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  
Abu_Rumaysah

Noori Tabarsi and his Book

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

I say: Wallahi, Billahi, Tallahi underlined part is nothing but blatant lie. Whoever says underlined is true, I am ready to make mubahila with him.

I provided the link.

Let's take it from the top - what is tahreef?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shiaman14 said:

I provided the link.

Let's take it from the top - what is tahreef?

I am not saying that is your words. I can see you provided the link.

I accept you believe in what you have provided and read it yourself. Am I correct?

Share this post


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

I am not saying that is your words. I can see you provided the link.

I accept you believe in what you have provided and read it yourself. Am I correct?

Sure. I believe that the author wrote no shia scholar believes in tahreef. But definition of tahreef and your could be completely different.

To-date, neither you nor any other Sunni brother has been able to tell me what you mean by tahreef. I cited examples for you which you neither confirmed nor denied.

So again, what is tahreef?

Share this post


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

Sure. I believe that the author wrote no shia scholar believes in tahreef. But definition of tahreef and your could be completely different.

To-date, neither you nor any other Sunni brother has been able to tell me what you mean by tahreef. I cited examples for you which you neither confirmed nor denied.

So again, what is tahreef?

 

Leave aside, what meaning we are giving to the word tahrif.

No need to play word games here,

Quote

 

Sure. I believe that the author wrote no shia scholar believes in tahreef. 

 

I AM NOT  asking if you believe that Shirazi said this or didn't say. 

You have quoted Shirazi saying:

The Shi'a scholars are unanimously of the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it. 

Do you believe that there words of him are true? Do you believe that no one from shia scholars ever believe in corruption or distortion of Quran?

If yes, are you are ready to make with me mubahila on this? Because I say: Wallahi this sentence is blatant lie! 

I say: Wallahi between shia scholars are people who believed in corruption of Quran by eliminating some words from it, and by changing some existent words in it. 

 

 

Edited by Abu_Rumaysah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

 

Leave aside, what meaning we are giving to the word tahrif.

No need to play word games here,

How is this word games dear brother.

You say shia scholars believe in tahreef. What does this mean?

Are you talking about the meaning? Sure enough, you and I believe different things about different ayahs and as such one of us is wrong because of tahreef.

Are you talking about harf? Allah revealed 7 harf, we have 1 now. Is that tahreef?

Goats ate a verse. Is that tahreef?

How can we have a discussion about something without knowing what we are discussing.

 

26 minutes ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

I AM NOT  asking if you believe that Shirazi said this or didn't say. 

You have quoted Shirazi saying:

The Shi'a scholars are unanimously of the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it. 

Do you believe that there words of him are true? Do you believe that no one from shia scholars ever believe in corruption or distortion of Quran?

If yes, are you are ready to make with me mubahila on this? Because I say: Wallahi this sentence is blatant lie! 

I say: Wallahi between shia scholars are people who believed in corruption of Quran by eliminating some words from it, and by changing some existent words in it. 

I will answer this as soon as you define tahreef.

In the meanwhile, I will say this. If tahreef = changes to the meaning/interpretation of the Quran only, then Wallahi I believe every Sunni has changed the Quran.

Share this post


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

I say: Wallahi, Billahi, Tallahi underlined part is nothing but blatant lie. Whoever says underlined is true, I am ready to make mubahila with him.

again with Sunnis forcing beliefs on us. we tell you we don't think this and you continue being persistent in claiming we do. arguing with you guys is not about haqq, you just want your hypocritical religion to be right no matter what. complaining about Shias 'accusing you of baseless lies' but that's what Sunnis have been doing all these years.

sorry, you know more about Shiasm than Imam Shirazi? 

'No need to play word games here,'

why not? you guys loved playing this game on other threads, like the fadak and Ghadeer one

Edited by walaihusaini

Share this post


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

How is this word games dear brother.

You say shia scholars believe in tahreef. What does this mean?

Are you talking about the meaning? Sure enough, you and I believe different things about different ayahs and as such one of us is wrong because of tahreef.

Are you talking about harf? Allah revealed 7 harf, we have 1 now. Is that tahreef?

Goats ate a verse. Is that tahreef?

How can we have a discussion about something without knowing what we are discussing.

 

I will answer this as soon as you define tahreef.

In the meanwhile, I will say this. If tahreef = changes to the meaning/interpretation of the Quran only, then Wallahi I believe every Sunni has changed the Quran.

