Disturbing revelations...!!

[anajmi]

Isn't it surprising that you accuse me of being a wahhabi even before a conversation starts and then you fell the need to point out wahhabi tafseer to me? That's what all your posts are, from the beginning to the end. A big maze of contradictions that I have successfully managed to navigate through. That explains your desperation.

[anajmi]

Isn't it surprising that you accuse me of being a wahhabi even before a conversation starts and then you feel the need to point out wahhabi tafseer to me? That's what all your posts are, from the beginning to the end. A big maze of contradictions that I have successfully managed to navigate through. That explains your desperation.

And now, it seems the most vocal wahhabis don't need tafseers either. As I had pointed out earlier, you do not actually need to be a wahhabi for porus to call you a wahhabi. All you have to do is go against porus and you are a wahhabi. I may allow myself to be duped by 'osmosis', but I won't let you have that pleasure!!

[TBG]

Bro Porus,

May i did not explin myself clearly. I dont need anyone to tell me what to do. I will do what i want to do and in this case what i need to read. I have read the Quran because i wanted to read it and i read the tafsir and translation because i believe in it. My belief in the book and its meaning is solidified each time i read it and each time i read it it gives me new meanings and deeper understanding. Let me put it this way that each time i read it i learn something new and i start linking one lesson in the quran to the next. And for me its not just the book its about actual practical teachings which i then link to the life of RasulAllah (saw). So what does it mean to be kind when the quran says. That i learn from the life. To me they go hand in hand. Therefore for me. i find great satisfaction in knowing that the word of Allah(saw) was actually shown in practice.

My point on amils and syenda was not to tell you about me but what i see around. My family, friends are effected because they have CHOOSEN NOT to do what i have done. Infact I already done a lot more than what any normal bohra would even think of doing.

I apologize for not understanding that para about preserving the book. My point about that is simple. I believe that the book i read is the book Allah (swt) has promised to preserve in the format that i read it in. One of the reasons why i believe this is as an e.g: The last two ayats of surah-e-baqara were revealed to RasulAllah (Saw) at Mairaj while he was in the heavens. These two verses were revealed to him while he was in the heavens and outside the realms of the earth. These two verses we read in the quran now. This makes be believe what was bought from heaven to RasulAllah(saw) is what we have in our hands.
On the other hand, RasulAllah(Saw) has taught us what verses to read from the quran on different occasions. Muslims use it, believe in it, and it actually works. It can only be words of Allah(swt) which has power to make things happen. I believe in this book and i believe in what it is capable of doing and i have in certain instances seen the results first hand.

I would also like to ask you when you say God has preserved the Biblel, Mahabharat what proof do you have?
I dont wnat to see anything disappear. Your point on scriptures being recovered and modern interpretations of these not relevant to those who these belong too does not apply as far as i am concerned. Becasue none of the scriptures to me are relevant for all times. Quran is and therefore necessary that modern interpretations be made to link the teaching to todays time. There are numerous discoveres which are taking place now which quran already spoke centuries back. Is that not the present confirming the truth which quran has been saying for all these years and will continue till the end of time. Is this not a proof that the book holds true for all times.

Bro Humsafar,
I agree with your point that God doesnt need to communicate with us via a language. Truth is everywhere around us. But not everyone is the same. Not everyone has the capability to look around, grasps the underlying meaning of things and appreciate the wonders of God. That is why we need guidance. That is why we have religion. Through these nitty grittys we find deeper meaning into things. A simple thing such as praying 5 times a day can lead to find deeper purposes in life. Every aspect of Islam has a deeper meaning to it including things like doing wudu, and giving azaam and going for juma. What we have forgotten are these meanings and only concerned about the actions. i have seen people cleaning their glasses and offering prayers. God doesnt need prayers. We need prayers and we need to do wudu and we need to give zakat. Do not blame the religion, blame people. Religion is simple yet perfect. God doesnt need us, we need God and via the religion we find the shortest way to come close to God. Whehter you want to choose this is your choice.

Bro Biradar,
My first question to you is why do i need to go through the history of bohras and ismailis and why should i ? Am i here to prove that bohras are wrong or right? Why do i have to go put everyting through the sunni and shia and bohra framework. I simply want to learn about Islam and what i have learned is that all i need is the Quran and Sunnah. These two alone and what they hold would probably last me a lifetime. To make things easy for me to understand with regards to quran and sunnah i have the wonderful teachings of some of hte most brilliant muslim scholars who have made it practical and easy. My purpose in life is not to read about bohras. I want to read what the truth is and what will bring me on the right track. So far a lot of what i know as a bohra does not come out too positivve.

