new ones must be intact in writing. +++
Nope that’s only your silly wish, there’s no obligation the old and new to be intact writing especially consider the situation where Uthman is so influential in corrupting the Quran and destroying the evidences.
++Hence, very gladly it is proven Abrogation Theory is a garbage theory. Because of this story of Mas’ud’s vs. Uthman, both theory and variant reading become nonsense+++
First, you yourself have admitted that abrogation UNTIL NOW STILL A PAINSTAKING DILEMMA WITHIN THE ISLAM (Especially the learned and scholarly ones).
Second, All scholasr admit there are differences between companions and again your silly denial from reality
Third, YOU ALSO CAN’T REFUTE THE DEEP PROBLEM WITH SURAH FATIHA WHERE INFLUENTIAL MADHABZ SUCH AS MALIKI & MECCAN-MEDINAN SALAFIST OPENLY DENIES BASMALAH AS VERSE WITHIN SURAH FATIHA.
So Masu’d’s reason to ERASE AL- FATIHA IS ACTUALLY VALID
my condolence for you….
“Uthman rahimullah says: YOU ALSO CAN’T REFUTE THE DEEP PROBLEM WITH SURAH FATIHA ”
Irrelevant arguments concerning Abrogation Theory and Mas’ud variant reading just deserve a non-serious response actually.
I have refuted the argument on Q.1, v.1 (Basmalah).
Substantially, None dares to omit Basmalah from Qur’an and Mushaf. Everyone could just listen the scholar’s Quranic recitation of Basmalah *outside* of prayer throughout Arabia and other areas.
As long as a person doesn’t omit Basmalah from Q.1, v.1, yes basically he agrees that Basmalah is the valid opener of Fatiha. As long as he doesn’t object that Basmala is placed on the first order Q.1, v.1 that opens Fatiha in Qur’an, he doesn’t degrade it but honors it instead.
Basmalah is really a part of Fatiha of Qur’an, that’s why it is placed on Q.1, v.1. But it is preferable to recite it softly in prayer.
The scholars don’t deny that Basmalah is really a part of Qur’an. At most they just opine a theory that makes a differentiation between Fatiha and Basmalah, and it is acceptable though, not sin.
It is a bad invention to produce a newly religious “negative judgment” on the rite – let alone prayer – such as “Makruh” on reciting Basmalah softly, which ironically neither Prophet Muhammad nor early Moslems dare to create such a great judgment upon.
Early Moslems such as Anas, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman just do what Prophet Muhammad did on praying, but nobody invents a negative judgment.
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,”not mentioning “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the first of the recital or the last of it [and in another version, “I didn’t hear any of them recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’”] (Muslim, 1.299)”
Theirs is a preferable rite, even in the city of Mekka and Medinah it has been a canonical practice since 1,400 years ago.
However they also *never rebuked* those who recite Q.1, v.1 in loud voice. Reciting it aloud during prayer is *not preferable* but not either disallowed. Why? Because Q.1, v.1 is used in Qur’an as a goodwill gesture for the foreigners (story of king Solomon with Sheba queen) whereas among the allies and the close friends (as rite of Anas, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman) it is preferable to praise God.
Throughout Hadith we never read or know of the “battle” over such a recitation by the early Moslems. Apparently Prophet Muhammad gives the options on it, even perhaps he practiced both options in separate occasion, as he didn’t quite strict on the gesture and the recitation of prayer.
It is not a sin for Moslems to not recite Basmalah loudly in 5 times prayer to Allah.
Also, it is not a sin for not reciting again Basmalah when reciting other verses after Fatiha in prayer.
Q.1, v.2 is also a part of Fatiha though.
Based on Sunnah, Moslems have two valid options for the prayer (preferable as in Mekka and Medinah and common one), but there’s no another third or fourth option.
After all, when reciting other verses after Fatiha there’s no strict requirement to recite them completely from the beginning of the chapter to the end of it.
Uthman rahimullah says: YOU ALSO CAN’T REFUTE THE DEEP PROBLEM WITH SURAH FATIHA
++Irrelevant arguments concerning Abrogation Theory and Mas’ud variant reading just deserve a non-serious response actually.++
Apparently it has became your habit to become silly (not serious) when the argument HURTS you 🙂
++As long as he doesn’t object that Basmala is placed on the first order Q.1, v.1 that opens Fatiha in Qur’an, he doesn’t degrade it but honors it instead.+++
While those who disbelieved and denied Our revelations/ VERSES ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom(S22:57)
Then they’re actually conducting denial toward the verse though it’s written, THE STRONGEST PROOF IS BY REGARDING THE RECITATION OF BASMALAH AS MAKROOH.
I know you fully aware the recitation of Quranic ayah is so sacred , and to define the recitation of any ayah as MAKROOH is so unimaginable , but it happens according to Malikis according to the teaching of Imam Malik.
at minute 7:07 in this video , Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi confirms the mushaf in North Africa if being open then you will find ALL-HAM-DULEELAH AS THE FIRST VERSE IN FATIHA
And it’s certainly related with the refusal of Masud to put Fatiha within Mushaf because the confusion this chapter has .
“Uthman rahimullah says: mushaf in North Africa if being open then you will find ALL-HAM-DULEELAH AS THE FIRST VERSE IN FATIHA”
Too east. In terms of Mushaf, both Malik and Hanifa *never* produce Mushaf. Uthman does.
Let’s take a look on Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:
Notice:
,ٱلرَّحِيمِl…………(ar-rahim) ==> Part of Basmala
…………………………… ==> Hamdalah is unreadable.
ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ……………. ==> Fatiha Q.1, v.3 is still intact and complete.
++Let’s take a look on Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:++
Such a pathetic joke, I’m not talking about Uthmanic Mushaf
Sorry, I am focusing on what your respective and authoritative scholars teach ,
YOUR OWN RESPECTIVE AND AUTHORITATIVE SCHOLARS TEACH THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE FOR SOME MAJOR PART OF MUSLIM SCHOOLS DON’T BELIEVE BASMALAH AS THE FIRST VERSE IN FATIHA AND EVEN REJECT IT FROM BEING PART OF SURAH FATIHA.