Brilliant! Really brother. Masterpiece of running away! 

But not this time.

2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:
  1. The Shi'a scholars are unanimously of the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.  The evidence for this are the rational reasons and reported hadith. 

http://imamshirazi.com/the holy quran.html

Do you believe that shia scholars are unanimously of the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it. 

Be brave man. I am not going to bite you. You are grown man, and you need to stand behind your words. 

Answer could be pretty simple.

Yes I do believe that shia scholars are unanimously on the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.

No I don't believe, that shia scholars are unanimously on the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, walaihusaini said:

again with Sunnis forcing beliefs on us. we tell you we don't think this and you continue being persistent in claiming we do. arguing with you guys is not about haqq, you just want your hypocritical religion to be right no matter what. complaining about Shias 'accusing you of baseless lies' but that's what Sunnis have been doing all these years.

as salam alaykum my dear brother.

I am not trying to force any belief upon anybody. I am far from such things, there is no force in the religion.

Quote

sorry, you know more about Shiasm than Imam Shirazi? 

Hmm. No I don't think so. 

So, Shirazi said: The Shi'a scholars are unanimously of the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.  The evidence for this are the rational reasons and reported hadith. 

And I gave very simple question for his faithful shia followers.

Do you believe that shia scholars are unanimously of the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it. 

Answer could be pretty simple.

Yes I do believe that shia scholars are unanimously on the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.

No I don't believe, that shia scholars are unanimously on the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

 

as salam alaykum my dear brother.

I am not trying to force any belief upon anybody. I am far from such things, there is no force in the religion.

Hmm. No I don't think so. 

So, Shirazi said: The Shi'a scholars are unanimously of the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.  The evidence for this are the rational reasons and reported hadith. 

And I gave very simple question for his faithful shia followers.

Do you believe that shia scholars are unanimously of the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it. 

Answer could be pretty simple.

Yes I do believe that shia scholars are unanimously on the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.

No I don't believe, that shia scholars are unanimously on the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.

 

fine I'll answer your question if you answer shiamans question.

Yes I do agree the majority of Shia scholars believe in the preservation of the Quran, however there are a few scholars who believe in such things things but majority of Shia (including me, so please stop telling us we believe the Quran is distorted) believe it's preserved.

now answer the question instead of jumping to copy and paste from Sunni sites and claiming and 'proving' Shia believe in tahreef because I just gave you my answer. understand you cannot force beliefs on someone.

define tahreef and are what the people in previous posts mentioned, doing a form of tahreef? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, walaihusaini said:

Yes I do agree the majority of Shia scholars believe in the preservation of the Quran, however there are a few scholars who believe in such things things but majority of Shia (including me, so please stop telling us we believe the Quran is distorted) believe it's preserved.

Shirazi however said:  The Shi'a scholars are unanimously of the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.  The evidence for this are the rational reasons and reported hadith. 

Basically he reported IJMA, agreed opinion. 

Do you see difference between his words and your words, my dear friend?

Your answer is much, much closer to truth. 

So could you please tell me, if Shirazi didn't know that "there are a few scholars who believe in such things"?

Why did he lied and deluded his followers by claiming that shia scholars are unanimously of the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.  The evidence for this are the rational reasons and reported hadith? 

 

Share this post


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

Brilliant! Really brother. Masterpiece of running away! 

But not this time.

Do you believe that shia scholars are unanimously of the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it. 

Be brave man. I am not going to bite you. You are grown man, and you need to stand behind your words. 

Answer could be pretty simple.

Yes I do believe that shia scholars are unanimously on the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.

No I don't believe, that shia scholars are unanimously on the belief that no corruption or distortion has occurred in the Qur'an, and nothing has been added to or eliminated from it.

When you work up the strength to define what you mean by tahreef, I will work up the strength to answer the question.

For the time being, I agree with the statements.

 

 

Share this post


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

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. 

What are you basing your facts on? The narrations in our books and in your books have room for discussion and if you just look at the apparent wordings of many of these narrations, it isn't as obvious as you make it to be. In fact your books are also very clear in their apparent nature that certain verses are missing from the Qur'an. Now you can justify it in all the ways you want, but if you are going to use generic terms without clarifying, then according to your own books there are certain verses that were revealed by Allah (swt) to the Prophet - whether they were abrogated or not is irrelevant - which do not exist in the current Qur'an. 

