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  
submitter71

Who Preserved the Quran?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

There is just one Quran, with one set of wording and pronunciation. He disagrees with such a concept because there premises are flawed and contradictory, as I have already pointed out. He states that the Quran was revealed and compiled and authenticated during the lifetime of the Prophet SAW. He gives pages of evidence for this.

 

I think you are reading with the preconception that Al Khoei is upon the view that you hold.

Here is a clear and explicit text that goes against what you say. He said

الجواب :

أولا : ان القراءات لم يتضح كونها رواية ، لتشملها هذه الادلة ، فلعلها اجتهادات من القراء ، ويؤيد هذا الاحتمال ما تقدم من تصريح بعض الاعلام بذلك ، بل إذا لاحظنا السبب الذي من أجله اختلف القراء في قراءاتهم - وهو خلو المصاحف المرسلة إلى الجهات من النقط والشكل - يقوى هذا الاحتمال جدا .

 

He is very clear that the pronunciations were not included in the Quran that was compiled in the Prophet's salalahu alaihi wa salam time, and this was the reason for the existence of the recitations. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

I wouldn't say that Uthman preserved the original Qur'an.

Rather that he destroyed those with errors and managed that only the original which already existed was distributed throughout the Islamic Empire.

It was a good job but as I said the original was already there.

My question is: Did he understood the original Qur'an as well?
 

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Salam,

I wouldn't say that Uthman preserved the original Qur'an.

Rather that he destroyed those with errors and managed that only the original which already existed was distributed throughout the Islamic Empire.

It was a good job but as I said the original was already there,

 

 

wa aleykum al salam Faruk

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I think your view is much more mature than other views that have been expressed so far. What you have mentioned is expressed as canonization. As I have said before, any recitation that went against the Qurans that he distributed were rejected. 

We can find many examples of recitation criticism in early Tafseer books. The scholar would say things like, "This recitation is incorrect, and the proof is that it goes against what was written by Uthman." So the Mus-haf of Uthman (ra) became a tool to reject mistakes in recitation.

Is this not a good deed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, submitter71 said:

 

wa aleykum al salam Faruk

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I think your view is much more mature than other views that have been expressed so far. What you have mentioned is expressed as canonization. As I have said before, any recitation that went against the Qurans that he distributed were rejected. 

We can find many examples of recitation criticism in early Tafseer books. The scholar would say things like, "This recitation is incorrect, and the proof is that it goes against what was written by Uthman." So the Mus-haf of Uthman (ra) became a tool to reject mistakes in recitation.

Is this not a good deed?

In all objectivity I should say: Yes it was a good deed.

But can you be objective as well when his not so good deeds are discussed as well in all objectivity?

Let us all be honest about all then.





 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Faruk said:

In all objectivity I should say: Yes it was a good deed.

But can you be objective as well when his not so good deeds are discussed as well in all objectivity?

Let us all be honest about all then.
 

 

Thank you for your sincerity brother Faruk. Yes, I can be as objective inshallah. There is another topic about the "goodness" of Uthman (ra), or we can discuss it in a new thread if you like.

Edited by submitter71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, submitter71 said:

 

I think you are reading with the preconception that Al Khoei is upon the view that you hold.

Here is a clear and explicit text that goes against what you say. He said

الجواب :

أولا : ان القراءات لم يتضح كونها رواية ، لتشملها هذه الادلة ، فلعلها اجتهادات من القراء ، ويؤيد هذا الاحتمال ما تقدم من تصريح بعض الاعلام بذلك ، بل إذا لاحظنا السبب الذي من أجله اختلف القراء في قراءاتهم - وهو خلو المصاحف المرسلة إلى الجهات من النقط والشكل - يقوى هذا الاحتمال جدا .

 

He is very clear that the pronunciations were not included in the Quran that was compiled in the Prophet's salalahu alaihi wa salam time, and this was the reason for the existence of the recitations. 

 

Thats not correct.