I have shown with evidence after evidences , and you just keep on denying , dodging and circling around try to save the expose of your wreck religion
Yasir Qadhi is a prominent and respective scholar of Sunni, at minute 07:05 he confirm WHEN YOU OPEN THE MUSHAF IN NORTH AFRICA ( HE IS THE ONE USING THE TERM MUSHAF) IT HAS ALL-HAM-DOH-LEE-LAH AS THE FIRST VERSE AND NOT BASMALAH
The North African are using Qiraat Warsh and Qaloon both REJECT ALLAH HAD EVER SENT DOWN VERSE OF BASMALAH WITHIN THE SURAH FATIHA.
If Muslim Sunni thoroughly consistence then the Maliki North African Sunnis should’ve been condemned as shameful doomed people according to this verse; “While those who disbelieved and denied Our revelations/ VERSES ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
But apparently not! Now unfortunately not only Sunna but even IJMA(Consensus) also can abrogate Quran’s ruling seeing this clear obvious evidence.
Another prominent respective scholar Sheikh Aseem al-Hakim also teaches BASMALAH IS NOT A VERSE WITHIN AL-FATIHA
I’m using evidences of your own respected authoritative scholars and what you do is just circling around spouting your empty baseless argument to deny the truth.
IT’S AN IJMA (CONSENSUS) IN SUNNI MUSLIM THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO DENY THE BASMALAH AS ONE OF ALLAH’S VERSE WITHIN FATIHA
THIS MEANS EVEN IJMA CAN ABROGATE THE QURAN
“While those who disbelieved and denied Our revelations/ VERSES ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
“Uthman rahimullah says: The North African are using Qiraat Warsh and Qaloon both REJECT ALLAH HAD EVER SENT DOWN VERSE OF BASMALAH WITHIN THE SURAH FATIHA.”
Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb who participated in writing Uthmani Mushaf in the Qurayshic dialect (Hafs) is the reciter of both Warsh and Qalun.
Although Warsh and Qalun are two dialects of Madinah through Ubayy Ibn Ka’b, yet Ka’b himself wrote Uthmani Mushaf in Hafs (Qurayshic) dialect with other main Qurayshic scribes, such as Zayd Ibn Thabit.
Hence, Ka’b – who is the 1st reciter of Warsh and Qalun – approves Uthmani Mushaf where Fatiha is started with Basmala.
Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb acted as a scribe of Prophet Muhammad in Medinah. Ubayy was one of few Moslems who put Qur’anic verses into a writing, hence he had a Mushaf of his own, and he was one of twenty five Moslems who memorise Qur’an completely.
Medinah’s dialect of Wars and Qalun is popularised by Nafi Ibn Naim. Both dialects came from Hurayrah, Ibn Abbas, and Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb (Medinah scribe) from Prophet Muhammad.
++ Medinah’s dialect of Wars and Qalun is popularised by Nafi Ibn Naim.++
The Qiraat of Imam Nafi ibn Naim REJECT BASMALAH AS VERSE OF ALLAH WITHIN SURAH AL-FATIHA
Are u blind or deaf or something ?
Your prominent respected and authoritative Imam has pronounced it as clear as possible in this video SURAH FATIHA HAS NEVER HAD BASMALAH AS VERSE FROM
“While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
IT’S AN IJMA (CONSENSUS) IN SUNNI MUSLIM THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO DENY THE BASMALAH AS ONE OF ALLAH’S VERSE WITHIN FATIHA
THIS MEANS EVEN IJMA CAN ABROGATE THE QURAN (S22:57)
Are you deaf or deafening your ears and blinding your eyes since the truth hurts?
Yasir Qadhi is a prominent and respective scholar of Sunni, at minute 07:05 he confirm WHEN YOU OPEN THE MUSHAF IN NORTH AFRICA ( HE IS THE ONE USING THE TERM MUSHAF) IT HAS ALL-HAM-DOH-LEE-LAH AS THE FIRST VERSE AND NOT BASMALAH
The North African Maliki Sunnis school REJECT ALLAH HAD EVER SENT DOWN VERSE OF BASMALAH AS PART OF THE SURAH FATIHA.
“While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
IT’S AN IJMA (CONSENSUS) IN SUNNI MUSLIM THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO DENY THE BASMALAH AS ONE OF ALLAH’S VERSE WITHIN FATIHA
THIS MEANS EVEN IJMA CAN ABROGATE THE QURAN (S22:57)
“Uthman rahimullah says: IT’S AN IJMA (CONSENSUS) IN SUNNI MUSLIM THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO DENY THE BASMALAH AS ONE OF ALLAH’S VERSE WITHIN FATIHA”
It is consensus of all Moslems that Basmala is placed before Hamdala in Mushaf and for Qur’anic recitation outside of prayer. The term “Verse” belongs to Scripture, not to prayer.
++It is consensus of all Moslems that Basmala is placed before Hamdala in Mushaf and for Qur’anic recitation outside of prayer. The term “Verse” belongs to Scripture, not to prayer.++
Are you experiencing some sort of brain malfunction or something ? are you too shock that you can’t even listen to your own scholars who has CLEARLY STATED THAT VERSE OF BASMALAH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT PART OF AL-FATIHA ?
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
IT’S AN IJMA (CONSENSUS) IN SUNNI MUSLIM THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO DENY THE BASMALAH AS ONE OF ALLAH’S VERSE WITHIN FATIHA
THIS MEANS EVEN IJMA CAN ABROGATE THE QURAN (S22:57)
Yasir Qadhi is a prominent and respective scholar of Sunni, at minute 07:05 he confirm WHEN YOU OPEN THE MUSHAF IN NORTH AFRICA ( HE IS THE ONE USING THE TERM MUSHAF) IT HAS ALL-HAM-DOH-LEE-LAH AS THE FIRST VERSE AND NOT BASMALAH
The Maliki Sunnis school REJECT ALLAH HAD EVER SENT DOWN VERSE OF BASMALAH AS PART OF THE SURAH FATIHA.
“While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
IT’S AN IJMA (CONSENSUS) IN SUNNI MUSLIM THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO DENY THE BASMALAH AS ONE OF ALLAH’S VERSE WITHIN FATIHA
THIS MEANS EVEN IJMA CAN ABROGATE THE QURAN (S22:57)
Are you experiencing some sort of brain malfunction or something ? are you too shock that you can’t even listen to your own scholars who has CLEARLY STATED THAT VERSE OF BASMALAH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT PART OF AL-FATIHA ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: ABSOLUTELY NOT PART OF AL-FATIHA ?”
The term “Al-Fatiha” itself never appears in Qur’an, hence it is okay to have a disputation of it, and its beginning.
