About honor killings (8 Viewers)

[GordoDeCentral]

wanna know why qur'an is still the same? Shi'a-Sunni divide, shi'a hate the sunnis and would jump on every little opportunity to show just how wrong they are; yet shi'a and sunni agree on the very same book FYI shi'a movement began right at the death of the prophet, as in the same day.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Alen]

wanna know why qur'an is still the same? Shi'a-Sunni divide, shi'a hate the sunnis and would jump on every little opportunity to show just wrong they are; yet shi'a and sunni agree on the very same book FYI shi'a movement began right at the death of the prophet, as in the same day.

I was told the very same thing a week ago

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I was told the very same thing a week ago

Oh well it makes sense to me since, shi'a already reject many of the sunni hadiths, and since the premise behind a change(if it were to occur) is to favor the changer surely the shi'as would have spoken against any sunni change to the text.

 

[JBF]

No, I could do that P) but I'm not willing too.


JBF, I think you misunderstood it. There isn't an original version of the Quran that is preserved. There is only an oldest copy and I believe it's from the time after the prophet's death.

I think what you're talking about is Uthman Quran or the Samarkand codex? But that's not kept in Medina. That's a manuscript and it's written in the late 8th-early 9th century. That's long after the prophet's death. The scripting* that is used in this version is from the 9th century.

A newer version is found in Yemen, but that too is after Muhammad died.


Edit: * Kufic script

I said "IIRC" I wasn't exactly sure TBH. Why would they keep tree leaves and bones that were used to write Qur'an anyway. Keeping in mind the wars and different parties that ruled the Islamic empire some of whom were very strict regarding such matters as some even burnt the prophet's clothes so people might not fall for it calling it holy or something.

You're right though, I searched and apparently there's no preserved Qur'an from the Muhammed era but rather many info about what I said earlier on how the "after muhammed's death" Qur'an was copied from the scattered written parts of Qur'an put together and made it in it's current form.

 

[Alen]

Oh well it makes sense to me since, shi'a already reject many of the sunni hadiths, and since the premise behind a change(if it were to occur) is to favor the changer surely the shi'as would have spoken against any sunni change to the text.

Makes sense indeed. I was left speechless when faced with that. Never really looked into the debate that was undoubtedly open about this and what were the replies.

 

[IrishZebra]

Nope.

If you truly believe that Muhammad's followers were as noble as him then I guess there's not really much point.

 

[Hist]

wanna know why qur'an is still the same? Shi'a-Sunni divide, shi'a hate the sunnis and would jump on every little opportunity to show just how wrong they are; yet shi'a and sunni agree on the very same book FYI shi'a movement began right at the death of the prophet, as in the same day.

Shia and sunni division happened during the Umayyad dynasty.. long after Uthman and the collecting of the Quran. Even Shia Ali (different from modern day Shiites be it twelvers or not) were during Ali's reign. The shiites of today resulted from the split after el Hussein's Murder by Yazid

 

[Hist]

Now thank you for that, such class on your part.


Here's where you FAIL yet again. Qur'an was written before Muhammad's death, he was the one who ordered it to be written down in the first place, Genius. The Qur'an at his time was written on animal skin, palm leaves and scripted on stone. As to your knowledge there was no papers back in those days. All of the Qur'an known now, was written at that time.

Later after his death Abu Baker who took over the Islamic empire, ordered those parts that was already written to be gathered and re-written on papers gathered in one book which is the Qur'an as we now it now. Year later Othman Bin Affan, copied that Qur'an to another one and since then the copying is continuing.

Now you don't have to continue any conversation with me, I really don't give a damn what you think about Qur'an I simply hate reading BS and try my best to correct the ones that I read along the road.

It was memorized more than written. There are missing verses that you can find in suviving hadith. Omar Ibn El Khattab particularly spoke about it. It is said that Sura el Ahzab was the second largest sura in the Quran with over 200 ayas.

 

[Seven]

wanna know why qur'an is still the same? Shi'a-Sunni divide, shi'a hate the sunnis and would jump on every little opportunity to show just how wrong they are; yet shi'a and sunni agree on the very same book FYI shi'a movement began right at the death of the prophet, as in the same day.

Wait.. since when does this divide exist? Surely we cannot say for certain that the Quran wasn't altered during the first years of its existence?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Shia amd sunni division happened during the Umayyad dynasty.. long after Uthman and the collecting of the Quran.

even if that were true, which is not, shia are not something that just appeared out of thin air, had the sunnis or their leader made any change shia would use those reports(its not like it will go unnoticed) to legitimize their claim of being the one true unadulterated way. You bring fabrications and complicated unlikely scenarios, i give you facts; therefore for the last time if you dont get it i cant help you further, and once again this is not the subject of this thread.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Wait.. since when does this divide exist? Surely we cannot say for certain that the Quran wasn't altered during the first years of its existence?

divide occurred when Ali was washing up the body of the prophet, while processions were taking place to appoint his successor. Shiat Ali(party of Ali) were those who believed Ali should have succeeded the prophet following the latter's alleged recommendation.
We cant say anything for certain, but from a historical logical perspective, how likely is it that you have 2 opposed parties vying for support and legitimacy allowing or consenting to the other making changes to the reference book of their creed, that's like the ultimate check mate.

