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
Sign in to follow this  
Ugly Jinn

Why Imam Ali Wasn't Mentioned In The Quran?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Simple question which I'm sure was asked before.

  • Ali was an adult while the Prophet was still making revelations to the people
  • Successorship is a fundamental aspect of Shia Islam (Imamat), yet the fundamental aspect of Ali not mentioned

What's the logical reason for Imam Ali not being mentioned in the Quran?

FYI, This topic isn't for those who spew emotional gibberish and insults with no substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to respond to questions on why the Ahlulbayt (A.S.) are not in the Qur'an.

I advise you to watch it from the beginning but if you want to skip the intro and get straight to the point, then go to around 0:17:50 in the video where Sayed starts to tackle the topic.

Edited by Replicant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Jesus mentioned more times in the Quran by name than Muhammad (pbuh)? The short answer it we don't know. It is a revelation from the God.

A bit longer answer, there are many verses where the Ahlul Bayt are not mentioned specifically by names but some hadiths clearly point to the member of the Prophet household as individuals refereed in the Quranic verses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to respond to questions on why the Ahlulbayt (A.S.) are not in the Qur'an.

I advise you to watch it from the beginning but if you want to skip the intro and get straight to the point, then go to around 0:17:50 in the video where Sayed starts to tackle the topic.

Thanks for the video. It exactly speaks about the query on hand specifically. Now lets dissect what he says:


"On the face of it the argument looks pretty valid"

Good start. ^_^

His first point I'll summarize (not exact words):


"Lots of important things not mentioned in the Quran. One being God never says He exists."

Weak and absurd argument. First, the objective of the Quran will be contradicted if it wasn't even able to set the fundamentals of the Religion. Also, a typical weak method is using irrelevant examples to justify the exclusion.

Secondly, regarding his erroneous example about God didn't state He exists. All you need to is look at the first 7 verses of the Quran where He clearly states who He is, "Lord of the Worlds" and " Master of the Day of Judgment". He is the Lord/Master/God. God speaking about the attributes, power, authority of a non-existent being is a logical fallacy, hence is speaking of an existent being. Modaressi lost credibility big time with that error.


"Prophet has the same authority if he speaks in Quran or in Hadith"

Another irrelevant argument. The whole issue is why Allah/Prophet did not mention it in the divine Quran. Moderressi totally ignored the topic on hand by justifying Hadith's importance when the query is about the exclusion in the Quran only. ^_^

On top of that he didn't mention the fundamental difference of a divine Quran compared to a fallible hadith. And ofcourse he starts using Sunni hadiths sources to justify it. ^_^

His 3rd point (first argument in the video):


"His rebuttal is that why wasn't Abu Bakr mentioned in the Quran"

Because Sunnis/Shias don't consider Abu Bakr/Umar/Uthman divine agents. Why would God mention fallibles if He hasn't chosen them as divine agents? :lol:

We are concerned about divine successorship which is chosen by Allah. But not in Allah's book. Horrible and flawed examples.

I listened for another 10 minutes he basically went off-topic with his anti-sunni rhetoric. If there are other points let me know because the first 3 are weak/flawed/erroneous.

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just sat through that video, and it started off quite well, but it quickly went downhill. Very disappointing, but I have never been a big fan of Sayyid Modaressi's lectures anyway.

I have some thoughts on this topic, but I need to take the time to write them down and look some stuff up. I might post something a bit later, insha'Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the video. It exactly speaks about the query on hand specifically. Now lets dissect what he says:


"On the face of it the argument looks pretty valid"

Good start. ^_^

His first point I'll summarize (not exact words):


"Lots of important things not mentioned in the Quran. One being God never says He exists."

Weak and absurd argument. First, the objective of the Quran will be contradicted if it wasn't even able to set the fundamentals of the Religion. Also, a typical weak method is using irrelevant examples to justify the exclusion.

Secondly, regarding his erroneous example about God didn't state He exists. All you need to is look at the first 7 verses of the Quran where He clearly states who He is, "Lord of the Worlds" and " Master of the Day of Judgment". He is the Lord/Master/God. God speaking about the attributes, power, authority of a non-existent being is a logical fallacy, hence is speaking of an existent being. Modaressi lost credibility big time with that error.