He says on page 116 in the written copy I have, he summarises that there was just one, however they became multiple. Then , as you quoted earlier, he explains that there is no statement from the Quran, Prophet SAW, or Ahl Bayt AS to only read in a certain way, in fact we find a statement that says "recite as the people/masses recite". This is when we know the Aimma AS were aware of different recitations. 

The conclusion Ayataollah Khoie reaches is that it is permissible to recite in any way that was widely available at the times of the Aimma AS as they did not prohibit it. This does not however mean it was revealed in different ways etc.

I hope you can appreciate the delicate relationship between the two points. 

 

To conclude, the shia view is that the Quran is one, revealed to the Prophet SAW and compiled and finished by him. There later came divergences in recitation, most of which were minor and frankly irrelevant. The odd and extreme are rejected. 

Could you please summarise the sunni view like I have done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Then , as you quoted earlier, he explains that there is no statement from the Quran, Prophet SAW, or Ahl Bayt AS to only read in a certain way, in fact we find a statement that says "recite as the people/masses recite". This is when we know the Aimma AS were aware of different recitations. 

The conclusion Ayataollah Khoie reaches is that it is permissible to recite in any way that was widely available at the times of the Aimma AS as they did not prohibit it. This does not however mean it was revealed in different ways etc.

I hope you can appreciate the delicate relationship between the two points. 

 

I never had any trouble understanding this. As I said, it shows that the Al Khoei does not endorse the recitation of Hafs as the one correct recitation, but that he only believes that it is permissible to recite it since the Imams said so.

 

21 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

 

Could you please summarise the sunni view like I have done?

 

I have done so more than once in this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some brothers in this thread asked why it took so look for the Mus-haf of Uthman (ra) to be compiled. Here is the explanation by Shia scholar Jafar Subhani.

 

"A group of the big companions after the death of the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa aalihi wa salam compiled private copies of the Quran, like Abdullah bin Masood, Ubay bin Kaab, Muath bin Jabal, Miqdad bin Aswad and others like them. They had differences in how they wrote it and how it was to be recited. From that there were differences between the first Masahif of the companions, and each land would read the Mus-haf in the way the companion that lived there compiled his own Mus-haf.

The people of Kufa read the recitation of Ibn Masood, the people of Basra read the recitation of Abu Musa, and the people of Sham read the recitation of Ubay bin Kaab, and so on.

This continued until the time of Uthman when the differences became large, so some of the wise men, like Huzaifa bin Al Yaman, told Uthman to unite the Mus-hafs before the Quran is lost due to the differences.

Then, Uthman ordered that unified Masahif are to be compiled and sent to the lands and that people were to read according to them and not read the other recitations."

 

Al Manahij Al Tafseeria page 188 by Jafar Subhani

 

From this we understand the reasons for the compiling of the Mus-haf of Uthman (ra). We also can see that a top Shia scholar like Jafar Subhani admits that the Quran that has spread today was written by Uthman (ra) and was not compiled by the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa salam or Ali (as). 

 

Jafar Subhani is now added to my list of scholars on the first page that reject that the Quran was compiled during the time of the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2016 at 9:05 PM, submitter71 said:

 

We believe that he wrote the Quran in a specific writing style and canonized it by destroying other copies. This is much more significant than rearranging chapters. 

It makes no sense to believe that he destroyed other Qurans simply because they had a different order of chapters.

But shouldn't he have written it in all 7 harfs or was his style the 8th harf?

On 9/17/2016 at 9:05 PM, submitter71 said:

I have no doubt that it is not a Shia site because Shias do not having access to such knowledge in the first place. All information of what was revealed in Makkah or Madinah is based on Sunni reports, often by Ibn Abbas (ra) or his students.

I see that the source given is Al Zinjani who barely died a hundred years ago. This is not a reliable source for such knowledge. 

Right of course. The Prophet, The Quran and even Allah are all Sunni.

Denying the chronological order of the Quran in defense of Caliph Uthman does not make it wrong.

On 9/17/2016 at 9:11 PM, submitter71 said:

 

I will be looking forward to this. I am open to Shia narrations as well. I don't recall seeing much of these either. I have seen Shia hadiths agree with the Sunni view of Uthman (ra) compiling the Quran, however, they condemn him for destroying other Qurans. 

