Leaderboard

(salam) There are two problems here. Trust and communication. Your wife does not trust you enough to share her reasons for going somewhere. And from the look of it you also don’t trust her enough by thinking of withholding your permission. You and your wife need to be better at communicating. You are sharing this with a bunch of random stranger on Internet when you should really be talking to your wife in trying to understand and resolve this issue.

ali_hussain im afraid your arguments dont carry much weight against ayatollah khorasani. he says its ok, deal with being wrong. i take it you missed the bit where he said "if blood flows, let it flow" as in, blood or no blood, its allowed. see ayatollah sadeq rouhanis fatwa which is even more explicit - to the point he requests azadars like us to do a dua for him - the marja taqleed requesting azadars like us to do a dua for HIM. not the other way around. you losers really need to appreciate that there are marjas on both sides of the fence.

Istikhara is to be used in certain circumstances when there is no genuine way to work out what to do by normal means. However, this is a complete no-brainer. If you need to do istikhara for this, then what don't you need to do it for? Anyway, if you use it when it is unnecessary, it probably won't work.

The Student & the Teacher As the student falls in love with his teacher… know we are proud to be students of Jafar From his knowledge... comes our courage * * * This is the intellect breathed into Medina… this is the pearl that was given to Um Farwa In his blood flows the courage, valor of Haider… his tongue spoke the sword of the hero of Badr If Ali's sword took Mohammed's pen and taught To each battle Jafar's school it would have brought From this image... comes our courage * * * Imagine a teacher God's words inherited… and spread these words far and wide despite all hatred And with holy ink a grand canvas he painted… till a better world for all of us he crafted What do you expect when his mother's a rose And a lion's heart for her husband she chose From this lineage... comes our courage * * * This teacher to a father he can be likened… when he enlightened a student's soul once blackened He welded the student's mind to be well-reasoned… yet how did it reason with its beloved poisoned? How does the orphan not weep on his father? How does the eye weep upon wisdom's murder? From this voyage... comes our courage * * * He who attacks our beliefs and with confidence… know Imam Sadiq breathed into our world conscience He taught Jaber Ibn Hayyan of his science… and the four Sunni Imams of jurisprudence He taught men who'd come to him from far and wide Who knows how far his knowledge spread with this tide With pride vintage... comes our courage * * * He who hates us for placing ourselves in this sect… know that we have seen our religion as perfect We analyze every lesson and we reflect… what separates us from you is our intellect For with this school we are free to think and learn With open minds we've searched and found religion From this message... comes our courage * * * I was blessed to learn in this school but a student… to be called a Shia makes life worth each moment Imam Sadiq had paved the way for this movement.. we are swept away with its undying current Truly in this Quranic verse wisdom lives 'You must show love toward my near relatives' From this passage... comes our courage * * * It is we who preserved the faith of Mohammed… on one side through his teachings that Sadiq rethread The other raised upon a spear, a severed head… Hussain as on Karbala's dust his body bled It is us through our endless cries and wails Have to Islam's true teachings left blood-trails From this damage... comes our courage * * * Nouri Sardar London - 13/09/11

This is crazy...I hate when people are secretive on either side of the marriage, it doesn't promote a healthy relationship. I have never had to ask "permission" to leave because my spouse trusts me.....but I always tell where I am going, it is the considerate thing to do. I don't even ask my husband where he is going when he walks out of the door, but he always tells me....because he is considerate. Try talking to her, make her understand that she has you worried...if she can't understand then something is wrong with her or she is just extremely selfish.

First off, one thing. PENIS and CLITORIS are not dirty words to be starred out like they're obscenities. They are clinical, medical terms. The prophet (saws) and aimmah (as), when they talked of such matters, used the proper Arabic terms without getting bent out of shape about it. Second, if one or two posts are too flippant, maybe the intelligent thing to have done would have been to actually read the other posts instead of crudely slashing and burning everything in a 10 post radius en masse. A medical equivalent would be "treating" a small infection on one of the fingers by hacking off the whole hand with a scimitar. I recognize there's a line somewhere, but please use a bit more precision in trying to identify it and enforce it in future.

i love the insults, carry on pls

Why do an istikhara? What kind of man would let his wife go anywhere under these circumstances? It is completely absurd. Even non-Muslims wouldn't allow this.