Unless:

1) You prove from the intellect that such a thing is impossible (which you really can't, otherwise it would apply to all the previous books of guidance as well, as is the case with rational principles), or

2) You prove the I'jaz of the Qur'an for yourself (which majority of the people can't today - including most scholars, and neither could every Arab that lived during the Prophet's time - it was a minority who actually recognized the I'jaz). Of course this is if you even accept that the Qur'an is a grammatical/linguistic miracle and aren't an adherent of the view of al-Sirfah, or

3) Use other historical methods to accept the reliability of the Qur'an, 

4) and then understand that specific verse of protection exactly in a way where it means that nothing can go missing from the Qur'an,

unless you do any of that, if you come across narrations and reports that seem to speak about verses missing you will have a really difficult time doing ta'weel and tawjeeh of all of those narrations (which is what ends up happening by both Sunni and Shi'i scholars). If you are Akhbari-minded like Mirza Nuri, then I can fully see why he would reach the conclusion that verses are missing from the Qur'an. The fact of the matter is that are tons of reports or narrations that seem to say on face-value that some verses are missing from the Qur'an.

Quote

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? 

I'm not clear on the relevancy of this question since it does not fit the scenario of Mirza Nuri, as he fully accepted that the current Qur'an is indeed from Allah and it has been in this form since the time of 'Uthman. In fact you and Mirza Nuri share the same belief in this regard.

But if you were just asking hypothetically, then once again this is purely a Fiqhi discussion. On top of that, the basis of our Fiqh is completely different than Sunni Fiqh. There are two general views depending on one's Ijtihad on what rejecting the Dhururiyyat (necessities) of the religion entails. 

1) If you have the view that rejecting the necessities of religion is only Kufr if it results in you nullifying the Messenger, or deeming the Prophet a liar, or that God doesn't exist etc. then that is of course Kufr. If it doesn't result in that, then it is not Kufr. According to this view, if you for whatever reason (just an assumption) reach the conclusion based on your Ijtihad that prayers are not Wajib in today's day & age, but still continue to believe in God, the Messenger of God, all the rest of his message etc. you have not committed Kufr.

2) The second view says, any rejection of the necessities - and there is a long list of them - whether it leads you to reject the Messenger of Allah and his message or not, is Kufr.

Depending on the two views above, and the nature of how you deny that the current Qur'an is the word of Allah, the ruling could be different. Based on the first view, if you aren't nullifying the Prophethood of the Prophet (that would be highly unlikely, since one of the strongest proof we have 1400 years later for his Prophethood is the Qur'an), and for example are continuing to live your life as a Muslim, abiding by the ahadith etc., you legally would not be termed a Kafir. This is a hypothetical situation - I don't really know of any Muslim who says the current Qur'an is not the word of Allah, and yet continues to believe in Allah and Muhammad's (p) prophethood and everything else for that matter.

Based on the second view, it would be Kufr since it is established that this belief (that the book we have is the word of Allah) is a necessity within the Islamic belief. 

However, the rejection of the belief that there were some verses that God revealed to the Prophet which are now not in the present Qur'an, is not a necessity, and neither has there been a 100% consensus on it amongst the Muslims since there were always scholars and companions who held this view and the apparent nature of many reports and traditions - without taking into consideration their justifications and explanations - affirm this. You can later try to justify this as tahreef, or abrogated verses that were not recorded, or whatever, but it doesn't change the nature of things. Furthermore, this is a completely different scenario than rejecting the complete current Qur'an as being the word of Allah.

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Share this post


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

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?

I think this is a bit of a loaded question. The words you are using (meaning, understanding and intend) have heavy implications and lengthy discourses. First of all, I hope the issue of Kufr has been clarified according to Shi'i fiqh. Muhaddith Nuri cannot be accused of Kufr and no Shi'i faqih has done takfir of him.

Now that the discussion on Kufr is done, your question is regarding understanding the Qur'an or whether believing in Naqs necessitates in misunderstanding the present verses in the Qur’an. This is a completely separate topic and are two different matters. One discussion is on the current text of the Qur'an, and another is on what is understood from it. For example, even if you do not believe anything is missing from the current text of the Qur'an, the Shi'a can still come and argue that what you understand from it is not what God intended you to understand (and vice-versa). In fact, Allah (swt) Himself claims that He will misguide some through this very book (2:26) and that can be inclusive of those incidents where someone misunderstands a verse and acts according to that.