I do not recall much about Ali (ra) canonizing the Quran at all though.

Didnt you mention mushaf-e-Ali? I am not saying Ali canonized. I am saying that the origination of Arabic grammer, diacritical marks, etc. were originated by Ali.

On 9/17/2016 at 9:05 PM, submitter71 said:

I have no doubt that it is not a Shia site because Shias do not having access to such knowledge in the first place. All information of what was revealed in Makkah or Madinah is based on Sunni reports, often by Ibn Abbas (ra) or his students.

 

On 9/18/2016 at 0:28 AM, AbbaJaan said:

Whattttt!!! This is shocking. You mean the same sources which are usually looked down and ridiculed, and the reliability of the authors of those books question by Shias?

Ibn Abbas was Sunni? When did this happen?

3 hours ago, submitter71 said:

Some brothers in this thread asked why it took so look for the Mus-haf of Uthman (ra) to be compiled. Here is the explanation by Shia scholar Jafar Subhani.

 

"A group of the big companions after the death of the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa aalihi wa salam compiled private copies of the Quran, like Abdullah bin Masood, Ubay bin Kaab, Muath bin Jabal, Miqdad bin Aswad and others like them. They had differences in how they wrote it and how it was to be recited. From that there were differences between the first Masahif of the companions, and each land would read the Mus-haf in the way the companion that lived there compiled his own Mus-haf.

The people of Kufa read the recitation of Ibn Masood, the people of Basra read the recitation of Abu Musa, and the people of Sham read the recitation of Ubay bin Kaab, and so on.

This continued until the time of Uthman when the differences became large, so some of the wise men, like Huzaifa bin Al Yaman, told Uthman to unite the Mus-hafs before the Quran is lost due to the differences.

Then, Uthman ordered that unified Masahif are to be compiled and sent to the lands and that people were to read according to them and not read the other recitations."

 

Al Manahij Al Tafseeria page 188 by Jafar Subhani

 

From this we understand the reasons for the compiling of the Mus-haf of Uthman (ra). We also can see that a top Shia scholar like Jafar Subhani admits that the Quran that has spread today was written by Uthman (ra) and was not compiled by the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa salam or Ali (as). 

 

Jafar Subhani is now added to my list of scholars on the first page that reject that the Quran was compiled during the time of the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa salam.

Can you plese provide a screenshot of this? I think I have this book and can't find the reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, submitter71 said:

Thank you.

17 hours ago, AbbaJaan said:

Well, you can't find the reference in the book which you aren't sure about having it. Ajeeb!

easy there tiger. I have "Introduction to the Science of Tafsir of the Quran" from Subhani and was trying to see if we are referring to the same book or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, submitter71 said:

Thank you.

17 hours ago, AbbaJaan said:

Well, you can't find the reference in the book which you aren't sure about having it. Ajeeb!

easy there tiger. I have "Introduction to the Science of Tafsir of the Quran" from Subhani and was trying to see if we are referring to the same book or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, submitter71 said:

Some brothers in this thread asked why it took so look for the Mus-haf of Uthman (ra) to be compiled. Here is the explanation by Shia scholar Jafar Subhani.

 

"A group of the big companions after the death of the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa aalihi wa salam compiled private copies of the Quran, like Abdullah bin Masood, Ubay bin Kaab, Muath bin Jabal, Miqdad bin Aswad and others like them. They had differences in how they wrote it and how it was to be recited. From that there were differences between the first Masahif of the companions, and each land would read the Mus-haf in the way the companion that lived there compiled his own Mus-haf.

The people of Kufa read the recitation of Ibn Masood, the people of Basra read the recitation of Abu Musa, and the people of Sham read the recitation of Ubay bin Kaab, and so on.

This continued until the time of Uthman when the differences became large, so some of the wise men, like Huzaifa bin Al Yaman, told Uthman to unite the Mus-hafs before the Quran is lost due to the differences.