++The term “Al-Fatiha” itself never appears in Qur’an, hence it is okay to have a disputation of it, and its beginning.++
LOL
Please be smart for once and hear your own scholar
I just pity you……
“Uthman rahimullah says: Please be smart for once and hear your own scholar”
No matter how great a scholar is, he can’t find the term “Al-Fatiha” itself in Qur’an.
Hence it is okay to have a disputation of it, and its beginning.
++No matter how great a scholar is, he can’t find the term “Al-Fatiha” itself in Qur’an.
Hence it is okay to have a disputation of it, and its beginning++
LOL… poor you 🙂
It’s so crystal clear no sophistication needed to hear the admission from your scholar
AT minute 07:05 Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY ADMITTED QURAN IN NORTH AFRICA PUT ALL-HAM-DOH-LEE-LAH AS THE FIRST VERSE IN FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN INSTEAD OF BASMALAH..
The painstaking matter for you is, this is not some ‘minor theoretical dispute’ but WHOLE VAST MASS OF PEOPLE REJECT BASMALAH AS VERSE FROM ALLAH IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN.
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
The Maliki and the Imams of Mecca&Medina SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE ACCORDING TO S22:57, but apparently NOT, this means Sunni has consensus to tolerate any muslim who denies Basmalah as the verse within THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN.
THIS MEANS IJMA ALSO ABROGATES QURAN (S22:57)
Please I encourage to keep denying repeatedly so all who read this will be more firm to acknowledge the retard mind of muslim who will still deny the so clear obvious fact presented in front of their face.
“Uthman rahimullah says: The Maliki and the Imams of Mecca&Medina SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE ACCORDING TO S22:57, but apparently NOT, this means Sunni has consensus to tolerate any muslim who denies Basmalah as the verse within THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN.”
No, we don’t condemn two Imams for something – a title of Al-Fatihah – that is not mentioned ever, not even once, by Qur’an.
(i) In terms of dialects, indeed both Imams Malik and Hanifa just follow two Medinah’s dialects of Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb (Wars and Qalun) where Fatiha is not started with Basmala.
Both dialects came from Hurayrah, Ibn Abbas, and Ubayy Ibn Kaʿb (Medinah scribe) from Prophet Muhammad.
However, although Ka’b is the reciter – even probably the sole writer – of both dialects Warsh and Qalun, he also participated in writing Uthmani Mushaf in the Qurayshic dialect (Hafs).
Ka’b himself wrote for Uthmani Mushaf in a Hafs (Qurayshic) dialect along with other main Qurayshic scribes, such as Zayd Ibn Thabit.
Hence, Ka’b (mentor of both Malik and Hanifa) just approves Uthmani Mushaf in which Fatiha is started with Basmala, though Medinah’s dialects do not start it with Basmala.
Medinah’s dialect of Ka’b – Wars and Qalun – is popularised later by Nafi Ibn Naim.
(ii) In terms of Mushaf, both Imams Malik and Hanifa followed Uthmani Mushaf which Ka’b wrote with other scribes, even though he recites two different Medinah’s dialects.
Malik and Hanifa *never* produce Mushaf. Uthman does. A Moslem doesn’t go to the later Imams to know about Mushaf of Qur’an. We just go to Uthman on that.
Let’s take a look on Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:
qurango.com/images/u/002.jpg
Notice:
,ٱلرَّحِيمِl…………(ar-rahim) ==> Part of Basmala
…………………………… ==> Hamdalah is unreadable.
ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ……………. ==> Fatiha Q.1, v.3 is still intact and complete.
++No, we don’t condemn two Imams for something – a title of Al-Fatihah – that is not mentioned ever, not even once, by Qur’an++
What a stupid and lame excuse,
Don’t matter what you want to call THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN , you can not deny the fact :
QURAN OF NORTH AFRICAN PEPOLE REJECT BASMALAH TO BE WRITTEN AS PART OF VERSE IN FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN .
I dare you as good muslim will you apply While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57) toward the Maliki Sunnis for PUTTING ALHAMDOHLEELAH AS FIRST VERSE IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN INSTEAD OF BASMALAH ?
“Uthman rahimullah says: I dare you as good muslim will you apply While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57) toward the Maliki Sunnis for PUTTING ALHAMDOHLEELAH AS FIRST VERSE IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN INSTEAD OF BASMALAH ?”
Why would we condemn Malik and Hanifa for truthfully approving our Uthmani Mushaf which was also written by their mentor Ka’b?
Both Imams Malik and Hanifa followed Uthmani Mushaf which Ka’b wrote, in which Fatiha is started with Basmala, even though two Medinah’s dialects (of Ka’b, Malik and Hanifa) do not start Fatiha with Basmala.
++Why would we condemn Malik and Hanifa for truthfully approving our Uthmani Mushaf which was also written by their mentor Ka’b?+++
So as the video admitted in 7:05 Basmalah is not written as a verse within the First Chapter of Quran of Malikis madhab
So You don’t mind Basmalah is not a verse in the first Chapter of Quran then? and you don’t mind a verse from Allah be rejected then ?
This is another proof why Masud didn’t want to write Fatiha as the first chapter of Quran for the mess it has.
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: 7:05 Basmalah is not written as a verse within the First Chapter of Quran of Malikis madhab”
Malik and Hanifa don’t write any Mushaf, rather they approves Uthmani Mushaf which their mentor Ka’b wrote, in which Fatiha is started with Basmala.
“Uthman rahimullah says: So You don’t mind Basmalah is not a verse in the first Chapter of Quran then? and you don’t mind a verse from Allah be rejected then ?”
It doesn’t matter because it never happens. The term “Verse” belongs to a Mushaf, not a dialect.
Uthman rahimullah says: So You don’t mind Basmalah is not a verse in the first Chapter of Quran then? and you don’t mind a verse from Allah be rejected then ?”
++It doesn’t matter because it never happens. The term “Verse” belongs to a Mushaf, not a dialect++
Nope! VAST MAJOR OF MUSLIM REJECT BASMALAH TO BE AN AYAH IN FIRST SURAH OF QURAN ( AYAH IS A QURANIC TERM BY THE WAY ).
AND BY THE WAY QIRAAT IMAM NAFI ABSOLUTELY REJECT BASMALAH TO BE AN AYAH WITHIN FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN
THIS MEANS UBAY IBN KAAB TRANSMITTED TWO AMBIGUOUS NARRATIONS !
Thank you for showing the mess of Quran …
“Uthman rahimullah says: THIS MEANS UBAY IBN KAAB TRANSMITTED TWO AMBIGUOUS NARRATIONS !”