"Prophet has the same authority if he speaks in Quran or in Hadith"

Another irrelevant argument. The whole issue is why Allah/Prophet did not mention it in the divine Quran. Moderressi totally ignored the topic on hand by justifying Hadith's importance when the query is about the exclusion in the Quran only. ^_^

On top of that he didn't mention the fundamental difference of a divine Quran compared to a fallible hadith. And ofcourse he starts using Sunni hadiths sources to justify it. ^_^

His 3rd point (first argument in the video):


"His rebuttal is that why wasn't Abu Bakr mentioned in the Quran"

Because Sunnis/Shias don't consider Abu Bakr/Umar/Uthman divine agents. Why would God mention fallibles if He hasn't chosen them as divine agents? :lol:

We are concerned about divine successorship which is chosen by Allah. But not in Allah's book. Horrible and flawed examples.

I listened for another 10 minutes he basically went off-topic with his anti-sunni rhetoric. If there are other points let me know because the first 3 are weak/flawed/erroneous.

But you ignored the 12 successors hadith. Shias are the only people known to have 12 leaders. There's no denying that hadith is true.

And the biggest of all is Sunnis complicated the "Mawla" issue. As Sayed says, "how much clearer do you want it?".

Can't argue that ghadir didn't happen.

If you don't find it convincing, fair enough. I'm sure there are other angles to look at the issue from which might be better for you.

Edited by Replicant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard once in a lecture that if the name of the Imam(s) were mentioned by name, people would try to fabricate it just like they did with the hadiths. Thus it is not there so as to preserve Quran. And all the other points are always there which Sayyad Al-Modaressi stated. والله عالم

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ So you are suggesting tehreef has taken place in the Quran? Well Quran doesn't seem to agree with that (though it won't matter since you are suggesting tehreef already has taken place) :blink:

We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian. (15:9)

If tehreef has supposedly taken place then Allah is not a good guardian (naozobillah). And why would they just remove the name of Imam Ali (a.s) and not introduce their own (whoever supposedly did it)? :wacko:

Dude, no tehreef has taken place in the Quran. The site is of Akhbaris!! :P

http://www.shiachat....f-akhbari-sect/

Edited by Muhibbe_Ahlebait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is Jesus mentioned more times in the Quran by name than Muhammad (pbuh)? The short answer it we don't know. It is a revelation from the God.

Still mentioned both by names, that's the point.

A bit longer answer, there are many verses where the Ahlul Bayt are not mentioned specifically by names but some hadiths clearly point to the member of the Prophet household as individuals refereed in the Quranic verses.

As I said earlier, if Quran wasn't enough to provide the fundamentals of Islam then it contradicts it's objective.

its possible that he was mentioned but later people took it out

You are questioning the authenticity of the Quran? :wacko:

Yeah, I just sat through that video, and it started off quite well, but it quickly went downhill. Very disappointing, but I have never been a big fan of Sayyid Modaressi's lectures anyway.

Why not? I haven't really heard his speeches before but he is supposedly (that's what people tell me) one of the top speakers out there (next to Rajabali and Nakshawani).

I heard once in a lecture that if the name of the Imam(s) were mentioned by name, people would try to fabricate it just like they did with the hadiths. Thus it is not there so as to preserve Quran.

So you are saying that Allah wouldn't have been able to protect the Quran if Imam Ali's name was mentioned? :wacko:

who says ali is not mentioned by his name in quran :) .read the name of ali in different ayats on

http://www.akhbari.org/English/tq.htm

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are saying that Allah wouldn't have been able to protect the Quran if Imam Ali's name was mentioned?

If Allah wants he can make every single human a believer. It's not that Allah wouldn't be able to protect it but Allah is hakeem, there would be some hikmat in not mentioning the name of Imam(s). Furthermore there's no mention of Umar/Abu Bakr/ Uthman in the Quran either. The only sahabi that is mentioned is Zaid. If everything would be mentioned in the Quran then what would be the need for hadeeths. That's why Quran and Hadeeth go hand in hand. B)

Edited by Muhibbe_Ahlebait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The characteristics and events specifically related to Ali (as) are mentioned in QUr'an and not his name. This is to test the ummah and those who are sincere in following the teachings of Islam. Ahlulbayt (as) was mentioned (33:56), but not Ali (as) and all the Imams in specific.

Many things are hidden from the ummah, but not to sincere mukmins. They can see it like the day light.

As for the munafiqs and kuffar...since Ali (as) name is not mentioned in Qur'an, they thought that they could take Islam for a ride.. Now this is how Islam test the muslims.