Then, Uthman ordered that unified Masahif are to be compiled and sent to the lands and that people were to read according to them and not read the other recitations."

 

Al Manahij Al Tafseeria page 188 by Jafar Subhani

 

From this we understand the reasons for the compiling of the Mus-haf of Uthman (ra). We also can see that a top Shia scholar like Jafar Subhani admits that the Quran that has spread today was written by Uthman (ra) and was not compiled by the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa salam or Ali (as). 

 

Jafar Subhani is now added to my list of scholars on the first page that reject that the Quran was compiled during the time of the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa salam.

This only suggests there was a division from the original, which is accepted. This actually proves your position as wrong, as you say it was revealed in this way, we are saying it came later.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still need to know if Allah revealed the Quran in 7 harfs then who gave Caliph Uthman the authority to consolidate them into 1.

Did Allah not want all 7 harfs to be preserved? By burning the other copies, did Caliph Uthman commit a grave and unforgivable sin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

This only suggests there was a division from the original, which is accepted. This actually proves your position as wrong, as you say it was revealed in this way, we are saying it came later.

 

It all depends on your belief if we are following the correct Quran or not. So, are we? :)

 

1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

I still need to know if Allah revealed the Quran in 7 harfs then who gave Caliph Uthman the authority to consolidate them into 1.

Did Allah not want all 7 harfs to be preserved? By burning the other copies, did Caliph Uthman commit a grave and unforgivable sin?

 

I will answer your question as soon as you adopt a position. Do you believe that the Quran revealed in seven ahruf or just one? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, submitter71 said:

I will answer your question as soon as you adopt a position. Do you believe that the Quran revealed in seven ahruf or just one? 

1

On 9/17/2016 at 9:05 PM, submitter71 said:

I have no doubt that it is not a Shia site because Shias do not having access to such knowledge in the first place. All information of what was revealed in Makkah or Madinah is based on Sunni reports, often by Ibn Abbas (ra) or his students.

You have already admitted that sunnis do not possess the knowledge of Makki versus Madani surahs and the oder of revelation. This link provides details albeit at a high level

https://www.al-islam.org/quran-and-hadith-allamah-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi/chapter-3-quran#makki-madani

If you want to further amazed, this link provides an alphabetical index to a variety of subjects in the Quran. Enjoy:

https://www.al-islam.org/alphabetical-index-holy-quran 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

1

 

Good. 

The companions had no issues with Uthman's (ra) limitation of the ahruf, since they are only mustahab and not mandatory. The simple proof of this are statements by Ali (as) in which he praises Uthman's (ra) actions. If you believe that it was such a sin, then it was upon Ali (as) to spread masahif with the additional recitations when he came in power. 

I also never said that the Sunnis don't know what Makki and Madani chapters were. I said that this is an issue with the Shia. Re-read my post.

The last post that you provided does not contain any evidences for why the Shia author believes those chapters are Makki or Madani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, submitter71 said:

Good. 

The companions had no issues with Uthman's (ra) limitation of the ahruf, since they are only mustahab and not mandatory. The simple proof of this are statements by Ali (as) in which he praises Uthman's (ra) actions. If you believe that it was such a sin, then it was upon Ali (as) to spread masahif with the additional recitations when he came in power. 

Good as in you also believe in 1 harf being revealed only? If there was only 1 harf and that is what Caliph Uthman compiled, then what is the big deal? If there were 7 harfs and Caliph Uthman compiled them into 1 or selected 1, then we need to know the criteria used to select 1 harf.

So do you belief in 1 harf or 7?

58 minutes ago, submitter71 said:

I also never said that the Sunnis don't know what Makki and Madani chapters were. I said that this is an issue with the Shia. Re-read my post.

I asked if you have ever read the Quran in order of revelation and you said:

On 9/17/2016 at 7:43 PM, submitter71 said:

To read the Quran in order of revelation is impossible since there is no way of knowing the order of the chapters or verses since neither have been compiled in order of revelation. 

