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

as salam alaykum dear brothers and sisters, shias and sunnis.

What do you know about shaykh Noori Tabarsi?

He was well known shia scholar, who fearlessly declared his belief in the distortion [taĥrīf] of the Holy Qur’ān. He compiled an entire book to prove this belief, and titled it Faşl al-Khitāb fī Taĥrīf Kitāb Rabb al-Arbāb [“The Decisive Speech Concerning the Distortion of the Book of the Lord of Lords”].

In the very beginning of the work, he explicitly states:

هذا كتاب لطيف وسفر شريف عملته في إثبات تحريف القرآن وفضائح أهل الجور والعدوان

“This is a subtle book, a noble compilation, that I have written to prove the distortion of the Qur’ān and the disgraces of the people of tyranny and oppression.”

Source: Faşl al-Khiţāb fī Taĥrīf Kitāb Rabb al-Arbāb, of al-Nūrī al-Ţabarsī (d. 1320), page 2 [Tehran]

 

The sentence above is found in and can be confirmed by every single copy of Faşl al-Khiţāb available to date.

The following is an confirming image of the handwritten manuscript of Faşl al-Khiţāb by the Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī al-Sayyid Ibn Muĥammad Riđā’ Aĥmad al-Ţabāţabā’ī—whose manuscripts of Murtađá al-Anşārī’s works are relied upon by Shī`ī scholars even today—that can be found at the Ministry of Endowments & Religious Affairs Central Library in Baghdad [§23072]:

ithbattahrif_manu_shot.gif

Question to all knowledgeable shia members of this forum. What do you think about shaykh Mirza Noori Tabarsi (d. 1320)?

I have seen all Shias are in agreement that whoever would accuse Ahlalbayt in deficiency - is kaafir. What would you say about this scholar, who compiled book to prove that Quran is deficient?

 

 

Edited by Abu_Rumaysah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

As for the book you have referred to in your email, it has an a devious and a cunning story behind it, created by the opponent of the Shi'a in order to discredit them.  The eminent scholar Sheikh al-Noori wrote a book called (read the title of the book carefully) Fasl-il-Khitab fi al-RaddAla Tahreef al-Kitab{Detailed Account in Refutingthe Corruption of the Book}in which he reported all the statements made by others (none-Shi'a) about the corruption of the holy Qur'an and refuted all of them, by presenting relevant evidence and arguments, therefore establishing the immunity of the Qur'an from corruption and distortion.  What the opponents of the Shi'a did was to reprint the book again but removing all of his arguments he had made against the claims made by others about the corruption of the Qur'an, and leaving only the statements the author has reported from those who have claimed that the Qur'an has been corrupted in the book, and furthermore they went on to make a slight change to the title of the book: Fasl-il-Khitab fi Ithbat wa Tahreef al-Kitab {Detailed Account in Proving the Corruption of the Book}!!! This is of course not the first time that the opponents of the Shi'a have attempted to defame the Shi'a in order to cover up the truth and spread falsehood.

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

 

May Allah SWT protect us from all kind of lies

Wsalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

^I am sorry to say, and I don't know who wrote the above, but it is the most bogus thing I have ever read and its utterly false. Mirza Nuri did indeed write a book attempting to prove that there are verses missing from the Qur'an.

Wassalam

Didn't know that, thank you brother!

It was taken from Shirazi's website. 

I read though that Noori changed his mind later on, is this claim true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is said that he was regretful over the name he had given to his book, because many people were assuming simply by the title, that he held the belief that the Qur'an was altered through addition and by changes in actual verses, like previous Divine books had. When in fact his view was simply that there are certain verses missing (he didn't claim to know which verses or what they were, but that we know generally speaking that something is missing). Nevertheless he believed the Qur'anic codex we have today is the same copy unified by 'Uthman. Most of this information we know through his student Aqa Buzurg Tehrani (look at his الذريعة إلى‏ تصانيف ‏الشيعة volume 16, page 231-232)

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Straight Path said:

Didn't know that, thank you brother!

It was taken from Shirazi's website. 

I read though that Noori changed his mind later on, is this claim true?

 

Barakallah fikum for your inputs my respected brothers.

Yes, indeed some shia thinkers tried to reject accusation that Noori wrote that book, by changing its heading. But the problem for them is, manuscripts are still available. And in the very beginning of his work, Tabarsi clearly says what was a purpose of his book. 

 

36 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Furthermore, believing in the absence of a certain verse or verses from the Qur'an does not result in Kufr. At this point it becomes a jurisprudential discussion and what establishes Kufr and how someone can be deemed out of the fold of Islam. If your claim is that believing in the absence of a verse(s) in the present copy of the Qur'an makes someone a disbeliever and takes them out of the fold of Islam, then please bring your evidence.

Wassalam

As Salam alaykum my dear and respected brother.