Yes, maybe she has a thing for wholegrain goodness (!?!???) o.O that must be the most off topic comment ive ever seen.

maybe she is a cereal killer! :)

Lots of worrying things here. A wife isn't allowed to jst go off somewhere whenever she feels like it without telling you why. In fact, she isn't even allowed to leave the house without your permission. She shouldn't really have friends of the opposite gender either, and you clearly feel uncomfortable with this to some degree or you wouldn't be here asking the question. Considering she doesn't want to tell you why she is going, I don't blame you. In my opinion, under no circumstances should you allow her to go alone. At the minimum, she should have to tell you why she wants to go, and then you can perhaps review you decision. If she's only been to this place a few days before, how does she have friends there, and do you know them?

Salaamun 'Alaikum, REF: Why would you have a conference on Shia Islam and then invite someone like Dr. HOSSEIN NASR (Neocon and odd-ball sufi) and DR. ABDOLKARIM SOROUSH (One who has openly said the Qur'an has been corrupted and has denied the Walayah of Imam Ali (as))? Seriously, is this some joke? Why in the world is ShiaChat.com allowing this advertisement? Wa Salaam, Dhulfiqar

Sorry but, LOOOOL @ 'Dua Jawshin kabir is one of the major RAFIDHI duas'

Speaking of being pulled out of thin air, we should not forget that the point of giving Islam a bad image is itself NOT pulled out of thin air. The website www.tatbir.org has numerous ahadith in support of it, which, I am assuming, the maraja use in issuing their fatawa. So now we have clear ahadith saying don't embarrass Ahlul-Bayt (as) and make them look bad. On the other hand, the only "support" for tatbir is Owais, Sayyida Zaynab (as) (I have only seen the Shirazis say this is authentic; I have been told Shaykh Abbas Qummi (ra) denies it), Imam Mahdi (atfs) crying tears of blood, and Imam Sajjad (as) striking his head on a wall. If there is more, please bring it forth. But the point is that there were 9 Imams after Imam Al-Husayn (as) and plenty of blades in the Arabian Peninsula, yet none of them chose to strike their heads with any of those blades, nor did they even recommend or mention it to their followers. If the Imams (as) were perfectly capable of doing an action and yet did not do it, how in the world can it be recommended???

I think the point is that there is a clear Islamic answer to this, and talking about issues such as trust and communication is just diverting from the real problem, which is his wife has no idea whatsoever about how a Muslim wife is supposed to behave (or any kind of wife quite frankly). Even if he trusted his wife completely, why should he allow her to go off on this holiday under these circumstances? Even in the best case scenario, where he trusts her and that she tells him why she wants to go, it is still unacceptable for her to travel alone to see her friends of both genders while insisting on going alone.

your whole argument falls to pieces when presented with a simple problem ... why does 'showing love' for the Imams HAVE to be through these cultural rituals, there are a million and 1 other ways to show your love and gain even more thawab than doing these rituals. NOT doing them isn't haram either, not even makruh. if you really want to do it, go into your backyard shed, get a few boys together, lock the doors, and slice your self up. heck even shove your hand down a food blender, no one will complain about that. but don't sink the rest of the shia down with you for an act that has no religious basis. i bet if you sponsored an orphan, you'd get more thawab than you would if you did azadari for 70 life-times.

Some people are writing as if they are Agony Aunts for some kafir women's magazine like Cosmopolitan. There is one problem here and that problem is the women leaving the house for a few days without so much as a by your leave to her husband. Whatever the other problems may be in this relationship - this is no excuse for either of them to engage in activity that could easily lead to sin or suspicion of sin. But as I said earlier I'd be surprised if real Muslims behaved in the manner described by the OP.