So you have gone from saying the Sunnis do not know the order of revelation of surahs to admitting that within 3 days, Sunnis have discovered the Makki and Madani surahs. Perhaps in another 3 days, you will discover the order as well.

The link I provided specifically lists out the Madani surahs, the ones where there is some ambiguity and the remaining being Makkan surahs. So although you said shias have no knowledge about Makki vs Madani surahs, the link I provided corrects you as such.

The other link was just to provide a quick index guide on a variety of topics on the Quran. I figured since you have just discovered Makki vs Madani surahs in the last 3 days, this would be of help to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Good as in you also believe in 1 harf being revealed only? If there was only 1 harf and that is what Caliph Uthman compiled, then what is the big deal? If there were 7 harfs and Caliph Uthman compiled them into 1 or selected 1, then we need to know the criteria used to select 1 harf.

So do you belief in 1 harf or 7?

 

My bad. I misread your post. 

If you believe that it was only one harf, and Uthman (ra) gathered the people onto one harf, then what is the problem? Do you believe that the Quran we have today is inaccurate? 

 

6 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

So you have gone from saying the Sunnis do not know the order of revelation of surahs to admitting that within 3 days, Sunnis have discovered the Makki and Madani surahs. Perhaps in another 3 days, you will discover the order as well.

 

You need to differentiate between knowing the Makki and Madani vs knowing the order of the chapters.

 

7 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

I figured since you have just discovered Makki vs Madani surahs in the last 3 days, this would be of help to you.

 

Brother, I think it is obvious to you and everyone here in this thread that I know more about the Quranic sciences of the Sunni school and Shia school more than you. There is no point in speaking to me in such a tone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, submitter71 said:

 

It all depends on your belief if we are following the correct Quran or not. So, are we? :)

 

 

No it doesnt. You cant say it was revealed as 7 different qurans and then also say it changed into 7 qurans later. These two things are incompatible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

No it doesnt. You cant say it was revealed as 7 different qurans and then also say it changed into 7 qurans later. These two things are incompatible.

 

Our questions are getting mixed up brother. You obviously believe that the Quran was revealed in one harf. Are we still upon that harf today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, submitter71 said:

My bad. I misread your post. 

If you believe that it was only one harf, and Uthman (ra) gathered the people onto one harf, then what is the problem? Do you believe that the Quran we have today is inaccurate? 

I believe Allah revealed 1 harf; Prophet (saw) relayed 1 harf; Surahs compiled during the life of the Prophet in 1 harf; Caliph Uthman arranged surahs longest to shortest. Complete and accurate Quran.

However, you believe in 7 harfs; you also believe Caliph Uthman either chose 1 harf or combined the 7 into harf-e-Uthmani. That is the problem. What was Caliph Uthman's criteria to choose 1 harf over the other 6; why destroy the other 6 if they were from Allah. Wallahi if there was 7 harfs and Caliph Uthman destroyed 6, he destroyed the Word of Allah willingly.

23 minutes ago, submitter71 said:

You need to differentiate between knowing the Makki and Madani vs knowing the order of the chapters.

Did Caliph Uthman know Makki vs Madani surahs or the order of the chapters? Why did he not organize it in such a way? So making the differentiating, have you read the Quran by reading Makkan surahs first and then Madani surahs? 

26 minutes ago, submitter71 said:

Brother, I think it is obvious to you and everyone here in this thread that I know more about the Quranic sciences of the Sunni school and Shia school more than you. There is no point in speaking to me in such a tone. 

So let me get this - you say the Shias know nothing about the Quran and it is not a problem. But when I say you don't know something, you get offended?

There was Quranist ( @AlKhidr ) who apparently knew a lot more than me. He was going to teach us a lesson and convert us all. After 10+ pages, I proved his kufr and he scurried away even though by all accounts he knew more than me.

Coming back to you. Sure enough, I am asking basic questions but is it because I don't know or because I am playing possum? 

For example, you 'taught' me about 7 harf but thanks to Caliph Uthman, we only have 1 now. Did I not know about 7 harf or was I waiting for you to admit there are 7 so we can focus on destroying 6 harf as revealed by Allah?