Nuri’s claim is that we have 'Ilm Ijmali (general knowledge) that certain verses are missing from the Qur’an, but not ‘Ilm Tafseeli (specific knowledge) as to what verses are missing precisely, but that they were most likely to do with certain theological matters. Although the absence of verses isn't a huge issue for him nor is there concern about misunderstanding the verses in the order that they are in today, since he has evidence of the Imams using the Qur'an which is enough to establish its Hujjiyyah. Hujjiyyah here itself dictates that in a supposed scenario where the apparent meaning of the verse that one understands is different than what God intended you to understand, you will have an excuse on the Day of Judgement.

Here it is important to determine what you precisely mean by whether Naqs can have an effect on the meaning (ma’na) and correct understanding (fahm) of the verses. Furthermore, you need to clarify whether your issue is with: Misunderstanding the current text of the Qur’an in it and of itself, or is it Misunderstanding the Qur’an when this misunderstanding is rooted in Naqs – or both, or something else, and why? This is a very hermeneutical discussion and opens up a whole can of worms and I don’t know if this is the right thread to be discussing this.

For example, when in some of the chapters, you have a series of verses related to one topic, then the next few verses are about something completely different and then a third series of verses on something else, if the second set of verses went missing, it actually would not affect your understanding of the first and third set of verses at all. In Usul al-Fiqh and Qawaid Tafsir al-Matn it is established that the Qareenah (contextual-evidence) which effect the Zuhur (prima-facie) of a statement, is Qareena Munfasilah. If the verses missing are not Qareenah Munfasilah for any other verse in the Qur’an, then yes: the current Qur’an as it is with the verses, can be understood in the way Allah (swt) intended them to be understood.

To reiterate: one can argue, as a matter of fact, the current text of the Qur'an that we have, it is possible for it to be understood in a way Allah (swt) wanted us to understand it, and its Hujjiyyah is established for us (Hujjiyyat of being able to use it in the current form is established through the Imams, and through Hujjiyyat al-Zuhur we can claim to have understood the meaning of the verses as Allah intended them to be understood).

As for whether we can understand the verses that are missing, then no we can't, because we don't even have them with us so the question of understanding them or misunderstanding them doesn't exist (سالبة بانتفاء الموضوع). As for whether the missing verses could have affected the meaning of the current Qur'an, you have two possibilities (though it is irrelevant for us at this point after establishing Hujjiyyah for the current text):

1) If it forms part of the context of preceding or subsequent verses, then yes it can possibly change the meaning. Once again, it's only a possibility, not a necessity – depends if the verse was part of the Siyaq of a series of verses, or was it also acting as a Qareenah which effects the Zuhur of another verse.

Example from al-Fatiha - if I remove verse 2:

1: All praise belongs to Allah,
3: Master of the Day of Retribution.
4: You [alone] do we worship, and to You [alone] do we turn for help.

so on, even though one can argue that the verses were all revealed in tandem and are connected, the omission of verse 2, really does not change the apparent meaning of verse 1, 3 and the subsequent verses.

Whereas in other cases, it can actually cause issues. See Baqarah 221 - 223:

221: Do not marry idolatresses until they embrace faith. A faithful slave girl is better than an idolatress, though she should impress you. And do not marry [your daughters] to idolaters until they embrace faith. A faithful slave is better than an idolater, though he should impress you. Those invite [others] to the Fire, but Allah invites to paradise and pardon, by His will, and He clarifies His signs for the people so that they may take admonition.

222: They ask you concerning [intercourse during] menses. Say, ‘It is hurtful.’ So keep away from wives during the menses, and do not approach them till they are clean. And when they become clean, go into them as Allah has commanded you. Indeed Allah loves the penitent and He loves those who keep clean.

223: Your women are a tillage for you, so come to your tillage whenever you like (أَنَّى شِئْتُمْ), and send ahead for your souls, and be Godwary, and know that you will encounter Him; and give good news to the faithful

If verse 222 goes missing, you will actually misunderstand verse 223, becauseأَنَّى شِئْتُمْ  in verse 223 is absolute (Mutlaq), but if you read it with verse 222, you know that its Itlaq has been restricted (Muqayyad) with the previous verse.

2) If it doesn't form a part of a context, then its omission doesn't effect the meaning of the existing verses.

There is a lot more to say on this subject, but since it is a hermeneutical discussion (particularly on the topic of authorial intent), it will become greatly off-topic and irrelevant.

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

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...