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

SirajDin

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SirajDin

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Islam

Recent Profile Visitors

629 profile views
  1. The Sunni-Shia divide did not exist at the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him; therefore, there is no verse from the Qur'an or hadith from the Prophet forbidding a Sunni from marrying a Shia, or a Shia from marrying a Sunni; for the simple fact that the Qur'an and the Prophet's ahadith address Muslims (O ye who have faith) and not Sunnis or Shias, to the exclusion of one another. "Anyone who prays our prayer, faces our Qiblah, and eats of our sacrificed meat is a Muslim.", said the Prophet, peace be upon him. A Muslim can marry another Muslim. Fatwas that prohibit "Sunnis" from marrying Shias are based on the individual opinions and prejudices of the "scholars" that issued them, not on something that Allah سبحانه وتعالی and His Prophet صلّی الله عليه وآله وسلّم said. Al-Azhar, the most well-known Sunni institution of learning, has declared that Shias and Sunnis are both Muslims, and that a marriage between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman is valid, regardless of their difference in madhhab. Wahhabi sheikhs, who typically make takfir of Shias, may prohibit a Sunni-Shia marriage; but they don't represent the whole of Sunni Islam.
  2. A Muslim can marry another Muslim. If you focus on what you have in common and respect and understand the differences, I can't see why that would be a problem.
  3. I didn’t get you. What should not be separated?
  4. Regardless of whether they’re tahir or not, I’d rather not get too close to them.
  5. I agree. There are principles in Islam which are constant and unchanging; and there are details which would depend on the 'urf and adat (customs & habits) and can change from time to time and place to place; but what is the particular issue we are discussing here?
  6. If I’m not mistaken, Nafi’ al-Madani (who was teacher of both Qalun and Warsh) was a contemporary of Imam as-Sadiq. I wonder whether there is anything about what their relationship was like.
  7. The 21st century argument, though extremely common, is not sound. Simply because something is prevalent in the 21st century wouldn't make that thing correct or good. Some things were done better in the past. When one is walking in the wrong direction, it would be more appropriate to walk backwards than forwards; or at least, to stop and reflect.
  8. The Qur'an is the standard by which we decide on the correctness of hadiths; not the other way around. عن علي (عليه السلام) : ستكون عني رواة يروون الحديث ، فإعرضوه على القرآن ، فإن وافق القرآن فخذوه ، وإلاّ فدعوه Imam Ali, peace be upon him, said: "There will be narrators narrating hadiths from me; so present them to the Qur'an; accept those hadiths that agree with the Qur'an; and leave those that do not agree." And God knows best.
  9. Which one? عن محمد بن علي الحلبي، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام أنه كان يقرأ (مالك يوم الدين) ويقرأ (إهدنا السراط المستقيم) (٢) ومنه: عن داود بن فرقد قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقرء ما لا أحصي: ملك يوم الدين (٣). http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1513_بحار-الأنوار-العلامة-المجلسي-ج-٨٢/الصفحة_23
  10. Not a strong anti-tahrif stance! If you hold that humans can omit a two-letter word like هُوَ from the Qur'an, it can then easily be argued, why can't they omit a three-letter word like the name of Imam Ali عليه السلام? It will then be only a question of degree, not of principle. Doesn't the addition or omission of a هُوَ alter the actual rasm of the Qur'an? (as in the example you cited). My point is: the Prophet صلی الله عليه وآله وسلّم recited Surah al-Fatihah at least 6 times a day loudly in prayer. The Imams also recited it several times a day in their prayers during their lifetimes. If the Prophet and the Imams recited this verse in a uniform way (always مالِكِ يوم الدين or always ملِكِ يوم الدين) everyone would recite it as they recited. Given that Al-Fatihah was recited so frequently on a daily basis, there would be very little room for error. And yet there are reports indicating that they said مالِكِ يوم الدين; and other reports indicating that they said مَلِكِ يوم الدين. The only logical explanation is that they sometimes pronounced it this way, and other times the other way; as they considered both correct. And God knows best.
  11. What theological message do you deduce from this? That God is unable to protect His book without the help of modern technology?