If we understand the real meaning of Al-fatiha (and it is not hidden from us) ...we will always be on the right path and we always be with those Allah swt has given His Blessing and we will not be among those who go astray.

Layman

Edited by layman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is Surah Fateha mentioned first in The Holy Quran when the verse 'Iqra Bismi' was the first revelation the holy Prophet (saw) was given. why isn't the Quran compiled the way it was revealed to the Holy Prophet?!

There's a verse in the Quran When we are told to pray in such a manner that even like one who is in ruku yet gives zakat to poor people - we all know that It was ONLY Imam Ali (as) who did this act.

it is narrated in Sahih Bukhari. so how is he not mentioned?!

and countless amount of verses.

Chapter 33 Verse 33 - aout Purification about Prophet (saw) family. there's hadith that the 5 people under the cloak were Rasul (saw), Imam Ali (as), Bibi Fatemah (sa), Imam Hasan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) - so how were they not mentioned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its very strange that no names of any sahabah or ahlulbait has been mentioned whatsoever except Zaid

but knowing that Ali is the successor mentioning his name is a must

the verse that talks about the wylyah of Ali says " oh prophet say what has come down upon you from your lord and if you do not then you HAVE NOT conveyed Your message and god will protect you from the people"

some people say this verse had the name of Ali

it is really a good question by sunnies

If imam Ali is the successor its such an important thing that god says if the prophet doesn't propagate it its as if he did not convey the message and that there will be opposition from the people but god will protect him from the people

so why doesn't god just mention his name and solve all these disputes?

maybe if he did they would have ripped the page out like what they did to the bible page that had mohamads name in it so it was only mentioned indirectly

or maybe god actually mentioned it but people have tampered with the copy of the quraan that we have

it will be clear once imam Almahdi comes and there are narrations that he comes with another quraan Allah knows best

as the verse quoted about the protection of the quraan it is mistranslated , it doesn't say quraan it actually says dhikr and dhikr is specifically the tourah and also includes the quraan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ did you believe in tahreef of al-Quran?

(salam)

"We did not make humans rulers, but we made the Qur'an the ruler over humans. This Qur'an is free from change but does not speak on its own accord, an interpreter is needed for this task." Nahjul Balagha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes already the quraan is not one version... its 10 different narrations which are slightly different

i allow the possibility of tahreef but i don't know the extent but we all know that the different qiraat imply a slight tahreef at least

Edited by alimohamad40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so why doesn't god just mention his name and solve all these disputes?

God is the best planner, you can not predict simply like that about what God's plan.

even malaikat cannot predict God's plan

And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy (khaleefatan) in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not

as the verse quoted about the protection of the quraan it is mistranslated , it doesn't say quraan it actually says dhikr and dhikr is specifically the tourah and also includes the quraan

did you not believe in Nahjul Balaghah?

Edited by аli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

y didnt Allah(swt) destroyed all other religions when he said that d accepted religion is only islam? all the disputes would have finished.....when Allah can preserve his book he can safecguard his creation too from the evil? so y didnt he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you ignored the 12 successors hadith. Shias are the only people known to have 12 leaders. There's no denying that hadith is true.

And the biggest of all is Sunnis complicated the "Mawla" issue. As Sayed says, "how much clearer do you want it?".

Can't argue that ghadir didn't happen.

If you don't find it convincing, fair enough. I'm sure there are other angles to look at the issue from which might be better for you.

Using a hadith defeats the whole purpose of this topic. While the Prophet was still making revelations Ali was alive, an adult, successor of the Prophet, chosen by Allah, and a fundamental aspect of Islam, why didn't Allah/Prophet mention Ali in the Quran?

I'll repeat it again, if a fallible hadith is needed to provide a fundamental aspect of Islam then it contradicts Quran's objective. Basically, Quran wasn't enough to provide the fundamentals of Islam.

Furthermore there's no mention of Umar/Abu Bakr/ Uthman in the Quran either. The only sahabi that is mentioned is Zaid. If everything would be mentioned in the Quran then what would be the need for hadeeths. That's why Quran and Hadeeth go hand in hand. B)

I answered this earlier. No one considers Abu Bakr/Umar/Uthman divine agents, whether they were mentioned or not is irrelevant. We are concerned about divine successorship which is chosen by Allah which are not in Allah's book. Just the fact that a fallible companion Zaid was mentioned and not a divine successor of the Prophet speaks volumes.