Yes, you can blame that to Ka’b.
However the proponent of Abrogation Theory conveniently say that Ka’b’s Warsh and Qalun dialects were abrogated later by a Hafs dialect of Uthmani which Ka’b learned from Zayd and other scribes.
++Warsh and Qalun dialects were abrogated later by a Hafs dialect of Uthmani which Ka’b learned from Zayd and other scribes.++
1) I know you are fully aware that you are willfully making yourself as dumb as possible to deny the truth when you’re claiming REJECTING VERSE OF BASMALAH IN FATIHA IS JUST A MATTER OF DIALECT.
2) You are of course should’ve been aware that whatever argument you would throw, yet for REJECTING BASMALAH AS AN AYAH WITHIN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN then according to S 22:57 ALMOST ALL SUNNI PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NORTH AFRICA SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS HERETIC.
3) By not following Surah 22:57, you also fully realize there’s a consensus (Ijma) to TOLERATE WHOMEVER WHO DENIES BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN
MEANING IJMA / CONSENSUS CAN ABROGATE QURAN ( S 22:57)
“Uthman rahimullah says: ALMOST ALL SUNNI PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NORTH AFRICA SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS HERETIC.”
They just follow “two abrogated dialects” of Malik and Hanifa who followed Ubayy Ibn Ka’b who later wrote a Hafs dialect for Uthmani in which Fatiha is started with Basmala.
Uthman rahimullah says: ALMOST ALL SUNNI PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NORTH AFRICA SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS HERETIC.”
+++They just follow “two abrogated dialects” of Malik and Hanifa who followed Ubayy Ibn Ka’b who later wrote a Hafs dialect for Uthmani in which Fatiha is started with Basmala.++
1) I know you are fully aware that you are willfully making yourself as dumb as possible to deny the truth when you’re claiming REJECTING VERSE OF BASMALAH IN FATIHA IS JUST A MATTER OF DIALECT.
2) You are of course should’ve been aware that whatever argument you would throw, yet for REJECTING BASMALAH AS AN AYAH WITHIN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN then according to S 22:57 ALMOST ALL SUNNI PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NORTH AFRICA SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS HERETIC.
3) By not following Surah 22:57, you also fully realize there’s a consensus (Ijma) to TOLERATE WHOMEVER WHO DENIES BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN
MEANING IJMA / CONSENSUS CAN ABROGATE QURAN ( S 22:57)
QURAN OF NORTH AFRICAN REJECT BASMALAH AS A VERSE / AYAH WITHIN FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
“Uthman rahimullah says: there’s a consensus (Ijma) to TOLERATE WHOMEVER WHO DENIES BASMALAH”
All Moslems, even Ka’b, Malik, Hanifa, and including North African Moslems, never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b.
Uthman rahimullah says: there’s a consensus (Ijma) to TOLERATE WHOMEVER WHO DENIES BASMALAH”
++All Moslems, even Ka’b, Malik, Hanifa, and including North African Moslems, never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b++
the video 07:04 your own respected scholar said it differently
In NORTH AFRICAN QURAN DOESN’T CONTAIN BASMALAH WRITTEN AS FIRST AYAH OF FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN
You are of course should’ve been aware that whatever argument you would throw, yet for REJECTING BASMALAH AS AN AYAH WITHIN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF QURAN then according to S 22:57 ALMOST ALL SUNNI PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NORTH AFRICA SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS HERETIC.
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
But since no fatwa has ever issued condemning those who deny the Basmalah as ayah in Fatiha then the conclusion is IT’S A CONSENSUS TO TOLERATE THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH IN FATIHA
MEANING IJMA ALSO ABROGATES QURAN S22:57
“Uthman rahimullah says: But since no fatwa has ever issued condemning those who deny the Basmalah as ayah in Fatiha then the conclusion is”
All Scholars who produce Fatwa know better how in reality Ka’b, Malik, Hanifa, including all North African Moslems, never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b.
++never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b++
you are twisting and dodging words as usual , it’s not about North African tolerate the other but about THE OTHER MUSLIM TOLERATE the North African muslim.
According to :
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
All who deny AN AYAH WITHIN QURAN should be defined as SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE
BUT BECAUSE YOU AND ANY OTHER MUSLIM REFUSE TO FOLLOW QURAN
IT MEANS THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
MEANING CONSENSUS CAN ABROGATE QURAN S22:57
“Uthman rahimullah says: it’s not about North African tolerate the other but about THE OTHER MUSLIM TOLERATE the North African muslim.”
Moslems outside of North Africa never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b.
θ says: Moslems outside of North Africa never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b.
you are twisting and dodging words as usual , it’s only not about tolerating other mushaf but THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER IS ABOUT TOLERATING the North African muslim.WHO REJECT AN AYAH IN SURAH FATIHA
According to :
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
All who deny AN AYAH WITHIN QURAN should be defined as SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE
BUT BECAUSE YOU AND ANY OTHER MUSLIM REFUSE TO FOLLOW QURAN
IT MEANS THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
MEANING CONSENSUS CAN ABROGATE QURAN S22:57
“Uthman rahimullah says: ABOUT TOLERATING the North African muslim.WHO REJECT AN AYAH IN SURAH FATIHA”
Moslems outside of North Africa never tolerate any African who has any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b.
θ says: Moslems outside of North Africa never tolerate any other Mushafs another than one Uthmani Mushaf written also by Ka’b.
you are twisting and dodging words as usual THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER IS ABOUT TOLERATING the North African muslim.WHO REJECT A VERSE ( AYAH ) IN SURAH FATIHA
According to :
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
All who deny AN AYAH WITHIN QURAN should be defined as SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE
BUT BECAUSE YOU AND ANY OTHER MUSLIM REFUSE TO APPLY S22:57 ON MALIKI MADHAB WHO DENIES BASMALAH AS A VERSE / AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
IT MEANS THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA, MEANING CONSENSUS ALSO CAN ABROGATE QURAN S22:57</em
“Uthman rahimullah says: THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA”
You begin to sound like Sam Shamoun who keep parroting a same irrelevant nonsense. Since No one rejects Uthmani Mushaf hence no one rejects placing Basmala to open Fatiha.
