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

Everything posted by submitter71

  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.
  15. This has been answered already. You do not have quality since your narrations keep contradicting each other. I went through some of Al Kafi just now in order to find narrations about the Prophet's salalahu alaihi wa salam actions and teachings in prayer from the beginning of the Book of Prayer until the Book of Travels. I only found fourteen narrations by him. Most of them were weak according to Shia hadith. The authentic ones are narrations that you probably consider narrations of bad quality. They say that he used to say salam to those that say salam to him in prayer. Another says that he made a mistake in prayer. See the chapter named Bab Man Takalam Fee Salatihi. Ahl Al Sunnah have over a hundred authentic narrations in Saheeh Al Bukhari about how the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa salam prayer. I am sorry, but there is not enough in Shia Islam from the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa salam for the religion to be complete. You need to rely on contradicting narrations from his progeny.
  16. We will get to that inshallah. I would like first to hear you accept the fact that Uthman (ra) did more than collect the masahif and re-order the chapters from longest to shortest. If not, just tell me that what they are teaching at Kazimiyya University is incorrect.
  17. We all learn Shariah from the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa salam. The claim that Shias make is that the infallibles only learn from infallibles, which is why all their teachings are correct, as opposed to others.
  18. It is good to see Shias here that are not extreme in their understanding. I am glad that Shias are admitting that even the Imams had to learn the Shariah from their companions and that it was not something that they know all along. The next question is do the Imams automatically know all Shariah as soon as the previous Imam dies?
  19. Perhaps I should stick to quoting Shia texts. According to the second and third year Shia Quran studies curriculum at the Kazimiyya University in Iraq, Shaykh Mudar Al Sahaf in Durus fi Ulum Al Quran page 62 writes: "The Muslims recited the Quran in many different recitations because of their different tongues, so there were differences in iirab which made them differ and become disunited. This led Huzaifa bin Al Yaman (36H) to return to Uthman quickly after the conquest of Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the people of Iraq, and to remind him that the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa aalih prohibited the people from differing in the Quran. He said: Move hastily before the Ummah falls into disunity like the Jews and the Christians. Uthman then brought the Muslims together under one recitation and it is the recitation that was known to the Muslims, that was gathered through tawatur from the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa aalih. He then prevented the other recitations and burned the other masahif or destroyed them, except the one that he chose and was copied by the committee of Zaid bin Thabit and others." I don't agree with everything here, but will you admit that Uthman did more than collect the Quran from longest to shortest before we carry on?
  20. This is a good start. There is no doubt that Aisha (ra), Ibn Umar (ra), and Abu Huraira (ra) are the from the top hadith narrators in Sunni books. However, I am sure that you know that there is a thousand other companions that narrated hadiths. If you are at the point in which you accept the narrations of others, then this is a step in the right direction. May Allah guide you to His path. Seriously? Most of the posts in this thread had nothing to do with my questions. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction by telling me which post answers my second question.
  21. Goldenhawk, it is good that you are aware of the difference. Indeed, there are mistakes in Sunni books and they are due to the narrators. This is the position of Sunni scholars. The Shia scholars do not hold such a position about the contradictions in the hadiths of the Imams. The finger is not pointed to the narrators, but it is pointed to the Imam. Once again, I repeat that this was the case with four volumes of contradictions. Your rationale about Aisha (ra) is a strange one. You are turning your back against all the prophetic hadiths because you do not like a companion. A more rational approach would be to accept prophetic hadiths that are narrated by other companions and to turn your back to Aisha (ra) alone. The same can be said about Abu Huraira (ra). If you do not like Abu Huraira (ra), it is not an excuse to turn against all the prophetic hadith. A rational reaction would be to accept hadiths from other companions and to reject Abu Huraira (ra) alone. I am saddened that the majority of the posts in this thread have nothing to do with the topic. I also noticed that some posts are emotionally driven and are directed at me instead of focusing on the topic. I will repeat my questions again. Why follow a sect that has relatively no prophetic hadiths? Why follow a sect in which you do not have the ability to know what the Imams taught? Sunnis have volumes of prophetic hadiths. We also have many narrations from Ahl Al Bayt, and they do not contain contradictions.
  22. I did not change my stance. Please do not make assumptions. The word Maliki and Maaliki are both written in the Uthmanic mus-haf as ملك. The Arabs had a tendency of not including the letter alif in some words. Other examples are الرحمن and ذلك. The correct pronunciations of both words are ذالك and الرحمان. So Maliki and Maaliki are both written as ملك, however the latter is pronounced as مالك. They are two words that mean different things are written in one way.
  23. Nobody should trust anything blindly. These two books were scrutinized centuries ago. Some scholars have criticized some hadiths while others trusted all the contents. Most importantly, they were not infallible. All they did was collect what they believed was Saheeh. Most of the narrators were not Nawasib. This is very inaccurate. I would not be surprised if the Nawasib in Saheeh Bukhari were as low as 1%. There were more non-Imami Shia narrators in Bukhari. Everybody please return to the topic of discussion instead of discussing Ghadeer. You have a thousand other threads for that. I also see some more posts about exaggerated numbers of hadiths. I responded to this in the previous page. I repeat my original questions for I did not get an answer yet: Why follow a sect that has relatively no prophetic hadiths? Why follow a sect in which you do not have the ability to know what the Imams taught? Sunnis have volumes of prophetic hadiths. We also have many narrations from Ahl Al Bayt, and they do not contain contradictions.
×
×
  • Create New...