Debate a Muslim

[Link]

Also I never studied or cared for the chain Quran came by to accept Quran but they per Your rijal rules are all weak chains. That is why you guys have to say they are strong and trustworthy for Quran but not for narrating hadiths which to all honesty is a contradiction.

 

[Link]

The reason you don’t accept them for narrating hadiths is because many of the narrators in Quran chains are Shiite and they narrate hadiths you don’t accept. So your scholars invented “trustworthy for Quran but not hadiths” logic.

 

[Ghazaly]

@Ghazaly that verse was revealed at a companion who was not a fasiq. So I think we don’t have to know if the person is a fasiq or not to investigate. It’s not saying only investigate if he is a fasiq.

- It says investigate the truth of information when reported. That is all.

Also I never studied or cared for the chain Quran came by to accept Quran but they per Your rijal rules are all weak chains. That is why you guys have to say they are strong and trustworthy for Quran but not for narrating hadiths which to all honesty is a contradiction.

- Then how do you know the Quran was perfectly transmitted to you?

The reason you don’t accept them for narrating hadiths is because many of the narrators in Quran chains are Shiite and they narrate hadiths you don’t accept. So your scholars invented “trustworthy for Quran but not hadiths” logic.

- You have it backwards. The Shia reject Hadith sciences because they don't have authentic narrations, because if they apply the rules of Hadith sciences on their narrations the overwhelming majority will be rejected. This is a proven fact, since our Hadith scholars have already done the work on your main collections of Hadith (the 4). Instead, they invent circular "rules" to verify their narrations, such as the rules of 'Istihsan' or 'Istiqra' or 'Iqrar", which are so obviously circular. For instance, Iqrar is to say: narrator X is a reliable narrator because he narrates that Imam Y told him that he approved him as a good narrator. I'm sure you can see how this is circular. Or maybe this is why you think Ilm Rijal is BS. It indeed is in the Shia tradition. That's why the Zaydyyah use our collections instead.

Edit:
- I forgot to mention, there are no Shia in the narrators of the 10 Recitations & their 20 Paths. There is no "trustworthy in the Quran but in the Hadith" logic either. Each chain, each narrator, each hadith, each riwaya, each connections... is judged on its own merit.

 

[Polymath257]

Wow, thanks! To be fair, the avatar you commented on yesterday was probably 6-8 years old. This one's recent though. I will definitely accept it. Been feeling like I don't want to turn 40, but I imagine it will be as harmless as turning 30 was.

I'm looking at 60 in another year and a half. I've found that multiples of 10 are better than those half way between.

 

[Link]

The Shia don't reject hadith sciences. I'm not speaking on their behalf but my own understanding of Quran and insights of Ahlulbayt (a). To me it's all circular unless you can show objectiveness to it. The Quran said to investigate the truth of a report, but it didn't say to label people as trustworthy or liars, especially if they claim to be Muslim. And the chains in Quran do all have Shias and they are said to be "weak" in hadith but "trustworthy" in Quran. Don't lie. I will bring proof for this if you don't know but I have feeling you already know this is true.

 

[Link]

And Quran is not perfectly transmitted. There is discrepancies within the transmissions, for example, there is a verse "peace be upon Auli Yaseen" "El Yaseen" "Al Yaseen" and "Elyaseen" all reported in the transmissions.

The way to know the truth of it, you have to rely on reports of Ahlulbayt (a) from my point of view and reflect over Quran itself. They correct where the transmissions go wrong and show which one is correct out of the transmissions.

 

[oldbadger]

- You're already back!

I did not lie, Ghazaly..... previously I wrote:-
See ya later........... ... yes? You see, It's 'later' now, Ghazaly.

Sharia is wholly from the Quran & Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). I don't have to quote the Quran or the Prophet (pbuh) every time I state something that relates to Sharia.

Then why don't you just quote the Quran.... in its purity.
Your involved complexities are just spin, imo. The Quran seems to be most clear. Maybe you don't like the clarity of the Quran?

- Since this is the lifestyle you're aspiring to, while you're at it, get your birthday suit, grow some feathers & get flying.

I don't have to aspire to what I was referring to because I'm already within it........ NATURE.

- I honestly don't understand any of this.

And that is obvious. You clearly have no real understanding about the Laws of Moses and how important each one was, back then. They were all about producing a healthy, strong, successful invincible people.

To break those laws weakened 'the people'. God explained how previous peoples who had inhabited the same lands had failed, because they did not follow those rules and laws.
You should read those laws carefully and do your best to understand each and every one, not just ones you may have cherry picked for your version of righteousness.

Try it.

 

[Ghazaly]

The Shia don't reject hadith sciences.

- They do, the ones I'm talking about.

I'm not speaking on their behalf but my own understanding of Quran and insights of Ahlulbayt (a). To me it's all circular unless you can show objectiveness to it.

- Then we don't have anything further to argue.

The Quran said to investigate the truth of a report, but it didn't say to label people as trustworthy or liars, especially if they claim to be Muslim.

- A Muslim can be truthful or a liar. One who consistently tells the truth is a truthful person, one who lies is a liar. This is a statement of fact.

And the chains in Quran do all have Shias

- I assure you, the 10 Recitations have zero Shia. I know that for a fact.

and they are said to be "weak" in hadith but "trustworthy" in Quran.

- No such thing. As I said, every narration from every narrator in every chain is ascertained on its own merit by the scholars of Hadith.

Don't lie. I will bring proof for this if you don't know but I have feeling you already know this is true.

- If you're referring to 'Asim, that's an old BS tale.

And Quran is not perfectly transmitted. There is discrepancies within the transmissions, for example, there is a verse "peace be upon Auli Yaseen" "El Yaseen" "Al Yaseen" and "Elyaseen" all reported in the transmissions.