I completely agree that we need tafsirs and im also aware that the most popular tafsir is 10 volumes. The question is why we need 10 volumes of detailed explanation. Why would you want to read those 10 volumes? If there is so much wealth of knowledge and wisdom in the quran then why are bohras and more specifically syedna not spending every day of life teaching the quran given it is the word of Allah(swt). Why is it that out of the 50 days i would goto the mosque in a year, quran is the topic maybe in like 3 days that too for like a few minutes. Maybe to you its enough if you hear it from syedna once in a while but for me its not enough. The book is in front of me. The book tells me what to do and what to ponder about. I dont need tafsirs to understand these simple verses. Tafsirs are written for those people who want to learn the infinite knowledge in the book and go into indepth detail. My family and close firneds have probably not read the translation of the quran. It was never taught to them to read it on their own. That is my biggest reservation with the bohra framework. I am sorry but knoweldge and wisdom is not owned by the imams and dais. If that was the case RasulAllah(saw) would have only taught imam ali given that he was going to his succesor right ?. But is that te case? No , RasulAllah(Saw) taught anyone and everyone. He emphasized on learning and knowledge. There are numerous hadiths and ayats where it clearly says the pursuit of knoweldge is better than praying the whole night. I apologize but i fail to understand and see that dais are the chief scholars. If that is the case then why doesnt the dai have a one to one with the other muslim scholars. It would be beneficial to everyone i think. Why doesnt a single bohar amil or bhai saheb join these scholarly gatherings and argue if they have the right knoweldge? Like you said there is nothing to hide then why the shyness?

On the point of going through simple sabaks and then going to advance sabaks i dont agree too. If you have nothign to hide open it for everyoen. People will go not understand join back the simple basic ones. Treat them as adults. I have personally gone to a bhai saheb. I told him that i have read tons of philosophy and mysticism and he said dont read that because it corrputs your mind and that i should attend the sabaqs. Do you care to explain how is philosophy and mysticism going to corrupt my mind. In my opinion it compliments perfectly with the teachings of Islam. Infact Imam ghazali has proven this by actually spendin years as a philosophers and as a mystic that the teachings of Islam can work hand in hand with the philosophical and mystical concepts.

[danishwar]

I think that there is a reasonable doubt that the Quran we have today may not be 100% replica of what Muhammad uttered.

Nevertheless, in the interests of requiring an inerrant source, all Muslims agree on the complete accuracy and authenticity of the Quran. But then, whose Quran?.

we had great Hazrat Ali (A.S)who lived during and after the compilation of Quran.
He was the one who fought and questioned if anything went wrong. and literally he fought with the people who were wrong.

why didnt he doubt and continued following the same copy of Quran?

[anajmi]

Actually, that the quran we have is not the one revealed to the prophet Muhammad (saw) is a common shia belief. They believe the real quran is with the Imam. So, as far as the preserving of the quran is concerned, as far as the bohras are concerned, it is already a non-issue.

[porus]

Actually, that the quran we have is not the one revealed to the prophet Muhammad (saw) is a common shia belief.

This is an unjustied calumny against the Shia. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that this is a common Shia belief.

My own doubts relate to studies by a minority of Western scholars. These Western scholars' arguments have been strongly rebutted by both the Sunni and Shia scholars.

[porus]

we had great Hazrat Ali (A.S)who lived during and after the compilation of Quran......
...why didnt he doubt and continued following the same copy of Quran?

Histories are never accurate as they incorporate bias of narrators.

When Ali became Khalifa, copies of the Quran had already been distributed to all corners of Dar-al-Islam. That he accepted the Quran may have a lot to do with his desire for the unity of the Mulim nation. This is also the reason why he did not press his claim to be the First Khalifa.

The following is a Sunni view of how Quran came to be compiled.

Prophet uttered the revelation and ordered it to be written down by a few literate companions on whatever was available, like leather parchments and bones. He also pointed out the correct place for the ayat to be placed in a sura. This writing was witnessed by at least two companions, in addition to the one who did the writing. These companions also memorized the ayats. However, different companions were at hand at times of revelation and the writing was distributed amongst these companions, each possessing a part of the Quran. Substantial portion of the revelations was kept in Prophet’s house.

It has also been related that Prophet himself verified the accuracy of the written Quran. This suggests that Prophet was literate and this view is strongly supported by Sahih Bukhari which relates him writing during the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya.

Thus the Quran was completely compiled and written down, although not in a book form, during Prophet’s lifetime and under his supervision and knowledge. After the death of the Prophet, Abu Bakr ordered Zayd ibn Thabit to copy the writing onto pages. The completed Quran passed from Abu Bakr to Umar and then to Umar’s daughter, Hafsah, who was also Prophet’s widow.