++Since No one rejects Uthmani Mushaf hence no one rejects placing Basmala to open Fatiha.++
You’re now acting like whining child,
–OTHER MUSLIM ACCEPT VERSE OF BASMALAH FROM ALLAH WITHIN FATIHA
— MALIKI MUSLIM DENIES VERSE OF BASMALAH FROM ALLAH WITHIN FATIHA DESPITE BASMALAH IS WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAD
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
According to S22:57 FOR DENYING VERSE/AYAH OF BASMALAH WITHIN FATIHA DESPITE IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF then THE MALIKIS SHOULD’VE BEEN CALLED SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE
But since their belief IS TOLERATED THEN it means THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
MEANING CONSENSUS ALSO CAN ABROGATE QURAN S22:57
Everyone in healthy mind can see that you’re willfully making yourself as dumb as possible to deny this obvious fact
pathetic……….
“Uthman rahimullah says: Everyone in healthy mind can see that ”
Unanimously all Moslems – either who reject Basmala in “prayer” or not – never rejects Uthmani Mushaf hence unanimously no one rejects placing Basmala to open Fatiha.
++Unanimously all Moslems – either who reject Basmala in “prayer” or not – never rejects Uthmani Mushaf hence unanimously no one rejects placing Basmala to open Fatiha.+++
That’s my point
MALIKI MADHAB considers ALLAH NEVER SENT AN AYAH OF BASMALAH WITHIN FATIHA DESPITE THE AYAH IS WRITTEN IN MUSHAF
ANY HEALTHY MIND CLEARLY CAN SEE THIS AS DENIAL BY THE MALIKIS TOWARD AN AYAH FROM ALLAH.
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
According to S22:57 FOR DENYING VERSE/AYAH OF BASMALAH WITHIN FATIHA DESPITE IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF then THE MALIKIS SHOULD’VE BEEN CALLED SHAMEFUL DOOMED PEOPLE
But since their belief IS TOLERATED THEN it means THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
MEANING CONSENSUS ALSO CAN ABROGATE QURAN S22:57
Everyone in healthy mind can see that you’re willfully making yourself as dumb as possible to deny this obvious fact
pathetic……….
Reply
“Uthman rahimullah says: DESPITE THE AYAH IS WRITTEN IN MUSHAF”
The word “despite” saves Malikis and Hanafis from a baseless accusation of denying Allah’s verses, hence they aren’t condemned whatsoever.
++The word “despite” saves Malikis and Hanafis from a baseless accusation of denying Allah’s verses++
What a stupid excuse , IN FACT FOR THE VERY REASON IT’S WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF THEN MALIKI & HANAFIS SHOULD’VE BEEN CONDEMNED FOR DENYING THE BASMALAH AS AYAH IN FATIHA
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
However since there’s none such condemnation then the conclusion is
THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
MEANING CONSENSUS ALSO CAN ABROGATE QURAN S22:57
Everyone in healthy mind can see that you’re willfully making yourself as dumb as possible to deny this obvious fact
pathetic……….
“Uthman rahimullah says: IN FACT FOR THE VERY REASON IT’S WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF THEN MALIKI & HANAFIS SHOULD’VE BEEN CONDEMNED FOR DENYING THE BASMALAH AS AYAH IN FATIHA”
Maliks and Hanafis never deny Ka’b’s Uthmani Mushaf.
++Maliks and Hanafis never deny Ka’b’s Uthmani Mushaf.+++
What a stupid excuse ,
IT’S CLEARLY THOUGH ACCEPTING THE OTHER PART WITHIN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF BUT MALIKIS & HANAFIS DENY THE AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
IN FACT FOR THE VERY REASON IT’S WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF THEN MALIKI & HANAFIS SHOULD’VE BEEN CONDEMNED FOR DENYING THE BASMALAH AS AYAH IN FATIHA
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
QURAN IS NOT TALKING ABOUT DENYING A MUSHAF, BUT DENYING AN AYAH
However since there’s none such condemnation then the conclusion is THERE’S CONSENSUS TO ACCEPT THOSE WHO REJECT BASMALAH AS AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
MEANING CONSENSUS ALSO CAN ABROGATE QURAN S22:57
Everyone in healthy mind can see that you’re willfully making yourself as dumb as possible to deny this obvious fact
pathetic……….
“Uthman rahimullah says: QURAN IS NOT TALKING ABOUT DENYING A MUSHAF, BUT DENYING AN AYAH”
As I said numerous times, the term “Ayat” (Verse) belongs to Mushaf, not dialect.
QURAN IS NOT TALKING ABOUT DENYING A MUSHAF, BUT DENYING AN AYAH”
θ says: As I said numerous times, the term “Ayat” (Verse) belongs to Mushaf, not dialect.
ONLY A VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PERSON DEFINES ‘ REJECTION OF VERSE (AYAH) OF BASMALAH IN FATIHA AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES.
“Uthman rahimullah says: ONLY A VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PERSON DEFINES ‘ REJECTION OF VERSE (AYAH) OF BASMALAH IN FATIHA AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES.”
Yes, it is called Ka’b’s dialect of Medinah, even it is split into two: Warsh and Qalun.
++Yes, it is called Ka’b’s dialect of Medinah, even it is split into two: Warsh and Qalun.++
Bismallah-arRahman-arRaaheem is A VERSE AND NOT DIALECT
ONLY A VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PERSON DEFINES ‘ REJECTION OF VERSE (AYAH) OF BASMALAH IN FATIHA AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES.
“Uthman rahimullah says: Bismallah-arRahman-arRaaheem is A VERSE AND NOT DIALECT”
In Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all Moslems around the world yes it is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha, but unfortunately it is not a “part” of dialect in Ka’b’s dialects of Warsh and Qalun.
θ says: but unfortunately it is not a “part” of dialect in Ka’b’s dialects of Warsh and Qalun.
QURAN IS NOT TALKING ABOUT DENYING A MUSHAF, BUT DENYING AN AYAH”
Bismallah-arRahman-arRaaheem is A VERSE AND NOT DIALECT
ONLY A VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PERSON DEFINES ‘ REJECTION OF VERSE (AYAH) OF BASMALAH IN FATIHA AS DIALECT DIFFERENCE
IT’S CLEARLY THOUGH ACCEPTING THE OTHER PART WITHIN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF BUT MALIKIS & HANAFIS DENY THE AYAH WITHIN FATIHA
IN FACT FOR THE VERY REASON IT’S WRITTEN IN UTHMAN’S MUSHAF THEN MALIKI & HANAFIS SHOULD’VE BEEN CONDEMNED FOR DENYING THE BASMALAH AS AYAH IN FATIHA
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
“Uthman rahimullah says: DEFINES ‘ REJECTION OF VERSE (AYAH) OF BASMALAH IN FATIHA AS DIALECT DIFFERENCE”
All Moslems even Malikis and Hanafis believe that both Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b – in which Basmala is absent – are just 2 or many “dialects” (Qira’at).