  12. It proves that the common recitations were correct; because the Imams would not allow any degree of human alteration of the Word of Allah. So God sent down a book but was unable or unwilling to protect it against human alteration. The Imams also couldn't do much about it; and simply told their followers to keep on with the incorrect recitations for several centuries? That doesn't make much sense. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, I hold that the Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet صلّی الله عليه وآله وسلّم in more than one form. In the example you mention above, the verse was revealed once with waw and once without waw. This is not the same as saying humans added a waw or omitted a wav from the word of Allah. There are reports indicating that the Imams sometimes pronounced the fourth verse in Surah al-Fatihah as مالِكِ يوم الدين with an alif, and at other times as مَلِكِ يوم الدين with a fatha. Would you say that they were sometimes correct and at other times incorrect? Or that they simply didn't know which one was correct? A more plausible answer would be to say that the verse was revealed in more than one way; and therefore either recitation is correct. And God knows best.
  13. The Imams عليهم السلام wouldn't have permitted their Shi'a to recite in an incorrect way; especially in prayer where the correctness of the recitation may affect the validity of the prayer. To say that the one true recitation is with the Mahdi عجل الله تعالی فرجه amounts to saying that the Qur'an we read, listen to, and hold in our hands is not the very same Qur'an that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad صلّی الله عليه وآله وسلّم ; which is to say that it has been "changed" and "altered" by humans; which is to say God cannot or did not protect the Qur'an against human changes. Once we accept that humans can add a و to the Qur'an or omit a هُوَ from it, we have accepted that the Word of God can be changed. On what basis then, can we argue that more significant changes (like the omission of an entire verse or surah) could not have taken place? You may say that minor changes have taken place; but by and large, the message of the Qur'an remains intact. Well, that is true of many books. Words or sentences may have been added or omitted from Plato's Republic but 98% of what's in there was certainly written by Plato. Are we saying that the Qur'an was protected against change to the same degree that the works of Plato and Aristotle were protected?! True. There are hadiths in our literature that suggest the true recitation is with the Mahdi عجل الله تعالی فرجه; but there are also hadiths in our literature that suggest entire verses were omitted from the Qur'an, e.g. verses that mentioned Imam Ali, Fatimah Zahra, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain عليهم السلام by name. If we reject these latter group of hadiths on the basis that they contradict the Qur'an, why not also reject this former group of hadiths that suggest tahrif in recitation? We are told to reject any hadith that contradicts the Qur'an. How can we evaluate hadiths based on the Qur'an, if the Qur'an itself is not authoritative and immune to any kind of human change?
  14. It is interesting that even in Surah al-Fatihah, which was recited by the Prophet and the Imams صلوات الله وسلامه عليهم more often than any other surah, - given its role in the daily prayers -, there are different readings. I believe the Imams sometimes read مَلِكِ يوم الدين (the King of the Day of Judgement) and at other times مالِكِ يوم الدين (Owner/master of the day of Judgement); as both readings have been reported of them. I find it easier to believe that this verse was revealed in both ways and that both are equally correct; than to believe that one form is the original and the other is a corruption. Of course, not every reading is correct; for example if one reads this verse in Fatihah as مَلَكَ يومَ الدين (He owns the Day of Judgement), that would be an incorrect reading; as the Prophet and the Imams عليهم السلام did not pronounce it that way. And God knows best.
  15. The way I see it: it was the other way around. The Uthmanic collection was written in a way that would incorporate multiple recitations (I.e. recitations that already existed before the collection came about). When this was not possible, (for example, when one recitation had a هو which the other ones didn't), two different copies were made; one with the huwa and one without. Nevertheless, the oral recitation predates the written text. The text was based on the recitation, not the recitation on the text. What do you make of God's promise to protect the Qur'an? Differences in recitation are mostly minor and inconsequential; but if God cannot (or does not) protect His book against minor and inconsequential human changes, (which is what you apparently hold), on what basis can we argue that more significant human changes (like the omission of a verse or a surah) could not have happened? (Or do you hold that this too could have happened?)
×
×
  • Create New...