Did not prophet of Allah left for us two weighty things? Why can we see shias so frustrated when someone accuse ahlalbayt in deficiency, and we see you honoring and respecting people who accuse Quran in the same? 

What is going to be reaction of any average shia, if any scholar will write a book to proof deficiency of Ahlalbayt? You would accuse this scholar in nasb, kufr. 

Why then are you tolerating Noori Tabarsi, if he wrote a book to proof deficiency of Quran?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

What do you know about shaykh Noori Tabarsi?

In the very beginning of the work, he explicitly states:

هذا كتاب لطيف وسفر شريف عملته في إثبات تحريف القرآن وفضائح أهل الجور والعدوان

“This is a subtle book, a noble compilation, that I have written to prove the distortion of the Qur’ān and the disgraces of the people of tyranny and oppression.”

Source: Faşl al-Khiţāb fī Taĥrīf Kitāb Rabb al-Arbāb, of al-Nūrī al-Ţabarsī (d. 1320), page 2 [Tehran]

 

As quoted :

"As for Khomeini, in his book Alhukumatul Islamia he speaks very highly of Nuri Tabrasi. He has even quoted from certain of his books in support of his teories. Tabrasi is the very same person who wrote a book titled "Faslul Khitaab fi tahrifi kitaabi Rabbil Arbaab”(the decisive say on the proof of Alteration of the book of the lord of lords) printed in Iran, 1298 A.H., to see that not only he claims the Qur’an is not complete but also he present examples of Surah that is deleted from the Qur’an

There are three individuals with the title of Tabarsi among the Shi’a. The one you mentioned who wrote a booklet on the incompleteness of Qur’an, is al-Nuri al-Tabarsi (Husayn Ibn Muhammad Taqi al-Nuri al- Tabarsi) (c 1254/1838 - 1320/1902).

Those who call any one  Kafir due to this booklet will be surprised if they know that many of the Hadiths that al-Nuri al-Tabarsi has quoted are, in fact, from the Sunni documents and were quoted from their most authentic books!

Actually his book has two parts. In one part he has gathered the Sunni reports and in the other part he provided the Shi’a reports in this regard."

Nonetheless, the Shi’a scholars of his time disagreed with his conclusion regarding the alteration of Qur’an. This shows that the Shi’a scholars strongly believed nothing is missing from Qur’an.

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/belief-shia-in-completeness-quran#tabarsi-and-incompleteness-qur’

 

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

The following is an confirming image of the handwritten manuscript of Faşl al-Khiţāb by the Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī al-Sayyid Ibn Muĥammad Riđā’ Aĥmad al-Ţabāţabā’ī—whose manuscripts of Murtađá al-Anşārī’s works are relied upon by Shī`ī scholars even today—that can be found at the Ministry of Endowments & Religious Affairs Central Library in Baghdad [§23072]:

ithbattahrif_manu_shot.gif

Question to all knowledgeable shia members of this forum. What do you think about shaykh Mirza Noori Tabarsi (d. 1320)?

I have seen all Shias are in agreement that whoever would accuse Ahlalbayt in deficiency - is kaafir. What would you say about this scholar, who compiled book to prove that Quran is deficient?

As quoted:

"The second person with the title of Tabarsi is Abu Mansoor Ahmad Ibn ‘Ali who lived in the sixth century after Hijrah. He is famous for some of his works. He never wrote any book to prove Qur’an is incomplete! Ayatullah Khomeini (ra) quoted from this person in his book, and not the first person as you alleged."

The highly-acknowledged Tabarsi in the Shi’a world is yet another person. His name is Abu ‘Ali al-Fadl Ibn al-Hasan al-Tabarsi (c 486/1093 - 548/1154), who is one of the famous Imami traditionists and the commentators Qur’an. His book on Tafsir is well-known. He believed in the completeness of Qur’an as other Shi’a scholars do. Abu ‘Ali al-Tabarsi mentioned:

"There are no words added to the Qur’an. Any claim of added words is unanimously denied by the Shi’ites. As to the deletion, some Shi’ites and some Sunnis said that there is deletion. But Our scholars deny that."

- Shi’i reference: Quoted from al-Tabarsi, in the Commentary of the Holy Qur’an, by al-Safi

- Sunni reference: Quoted from al-Tabarsi, by Professor Muhammad Abu Zahrah in his book "Imam al-Sadiq".

First of all, Tabarsi has confirmed that nothing has been added in to the Qur’an (as opposed to some of the traditions in Sahih al-Bukhari which claim otherwise). Second, he has mentioned that our scholars (the Shi’a scholars) rejected the idea that anything has been deleted from the Qur’an. His saying clearly shows that the Shi’a scholars disagreed with any idea concerning that Qur’an is missing something.