My pick. I try not to miss anything from these members, whether I agree or not. In alphabetical order. Aafreen: Posts rarely. It is hard to find a female who has such interest and command on matters of state and war. Abu Hadi: You can't improve your Islamic akhlaq above this gentleman's level. Very insightful in mattes small and big. baradar_jackson: A classic case of all that is wrong with the WFers. But the feelings are mutual :wub: kadhim: A top guy with this head where it should be. Great to read his inputs. macisaac: One of the ultra-conservative followers of classical Shia ulema in modern times; an Usooli nightmare, one of a kind hadith translator. Maryaam: Exactly how a girl should think, say and behave. A paragon of female wisdom in these retarded times. Maula Dha Mallang: Acid wit, passionate heart, and a source of constant headache for the conformists. There's simply none like him. Psycopath: A previous member with a new name. I started off fighting him on the forum but discovered his mettle soon after. His posts, whenever they appear, are worth reading. Zareen, Calm and InshaAllah: Looking for balance and always trying to maintain it. No wonder they are charged with the duty of policing the forum. I am sure I have missed some great posters. Also, there are many old members who either left or turned inactive and whom I admired in good ol' days. NoorFatima, waiting, Iqra and Dialectician (who started "what are you reading currently") to name a few.

I used to hate seeing these pictures. But you know what I learned during my travels? It's perfect this way. To keep the sissy boys out of our armies.

(salam), Ever since I was first taught this story, and how it somehow proved the closeness of Abu Bakr, I've never really understood its interpretation. Entrusting someone else the valuables entrusted to him is definitely trust. Trusting this same person that he will not reveal the plan, of your migration to your enemies, is also trust. But taking someone with you... how is that trust? The main priority at the moment was that the plan does not get disclosed before time. Imagine there being a kid in the place of Abu Bakr. When kids find out things very few people know, they're eager to tell everyone about it. The best and wisest option, at the time hence, was to take the nosy kid with you so he does not ruin your plan.

(Begin tangent) Whoa, whoa. Let's not mix up two vastly different things here. Matam/tatbeer/etc were literally pulled out of the air despite lack of any foundation in the traditions. Whereas with Khomeini and chess, while results of his analysis differed from those of literalist readers of traditions, the results were nevertheless based on an acknowledgement and analysis of the relevant traditions. He didn't ignore the traditions; he convincingly demonstrated they related to a no longer relevant context. He accepted the traditions, but also pointed out the overt connection in those traditions between chess and a gambling context, and observed that this is no longer part of the context of chess as it is normally casually played. Reference to the traditions, acknowledgement of the traditions, and meaningful, thoughtful analysis of them. As opposed to these weird rituals, where the basis is some man-made adrenaline junkie rush rationalized as "expression of love." (End tangent)

There is nothing wrong with healthy sex drive. Just don't fall into haram. Find a permanent solution i.e. get married or do mutah ... keep it halal yo!

Haider Husayn is given you an excellent reply above, so that I cannot add much to that. However, when the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Holy Quran, it is meant to be the Angel Gabreil, and not God. In Islam, God doesn't have multiple personalities.

Thoughts: either m dumb ( most likely ) or the jokes / sarcasm in this thread is to complicated for be to understand :huh: Or maybe coz I don't read all the posts :mellow:

No. Enough. We need to stop apologizing for these donkeys. It just enables them.

Favorite post: Ruh.Mujarad laying the smackdown on the deviants...

Brother I know a quite a bit about search engine optimisation and to some extent I know how Google's ranking algorithm works. I have a number of websites that are amongst the top results on Google for certain keywords. Google is actually very democratic with how it ranks its results. The most likely reason why those images appeared in Google's results page for the word 'shiite' is because people are linking that word with those images on their sites, and google takes the content of more famous sites more seriously. To prove my point let's consider at the first image on their results page: http://www.belch.com/img/shiite-karbala.jpg Notice the word 'shiite' is in the file name? The image is from this page: http://www.belch.com/blog/2006/03/20/shiite-moslems-finally-free-to-flagellate/ See how the word 'shiite' is in a <h1> tag? (look at the source code) and it's also in the <title> tag. There are some other factors (such as the alt attribute of the image and the links to that page) that can make the Google engine think that the word 'shiite' should be associated with that image. Look at the baby cuttign picture, it If Google tailored their results in favour of Jews then would they ever need to release a statement like this: http://www.google.com/explanation.html

That made me chuckle!