θ says: All Moslems even Malikis and Hanafis believe that both Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b – in which Basmala is absent – are just 2 or many “DIALECTS” (Qira’at).
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCE
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: AS DIALECT DIFFERENCE”
Even Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that both Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b – in which Basmala is absent – are just 2 of many “dialects” (Qira’at).
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH)”
Irrelevant.
Even Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that both Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b – in which Basmala turns to be absent part of the whole entire dialect – are just 2 of many “dialects” (Qira’at).
++are just 2 of many “dialects” (Qira’at).++
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) ”
Even Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
hahahaha…
θ says: Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: AS DIALECT”
Indeed, both Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
θ says: Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at)
hahahaha….
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: DEFINE ‘ ”
Indeed, Moslems alongside both Malikis and Hanafis themselves define entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b as dialects.
++entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b as dialects++.
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: DIFFERENCES”
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
θ says: Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: QURAN AS DIALECT”
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are not Uthmani Mushaf.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
θ says: Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
Remember , please be a good muslim and apply this VERSE
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: Our VERSES”
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are not Uthmani Mushaf.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
Moslems alongside both Malikis and Hanafis themselves define entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b as dialects.
Both Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
θ says: Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
Remember , please be a good muslim and apply this VERSE
,While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: be a good muslim ”
In Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all good Moslems around the world yes it is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha, but unfortunately it is not a “part” of dialect in Ka’b’s dialects of Warsh and Qalun.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are not Uthmani Mushaf.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
Moslems alongside both Malikis and Hanafis themselves define entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b as dialects.
Both Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
θ says:Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
Remember , please be a good muslim and apply this VERSE
,While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: please be a good”
You begin to sound like Sam Shamoun who keeps parroting a same irrelevant nonsense.
In Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all good Moslems around the world yes Basmala is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha, but unfortunately it is not a “part” of dialect in Ka’b’s dialects of Warsh and Qalun.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are not Uthmani Mushaf.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
Moslems alongside both Malikis and Hanafis themselves define entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b as dialects.
Both Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
Bism-illah-arRahmaan-ArRahmeen is ONE ENTIRE VERSE AND ABSOLUTELY NOT A DIALECT
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
Remember , please be a good muslim and apply this VERSE
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
LOL
“Uthman rahimullah says: ABSOLUTELY NOT ”
Dialect is absolutely not Uthmani Mushaf that all good Moslems accept.
You begin to sound like Sam Shamoun who keeps parroting a same irrelevant nonsense.
In Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all good Moslems around the world yes Basmala is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha, but unfortunately it is not a “part” of dialect in Ka’b’s dialects of Warsh and Qalun.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are not Uthmani Mushaf.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects.
Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just two dialects different from Uthmani Mushaf.
Moslems alongside both Malikis and Hanafis themselves “define” entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b as dialects.
Both Malikis and Hanafis themselves believe that entire “parts” of Warsh and Qalun of Ka’b are just dialects.
Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
θ says: Basmala turns to be one absent “part” of the whole entire “dialect” of so many dialects (Qira’at).
Bism-illah-arRahmaan-ArRahmeen is ONE ENTIRE VERSE AND ABSOLUTELY NOT A DIALECT
ONLY VERY RETARDED AND WILLFULLY IDIOT PEOPLE DEFINE ‘ REJECTION OF ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE (AYAH) IN QURAN AS DIALECT DIFFERENCES
Remember , please be a good muslim and apply this VERSE
While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations ( BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)
LOL
Substantially, None dares to omit Basmalah from Mushaf.
In Uthmani Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all good Moslems around the world, yes Basmala is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha.
But in the prayer it is *more preferable* to recite Basmala softly, or even not recite Basmala – just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun – when praying with the closest friends, because:
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,”not mentioning “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the first of the recital or the last of it [and in another version, “I didn’t hear any of them recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’”] (Muslim, 1.299)”
Hence, Uthman himself who authorised Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – didn’t recite Basmala in prayer.
Let’s take a look at Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:
qurango.com/images/u/002.jpg
Notice:
,ٱلرَّحِيمِl…………(ar-rahim) ==> Part of Basmala
…………………………… ==> Hamdalah is unreadable.
ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ……………. ==> Fatiha Q.1, v.3 is still intact and complete.
Reciting Basmala aloud during prayer is *not preferable* but not either disallowed. Throughout Hadith we never read or know of any “battle” over such a differing recitation by the early Moslems. Apparently Prophet Muhammad gives the options on it, even perhaps he practiced both options in separate occasion, as he isn’t quite strict on the gesture and the recitation of prayer. Basmala is used in Qur’an as a goodwill gesture for the foreigners (story of king Solomon with Sheba queen) whereas among the allies and the close friends (as rite of Anas, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman) it is preferable to praise Allah.
θ says: Substantially, None dares to omit Basmalah from Mushaf.
LOL
poor you… you against your own religion for this denial because your own religion affirm through the SCHOLARLY LECTURE of Imam Yasir Qadhi BASMALAH IS NOT WRITTEN AS THE FIRST VERSE OF FATIHA IN NORTH AFRICAN MUSHAF.
at 07:04 Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY&LITERALLY ADMITTED The Mushaf(he himself using this terminology) in North Africa DOESN’T HAVE BASMALAH as THE FIRST VERSE in Al-Fatiha but instead ALLHMDOLEELAH(which is supposed to be the second verse in Uthman version)
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT BThe Malikis& Meccan-Medinan Imams REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran
>>The logical conclusion is: Maliki and Meccan-Medinan Imams are DISBELIEVERS
Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR for your refusal to this clear fact ,
Repent and Obey the Quran !
I prayed with the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,”not mentioning “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the first of the recital or the last of it [and in another version, “I didn’t hear any of them recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’”] (Muslim, 1.299).
Hence, Uthman himself who authorised Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – didn’t recite Basmala in prayer, just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun.
Let’s take a look at Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:
qurango.com/images/u/002.jpg
Notice:
,ٱلرَّحِيمِl…………(ar-rahim) ==> Part of Basmala
…………………………… ==> Hamdalah is unreadable.
ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ……………. ==> Fatiha Q.1, v.3 is still intact and complete.