Thus the very small number of the traditions that might imply otherwise should have proper interpretation. Also as Tabarsi mentioned, such traditions which might imply deletion, are not exclusive to the Shi’ite books, and can be found in the most important Sunni collections of traditions such as Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari."

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/belief-shia-in-completeness-quran#tabarsi-and-incompleteness-qur’

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

When in fact his view was simply that there are certain verses missing (he didn't claim to know which verses or what they were, but that we know generally speaking that something is missing).

as salam alaykum my friend.

I don't think your information is correct enough, my respected brother.

I have already quoted Noori introduction to his book, in the beginning of this thread. Just repeating in case of you missed it. 

In the very beginning of the work, he explicitly states:

هذا كتاب لطيف وسفر شريف عملته في إثبات تحريف القرآن وفضائح أهل الجور والعدوان

“This is a subtle book, a noble compilation, that I have written to prove the distortion of the Qur’ān and the disgraces of the people of tyranny and oppression.”

Source: Faşl al-Khiţāb fī Taĥrīf Kitāb Rabb al-Arbāb, of al-Nūrī al-Ţabarsī (d. 1320), page 2 [Tehran]

Honestly even from this short sentence, it is clear what was intention of Noori. 

Dr. Fatĥ Allāh al-Muĥammadī, who is one of those Ithnā’ `Asharī contemporary refuters, has studied Faşl al-Khiţāb in his Salāmat al-Qur’ān min al-Taĥrīf and confirmed that al-Nūrī believed in the distortion of the Holy Qur’ān.

He writes:

يشتمل كتاب فصل الخطاب لمؤلفه الميرزا حسين النوري ت ١٣٢٠ هـ على ثلاث مقدمات وبابين وقد تحدث النوري في المقدمة الأولى عن النصوص الواردة في جمع تأليف القرآن وأن هذا الجمع مخالف لتأليف مصحف الإمام على، كما تحدث في المقدمة الثانية عن أنواع التغيير في القرآن سواء في ذلك الممكن تحققه أو الممتنع كذلك أما المقدمة الثالثة فذكر الميرزا النوري فيها جملة من أقوال علماء الشيعة الواردة حول مسألة تغيير القرآن وعدمه وعقيب المقدمات الثلاث خصص النوري الباب الأول من كتابه لعرض الأدلة المزعومة وهي اثنا عشر دليلا لإثبات ما توهمه من وقوع التغيير والنقصان في القرآن الكريم فيما ركز في الباب الثاني جهوده على مناقشة أدلة القائلين بسلامة القرآن عن التحريف بعد ذكرها دليلا دليلا

“The book ‘Faşl al-Khiţāb’ by its author al-Mīrzā Ĥusayn al-Nūrī (d. 1320) comprises of three prologues and two chapters.

In the first prologue, he has discoursed on the documented texts concerning the collection, or compilation, of the Qur’ān, and that this collection was different from the copy compiled by Imām `Alī. Similarly, he discoursed on the types of alteration in the Qur’ān, be it the possible one that he believed in or the impossible, in the second prologue. As for the third prologue, al-Mīrzā al-Nūrī mentioned a series of documented statements of Shī`ī scholars about the alteration of the Qur’ān and against it in it.

Following the three prologues, al-Nūrī devoted the first chapter of his book to advancing the purported proofs—and these are a total of twelve proofs—for establishing what he conceived to be occurrence of alterations and deletions in the Noble Qur’ān. He concentrated his efforts in the second chapter on disputing the proofs of the proponents of the protection of the Qur’ān from distortion, after mentioning them one proof after another.”

Source: Salāmat al-Qur’ān min al-Taĥrīf wa Tafnīd al-Iftirā’āt `ala al-Shī`a al-Imāmiyya, of Fatĥ Allāh al-Muĥammadī, page 93 [Qum]

 

Further in the same work, he goes on to cite the arguments of al-Nūrī and even quoting his explicit statements straight from Faşl al-Khiţāb in order to reply to them.

Such as:

قال النوري إن اليهود والنصارى غيروا وحرفوا كتاب نبيهم بعده فهذه الأمة أيضا لا بد وأن يغيروا القرآن بعد نبينا صلى الله عليه وآله لأن كل ما وقع في بني إسرائيل لا بد وأن يقع في هذه الأمة على ما أخبر به الصادق المصدق صلوات الله عليه

“al-Nūrī said: ‘Indeed, the Jews and Christians altered and distorted the book of their Prophets after them. Thus, it is necessary that this nation will alter the Qur’ān after our Prophet (saws) because all that had occurred with Banī Isrā’īl will necessarily occur in this nation, per what is reported by the Truthful Confirmer (saws)…’”

Source: Salāmat al-Qur’ān min al-Taĥrīf wa Tafnīd al-Iftirā’āt `ala al-Shī`a al-Imāmiyya, of Fatĥ Allāh al-Muĥammadī, page 99 [Qum]