I will apologize for my tone once you apologize for your incendiary comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

I believe Allah revealed 1 harf; Prophet (saw) relayed 1 harf; Surahs compiled during the life of the Prophet in 1 harf; Caliph Uthman arranged surahs longest to shortest. Complete and accurate Quran.

 

I will try to make this easy inshallah. As you have seen from the previous quote by Jafar Subhani, people were reciting the Quran in more than one way. Uthman (ra) limited this to one way. 

Are we following the correct Quran as it was revealed? 
If so, then we should consider Uthman's (ra) actions as a merit for limiting the Quran to the correct recitation, the same way brother Faruk did above. 

 

15 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

So let me get this - you say the Shias know nothing about the Quran and it is not a problem. But when I say you don't know something, you get offended?

 

Brother, you were attempting to make me seem like a jahil in Quranic sciences by suggesting that I never heard of Makki or Madani. Is this a sincere way of making dawah? 

My claim about the ignorance of Shias when it comes to the science of the Quran is not an insult. It is a reality. Perhaps if you return to the early books of Shia Tafseer you will see that.

Al Tusi when talking about Surat Al Anaam says that it was revealed in Makkah, and his source is not Jafar Al Sadiq (ra). His source is Ibn Abbas (ra), Mujahid, and Qatada! 

The same goes to how he and others refer to verses as abrogated or not. They quote Sunni opinions.

I was with an intellectual Shia a few days ago and asked him about the best book on Asbab Al Nuzool. He said, "The book of Al Wahidi." He did not provide the name of a Shia book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, submitter71 said:

 

I will try to make this easy inshallah. As you have seen from the previous quote by Jafar Subhani, people were reciting the Quran in more than one way. Uthman (ra) limited this to one way. 

Are we following the correct Quran as it was revealed? 
If so, then we should consider Uthman's (ra) actions as a merit for limiting the Quran to the correct recitation, the same way brother Faruk did above. 

You are still dodging the question. I do not care what anyone has said about anything. This is a conversation between you (the expert) and me (the jahil). You said Allah revealed the Quran in 7 Harf. Either Caliph Uthman picked 1 harf as the standard and destroyed the rest OR he combined the 7 harf into 1 and destroyed the original 1.

The expert - tell me by what authority Caliph Uthman changed the Word of Allah. Did Caliph Uthman do tahreef? Did Caliph Uthman commit a grave sin by doing this.

We can't give Caliph Uthman merit for eliminate 6 or 7 harf as revealed by Allah.

18 hours ago, submitter71 said:

Brother, you were attempting to make me seem like a jahil in Quranic sciences by suggesting that I never heard of Makki or Madani. Is this a sincere way of making dawah? 

Unless you know everything there is to know about the Quran, you are jahil. I will openly admit that I am jahil about everything. Only he who has COMPLETE knowledge should boast or think of himself as knowledgeable. Sincerity goes both ways.

18 hours ago, submitter71 said:

Al Tusi when talking about Surat Al Anaam says that it was revealed in Makkah, and his source is not Jafar Al Sadiq (ra). His source is Ibn Abbas (ra), Mujahid, and Qatada! 

 Since when if Ibn Abbas sunni? But then I suppose you probably think Imam Ali belongs to Ahle-Sunnah as well.

18 hours ago, submitter71 said:

The same goes to how he and others refer to verses as abrogated or not. They quote Sunni opinions.

If Tusi or anyone quotes a shia source, you immediate reaction would be "look Shias believe in tahreef". If Tusi uses a 'sunni' source, you say "look Shias don't have their own sources". You objective is not to learn but create fitna. As shias, we take knowledge and truth from all reliable sources. After all, the Prophet did not limit the search for knowledge to just Sunnis.

18 hours ago, submitter71 said:

I was with an intellectual Shia a few days ago and asked him about the best book on Asbab Al Nuzool. He said, "The book of Al Wahidi." He did not provide the name of a Shia book.

