rzairul

^ Aren't the tradition #5034 & #1159 contradictory? If you're an imam, #5034 says that you better read Al-Fatihah, while in #1159 you better read tasbih al-arba'a. Which 1 is stronger?

Interesting...maybe we have to divide it into 2 timeline: - At the time of the Prophet himself, he was higher than the Imams, since that was the time for his risalah - Now, since Islam is the final risalah, if all Prophets are resurrected (except Prophet Muhammad (saww)), the Imams are higher than them

Bro Jondab, how about the hadith on Prophet Isa (as) will pray behind Imam Mahdi (as)? Is this hadith authentic? If it is, then it shows that the Aimmah even superior than the ulul 'azmi

Sorry if it's a stupid question: According to hadiths from the ma'sumin (as), is there any other known punishment for not wearing the hijab in public?

Hi BostonJew, In addition to what the sisters/brothers have already said, if you want to know the Islamic scholar opinion on an issue, you can't rely solely on the mainstream Western media. You can try to acquire a more balanced view by looking other news agencies such as Press TV or IRIB. It's even better if you can read the full transcript of a speech (if available) to get you understand the whole picture.

Again, thank you very much for your detailed reply. There are some additional question that I'd like to ask you: 1. Since in rabbinical Judaism, in the compilation of Tanakh, the T & N part were considered almost entirely fixed, I want to focus on the K part. Do you find any explanation on the criteria used by the Jewish scholars to determine whether a particular K-candidate book (such as Esther, Ben Sira, etc) was canonical or not? 2. Sorry for asking this question, but it really intrigues me. Why did Judaism still insist on putting the debated books as part of the scripture? In the more plain word (again, sorry for this), how could the Jewish scholars considered them as divinely inspired, but debated on their status at the same time? 3. I'm interested in your view that David was a prophet. It's compatible with the Islamic view, but correct me if I'm wrong, Judeo-Christrian world considered him as non-prophet Jewish king. Could you elaborate me on your view (why you considered David as prophet)? Do you also considered Sulayman (Shlomo) as prophet? 4. If I'm not mistaken, a part of Tehillim was considered written by Asaph, Jeduthun, & sons of Korah. Who were they & why were their compositions considered part of Tehillim instead of David-only compositions? 5. What's your view on Dead Sea Scrolls?

Hi BostonJew, Thank you for your detailed reply. It has been a pleasure discussing with you. There are some questions that I'd like to ask you (I know it's not related to the topic of this thread, but please bear with me): 1. On the Compilation of Tanakh - Could you tell me how some books considered canonical (e.g. Tehilim, Esther), but other books did not (e.g. Tobit, Yeshua ben Sirach)? - Who was eligible to pass the judgment on a book's canonicity? How do you sure that they were divinely inspired when making the judgment? 2. On Sanhedrin - I read in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin) that according to rabbinical traditions, Sanhedrin (or at least, its concept) began at the time of Moshe & ended at the destruction of the 2nd Temple. If it's true, then at the time of the Exile (or after the destruction of the 1st Temple, but prior to the construction of the 2nd Temple), the Sanhedrin (or its concept) was present even though the Jewish people did not have the Temple, right? But now, after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, why the Sanhedrin did not present even though the condition is similar to the Exile?

Beautiful...thanks for sharing

Of course, I'm sorry to get off course because of my (previous) interest to discuss with you. Then of course, continue your monologue here. I won't bother you anymore. This will be my last post. But, for your thinking, proving the Quran is preserved in skeletal writing as you are trying to do here is not enough. The very point of preserving Quran is "preserving how Quran was read by the Prophet", because the skeletal writing of Quran can be read by numerous ways which can alter the meaning of the words itself (e.g. "malik" vs maalik" "arjulikum" vs arjulakum" "ali yasin" vs "ilyasin", etc which differs in meaning). So, it's not preservation if you don't know whether "arjulikum" or "arjulakum" are the correct reading of the Prophet & Imams. If we put it step by step (to get you to understand the importance of preserving the Prophet's reading): - In the Quran, God promises to preserve the Quran. Do you think the promise only on the skeletal writing of the Quran OR how the Quran actually read by the Prophet? - If you say "how the Quran actually read by the Prophet", could you show me what the reading of the Prophet & Imams is? Is it one of the various reading? If yes, which 1 of them? Do you have any proof of the Prophet & Imams informing the correct reading of the Quran? - If you say "how the Quran in skeletal writing", then read my previous paragraph. In short, Quran is for reading. By reading we will know the meaning & to apply it. If I present you the preserved skeletal writing, how will you read the Quran? Alternatively, you can say, just as some ulama says that every reading is correct. Then, it will also be fine IF there is a proof that the ma'sumin said this (which until now, unfortunately, I haven't found such statement), though it will raise some questions whether there are any other methods of reading which the ma'sumin approved because of the hadith stating Imam Ja'far read the Quran in unknown recitation to his companion. So, then again, it goes back to the "whether the Prophet & Imam ever informed us what the correct reading/s is/are?" In the last line you say that "Allah (swt) also addresses that the essence of reading or reciting the Holy Qur'an are for MEN OF UNDERSTANDING..." then can you show me what & how is the reading/reciting of Men of Understanding? If you can state something, you should be able to present the proof. Then, what is it? Let me say you that even the Islamic scholars are not unanimous in stating the correct reading, e.g. Ayatullah Khomeini prefers the reading "malik" in Al-Fatihah: 4, but other ulama prefers the common reading of "maalik". Like I said, this is my last post here. So, you can just ignore this post if you want. But, if you want to complete your theory of Quran preservation, it's not complete without proving the preservation of the Prophet's reading. It's just as simple as that. P.S. - For your own sake, I believe the Muslim akhlaq forbids us to judge people if you don't know anything about them. If you met me, you'll know I'm not a boy at all (though if I really am, it will also have nothing to do with this discussion). I choose the logo for a reason I think I don't have to explain here (it'll be making the topic more off-course). - Actually, solving an argument with mocking & violence really shows your level of maturity & akhlaq.

Here we go again, I ask for a single proof of what the reading of the ma'sumin is & the mocking returns? Can we discuss properly with good akhlaq? Have I ever mocked you during our discussion? Let's go step by step. Please answer this question straight forwardly: "In the Quran, God promises to protect the Quran. Do you think the promise only on the skeletal writing of the Quran OR how the Quran actually read by the Prophet?" N.B. Yes, the boy in the article is amazing, but what's the relation of the article vs the various reading of the Quran? FYI, the number of full stops & verses can differ from 1 reading to another. Just try to open the link that I gave you & download the various reading of the Quran.

If that's true, then there would be no confusion among us now about what is the correct reading because we would have strong riwayat or proof to back it up. But, sadly, this is not the case. You could try to see in the Sunni-Shia forum, if I'm not mistaken the title of the thread is Compilation of the Quran (it was on Sep-2009). The Sunni there asked the Shias what is the correct reading according to the ma'sumin & what is the proof, but sadly no Shia could answer this. In fact, there's a hadith mentioned there about Imam Ja'far read the Quran by using the reading not known by his companion. You could see know, this is troubling. How could the ma'sumin do not leave us a very important information such as this one?