And:

قال النوري إن كيفية جمع القرآن وتأليفه [بعد وفاة النبى صلى الله عليه وآله] مستلزمة عادة لوقوع التغيير والتحريف فيه

“al-Nūrī said: ‘Verily, the condition of collecting the Qur’ān (after the demise of the Prophet [saws]) conventionally necessitates alteration of and distortion in it…’”

Source: Salāmat al-Qur’ān min al-Taĥrīf wa Tafnīd al-Iftirā’āt `ala al-Shī`a al-Imāmiyya, of Fatĥ Allāh al-Muĥammadī, page 100 [Qum]

Similarly, the late contemporary Āyat Allāh and author of the famous ‘Abdu'l-lah Ibn Saba and Other Myths,’ al-Sayyid Murtađá al-`Askarī (d. 1428), has also scrutinized Faşl al-Khiţāb in detail in his attempts to prove that Shī`īs do not believe in the distortion of the Qur’ān. In al-Qur’ān al-Karīm wa Riwāyāt al-Madrasatayn, he has studied Faşl al-Khiţāband confirmed throughout the work that al-Nūrī believed in the distortion and cited numerous narrations to prove it in it.

At one point, while constrainedly replying to a narration which al-Nūrī used to prove the distortion of the Holy Qur’ān, al-`Askarī even clearly states:

ولا يصح للشيخ النوري ان يأتي بهذه الفرية من الغالي دليلا على مراده في إثبات تحريف القران

“It is not correct for Shaykh al-Nūrī to bring forth this aspersion of the extremist (narrator) as a proof for his intended establishment of the distortion of the Qur’ān.”

Source: al-Qur’ān al-Karīm wa Riwāyāt al-Madrasatayn, of al-Sayyid Murtađá al-`Askarī (d. 1428), volume 3, page 344 [Qum]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'The completeness of Qur’an is so indisputable among Shi’a that the greatest scholar of Shi’a in Hadith, Abu Jafar Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn al-Husayn Ibn Babwayh, known as "Shaykh Saduq”(309/919-381/991), wrote:

"Our belief is that the Qur’an which Allah revealed to His Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two covers (daffatayn).

And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater in extent than that. The number of surahs as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen ...And he who asserts that we say that it is greater in extent than that, is a liar."

Shi’i reference: Shi’ite Creed (al-I’tiqadat al-Imamiyyah), by Shaykh Saduq, English version, p77.|

"We believe that the Holy Qur’an is revealed by Allah through the Holy Prophet of Islam dealing with every thing which is necessary for the guidance of mankind. It is an everlasting miracle of the Holy Prophet the like of which can not be produced by human mind. It excels in its eloquence, clarity, truth and knowledge. This Divine Book has not been tampered with by any one. This Holy Book which we recite today is the same Holy Qur’an which was revealed to the Holy Prophet. Any one who claims it to be otherwise is an evil-doer, a mere sophist, or else he is sadly mistaken. All of those who have this line of thinking have gone astray as Allah in Qur’an said: "Falsehood can not reach the Qur’an from any direction (Qur’an 41:42)"

- Shi’i reference: The Beliefs of Shi’ite School, by Muhammad Ridha Mudhaffar, English version, pp 50-51

Sayyid al-Murtadha, another prominent Shi’ite Scholar said:

"... our certainty of the completeness of the Qur’an is like our certainty of the existence of countries or major events that are self evident. Motives and reasons for recording and guarding the Holy Qur’an are numerous. Because the Qur’an is a miracle of the Prophethood and the source of Islamic Knowledge and religious rule, their concern with the Qur’an made the Muslim Scholars highly efficient concerning grammar, its reading, and its verses."

With this various concern by the most eminent Shi’a scholars, there is no possibility that the Qur’an was added or deleted in some parts. Besides what Allah mentioned in Qur’an about its protection, we can use our logic to derive the same result. Allah sent his last Messenger to show people (to the end of the time) His Right Path. Therefore if Allah does not preserve His message, He would be contradicting His own aim. Obviously, such negligence is evil according to reason. Thus, in essence, Allah preserves His message as He preserved Moses in the house of His Enemy, Pharaoh.

May Allah Bless Muhammad and his pure Ahlul-Bayt.

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/belief-shia-in-completeness-quran

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, skamran110 said:

'The completeness of Qur’an is so indisputable among Shi’a n

If you would pay attention, talk here is not about general shia belief in completeness of Quran.  I don't want to discuss it here, and I ask you do not ruin this thread with copy pastes not related to discussed topic.