JazakAllah Khair everyone for the kind words. I didn't ask kam to make this thread so please don't think it was me telling him to get attention or anything like that .. hes a great friend :wub: And everyone please I urge you don't make dua that My problems get solved, rather make dua that Allah (swt) grants me sabr. I believe that would be better. JazakAllah Khair. May Allah (swt) grant sabr to all those who have problems or solve their problems if it is better for it to be solved in their situation. (the reason I quoted everyone was so that you all get notifications and see this post)

Brother, what does the fact that she is a convert/revert have to do with anything? There are reverts on this thread that have no problem with the concept, just as there are 'born-Muslims' who do. The vast majority of Muslim women in the mordern world wouldn't be happy about their husbands doing muta, whether they are aware of it or not. Neither would they be happy to only be one of several wives. Even back in the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as), we see that women were not always accepting of these things. Let's not get sucked into creating an 'us and them' atmosphere. We are all Muslims here, and there is no advantage in being born into a Muslim family. If anything, born Muslims often have even more problems than reverts when it comes to correct Islamic beliefs, because they have the influence of both their own ethnic culture and the all-pervasive modern Western secular culture. Certainly, I much prefer speaking to reverts than most cultural Muslims.

(bismillah) (salam) Can't stop laughing at this: http://www.7cgen.com...opic=46248&st=0 Priceless.

this is my wife advice on this matter... I'm sorry to hear about your unfortunate matter. Seems your sister has been mislead. May Allah forgive her and guide her on the correct path Inshallah. Sister don't talk to your parents but try to confront your sister. Ask her about her time outside of your home and try to gain her confidence. If she opens up to you good and well but if not tell her you found it and were very upset. And try to find out why she did it. Talking calmly and concerned will be the best. And tell her your not going to tell the parents but warn her of the consequences if they find out. Perhaps there was a reason for her to act in such a way. And try to make her see that she's gone astray and to repent. I hope my advice helps. Everyone makes mistakes but if you come down too hard on her it will push her awaym I hope you find a way soon. Inshallah. Good luck.

look to be very honest,she is already dead,just her body is alive her soal is dead,so i think u better talk with ur parents or give them some hint about her action,may be some way will come out. and yes no matter what dont let her leave ur country once again,coz if she goes this time,she wont be back. inna lillah wainna ilahi rajeun.

I am near to 100 posts but not even a single Thread from My side;any appreciations??? ;) I do enjoy Shia_Debater n _Jugnii's post. :)

Let me break it down: The city of Kufa is not a conventional city like Makkah or Madinah. Places became cities in Arabia when a number of tribes gathered in that area and made it their home. However, the city of Kufa did not exists in the time of the Prophet (pbuh) or Abu Bakr, as there were no tribes living in that area. In 17AH, during the caliphate of Umar, after the expansion of the Muslim world into Persia, there was a need to station the army close to the Persian border for easy mobilisation. For this purpose, Umar asked Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, a prominent companion and the leader of the army that led the conquest of Persia, to create a garrison town in this area. Thus, troops were stationed there. However, in order to create a city, tribes were asked to move from the Arabian peninsula into Iraq, and thus Sa'd shifted a number of tribes there. Then how come the confusion that everyone in Kufa was Shia, when it was founded by two people who were not known for their love of Imam Ali (as) or his Shia? The answer is because Imam Ali (as) made the city of Kufa his capital in 36AH. Now, just because he made it his capital, doesn't magically make everyone his Shia. There were many people in Kufa who had believed in the caliphs previously, and believed in Imam Ali (as) as the fourth caliph. To use today's terminology, they were Sunnis and fought alongside Imam Ali (as) in the battles of Jamal and Siffin. There were others who disliked the Banu Umayyah and therefore chose Ali (as) over Muawiya not because they believed in Ali (as) as the Imam, but because they preferred him over the son of Hind. This group of people made up the majority of the people of Kufa. And then there were those who believed in Ali (as) as the supreme authority after the Holy Prophet (pbuh). These were few in number; the likes of Ammar ibn Yasir, Asbagh ibn Nubata, Malik al-Ashtar, Maytham al-Tammar and a few others fall into this category. As for the mourning of Imam Husayn (as), it is fairly apparent to anyone unbiased observer of history that the events that took place in Karbala were of a horrific nature had they happened to any group of human beings. The fact that it was inflicted upon the Holy Prophet's family by those who professed the religion of the same Prophet, might be lost on some people, but it is not lost on the followers of Holy Prophet and his family. Mourning is thus a natural reaction.