During Uthman’s caliphate, disputes arose out of different styles of recitations and because several other variants of written Quran were found in places far away from Medina. Thus Uthman ordered that a single copy of Quran, based on Hafsah's original, be made official and distributed throughout Islam. The subsequent revisions of Quran have only added symbols to facilitate recitation and memorization but it has not altered it in any way. And that is the copy we now have.

The Shia view is that Quran was compiled by Ali, but I have not seen a detailed description of how that has come about except mytho-history surrounding Ali. However, there is a persistent story that Ali had objected to the arrangement made by Uthman, but not to the content. (This could be verified if he we had Hafsah’s copy, but alas, that seems to have gone missing).

There is also a well-known tale about Ali saying that he is the Quran-e-Naatiq (Speaking Quran) and that the copy of the Quran is Saamit (Silent Quran). This can be taken to mean that without his guidance Quran is not understandable. This view also accords well with the Shia belief that Muhammad, at Ghadeer-e-Khum, had said that Quran and ahl-e-bayt cannot be separated.

Thus Ali’s acceptance of Quran requires that it is supplemented by guidance from Ahl-e-Bayt.

Although a long post, this is a very brief review. This is a complicated subject and I am not completely satisfied with either the Sunni or the Shia view. However, if Ali accepted it and we can only proceed on the basis that the Quran we now is completely accurate and that is the belief all Muslims.

[anajmi]

This suggests that Prophet was literate and this view is strongly supported by Sahih Bukhari which relates him writing during the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya.

This is the hadith of bukhari

Sahih Muslim
Book 019, Number 4403:
It has been narrated on the authority of Bara’ who said: When the Prophet (may peace be upon him) was checked from going to the Ka’ba, the people of Mecca made peace with him’on the condition that he would (be allowed to) enter Mecca (next year) and stay there for three days, that he would not enter (the city) except with swords in their sheaths and arms encased in their covers, that he would not take eway with him anyone from its dwellers, nor would he prevent anyone from those with him to stay on in Mecca (if he so desired). He said to ‘Ali: Write down the terms settled between us. (So ‘Ali wrote): In the name of Allah, most Gracious and most Merciful. This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has settled (with the Meccans), The polytheists said to him: If we knew that thou art the Messenger of of Allah, we would follow you. But write: Muhammad b. ‘Abdullah. So he told ‘Ali to strike out these words. ‘Ali said: No, by Allah, I will not strike them out. The Messenger of Allah (may Peace be upon him) said: Show me their place (on the parchment). So he (‘Ali) showed him their place and he (the Holy Prophet) struck them out; and he wrote: Ibn ‘Abdullah.(According to the terms of the treaty, next year) the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) stayed there for three days When it was the third day, they said to ‘Ali: This is the last day according to the terms of your companion. So tell him to leave. ‘Ali informed the Prophet (may peace be upon him) accordingly. He said: Yes, and left (the city). Ibn Janab in his version of the tradition used:” we would swear allegiance to you” instead of” we would follow you”.

The prophet asked Hazrat Ali to stike out "Messenger of Allah". Hazrat Ali couldn't strike the title of the prophet, so the prophet asked him to point it out and then the prophet (saw) struck it out himself. Then "he" wrote ibn Abdullah. Now it is clear that the prophet couldn't read. And "he" could point either to the prophet or Hazrat Ali.

This is another narration from Bukhari

Sahih al Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan

When Suhail bin Amr came, the Prophet said, “Now the matter has become easy.” Suhail said to the Prophet “Please conclude a peace treaty with us.” So, the Prophet called the clerk and said to him, “Write: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.” Suhail said, “As for ‘Beneficent,’ by Allah, I do not know what it means. So write: By Your Name O Allah, as you used to write previously.” The Muslims said, “By Allah, we will not write except: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.” The Prophet said, “Write: By Your Name O Allah.” Then he dictated, “This is the peace treaty which Muhammad, Allah’s Apostle has concluded.” Suhail said, “By Allah, if we knew that you are Allah’s Apostle we would not prevent you from visiting the Kaba, and would not fight with you. So, write: “Muhammad bin Abdullah.” The Prophet said, “By Allah! I am Apostle of Allah even if you people do not believe me. Write (uktub) : Muhammad bin Abdullah.”

This is only a part of the narration, where the prophet (saw) is saying - "Write (uktub) : Muhammad bin Abdullah.”

Besides, this is what the quran says

029.048
YUSUFALI: And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted.
PICKTHAL: And thou (O Muhammad) wast not a reader of any scripture before it, nor didst thou write it with thy right hand, for then might those have doubted, who follow falsehood.
SHAKIR: And you did not recite before it any book, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted.