As for your words, that belief in completeness is so indusputable, I would answer with words of very same Noori Tabarsi from his "Faslul Khitab fi isbat tahrif kitab rabil arbab" (p 32 manuscript). He said:

“(Second point of view) that there was no distortion or deletion in it (Quran), and all that was revealed upon prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi wa ali) is present between two covers on the hands of people. This point of view been adopted by Saduq in his “Itiqat”, Saeed Murtada and shaykh of Taifa in (book) “at-Tibyan”. And I don’t know anyone from the old (scholars) that agreed with them in it”.

faslul-khitab-32.jpg

 

Share this post


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

ولا يصح للشيخ النوري ان يأتي بهذه الفرية من الغالي دليلا على مراده في إثبات تحريف القران

“It is not correct for Shaykh al-Nūrī to bring forth this aspersion of the extremist (narrator) as a proof for his intended establishment of the distortion of the Qur’ān.”

"There is an aayah inside Qur’an where Allah is saying:

Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian (15:9)

As this verse is telling us, Qur’an is protected by Allah himself. This verse implies that Qur’an is not altered by the prophet, and it is not altered by the end of the prophet’s life. There are two different understandings, however, on this aayah, one is from sunni people and the other is from Shi’a-athna-ashari. Shi’a-athna-ashari says that the book of Allah is protected by Allah himself and along with the history.

Not even one single human being can add any letter, reduce any letter, or change any letter of it. This does include all types of human beings. It is , in reality, out of the power of human being to do that. As the result of such understanding, Shi’a-athna-ashari says:

Even a Budist can not change Qur’an and publish it and widely.
Even a zionist can not do that.
A Shi’a can not do that.
The prophet, himself, can not do that.
‘Ali and his sons can not do that,
None among SUNNI people can do that.
Not a pagan can do that."

 

 

Share this post


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

If you would pay attention, talk here is not about general shia belief in completeness of Quran.  I don't want to discuss it here, and I ask you do not ruin this thread with copy pastes not related to discussed topic.

As for your words, that belief in completeness is so indusputable, I would answer with words of very same Noori Tabarsi from his "Faslul Khitab fi isbat tahrif kitab rabil arbab" (p 32 manuscript). He said:

“(Second point of view) that there was no distortion or deletion in it (Quran), and all that was revealed upon prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi wa ali) is present between two covers on the hands of people. This point of view been adopted by Saduq in his “Itiqat”, Saeed Murtada and shaykh of Taifa in (book) “at-Tibyan”. And I don’t know anyone from the old (scholars) that agreed with them in it”.

faslul-khitab-32.jpg

 

As quoted :

"As for Khomeini, in his book Alhukumatul Islamia he speaks very highly of Nuri Tabrasi. He has even quoted from certain of his books in support of his teories. Tabrasi is the very same person who wrote a book titled "Faslul Khitaab fi tahrifi kitaabi Rabbil Arbaab”(the decisive say on the proof of Alteration of the book of the lord of lords) printed in Iran, 1298 A.H., to see that not only he claims the Qur’an is not complete but also he present examples of Surah that is deleted from the Qur’an

There are three individuals with the title of Tabarsi among the Shi’a. The one you mentioned who wrote a booklet on the incompleteness of Qur’an, is al-Nuri al-Tabarsi (Husayn Ibn Muhammad Taqi al-Nuri al- Tabarsi) (c 1254/1838 - 1320/1902).

Those who call any one  Kafir due to this booklet will be surprised if they know that many of the Hadiths that al-Nuri al-Tabarsi has quoted are, in fact, from the Sunni documents and were quoted from their most authentic books!

Actually his book has two parts. In one part he has gathered the Sunni reports and in the other part he provided the Shi’a reports in this regard."

Nonetheless, the Shi’a scholars of his time disagreed with his conclusion regarding the alteration of Qur’an. This shows that the Shi’a scholars strongly believed nothing is missing from Qur’an.

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/belief-shia-in-completeness-quran#tabarsi-and-incompleteness-qur’

Does not [Edited Out].com  provide  you the original input but you go for  C & P as usual including OP?

 

 

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


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

Did not prophet of Allah left for us two weighty things? Why can we see shias so frustrated when someone accuse ahlalbayt in deficiency, and we see you honoring and respecting people who accuse Quran in the same? 

What is going to be reaction of any average shia, if any scholar will write a book to proof deficiency of Ahlalbayt? You would accuse this scholar in nasb, kufr. 

Why then are you tolerating Noori Tabarsi, if he wrote a book to proof deficiency of Quran?

This is not a very solid argument or even a proper comparison. First of all, it isn't really clear to me what you mean by someone deeming the Imams as deficient? I will assume you mean that people reject their divine appointment as an Imam. If that is the case, there are a few results for that. One is that you are really discarding a source of divine guidance completely. Second of all, you are not really a Shi'a at that point, since one of the main creed of the Shi'as is the belief in divine appointment of the Imams.

