Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

submitter71

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About submitter71

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Sunni

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I do not believe that it is. Though I assume that by this you meant that other famous reciters from the seven recited it in this manner, and you would be correct. The purpose of this thread is to dispel the belief that there is only one recitation and that everything that goes against Hafs is false.
  2. I did. The only time he comments on which recitation is permissible and which isn't is in that paragraph.
  3. Salam, I was reading Tusi's book Tahzeeb Al Ahkam and he was speaking about the verse of wudu and if we are to recite by saying arjulikum or arjulakum. He said "If someone asks: Why don't you read with nasb of the feet since it is what most reciters recite, and it cannot mean anything but washing? We would say: (First) The recitation of jar is the agreed upon recitation and the nasb is disagreed upon because we say that the recitation with nasb is not permissible, and that the recitation that was revealed was with jar." فإن قيل : فاين انتم عن القراءة بنصب الارجل وعليها أكثر القراء وهي موجبة للغسل ولا يحتمل سواه؟ قلنا : (أول) ما في ذلك ان القراءة بالجر مجمع عليها والقراءة بالنصب مختلف فيها لانا نقول ان القراءة بالنصب غير جائزة وإنما القراءة المنزلة هي القراءة بالجر http://lib.eshia.ir/10083/1/70 This means that it is haram according to Tusi to recite وامسحوا برؤوسكم وأرجلَكم إلى الكعبين and that the correct recitation is وامسحوا برؤوسكم وأرجلِكم إلى الكعبين Tusi then quotes a hadith in which the Imam says that the correct recitation is the same one that he suggested. Do Shias here agree with this? Please do not change the subject. I will not be responding to those attempts.
  4. This is a very enjoyable discussion @Ibn al-Hussain. I did not expect to find posts at this level on Shiachat to be honest. It seems that I am not getting through to you because I may have not been as clear as I need to be. We both agree that Al Noori believed in naqs. Are you suggesting that his believe in naqs has no effect on the meanings and the correct understanding of the verses? Or do you agree with me that the belief in naqs causes us to understand the Quran in a way that Allah azza wa jal did not intend?
  5. @shiaman14 You posted in another thread: 1) Caliph Uthman consolidated 7 harf into 1. That is tahreef; he is a kafir I know that you are just making an argument and that you do not believe in the seven ahruf in the first place, but I wanted to remind you that Ali (as) approved of this, and that this is taught in Kazimiya University to Shias.
  6. Sorry for the late replies. It is very obvious that he did not believe that the Imams taught this, but this does not make a difference. The fact is that the Imams taught it and his ignorance is not an excuse. If another scholar was to do research and come to the conclusion that the current Quran is not from Allah, will that person still be a Muslim? Please give an answer with an explanation. @shiaman14 I will respond to you in my other thread on the Quran so that this topic doesn't get derailed.
  7. For the sake of not losing focus on the discussion, one of the meanings of "protected" according to most of your scholars that go against Noori, is that this includes protection from naqs. It is only logical that the existence of naqs makes it unprotected. I hope you can admit this in your next reply. The Sunnis believe in the Hujjiyah of the Prophet peace be upon him because of the evidences of his infallibility in bringing us the message, which we find in the Quran, like in Al Najm 3-4 and Al Haqa 44-47. If the Imams taught that the Quran is protected from naqs, which makes it a hujja, wouldn't rejecting their view and holding the view that it is not protected from naqs, and that it isn't a hujja, kufur?
  8. Don't you agree that the absence of a word from the Quran could change the meaning of a verse? If so then how is the Quran protected? If the Quran is not protected, then it is not a hujja on mankind. This belief in kufr.
  9. First of all, I would like to thank you for being the first person to ask for evidence. Everyone else on this thread has shrugged off what I would say as insignificant or false. In this link you can find Al Saduq and his teacher Ibn Babawayh accepting these hadiths http://www.alhassanain.com/arabic/book/book/al_hadith_and_its_sciences_library/bodies_of_hadith/man_la_yahdhoroho_alfaqih_1/22.html Scroll to the bottom to page 359 and 360. Here is a wiki page about the book and its content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Istibsar This is a page on Al Tusi which mentions that Istibsar is four volumes long in the footnotes https://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/vol-2-1976/great-shii-works-tahdhib-al-ahkam-and-al-istibsar-al-tusi/great-shii-works
  10. You are making the assumption that the 100+ narrations that teach prayer in Saheeh Al Bukhari are riddled with contradictions. Please present your evidences instead of making assumptions.
  11. The contradictions in our authentic narrations are not many, as I have explained before. Again, the Shia contradictions in fiqh are four volumes long. The blame is not aimed at the narrators, it is aimed at the Imams. I hope my point is getting across.
  12. As I have explained, the recitations are based on the 7 ahruf. So, if the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa salam recited harf 1 of Al Baqara then harf 2 for Al Imran, and you memorized that combination, then you would have "recitation X". The masahif Uthman (ra) burned are based on combinations of the 7 ahruf. It is possible that some of these masahif did represent a harf in its entirety though. I know it is somewhat confusing. Please be patient.
  13. Brother, I don't have an issue with these narrations in the first place. They are authentic according to both Sunnis and Shias. Good question. As you know, the reasons for differences of opinions are based on factors. These include not hearing of the hadith, not knowing of the authenticity of a hadith, assuming that a weak hadith is authentic, having a different interpretation of a hadith, etc. In other words, the reason for the differences of opinions in Sunni Islam are traced back to the scholars that are making their judgement. In Shia Islam, the differences of opinions are traced back to the Imams.
  14. Review my previous post from the curriculum in Al Kazimiyya. He burned other Masahif that were written differently and gathered the people on one mus-haf. I will answer your question about the original order later.
×
×
  • Create New...