The characteristics and events specifically related to Ali (as) are mentioned in QUr'an and not his name. This is to test the ummah and those who are sincere in following the teachings of Islam. Ahlulbayt (as) was mentioned (33:56), but not Ali (as) and all the Imams in specific.

Flawed argument. Quran mentions characteristics and events about the specific person, but doesn't tell us who he is. :wacko:

why is Surah Fateha mentioned first in The Holy Quran when the verse 'Iqra Bismi' was the first revelation the holy Prophet (saw) was given. why isn't the Quran compiled the way it was revealed to the Holy Prophet?!

Off-topic and irrelevant examples. Who said the compilation has to match the revelation dates if that was not intended by the Prophet? Anyways, marjas already stated the Quran is exactly how the Prophet intended to be.

There's a verse in the Quran When we are told to pray in such a manner that even like one who is in ruku yet gives zakat to poor people - we all know that It was ONLY Imam Ali (as) who did this act.

it is narrated in Sahih Bukhari. so how is he not mentioned?!

The point is you need Bukhari to know, yet why didn't Quran mention the name of Ali if it was specifically speaking about him?

Chapter 33 Verse 33 - aout Purification about Prophet (saw) family. there's hadith that the 5 people under the cloak were Rasul (saw), Imam Ali (as), Bibi Fatemah (sa), Imam Hasan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) - so how were they not mentioned?

Again, you are using hadiths which defeats the whole purpose of this topic. By the way, that Hadith regarding '5 people under the cloak" is not saheeh.

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a hadith defeats the whole purpose of this topic. While the Prophet was still making revelations Ali was alive, an adult, successor of the Prophet, chosen by Allah, and a fundamental aspect of Islam, why didn't Allah/Prophet mention Ali in the Quran?

I'll repeat it again, if a fallible hadith is needed to provide a fundamental aspect of Islam then it contradicts Quran's objective. Basically, Quran wasn't enough to provide the fundamentals of Islam.

Who are the ulil-amr in Chapter 4, Verse 59 of the Quran then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you are using hadiths which defeats the whole purpose of this topic. By the way, that Hadith regarding '5 people under the cloak" is not saheeh.

(bismillah)

(salam)

so far what has transpired among other things is that you need both confirming the words of the holy prophet (pbuh) .

one is not enough for us.

so the topic is a flawed statement

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Yunus and Ali ibn Muhammad from Sahl ibn Ziyad, abu Sa‘id from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Yunus from ibn Muskan from abu Basir who has said that he asked abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) about the following words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High. "Believers, obey God, His Messenger, and your leaders (who possess Divine authority). . . ." (4:59) The Imam (a.s.) said, "This was sent from heavens about Ali ibn abu talib al-Hassan and al-Husayn (a.s.)."

I then said, "People say, "Why did He not specify Ali and his family by their names in the book of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High?’"

The Imam (a.s.) said, "Say to them, ‘The command for prayer came to the Messenger of Allah but He has not specified (the number of the Rak‘ats) for them three nor four. It, in fact, was the Messenger of Allah who explained to them this matter. The command for Zakat (a form of income tax) came to the Messenger of Allah and there was no specific taxable number such as one Dirham on every forty Dirham. It was the Messenger of Allah who explained it for them. The command for Hajj came to the Messenger of Allah. It did not say walk seven times around the Ka‘ba . It was the Messenger of Allah who explained it for them. The verse about obedience came "Believers, obey God, His Messenger, and your leaders (who possess Divine authority). . . ." (4:59) It came to declare that Ali, al-Hassan and al-Husayn (a.s.) were the leaders who possessed Divine authority. The Messenger of Allah then said about Ali (a.s.), "On whoever I have Divine Authority, then Ali (a.s.) has Divine Authority over him also." He also has said, "I enjoin you to follow the book of Allah and my family because I have prayed to Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High not to separate these two from each other until He will make them arrive al-Kawthar (at the pool of Paradise) to meet me. He has granted my prayer as such."