θ says: Substantially, None dares to omit Basmalah from Mushaf.
LOL
poor you… you against your own religion for this denial because your own religion affirm through the SCHOLARLY LECTURE of Imam Yasir Qadhi BASMALAH IS NOT WRITTEN AS THE FIRST VERSE OF FATIHA IN NORTH AFRICAN MUSHAF.
at 07:04 Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY&LITERALLY ADMITTED The Mushaf(he himself using this terminology) in North Africa DOESN’T HAVE BASMALAH as THE FIRST VERSE in Al-Fatiha but instead ALLHMDOLEELAH(which is supposed to be the second verse in Uthman version)
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT BThe Malikis& Meccan-Medinan Imams REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran
>>The logical conclusion is: Maliki and Meccan-Medinan Imams are DISBELIEVERS
Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR for your refusal to this clear fact ,
Repent and Obey the Quran !
Uthman himself who authorised Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – didn’t recite Basmala in prayer, just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun.
++Uthman himself who authorised Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha++
Whatever your efforts to deny this OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION, still the facts are :
1. The NORTH AFRICAN QURAN’S MUSHAF DOESN’T PUT BASMALAH AS A VERSE WITHIN CHAPTER OF FATIHA
2. THE MALIKI AND MECCAN-MEDINAN IMAMS REJECT BASMALAH AS A VERSE within CHAPTER FATIHA
REJECTING A VERSE FROM ALLAH AS PART OF A CHAPTER IN QURAN CERTAINLY DIFFERENT FROM JUST NOT RECITING IT IN PRAYER
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT BThe Malikis& Meccan-Medinan Imams REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran
>>The logical conclusion is: Maliki and Meccan-Medinan Imams are DISBELIEVERS
Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR for your refusal to this clear fact ,
Repent and Obey the Quran!
“Uthman rahimullah says: Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR”
Prophet Muhammad also didn’t recite Basmala in prayer:
I prayed with the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman,……
Uthman himself who authorised Mushaf and Ka’b who wrote it – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – didn’t recite Basmala in prayer, just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun.
Maliks and Hanafis never reject Uthmani Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – that their mentor Ka’b has written down.
θ says: Prophet Muhammad also didn’t recite Basmala in prayer
Then it shows he just a flip-flopper ain’t it?
Your poor attempt to dodge and twist is useless, IT’S NOT ABOUT PRAYER BUT REJECTING A VERSE WITHIN QURAN
As being confirmed by LECTURE of Sheikh at-Uthayymeen from Mecca
at 01:35 HE SAID CHAPTER OF FAITHA HAS 7 VERSES (AYAH) AND BASMALAH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT PART IT
REJECTING A VERSE FROM ALLAH AS PART OF A CHAPTER IN QURAN CERTAINLY DIFFERENT FROM JUST NOT RECITING IT IN PRAYER
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT BThe Malikis& Meccan-Medinan Imams REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran
>>The logical conclusion is: Maliki and Meccan-Medinan Imams are DISBELIEVERS
Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR for your refusal to this clear fact ,
Repent and Obey the Quran!
“Uthman rahimullah says: Then it shows he just a flip-flopper ain’t it?”
No, prayer is not Qur’an.
The MALIKIS REJECT THE BASMALAH BY NOT WRITING IT AS VERSE IN CHAPTER OF FATIHA IN THEIR QURAN
at 07:04 Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY&LITERALLY ADMITTED The Mushaf(he himself using this terminology) in North Africa DOESN’T HAVE BASMALAH as THE FIRST VERSE in Al-Fatiha but instead ALLHMDOLEELAH(which is supposed to be the second verse in Uthman version)
I know beyond any doubt you obviously fully aware after being confronted with this clear fact , you’ve been just making yourself as dumb as possible hoping this bitter truth would just go away
But sorry though it’s BITTER but it’s the truth
IT’S NOT ABOUT PRAYER BUT REJECTING A VERSE WITHIN QURAN as also being confirmed by Sheihk aL-Uthayymeen from Mecca , FATIHA HAS 7 VERSES, but BASMALAH IS NOT PART OF ANY OF IT.
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT BThe Malikis& Meccan-Medinan Imams REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran
>>The logical conclusion is: Maliki and Meccan-Medinan Imams are DISBELIEVERS
Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR ,
QURAN TELLS YOU TO CONDEMN SUCH DENIER,
REPENT & OBEY YOUR QURAN !
“Uthman rahimullah says: The MALIKIS REJECT THE BASMALAH BY NOT WRITING IT”
Prayer is not Qur’an, and what they wrote is not Mushaf but just a written dialect of Ka’b.
θ says: No, prayer is not Qur’an.
NOPE! you do not reject a prayer by not WRITING IT AS A VERSE
The MALIKIS REJECT THE BASMALAH BY NOT WRITING IT AS VERSE IN CHAPTER OF FATIHA IN THEIR QURAN, so clearly this is not about prayer.
at 07:04 Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY&LITERALLY ADMITTED The Mushaf(he himself using this terminology) in North Africa DOESN’T HAVE BASMALAH as THE FIRST VERSE in Al-Fatiha but instead ALLHMDOLEELAH(which is supposed to be the second verse in Uthman version)
I know beyond any doubt you obviously fully aware after being confronted with this clear fact , you’ve been just making yourself as dumb as possible hoping this bitter truth would just go away
But sorry though it’s BITTER but it’s the truth
IT’S NOT ABOUT PRAYER BUT REJECTING A VERSE WITHIN QURAN as also being confirmed by Sheihk aL-Uthayymeen from Mecca , FATIHA HAS 7 VERSES, but BASMALAH IS NOT PART OF ANY OF IT.
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT BThe Malikis& Meccan-Medinan Imams REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran
>>The logical conclusion is: Maliki and Meccan-Medinan Imams are DISBELIEVERS
Either you are A Quran VIOLATOR or ABROGATOR ,
QURAN TELLS YOU TO CONDEMN SUCH DENIER,
REPENT & OBEY YOUR QURAN !
“Uthman rahimullah says: BASMALAH BY NOT WRITING”
The mentor (or founder) of Malikis is Ka’b who wrote Basmala in Uthmani Mushaf.
++The mentor of MAlikis++
So by those assertion WHY DON’T YOU APPLY S29:47 TO THE PRESENT MALIKIS THEN ?