Come on bro, you know better than to say such a thing... how can something worthless carry any weight? ^_^

The map picture is OK.

Can I say "some of us ruined the image of our religion" without anyone having a go at me?

Allah says that its a sign of hypcorisy " to like to be praised what you have not achieved" your ethnicity is not something you achieved so that you can be proud of your ideology is different, you can be proud of your ideology if you are following truth (culture included if it enforces religious practices)

Look is just a temporary thing, so better select a good one (black or white) instead of white one.

I don't think that male muslims are trying to ruin the lifestyle of female muslims. Honestly until visiting this site I haven't come across so many people with such a negative view of women and I have been Shia muslim my entire life (I am sure you will reply with an attack on my family and loved ones) and I really don't think a man has the right to be "offended" about someone not believing in FGM since a vagina is not part of the male anatomy.

It's 48 minutes, this is the first time I'm hearing their is ahadith that make permission of first wife obligatory...I don't really feel like listening to 48 minutes just to hear the hadith part...but I'll take your word for it. You mean people guessing at the trustworthiness of other people?

I cant help the fact that most women are just utterly stupid when it comes to these things. Just shut it and get married to a good man who can take care of you, if you guys ever do mature, you shall thank me later. If you do not want to be mature about this, then I seriously hope you do not raise hell if your husband one day is repulsed by your nose or the few wrinkles you have developed.

Salams OP From what I understand.. The em'akhar is a cultural not an Islamic concept... it only became 'popular' when the gift was too much for the potential husband to afford so it was split in two as an em'addam and an em'akhar... $$ were therefore put on paper/in a contract without realising that they were always meant to gift it at some point. Technically the wife should be able to access the money/gift she has received at any time during the marriage (she can save though if she wanted to). Ie the man should have the money at his disposal prior to the marriage taking place and she can use it at anytime for any reason. It is a gift.. since when does a gift come later?? Particularly in circumstances such as divorce! It definitely wouldnt be a wedding gift at that point, but the end of a promise they needed to fulfil anyway. What people fail to remember is that when they get married, they are making a covenant with Allah (swt) about the person they are married to.. so, if they break anything in their contract... it's not between them and their spouse.. it's technically between them and Allah (swt) (for the wife in question)..... yes, heavy going! If the husband dies, and does not have that money available for his wife (lets not even go to divorce), than he has not provided for his wife as he promised he would. Obviously in those circumstances, the wife can choose to forgo that money, but it is important to keep in mind the magnitude of such a promise, especially one that cannot realistically ever be kept. Whatever the agreed amount between the families should be kept between the familes.... what needs to be kept in mind is that the gift needs to always be at the husband's disposal - it is a gift and is NOT ONLY in the case of death/divorce... if it was, it would be a very morbid gift!

Tsk tsk. This is disgraceful people. You're letting trivial politics by satanic politicians cause all this hatred among yourselves, so much so, you resort to personal insults and go as far as appending inappropriate things to each others mothers and sisters. From al-Kafi: Abu al-‘Abbas narrates: “Once I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah (a) about the minimum degree of al-Shirk (paganism). The Imam (a) said, ‘It is one’s inventing an opinion and thereafter loving and hating (people) on that basis.’” You seem to be very confident about your views on world politics and apparently know a lot about 'secret, hidden' agendas and whatever, yet you seem to lack knowledge about the hadith taught to kids which defines a Muslim as one from whose tongue other Muslims are safe. This is extremely shameful and know that you are a blot on SC, a blot on your parents and family and a blot on Muslims worldwide, for saying all that you said. ------- For future reference: I have taken the trouble of editing individual posts which were offensive. Next time, I'll delete all the offensive posts, in their entirety, so anyone using profanities will just be wasting his time thinking of how to ruffle the feathers of the person on the other end. Irrelevant things have been edited. Noah - has been banned. Mo. has been suspended. Thread unlocked. wa (salam)