007.157
YUSUFALI: "Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),-,,,,,,
PICKTHAL: Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, .....
SHAKIR: Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi,

If Bukhari had mentioned that the prophet could read and write, clearly, which he has not, he still couldn't be believed.

[porus]

Lo. anajmi says that this is from Sahih Bukhari and then proceeds to quote from Sahih Muslim.
But I see what he means.

This is the hadith I had in mind.

Volume 3, Book 49, Number 863:

Narrated Al-Bara:

When the Prophet intended to perform 'Umra in the month of Dhul-Qada, the people of Mecca did not let him enter Mecca till he settled the matter with them by promising to stay in it for three days only. When the document of treaty was written, the following was mentioned: 'These are the terms on which Muhammad, Allah's Apostle agreed (to make peace).' They said, "We will not agree to this, for if we believed that you are Allah's Apostle we would not prevent you, but you are Muhammad bin 'Abdullah." The Prophet said, "I am Allah's Apostle and also Muhammad bin 'Abdullah." Then he said to 'Ali, "Rub off (the words) 'Allah's Apostle' ", but 'Ali said, "No, by Allah, I will never rub off your name." So, Allah's Apostle took the document and wrote, 'This is what Muhammad bin 'Abdullah has agreed upon: No arms will be brought into Mecca except in their cases, and nobody from the people of Mecca will be allowed to go with him (i.e. the Prophet ) even if he wished to follow him and he (the Prophet ) will not prevent any of his companions from staying in Mecca if the latter wants to stay.' When the Prophet entered Mecca and the time limit passed, the Meccans went to 'Ali and said, "Tell your Friend (i.e. the Prophet ) to go out, as the period (agreed to) has passed." So, the Prophet went out of Mecca. The daughter of Hamza ran after them (i.e. the Prophet and his companions), calling, "O Uncle! O Uncle!" 'Ali received her and led her by the hand and said to Fatima, "Take your uncle's daughter." Zaid and Ja'far quarrel ed about her. 'Ali said, "I have more right to her as she is my uncle's daughter." Ja'far said, "She is my uncle's daughter, and her aunt is my wife." Zaid said, "She is my brother's daughter." The Prophet judged that she should be given to her aunt, and said that the aunt was like the mother. He then said to 'All, "You are from me and I am from you", and said to Ja'far, "You resemble me both in character and appearance", and said to Zaid, "You are our brother (in faith) and our freed slave."

I have transliterated the bolded sentence in its original Arabic. It reads:

“Fa akhadha rasulul-lahi salla-allhu alayhi wa aalihi wasallim al kitaba fa-kataba, …”

A more accurate translation of this is:

“So, the Messenger of Allah, Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him and his family, took the book, and he wrote…..”

Obviously, both Bukhari and Muslim may have erred, but not according to the received opinion.

As to the ayats quoted, please remind yourselves that they are not the Quran but merely opinionated translations.

[Humsafar]

anajmi, as i said elsewhere on this forum, belief and disbelief in God is a pointless argument. God cannot be known "intellectually". No amount of knowledge (religious or otherwise) will take you there. In that sense there is nothing to know and nothing to understand. Words - of the quran or any other sacred text - cannot take you to truth, they may point to it but are neither sufficient nor necessary in your quest. That is if you're seriously seeking truth. Religion is just a sop, a shallow alternative to the real thing. Reading the quran or praying 5 times a day has not brought anyone any enlightenment. Nor is it meant to, that is why those who are earnest about truth sooner or later abandon religion and go beyond it.

[anajmi]

please remind yourselves that they are not the Quran but merely opinionated translations.

That applies to everything anyone has ever written about anything at all. It means nothing.

Humsafar,

Reading the quran or praying 5 times a day has not brought anyone any enlightenment. Nor is it meant to, that is why those who are earnest about truth sooner or later abandon religion and go beyond it.

That is a pretty big statement from someone who has earlier claimed that

For in reality there is nothing to know, nothing to understand.

I am seriously thinking that you are simply pulling these sentences out of thin air or elsewhere. With all your high flying claims that mean nothing, even you haven't abandoned religion. So much for teaching us about enlightenment!!

[Biradar]

My first question to you is why do i need to go through the history of bohras and ismailis and why should i ? Am i here to prove that bohras are wrong or right? Why do i have to go put everyting through the sunni and shia and bohra framework. I simply want to learn about Islam and what i have learned is that all i need is the Quran and Sunnah.