- That's called farsh. There are close to 2400 farsh like that in the 10 Recitation; these are valid recitations of the words. It's like spellings Aluminum & Aluminium, what's your point?

The way to know the truth of it, you have to rely on reports of Ahlulbayt (a) from my point of view and reflect over Quran itself. They correct where the transmissions go wrong and show which one is correct out of the transmissions.

- But this circular. It's self-defeating.

 

[Ghazaly]

I did not lie, Ghazaly..... previously I wrote:-
See ya later........... ... yes? You see, It's 'later' now, Ghazaly.

- You told no lie, indeed.

Then why don't you just quote the Quran.... in its purity.
Your involved complexities are just spin, imo. The Quran seems to be most clear. Maybe you don't like the clarity of the Quran?

- Then we would having a Fiqh lecture instead, not a Forum discussion.

I don't have to aspire to what I was referring to because I'm already within it........ NATURE.

- Cool...

And that is obvious. You clearly have no real understanding about the Laws of Moses and how important each one was, back then. They were all about producing a healthy, strong, successful invincible people.
To break those laws weakened 'the people'. God explained how previous peoples who had inhabited the same lands had failed, because they did not follow those rules and laws.
You should read those laws carefully and do your best to understand each and every one, not just ones you may have cherry picked for your version of righteousness.
Try it.

- Are you for the Bible or against? Seems like you contract yourself!

 

[Link]

- That's called farsh. There are close to 2400 farsh like that in the 10 Recitation; these are valid recitations of the words. It's like spellings Aluminum & Aluminium, what's your point?

They change the meaning of the word or words. For example "Family of Yaseen" is different then "The Yaseen" and different then "El Yaseen" and "Elyaseen".

 

[Link]

I am going to make a thread about this. I feel this is too precious of a topic to discuss here @Ghazaly and it will get lost through out the thread. Let's have a one on one debate about Ilmel Rijaal. I am going to say it's not reliable as a means to see if a hadith is true, not even probability wise (it doesn't increase it's chances of being true). You can try to argue whatever you want for it. What say you we have a debate about this in One on One section?

 

[Link]

They change the meaning of the word or words. For example "Family of Yaseen" is different then "The Yaseen" and different then "El Yaseen" and "Elyaseen".

And to add "Auli Yaseen" and "Elyaseen" can be seen as grammatically correct while the rest cannot be grammatically correct "Al Yaseen" "El Yaseen" are incoherent and so majority of transmissions transmitted grammatically incoherent words.

 

[Ghazaly]

They change the meaning of the word or words. For example "Family of Yaseen" is different then "The Yaseen" and different then "El Yaseen" and "Elyaseen".

- Does it though? Maybe a different example could've been more pertinent. But in this particular case both can mean both. Elyassen can be interpreted as a name or as a plural possessive for the name, idem for El Yassen.

 

[Ghazaly]

I am going to make a thread about this. I feel this is too precious of a topic to discuss here @Ghazaly and it will get lost through out the thread. Let's have a one on one debate about Ilmel Rijaal. I am going to say it's not reliable as a means to see if a hadith is true, not even probability wise (it doesn't increase it's chances of being true). You can try to argue whatever you want for it. What say you we have a debate about this in One on One section?

- I already said I will do a thread explaining Ilm Rijal. What is that you're proposing? What's the one on one thing?

 

[Link]

- Does it though? Maybe a different example could've been more pertinent. But in this particular case both can mean both. Elyassen can be interpreted as a name or as a plural possessive for the name, idem for El Yassen.

There is different examples, but "family of Yaseen" is a whole different meaning and two of the transmissions have that, and El Yaseen is grammar wise non-sensical, and Al Yaseen is supposed to be Alyaseen if it meant the yaseen, but both those transmissions are incoherent grammar wise.

And you can't but happen to suspect it was a historically to change Auli-Yaseen to Elyaseen but majority of letter wise (without Qariat) have the Aliflam seperate from the Yaseen. Elyaseen is just one transmission though while majority have it in a corrupt grammar state while two of them as 'Auli Yaseen'.

The most of the Quran's we have with just huroof (without the vowels) also have it that way (separate).

 

[Link]

- I already said I will do a thread explaining Ilm Rijal. What is that you're proposing? What's the one on one thing?

It's in the one on one debate section to no one else can come in but us two.

 

[Ghazaly]

There is different examples, but "family of Yaseen" is a whole different meaning and two of the transmissions have that, and El Yaseen is grammar wise non-sensical, and Al Yaseen is supposed to be Alyaseen if it meant the yaseen, but both those transmissions are incoherent grammar wise.

- Where do you get this nonsense? Are you Arab?

And you can't but happen to suspect it was a historically to change Auli-Yaseen to Elyaseen but majority of letter wise (without Qariat) have the Aliflam seperate from the Yaseen. Elyaseen is just one transmission though while majority have it in a corrupt grammar state while two of them as 'Auli Yaseen'.

- You must be joking. What you're saying is just pure drivel. I can't even begin to qualify it. How come you believe the Quran is true & now you say it's corrupt? You're self-contradicting.

The most of the Quran's we have with just huroof (without the vowels) also have it that way (separate).

- You mean in Rasm? There is no "most" in Rasm.

It's in the one on one debate section to no one else can come in but us two.

- Where is the fun in that?

 

[Link]

I say it that Quran is safeguarded yet transmissions corrupted, in the same way meanings can be mistranslated (corrupting the translations) but the way to know which one is right is safeguarded by God.

 

[Link]

- You mean in Rasm? There is no "most" in Rasm.

One of the "rasm" has the aliflam connected to yaseen, but all the others don't.

 

[Link]

To make it clear spelling Mahdi name as Mah Di, doesn't make sense, in the same way El Yaseen doesn't make grammar sense.