If by deficiency you meant things like denying certain attributes (knowledge of unseen or extent of infallibility etc.) that mainstream Shi'as believe in today, while others don't, then there have been many works written on topics like these. The reaction is never that of takfir, and it is dealt with like any other work and critiqued as deemed fit. They are generally treated the same way Mirza Nuri's book is treated.

Furthermore, scholars were and have been frustrated with this work of Mirza Nuri and still are. As for why we are tolerating Mirza Nuri as a scholar overall, then what does tolerating someone have to do with critiquing one of his works? He did not believe that the Qur'an is not a miracle, or a divine book. All he believed was that some verses are missing (like if someone believed the Imams or the Prophet could forget at times). That would be an extremely fallacious move (to discredit someone's personality or all of their other works based on one work - without having read the other works or not knowing about their general methodology). Mirza Nuri had an opinion on this matter, he presented it, he has been critiqued and refuted numerous times. The book has no value in Shi'i scholarly circles, so I'm not even sure why the Sunnis keep bringing it up. His other works and methodology have also been critiqued severely. Look at what Imam Khomeini says about his works in his Anwar ul-Hidayah:

أنّه لو كان الأمر كما توهّم صاحب فصل الخطاب الّذي كان كتبه لا يفيد علما و لا عملا، و إنّما هو إيراد روايات ضعاف أعرض عنها الأصحاب، و تنزه عنها أولو الألباب من قدماء أصحابنا كالمحمّدين الثلاثة المتقدّمين رحمهم اللَّه. هذا حال كتب روايته غالباً كالمستدرك، و لا تسأل عن سائر كتبه المشحونة بالقصص و الحكايات الغريبة التي غالبها بالهزل أشبه منه بالجدّ، و هو - رحمه اللّه - شخص صالح متتبّع، إلاّ أنّ اشتياقه لجمع الضعاف و الغرائب و العجائب و ما لا يقبلها العقل السليم و الرّأي المستقيم

This was Imam Khomeini's view regarding his books (pretty extreme I would say), but nevertheless, other scholars may have the opinion that his other works and efforts are to be appreciated. You are making it sound like as if no one from among your respected scholars ever held a rare or unaccepted view that they then weren't critiqued on.

Quote

I have already quoted Noori introduction to his book, in the beginning of this thread. Just repeating in case of you missed it. 

I own a physical copy of the book brother, I have gone through different sections of it. You are using two words (التغيير و التحريف) that can mean multiple things to accuse Mirza Nuri of something he himself and his student later clarify he did not believe in. Furthermore, some of those passages are taken out of context and when read in-line with the general chapter or discussion, one will not understand what you are claiming. Please refer to the reference I provided earlier from al-Dhari'ah. This is the relevant passage:

: أن الاعتراض مبني على المغالطة في لفظ التحريف، فإنه ليس مرادي من التحريف التغيير و التبديل، بل خصوص الإسقاط لبعض المنزل المحفوظ عند اهله، و ليس مرادي من الكتاب القرآن الموجود بين الدفتين، فإنه باق على الحالة التي وضع بين الدفتين في عصر عثمان، لم يلحقه زيادة و لا نقصان، بل المراد الكتاب الإلهي المنزل. و سمعت عنه شفاها يقول: إني أثبت في هذا الكتاب أن هذا الموجود المجموع بين الدفتين كذلك باق على ما كان عليه في أول جمعه كذلك في عصر عثمان، و لم يطرء عليه تغيير و تبديل كما وقع على سائر الكتب السماوية، فكان حريا بأن يسمى فصل الخطاب في عدم تحريف الكتاب فتسميته بهذا الاسم الذي يحمله الناس على خلاف مرادي، خطأ في التسمية، لكني لم أرد ما يحملوه عليه، بل مرادي إسقاط بعض الوحى المنزل الإلهي، و إن شئت قلت اسمه القول الفاصل في إسقاط بعض الوحى النازل‏

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Furthermore, believing in the absence of a certain verse or verses from the Qur'an does not result in Kufr. At this point it becomes a jurisprudential discussion and what establishes Kufr and how someone can be deemed out of the fold of Islam. If your claim is that believing in the absence of a verse(s) in the present copy of the Qur'an makes someone a disbeliever and takes them out of the fold of Islam, then please bring your evidence.

 

Don't you agree that the absence of a word from the Quran could change the meaning of a verse? If so then how is the Quran protected? 

If the Quran is not protected, then it is not a hujja on mankind. This belief in kufr.

 

Share this post


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

 

Don't you agree that the absence of a word from the Quran could change the meaning of a verse? If so then how is the Quran protected? 

If the Quran is not protected, then it is not a hujja on mankind. This belief in kufr.

 

Well Hz Aisha let a goat (or sheep) eat the verse on suckling.