The assumption I had is that you are a bohra and want to remain one. You are free to leave and do whatever you wish. For us "learning about Islam" means putting it into a proper framework. You have already implicitly selected a framework: one of translations and sunna by the leading Sunni theologians. Bohra's reject that. For them, the framework is guidance of a living teacher, hadith of the imams in addition to that of the prophet. Interpretation of the quran is a highly non-trivial job and simply having the book in front of us is not enough. For example, you are reading a translation. That is an interpretation itself, of Yusuf Ali or Shakir or anyone else you choose. We prefer to trust the knowledge of the imams and the da'i in this matter, as we consider them far more qualified that some random translator.

Also, as far as sabaks are concerned: if you are not happy about the system you do not need to follow it. Simply read and learn on your own. The system of teaching in a graded and rigorous manner is very old and is not going to change. The progressives do not want to abolish a method of learning that has helped preserve our culture and literature for over a thousand years. The bohras and Ismailis were persecuted for centuries. In fact, Sayedna Kutub al-din was put to death by Aurangzeb and our literature burnt. The fact that it survived is due to the nature of traditional instruction which allowed the careful preservation of manuscripts in multiple libraries.

I see that you have already made up your mind. It is no use arguing with you. Best of luck in your spiritual journey: hopefully you will find better solace than you did when you were a bohra.

[Biradar]

Those who think that the Bohras believe the "real quran is with the imam" should produce proof for this. Otherwise, one would conclude that all their views on bohras are based on hatred and lies. The da'is have never said that the quran in not authetic or the "real" one is with them or the imam. In fact, as I said before, the present sayedna has started on many projects to teach the quran to the bohras. The mahad az-zahra in Surat is an example.

The sayedna teaches meanings of certain verses of the quran in many of his sermons. One only needs to pay attention and not doze off. Of course, his sermons are not always easy to understand, not because he does not explain it well, but because the subject matter is difficult.

Anyway, no bohra questions the authenticity of the quran. Just another slanderous lie.

[ghulam muhammed]

ghulam muhammad,

It is not polite to mock any people's mode of worship. However distasteful it may be to your sensibilities, you might at least try to understand their reasons for praying as they do.

Azaan is not integral to namaaz. It is a call to prayer and, if you wish, you can dispense with it altogether if you are praying on your own. If a Shia wants to add that 'Ali is the wali of Allah', then it is good innovation on the basis of their belief. Would Prophet Muhammad disagree that Ali is the wali of Allah?

Bro Porus,

Where is the question of mocking someones mode of worship ? Have I used any foul language ? I have only stated the manner in which bohras pray.

There is no iota of doubt regarding greatness of Mola Ali (a.s.) and no one can dare to disagree of He being the wali of Allah least of all the Prophet (s.a.w.) Himself but the question is as to whether ANY Imams after Mola Ali (a.s.) incorporate the word ALI in their azaan ? If not so then why this innovation later on. If this is valid then the kothar and abdes will say that Burhanudin saab is the rightful dai appointed by the Imam in seclusion and so why not add 'dai un Burhanudin' in the azaan. Where will all this lead us to ?

[Hussain_KSA]

On records first time in Egypt during Era of Imam Moize the word "Aliun Waliullah" was heard in Azaan in Jamia tul Azhar. Which means this is not new and not present innovation. One can check the books by Dr. Zahid Ali and even on internet you can find it.

[Muslim First]

by Biradar on Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:10 pm

Those who think that the Bohras believe the "real quran is with the imam" should produce proof for this.

Just like ismailis their answer will be, "Nobody will accept it". So the saga of "Shia Phantom Qur'an " will go on.

Wasalaam

[accountability]

MF my friend you are distorting the facts. Biradar is right in asking for proof. I have never heard that Quran we recite is not the original one. Lately there is an over emphasis on memorizing Quran.
Biradar, Syedna saheb seldom quote any ayah form quran, I have heard so many waeez but his waeez are narration only except some occassional refrences. It is also true, that most of the amils who quote ayahs they try to manipulate the meaning.

[Al Zulfiqar]

by Biradar on Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:10 pm

Those who think that the Bohras believe the "real quran is with the imam" should produce proof for this.

Just like ismailis their answer will be, "Nobody will accept it". So the saga of "Shia Phantom Qur'an " will go on.

Wasalaam

Bro. MF,

i am surprised that for someone who is an ex-bohra, you do not know the difference in the beliefs and practices between bohras and ismaili khojas, or do you deliberately generalise just out of an all-consuming anti-shia feeling? this sort of blind generalisation does not do you justice.

[mutmaeen]

bro acc

most wa az of syedna are replete with aayats of quran and their meaning-in fact most waez have a theme of a surah of quran which the syedna explains in detail