 

[Seven]

divide occurred when Ali was washing up the body of the prophet, while processions were taking place to appoint his successor. Shiat Ali(party of Ali) were those who believed Ali should have succeeded the prophet following the latter's alleged recommendation.
We cant say anything for certain, but from a historical logical perspective, how likely is it that you have 2 opposed parties vying for support and legitimacy allowing or consenting to the other making changes to the reference book of their creed, that's like the ultimate check mate.

True and definitely something we have to consider. But even then.. with all the copying going on, it just doesn't seem likely that no alterations whatsoever were made. I just don't believe it. But I guess that's where faith comes in.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

True and definitely something we have to consider. But even then.. with all the copying going on, it just doesn't seem likely that no alterations whatsoever were made. I just don't believe it. But I guess that's where faith comes in.

no not faith, distance. If something were altered say in damascus, it cant be altered accordingly in medina. Unless once again we go the mass alteration route where we end up in the scenario above. If you re looking for ways and theories suggesting the opposite i'm sure you ll find your fill but nothing coming close in likelihood to conclusions based undeniable historical facts.

 

[Hist]

even if that were true, which is not, shia are not something that just appeared out of thin air, had the sunnis or their leader made any change shia would use those reports(its not like it will go unnoticed) to legitimize their claim of being the one true unadulterated way. You bring fabrications and complicated unlikely scenarios, i give you facts; therefore for the last time if you dont get it i cant help you further, and once again this is not the subject of this thread.

What facts? Shiites as we know them (Twelvers & Seveners) and the split from Sunni Islam was a political split before it became a religious split. There was a group during Ali's reign called Shiat Ali.. they were the same as Sunni Muslims in every way (religiously speaking).. the debate was about who should be the Khalifa (leader) of the Umma.. they did not regard Ali as sacred or as a prophet like those of today do. Even if they did (which is false) these came after Uthman's time where the infamous burning of the Quran variants took place.

The Shiites who have different Dogma than the Sunnis(like those of today) appeared after El Husein was killed in Karbala where they betrayed him.

In any case, the alterations to the text would have occurred before the split of the sects between the death of the prophet and the reign of Ali. Thus, Shiites and Sunnis are following the Uthmanic Quran version regardless of whether it is the exact word of mohammed or not..

If modern day shiites where to claim that the quran is no longer the word of god they seize to be muslims because that would mean that the Quran is lost and the prophet failed.

Bare in mind that the religious differences between shiites and Sunnis mostly stem from the Hadiths which were collected about 200 years after the prophet's death. And by the way, The so called 'reports' are Islamic sources from the hadith and the Sira.

I apologize that this is off topic but I have to clear that up.

 

[Hist]

divide occurred when Ali was washing up the body of the prophet, while processions were taking place to appoint his successor. Shiat Ali(party of Ali) were those who believed Ali should have succeeded the prophet following the latter's alleged recommendation.
We cant say anything for certain, but from a historical logical perspective, how likely is it that you have 2 opposed parties vying for support and legitimacy allowing or consenting to the other making changes to the reference book of their creed, that's like the ultimate check mate.

The party of Ali are not the Shiites. Further, Ali was never a candidate to becoming the first khalifa.. the debate was about whether a Meccan from Ahl el Hijra should lead or a Medinian (al ansar). Abu Bakr was brought forward by the Meccans (Omar too) , and If I remember correctly, a guy called Abbas or Saa'd I am not sure was brought forward by the people of Medina.

Abu Bakr and Omar gave a great speech and since then the rule they decided to follow was to choose the Khalifa based on his Heroics and service for Islam and the prophet. The Medinians agreed to Abu Bakr and to Omar after him. It was only during the Time of Uthman where they started to rebel against the khalifa especially that Uthman appointed his relatives to all the Major Positions in the Empire. The Party of Ali appeared then and they supported him (even though he was Meccan) because he didn't like how Uthman was turning the empire into almost a monarchy. Ali Sympathized with the Medinians and they were the Party of Ali. They did not hold the beliefs of Shiites today at all they were only a political party... The hadiths werent even collected at that time and there was no Sunni VS shiite sects. At that time, the political party of Ali started to claim that Ali should have been the first Khalifa but they never made that claim at the time of the "elections" when Abu Bakr ran for Khalifa VS the Medinian guy. Ali was way too young at the time.