Yea Mr. Zaveri, you do a very good job at escaping from answering questions. - In no way is saying that: 'The Imaam called this argument "fitnah"' an answer to the question of the 'ella of the narration. Nor does it explain why the Imams (as) took such a position. - The second issue which you clearly evaded (or let's say you yourself are confused about), was the fact that the Imams (as) in the other narrations that I quoted did actually take a stance in the issue, something which you asserted and denied at the same time. When the user "suus" directed the following question to you: "So, before I read your post, does that mean we're not even allowed to talk about this matter? (since its a bidd'a)" The first portion of your reply was: "Correct." Yet, we see that the Imams (as) did talk about this matter and did clarify the stance that the Shi'a should take at that time. (Surprisingly, again, you state the same thing. But the problem that arises is that you, on one hand, say that we are not even allowed to talk about this matter, and on the other hand, you say that the Imams (as) did talk about it and took a specific stance.) Now, back to the main topic: When one looks at the historical aspect of this debate, he/she can understand why the Imams (as) said that the Qur'an is muhdath (temporal) and not makhluq (created). However, soon it will also be clarified that the Qur'an being makhluq (which in fact shares the same meaning as "muhdath") is actually correct, but the reason behind refraining from using "makhluq" will be clarified in the following text. Brief historical background of this debate: - The issue of the creation of the Qur'an was not discussed during the initiate era of Islam. Rather, it was brought up in the era of the Umayyad dynasty via the Christians who enjoyed quite a lavish lifestyle under their rule. Sargon (I hope I translated it correctly) was a Christian who was appointed by Mu'awiya as a high official in the government. Sargon had a son, named "John al-Dimashqi" who assumed the position of his father after his demise until his resignation in the year 113 Hijri, where he devoted himself to writing against Islam until his death in the year 160 Hijri. One of the misconceptions that this person raised was the following: Is (the Word of Allah) without a beginning (i'll use the word eternal for this) or not? If the Muslims answered: Yes, it is without a beginning. He would reply that the Christians belief is indeed correct, (i.e. Jesus (as) is eternal). However, if they, on the contrary, answer no, he would say: then you claim that the speech of Allah is created. Now, what does John mean by this? The answer is that when a person says that the Qur'an is created, it implies that it is a lie and fabricated since it clearly contradicts with the following verse: The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. [4:171] The verse clearly describes Jesus (as) as "His word", so if God's word is eternal, then Jesus is eternal, and if not, then the Qur'an is created, meaning that it is subject to fabrication and contains lies. We conclude that the first people to raise this issue were the Christians, and then it spread to the Muslims and they began debating whether the word/speech of Allah (swt) is created or not. The peak of this debate was reached during the Abbasid era, where al-Ma'mun adopted the view that the Qur'an was indeed created. The Mu'tazila followed al-Ma'mun with this view, while the people of hadith rejected it. Al-Ma'mun however, didn't find it sufficient to believe in this theory and allow others to adopt the contrary. In fact, he forced others to believe in it in the year 218 Hijri, whereby he gathered the Muslims scholars and demanded that they all state that the Qur'an was created. This was, of course, for many political reasons which I don't see any need to discuss at this moment. Furthermore, history records incidents of bloodshed and killings as a result of debates on this issue. One party would issue verdicts against the other, sometimes accusing the other sects as becoming apostates if they adopt an opposite view regarding the creation of the Qur'an. For example, Ahmad bin Hanbal accuses whoever believes that the