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT B The PRESENT MALIKI SUNNI REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran BY NOT WRITING BASMALAH AS VERSE IN FATIHA WITHIN THEIR MUSHAF
CONCLUSION: THE PRESENT MALIKI SUNNIS REJECT ARE DISBELIEVER ACCORDING TO QURAN
QURAN TELLS YOU TO CONDEMN SUCH PEOPLE
REPENT AND OBEY YOUR QURAN!
typho
CONCLUSION: THE PRESENT MALIKI SUNNIS ARE DISBELIEVERS ACCORDING TO QURAN
“Uthman rahimullah says: So by those assertion WHY DON’T YOU APPLY S29:47 TO THE PRESENT MALIKIS THEN ?”
Today’s Malikis *never* deny Uthmani Mushaf. They just wrote a dialect without ever denying the Basmala being the opener of Fatiha in Mushaf written by K’b.
“Uthman rahimullah says: CONCLUSION: THE PRESENT MALIKI SUNNIS ARE DISBELIEVERS ACCORDING TO QURAN”
Prove it by presenting any Fatwa or whatever officially, that may show how all Malikis reject Uthmani Mushaf wherein Basmala opens Fatiha.
++They just wrote a dialect without ever denying the Basmala being the opener of Fatiha in Mushaf++
Imam Yasir Qadhi CLEARLY STATED PRESENT MALIKIS BELIEVE BASMALAH IS NOT PART OF CHAPTER OF FATIHA AND EVEN IT’S NOT WRITTEN AS VERSE IN FATIHA WITHIN NORTH AFRICAN QURANIC MUSHAF
FACT A None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
FACT B The PRESENT MALIKI SUNNI REJECT A VERSE witihin a Chapter of Quran BY NOT WRITING BASMALAH AS VERSE IN FATIHA WITHIN THEIR MUSHAF
CONCLUSION: THE PRESENT MALIKI SUNNIS ARE DISBELIEVER ACCORDING TO QURAN
QURAN TELLS YOU TO CONDEMN SUCH PEOPLE
REPENT AND OBEY YOUR QURAN!
“Uthman rahimullah says: PRESENT MALIKIS BELIEVE BASMALAH ”
3rd person statement is not a bit the Maliki’s own official Fatwa of denying Mushaf. Even there’s no mention of Uthmani Mushaf at all.
++3rd person statement is not a bit++
LOL
The Truth is the evidence from video shows:
1. The Maliki Sunnis NOW DON’T WRITE BASMALAH AS VERSE OF FATIHA IN THEIR QURAN AND INSTEAD REPLACE IT WITH VERSE ALHHMDOLEELAH
2. THE MALIKI SUNNI NEVER REGARD BASMALAH AS VERSE WITHIN FATIHA MEANING THEY REJECT THE BASMALAH AS VERSE OF FATIHA.
Confronted with: None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
To obey Quran : Either you condemn such people who REJECT THE VERSE of Allah or you condemn such who TOLERATE THE REJECTION OF THIS VERSE
Repent & Obey your Quran
None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
IT’S ABOUT REJECTION OF A VERSE(AYAH) AND NOT REJECTION OF A MUSHAF
Let me summarise:
Substantially, None dares to omit Basmalah from Mushaf.
In Uthmani Mushaf accepted by Ka’b, Malikis, Hanafis, North African Moslems, Saudi Arabians, and all good Moslems around the world, yes Basmala is a verse, even it is placed honorably as the verse that opens Fatiha.
But in the prayer it is *more preferable* to recite Basmala softly, or even not recite Basmala – just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun – when praying with the closest friends, because:
I prayed with the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,”not mentioning “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the first of the recital or the last of it [and in another version, “I didn’t hear any of them recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’”] (Muslim, 1.299).
Prophet Muhammad also didn’t recite Basmala in prayer, just like Ka’b’s Medinan dialect of Warsh and Qalun.
Uthman himself who authorised Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – didn’t recite Basmala in prayer.
Prayer is not Qur’an.
A writing of dialects is not a Mushaf.
Malikis and Hanafis never reject Uthmani Mushaf – in which Basmala is placed to open Fatiha – that their mentor Ka’b has written down.
There’s no the Maliki’s own official Fatwa of denying Mushaf.
Ka’b, Malik, Hanifa *never* produce Mushaf. Uthman does. A Moslem doesn’t go to the later Imams to know about Mushaf of Qur’an. We just go to Uthman on that.
Let’s take a look at Uthmani Mushaf in the form of manuscript: There’s a part of Basmala therein where unfortunately Hamdala was unreadable anymore:
qurango.com/images/u/002.jpg
Notice:
,ٱلرَّحِيمِl…………(ar-rahim) ==> Part of Basmala
…………………………… ==> Hamdalah is unreadable.
ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ……………. ==> Fatiha Q.1, v.3 is still intact and complete.
Reciting Basmala aloud during prayer is *not preferable* but not either disallowed. Throughout Hadith we never read or know of any “battle” over such a differing recitation by the early Moslems. Apparently Prophet Muhammad gives the options on it, even perhaps he practiced both options in separate occasion, as he isn’t quite strict on the gesture and the recitation of prayer. Basmala is used in Qur’an as a goodwill gesture for the foreigners (story of king Solomon with Sheba queen) whereas among the allies and the close friends (as rite of Anas, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman) it is preferable to praise Allah.
The Truth the evidence from video shows:
1. It’s admitted by Imam YAsir Qadhi the prominent scholar of Sunni The Maliki Sunnis NOW DON’T WRITE BASMALAH AS VERSE OF FATIHA IN THEIR QURAN AND INSTEAD REPLACE IT WITH VERSE ALHHMDOLEELAH
2. Imam Yasir Qadhi also has admitted THE MALIKI SUNNI NEVER REGARD BASMALAH AS VERSE WITHIN FATIHA MEANING THEY REJECT THE BASMALAH AS VERSE OF FATIHA.
Confronted with: None REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS(S29:47)
IT’S NEVER ABOUT REJECTING MUSHAF , BUT REJECTING A VERSE( AYAH) IN QURAN
And ONLY A RETARD WHO WILL CLAIM:
REJECTING THE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE IS JUST DIALECT DIFFERENCES
To obey Quran : Either you condemn such people who REJECT THE VERSE of Allah or you condemn such who TOLERATE THE REJECTION OF THIS VERSE
Repent & Obey your Quran
Pingback: Review of Dr. White’s debate with Imam Musri | Apologetics and Agape
Pingback: Review of Dr. White's debate with Imam Musri