Perhaps it is the best book on Asbab Al-Nuzool. Who is saying is not as important as what is being said.

It could also mean that the intellectual was not aware of shia resources. Even amongst Sunnis, Al-Wahidi was criticized by Ibn Taymiyah so who is to say that Al-Wahidi's is the best book. What do you think is the best book on asbab-al-nuzool and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

You are still dodging the question. I do not care what anyone has said about anything. This is a conversation between you (the expert) and me (the jahil). You said Allah revealed the Quran in 7 Harf. Either Caliph Uthman picked 1 harf as the standard and destroyed the rest OR he combined the 7 harf into 1 and destroyed the original 1.

The expert - tell me by what authority Caliph Uthman changed the Word of Allah. Did Caliph Uthman do tahreef? Did Caliph Uthman commit a grave sin by doing this.

 

I am not an expert and I did not claim to be. I just said that I know more about Quranic Sciences than you. That being said, I have already explained that those that believe that Uthman (ra) limited the recitations believe that he limited the Rukhas for the greater good, and that doing this is not haram. We have narrations from Ali (as) praising Uthman (ra) for his actions as well. I can present that to you if you like.

 

48 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Since when if Ibn Abbas sunni? But then I suppose you probably think Imam Ali belongs to Ahle-Sunnah as well.

 

The statements of Ibn Abbas (ra) when it comes to Tafseer are exclusively from Sunni narrators and can be found in Sunni books. In other words, when those like Al Tusi goes to quote Ibn Abbas (ra), he cannot provide a chain for his reports. 

You can find statements of Tafseer from Ali (as) in both Sunni and Shia books, but the Shias do have Shia narrators and sources for those statements as well, and it is not exclusive to Ahl Al Sunnah, so I never made that argument.

 

53 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

You objective is not to learn but create fitna.

 

Rather, it is to educate. 

 

54 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

What do you think is the best book on asbab-al-nuzool and why?

 

The one by Muqbil Al Wadee, because it only quotes Saheeh hadiths. How about you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, submitter71 said:

 

Our questions are getting mixed up brother. You obviously believe that the Quran was revealed in one harf. Are we still upon that harf today?

Yes of course. You believe in 7 different qurans right, with many more recitations right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2016 at 11:48 PM, iraqi_shia said:

Yes of course. You believe in 7 different qurans right, with many more recitations right?

 

It is one Quran, which was revealed in seven modes. 

The recitations are combinations of those modes. So if one hears the Prophet salalahu alaihi wa salam reciting half the Quran in mode A, then the other half in mode B, one's recitation becomes a combination of both. That becomes known as recitation X.

As strange as this opinion may seem to you, please do not look at it as heretical simply because you are hearing about it from a Sunni. As I have expressed, some major Shia scholars hold this view too. Abd Al Hadi Al Fadhli, for example, refuted Al Khoei's simplistic view and sided with the Sunni understanding. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2016 at 2:20 PM, submitter71 said:

 

I am not an expert and I did not claim to be. I just said that I know more about Quranic Sciences than you. That being said, I have already explained that those that believe that Uthman (ra) limited the recitations believe that he limited the Rukhas for the greater good, and that doing this is not haram. We have narrations from Ali (as) praising Uthman (ra) for his actions as well. I can present that to you if you like.

Rather, it is to educate.  

So far, your education for all shias has been that Allah revealed the Quran in 7 modes but Caliph Uthman either chose 1 mode or combined 7 modes into 1 thereby creating an 8th mode (pls educate us in this matter). He did so for the greater good which obviously Allah neglected otherwise Allah would have only revealed 1 mode. Since Uthman knew more about the greater good of man than Allah then obviously he must be greater than Allah so you will educate us to say Uthman-Akbar next I suppose.

I hope you are not offended; I have merely summarized what you taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2016 at 9:12 AM, shiaman14 said:

So far, your education for all shias has been that Allah revealed the Quran in 7 modes but Caliph Uthman either chose 1 mode or combined 7 modes into 1 thereby creating an 8th mode (pls educate us in this matter). He did so for the greater good which obviously Allah neglected otherwise Allah would have only revealed 1 mode. Since Uthman knew more about the greater good of man than Allah then obviously he must be greater than Allah so you will educate us to say Uthman-Akbar next I suppose.