Qur'an is created is an apostate, and whoever doesn't believe that these people are kuffar is a kafer like them. For this reason, Ahlul-Bayt (as) asked the Shi'a to stay away from the political dispute that this issue created, and described it as a fitnah to cause division and lead to bloodshed between the Muslims. What is the Shi'a's stance regarding this topic? Evidently, the Shi'as at the time of this fitnah did not indulge in any debate. However, later scholars have commented and written about the topic. Scholars like Shaykh al-Saduq , whom Nader quoted the hadith from, gives an interpretation of the narrations in this regard and identifies the Shi'i stance. So what is the Shi'i view regarding this topic? Shaykh al-Saduq (ra) commented the following on the third narration provided in my previous post: "ومعنى ما فيه أنه غير مخلوق أي غير مكذوب ، ولا يعني به أنه غير محدث ، لانه قد قال : محدث غير مخلوق ، وغير أزلي مع الله تعالى ذكره." - "The meaning of it "not being created," is that it is not false and he [the Imam] does not mean that it is not temporal (another way of saying created), because he (as) said: "temporal but not created, and not eternal with God the Exalted." Al-Saduq also said: "It has been mentioned in the Book (the Qur'an) that the Qur'an is the speech of Allah, the revelation of Allah, the words of Allah, and the book of Allah. However, it did not contain [in it] that it is created. The reason that we refrained from describing it as "created" because "the created" linguistically could mean "fabricated/false." It is said [linguistically], "created/invented speech" (the original Arabic text is "kalaam makhluq") meaning false/invented/lie/etc Allah, the Glorified and Exalted says, "You only worship idols besides Allah and you create a lie" [shakir 29:17] (other translators of the Qur'an use the "invention"). Allah, the Exalted says: " We did not hear of this in the latter-day creed. This is nothing but a fabrication." [Qara'i 38:7] (The word ikhtilaq is mentioned in the Arabic text, ikhtilaq and khalq (creation, invention, etc) go back to the same root word). [ikhtilaaq] meaning invention and lying. Whoever claims that the Qur'an is makhluq, in the sense that it is false/a lie/invented is a liar. Whoever claims that it [the Qur'an] is makhluq in the sense that it is not false/invented then he has uttered the truth and said that is right and correct. Whoever claims that it [the Qur'an] is not created in the sense that it is not temporal, not revealed and not preserved is mistaken and uttered what negates the truth and correctness." (source: al-tawhid, by al-Shaykh al-Saduq). قد جاء في الكتاب أن القرآن كلام الله ، ووحي الله ، وقول الله وكتاب الله ، ولم يجيء فيه أنه مخلوق ، وإنما امتنعنا من إطلاق المخلوق عليه لأن المخلوق في اللغة قد يكون مكذوباً ، ويقال : كلام مخلوق أي مكذوب , قال الله تبارك وتعالى : (( إنما تعبدون من دون الله أوثانا وتخلقون إفكا )) [العنكبوت:17] أي كذباً ، وقال عز وجل حكاية عن منكري التوحيد : (( ما سمعنا بهذا في الملة الآخرة إن هذا إلا اختلاق )) [ص: 1 ] أي افتعال وكذب ، فمن زعم أن القرآن مخلوق بمعنى أنه مكذوب فقد كذب ، ومن قال : إنه غير مخلوق بمعنى أنه غير مكذوب فقد صدق وقال الحق والصواب ، ومن زعم أنه غير مخلوق بمعنى أنه غير محدث وغير منزل وغير محفوظ ، فقد أخطأ وقال غير الحق والصواب .( كتاب التوحيد : 158) Shaykh al-Tusi (ra) says: "The speech of Allah is His action, and it is created (he used "muhdath" which was previously translated as temporal, but also means created), and our scholars have refrained from describing it as "created" (makhluq) because [that description] implies that it is spurious (i.e. not authentic, not truly from God)." (source: al-Khilaaf, v. 6, p. 119) Finally, I'd like to note that the philosophers took a different approach than the theologians and clarified the reality behind "speech", and whether it is an external existent that is composed a true reality or not. They also spoke of the Qur'an, in the sense of being God's knowledge (i.e. distinguished from the verses which are "words" that we utter), then it is eternal in that sense. Whoever wants to read more on this issue (the philosophical approach) in more detail could refer to the Q/A on Ayatollah Sayyed Kamal al-Haydari's website. Wasalam.