 

[Hist]

http://www.islamic-world.net/khalifah/khulafa_ur_rashiduun.htm

A story telling of the events from the Islamic sources. The nominees for the first Caliphate were "Sa'd bin Ubada, Abu Ubayda , Umar and Abu Bakr, and as a result of the debate Abu Bakr was given the bay'ah."

 

[GordoDeCentral]

The party of Ali are not the Shiites. Further, Ali was never a candidate to becoming the first khalifa.. the debate was about whether a Meccan from Ahl el Hijra should lead or a Medinian (al ansar). Abu Bakr was brought forward by the Meccans (Omar too) , and If I remember correctly, a guy called Abbas or Saa'd I am not sure was brought forward by the people of Medina.

Abu Bakr and Omar gave a great speech and since then the rule they decided to follow was to choose the Khalifa based on his Heroics and service for Islam and the prophet. The Medinians agreed to Abu Bakr and to Omar after him. It was only during the Time of Uthman where they started to rebel against the khalifa especially that Uthman appointed his relatives to all the Major Positions in the Empire. The Party of Ali appeared then and they supported him (even though he was Meccan) because he didn't like how Uthman was turning the empire into almost a monarchy. Ali Sympathized with the Medinians and they were the Party of Ali. They did not hold the beliefs of Shiites today at all they were only a political party... The hadiths werent even collected at that time and there was no Sunni VS shiite sects. At that time, the political party of Ali started to claim that Ali should have been the first Khalifa but they never made that claim at the time of the "elections" when Abu Bakr ran for Khalifa VS the Medinian guy. Ali was way too young at the time.

Ali was not present at those proceedings, and the whole shiaa argument rests on teh fact that the prophet himself on his last hajj trip had recommended Ali to be the next khalifah, so you mean to say he really meant for him to be the 3rd khalifah??
you ve been recommending books after books, yet you re not aware of the very basic info on the subject, so it is my turn to recommend you actually brush up on the history following the death of the prophet, as it's getting pretty ridiculous, i m sorry it's just far too much to correct. Add on to that the fact that you are on an agenda, and i have no desire to actually go through the effort.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

http://www.islamic-world.net/khalifah/khulafa_ur_rashiduun.htm

A story telling of the events from the Islamic sources. The nominees for the first Caliphate were "Sa'd bin Ubada, Abu Ubayda , Umar and Abu Bakr, and as a result of the debate Abu Bakr was given the bay'ah."

ok i give up, you re not reading you re just intent on pushing through whatever flimsy points you have.

 

[Hist]

Ali was not present at those proceedings, and the whole shiaa argument rests on teh fact that the prophet himself on his last hajj trip had recommended Ali to be the next khalifah, so you mean to say he really meant for him to be the 3rd khalifah??
you ve been recommending books after books, yet you re not aware of the very basic info on the subject, so it is my turn to recommend you actually brush up on the history following the death of the prophet, as it's getting pretty ridiculous, i m sorry it's just far too much to correct. Add on to that the fact that you are on an agenda, and i have no desire to actually go through the effort.

I am unaware of the existence of a well documented hadith by the prophet on which there is consensus in which he assigns ali... what I know is that Shiites believe the prophet said so after his last sermon to the travellers of Medina (for some reason he forgot to mention that to the rest of the muslims) but Sunni Muslims (as I used to be) do not share that belief. In other words, its not a fact that he said this and different people interpret the alleged words differently.



Edit: I only invite you to research the topic of collecting the Quran and referred you to some books. You seem to shut me out and reject whatever I say without giving reasons yet I am the one not listening.
If I am wrong then I am willing to admit that.. I am open for the conversation.. Its a shame you don't feel the same.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I am unaware of the existence of a well documented hadith by the prophet on which there is consensus in which he assigns ali... what I know is that Shiites believe the prophet said so after his last sermon to the travellers of Medina (for some reason he forgot to mention that to the rest of the muslims) but Sunni Muslims (as I used to be) do not share that belief. In other words, its not a fact that he said this and different people interpret the alleged words differently.



Edit: I only invite you to research the topic of collecting the Quran and referred you to some books. You seem to shut me out and reject whatever I say without giving reasons yet I am the one not listening.
If I am wrong then I am willing to admit that.. I am open for the conversation.. Its a shame you don't feel the same.

i admit in my haste to catch the game i mentioned it as fact when i meant to say "on the premise". But that is the start of the
as for your edit, i dont shut you down but honestly cant bother to teach you very basic widely accepted events, and your reluctance to consider what is clear as day despite your ignorance only makes me less inclined to go through the effort like i said.