I hope you are not offended; I have merely summarized what you taught.

 

As I have explained, he has limited a Rukhsa for the greater good. If this act was prohibited, then Ali (ra) would have set him in his place, or he would have made it allowed after Uthman (ra) died and he took power. In other words, your accusation against Uthman (ra) is also an accusation against all the caliphs that came after him, including Ali (ra).

 

I would like you to think about something. I hope it will make you break away from your simplistic understanding of the issue. Al Tusi and Al Tabrasi both say in their Tafseer that by consensus among Shias, it is permissible to recite in any of the common recitations. How is this possible when only one recitation is correct according to you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, submitter71 said:

As I have explained, he has limited a Rukhsa for the greater good. If this act was prohibited, then Ali (ra) would have set him in his place, or he would have made it allowed after Uthman (ra) died and he took power. In other words, your accusation against Uthman (ra) is also an accusation against all the caliphs that came after him, including Ali (ra). 

Or if all Caliphs Uthman did was order the surahs in chronological order of length, then no sahaba including Imam Ali would say anything to him.

So my question still stands, if Allah revealed 7 harfs and the Prophet did not see the need to consolidate the harfs, then why did Caliph Uthman consolidate. Also you havent told me if he selected 1 harf or combined several into 1 harf. 

And if Imam Ali and everyone else supported the consolidation, then they would be wrong too without a justified reason. 

8 hours ago, submitter71 said:

I would like you to think about something. I hope it will make you break away from your simplistic understanding of the issue. Al Tusi and Al Tabrasi both say in their Tafseer that by consensus among Shias, it is permissible to recite in any of the common recitations. How is this possible when only one recitation is correct according to you? 

I am a simple guy with simple understanding. Allah revealed 1 harf and we have it - I get that. Allah revealed 7 harfs in his infinite wisdom. Caliph Uthman consolidated into 1. I just need to know why and how he did it. 

Don't we only have 1 harf today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

 

I am a simple guy with simple understanding. Allah revealed 1 harf and we have it - I get that. Allah revealed 7 harfs in his infinite wisdom. Caliph Uthman consolidated into 1. I just need to know why and how he did it. 

Don't we only have 1 harf today?

 

Good question. It feels like we are getting somewhere now. Maybe the reason you do not see it my way is because you are not aware that there is more than one harf that is recited today.

 

 

This is the common recitation in Morrocco. Notice how the reciter says Maliki instead of Maaliki. 

This is because they are reciting according to a harf that is different from the common harf that most Muslims recite. 

You should also know that it is historically proven that each city recited in the recitation of their most popular reciters in the past. They did not all recite the exact same recitation. The common recitation today of Hafs from Asim was only common in Kufa. 

Edited by submitter71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, submitter71 said:

 

Good question. It feels like we are getting somewhere now. Maybe the reason you do not see it my way is because you are not aware that there is more than one harf that is recited today.

 

 

This is the common recitation in Morrocco. Notice how the reciter says Maliki instead of Maaliki. 

This is because they are reciting according to a harf that is different from the common harf that most Muslims recite. 

You should also know that it is historically proven that each city recited in the recitation of their most popular reciters in the past. They did not all recite the exact same recitation. The common recitation today of Hafs from Asim was only common in Kufa. 

You are changing your stance brother.

Previously, you had said that the words/letters were spelled (and then obviously pronounced) differently. Now you are saying that they are only pronounced differently.

The Moroccon style of saying "maliki" versus "maaliki" - are the spellings the same in the Quran in Morocco?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

You are changing your stance brother.

Previously, you had said that the words/letters were spelled (and then obviously pronounced) differently. Now you are saying that they are only pronounced differently.

The Moroccon style of saying "maliki" versus "maaliki" - are the spellings the same in the Quran in Morocco?

 

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. 

 

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...