The hadith is not applicable for the following reasons:

  1. Zakat, Prayers, Hajj are not fundamental aspects/pillars of Islam. They are branches, hence are part of Faroo Ad-Deen.
  2. Hadith states 'specifics' have not been given for many commandments. Yet the commandment itself of a divine successor being established after the Prophet is not stated. Verse 4:59 does not use the word "Divine". The addition of "who possess Divine authority" in parenthesis is incorrect, it is not stated in the verse. This authority can be applied to anyone, even Abu Bakr (even WF supporters have used this verse to justify WF).
  3. Also, the excuse of specifics is flawed. This is not a ritual which needs details, it's a fundamental belief. Specifics are needed for practices like salat, hajj, etc., which are in detail. No one is asking for specifics, just stating "Ali is your divine successor" or just 2 words "Follow Ali" is more than enough.
  4. All the other fundamentals of Islam are stated clearly with names and specifics in the Quran, yet Ali (Imamat) is excluded.

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ugly jin whats fundamental (usool alden) is the necessity of the existence masoom and the concept of successor but not the Names of People

for example part of usool aldeen is the concept of prophethood but not " mohamadism" in particular

so If god chose another human the concept still stands and the fundamental part is the concept not the names

the names are the details

but i still feel like a detail as important as that should have been mentioned

so the name is a detail not the fundamental part.

the fundamental is the concept in order to conform with gods impartiality

Edited by alimohamad40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but i still feel like a detail as important as that should have been mentioned

We should use reason rather than feeling. Quran commands us to use logic, afala ta'qilun mentioned many times in the Quran.

Many undeniable proofs suggest Imam Ali (as) as the leader. His name is important, but it not should be mentioned by name in the Quran.

Since Quran was a divine book using divine language; to interpret Quran, an interpreter is a must.

(salam)

"We did not make humans rulers, but we made the Qur'an the ruler over humans. This Qur'an is free from change but does not speak on its own accord, an interpreter is needed for this task." Nahjul Balagha

it might be possible that the name Ali was mentioned by name in encrypted codes, because Quran was using divine language, not simple arabic.

Edited by аli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should use reason rather than feeling. Quran commands us to use logic, afala ta'qilun mentioned many times in the Quran.

Many undeniable proofs suggest Imam Ali (as) as the leader. His name is important, but it not should be mentioned by name in the Quran.

Since Quran was a divine book using divine language; to interpret Quran, an interpreter is a must.

it might be possible that the name Ali was mentioned by name in encrypted codes, because Quran was using divine language, not simple arabic.

yes brother i agree but the reason why I belive in the tahreef is not primarily because it doesnt mention imam Alis name but many other reasons related to:

1) abrogation of the text (only sunnies believe this but i reject it)

2) 7 horoof (only sunnies believe this but i reject it)

3) 10 qiraat and diference between shuba and hafs who both allegedly narrated asims version

4) tawator lighayreh ( the claim that the documentation of the quraan narration is unanimous on all levels is false but its only Unanimous due to others meaning different narrators narrate different sections within thier narrations)

5) uthmanic scripts missing the vowels and dots ( i reject the contention that the prophet did not write the quraan fully before his death and i do not believe that he would give us a book that is not perfected with the dots and vowels and everything and i do not believe that the prophet did not know the vowels and i believe that knowledge actually came from the prophet and imam Ali )

and many issues

Edited by alimohamad40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who are the ulil-amr in Chapter 4, Verse 59 of the Quran then?

The 'authority' could be interpretative into anything (ex. President, Governor, jurist, WF, local alim, respect law of land, parents, police, etc). The fact is God didn't mention Ali nor used the word 'divine' in that verse.

Why you think that al-Quran should mention Ali by name if imamah is a true concept?

The concept itself is not stated in the Quran. Nowhere does God say that there will be divine Imam's after the Prophet. If you listen to Modaressi's video, even he states that others question why Imamat is nowhere in the Quran (start from 18:50).

ugly jin whats fundamental (usool alden) is the necessity of the existence masoom and the concept of successor but not the Names of People

As I said above, the concept of Imamat is not stated in the Quran.

for example part of usool aldeen is the concept of prophethood but not " mohamadism" in particular

Look at all the concepts of Usool Ad-Deen:

  1. Mohammed is mentioned throughout the Quran and the concept defined for Prophethood
  2. Specifics, details, and examples are clearly stated in the Quran for the concept of Tawheed
  3. Specifics, details, and examples are clearly stated in the Quran for the concept of Adl
  4. Specifics, details, and examples are clearly stated in the Quran for the concept of Qiyamat

Imamat - Concept not defined, no names, and not even stating divine successors will be provided after the Prophet

so If god chose another human the concept still stands and the fundamental part is the concept not the names the names are the details

There is no details needed to say "Ali will be the successor".

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...