Hz Umar acknowledged the verse of Stoning is missing and if he did not fear people, he would have added it in the Quran.

Surely you are not calling Hz Umar and Aisha kafir?

Share this post


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

Don't you agree that the absence of a word from the Quran could change the meaning of a verse? If so then how is the Quran protected? 

If the Quran is not protected, then it is not a hujja on mankind. This belief in kufr.

First of all, protection is a very vague term and you should know about the immense amount of discussion that this topic has received in the exegesis literature.

Protection from what? Protection from addition of a word, a verse, a chapter, removal of a word, verse or chapter, altering of verbs, words or letters etc.? Protection by keeping it preserved with a divine authority? 

And why is just an absence of a verse an issue? Do you believe that the numerous Qira'at can alter the meanings of a verse - especially when the Qira'at (not limited to the 7-famous ones, because there were tons more) are mere Ijtihad of the Qurra'? Just take a glance at the Mu'jam al-Qira'at al-Qur'aniyyah of Dr. Ahmad Mukhtar to get an idea of how rampant different recitals were. I am not talking about different pronunciations of the same word (like in the case of doing idgham or imalah), rather I am referring to the addition or removal of actual letters or words, or change in the conjugation of verbs or nouns. These all result in change of meaning, no matter how trivial you may claim it may be. The books of the grammarians are filled with attempted justifications for various different recitations of certain verses - including those from the infamous ones - which result in different meanings.

Furthermore, given the fact that most Sunnis agree that there are a number of abrogated verses that are not part of the Qur'anic codex today, at the end of the day, God knows how those verses would have changed one's understanding of the verses around it. Siyaq and Qara'in play a huge role in the prima-facie of the Qur'anic verses. 

Second of all, why does the Qur'an not being protected (whatever this means) tarnish its Hujjiyyah (the ability to justify my beliefs and actions that were based on the Qur'an, on the Day of Judgment)? Don't the Sunnis generally deny the infallibility of the Prophet from minor sins and mistakes (i.e. he was not protected in these matters) and yet believe in the Hujjiyah of his words and actions? We have the Hujjiyah of the present Qur'an established due to the plenty of statements from the Imams speaking of the reliability of the Qur'an and they themselves referring to it - so the issue of protection (again, whatever this protection means) as you are making it out to be is pointless for us.

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2016 at 0:23 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

This is not a very solid argument or even a proper comparison. First of all, it isn't really clear to me what you mean by someone deeming the Imams as deficient? I will assume you mean that people reject their divine appointment as an Imam. If that is the case, there are a few results for that. One is that you are really discarding a source of divine guidance completely. Second of all, you are not really a Shi'a at that point, since one of the main creed of the Shi'as is the belief in divine appointment of the Imams.

If by deficiency you meant things like denying certain attributes (knowledge of unseen or extent of infallibility etc.) that mainstream Shi'as believe in today, while others don't, then there have been many works written on topics like these. The reaction is never that of takfir, and it is dealt with like any other work and critiqued as deemed fit. They are generally treated the same way Mirza Nuri's book is treated.

Well honestly I thought I am clear enough my brother. Would try to elaborate.

Prophet (saws) left two weighty things. We agreed on this? 

Quran and Ahlalbayt. 

What would be ruling on a man, who would compile independent book in order to provide proofs that Ahlalbayt had shortcomings? Faults? Such man would be labeled like disbeliever by 99.9% of all shias.

Tabarsi, and yes I know that is different Tabarsi and not an author of Ihtijaj. So this Mirza Noori Tabarsi basically compiled book in order to prove that Quran has shortcomings, faults.

Quote

Furthermore, scholars were and have been frustrated with this work of Mirza Nuri and still are.

What was the result on their frustration? 

Just brief example. You believe that drinking wine is something not suitable for masoom. Right? If someone would say that hz Ali use to drink wine, and would bring efforts to prove this. Would would be his status in shia world? You would be simply frustrated? Or you would accuse him in nasb, which is basically is worse for you than shirk? 

Quote

 That would be an extremely fallacious move (to discredit someone's personality or all of their other works based on one work - without having read the other works or not knowing about their general methodology). Mirza Nuri had an opinion on this matter, he presented it, he has been critiqued and refuted numerous times. 

He had opinion? That is it? So easy? Man said Quran Holy book of Muslim nation been tampered, altered. So what? He had opinion. 

Allah said He would protect His book. 

What is a ruling of a man who rejects verse from Quran? Still Muslim? Or in the view of Tabarsi this verse been made up by companions? 

Quote

I own a physical copy of the book brother, I have gone through different sections of it. You are using two words (التغيير و التحريف) that can mean multiple things to accuse Mirza Nuri of something he himself and his student later clarify he did not believe in. 

Man common! taghyir wa tahrif used in very well known meaning, when talk is about the book. Please be little bit more serious. We are not playing games in kinder garden here, where people can delude each other. We are discussing serious matters regarding our religion. 

Whom we supposed to believe in regards to his views? To his own book? Or to those who came after and tried their best to find excuses for him?

And why if he was understood wrong, later if I am not mistaken he wrote book refuting people who refuted "Faslul khitab"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2016 at 5:21 PM, Abu_Rumaysah said:

What would be ruling on a man, who would compile independent book in order to provide proofs that Ahlalbayt had shortcomings? Faults? Such man would be labeled like disbeliever by 99.9% of all shias.

Nonsense. Critiquing someone or even deeming them outright wrong and misinformed, is different than labelling someone a disbeliever. You shouldn't be expecting a Salafi-Militant ideology amongst us, where we are just waiting for a slight opportunity to start passing takfir on someone. Allamah Shushtari has written a treatise on Sahw of the Prophet in Salat and no one has labelled him a disbeliever. Ayatullah Muhammad Husayn Najafi and Sayyid Fadhlullah had many theological views regarding the Imams that were not mainstream, but no one labelled them disbelievers and outside the fold of Islam (don't start quoting attacks that have been done on these scholars, we are not talking about attacks and critiques, your point here is about disbelief and being deemed outside of the folds of Islam). There are numerous other books written where scholars have denied things such as Wilayah Takweeni or 'Ilm ul-Ghayb of the Imams, no one has done takfir on them. Look how harshly Ayatullah Najafabadi was critiqued for his book where he denied 'Ilm ul-Ghayb of the Imam, yet no one considered him a disbeliever. 

So not sure what fantasy world you are living in to assume that just because someone writes a book showing something that is not a mainstream Shi'i view regarding the Imams, that they would be deemed disbelievers. Yes, if they will come and deny the divinely appointed status of the Imams, then they are no longer Imami Shi'as and will be outside of the folds of Imami Shi'ism, not Islam.

Quote

So this Mirza Noori Tabarsi basically compiled book in order to prove that Quran has shortcomings, faults.

Do we honor Bible or Torah? No, because we know that they been altered. Tabarsi said the same about Quran. And yet he again honored, and respected scholar in shia world. You see this normal? 

Please don't start words games with me. Go back to some of my post, to understand that you speaking with brother who is well aware about shia beliefs.

It is horrendous how you are comparing the view of Mirza Nuri with regards to the absence of a few verses, to the alteration and changes that are attributed to the Bible and Torah. It seems you are not aware of how the Bible and Torah were even compiled to begin with, to even know what alteration in those two set of books mean. The problem is how you have constrained the meaning and implication of the word tahreef to something specific. Any academic would know that the word tahreef is vague and can mean many potential things. Maybe you should read up on the various possibilities that the word tahreef can have. There has been serious tahreef done in the meaning and understanding of the Qur'an, even this is a form of tahreef that even you accept. The Qir'at are a form of tahreef - whether you like it or not (I know the Sunnis get a bit up-tight when it comes to the discussion on Qira'at given how the orientalists have ripped you guys hard enough since the last two-centuries on this topic).

As for playing games with words, either you have not studied the traditional Islamic sciences, or your studies were really weak. Anyone with an ounce of experience in traditional Islamic studies would know that words are extremely important. For you to come and tell me not to play word games shows your lack of inexperience and ignorance. Most Qur'anic related discussions are discussions revolving around words, and not being clear on what one means by the usage of terms results in fallacious premises and conclusion. This is exactly what you are doing in your posts as well. You have taken a certain understanding and meaning of the word tahreef and are now applying it to what you want your argument to be.

Quote

What was the result on their frustration? 

The result is that the majority of the Shi'a world has not even seen or heard of the book, yet a bunch of online-Sunnis are all excited over it and keep bringing it up despite the numerous refutations written on it by Shi'i scholars. 

Quote

Just brief example. You believe that drinking wine is something not suitable for masoom. Right? If someone would say that hz Ali use to drink wine, and would bring efforts to prove this. Would would be his status in shia world? You would be simply frustrated? Or you would accuse him in nasb, which is basically is worse for you than shirk? 

Are you asking my personal opinion? First of all, if someone were to have this view (like Dr. Israr Ahmed), and was quoting from their own works of history, this does not prove that the person is a Nasibi. If people and scholars emotionally call out this person for Nasb, then I don't see this as anything more than name-calling and attacking the person. I would never refer to such a person as a Nasibi in the legal sense, because quoting something like this - while the person who is quoting it believes that this was before wine was prohibited - is not enough grounds for anyone to establish Nasb. Establishing Nasb for someone necessitates many laws and true Nasibis (in the legal sense) do not really exist and have not existed for many centuries - at least I am not aware of any. 

Quote

He had opinion? That is it? So easy? Man said Quran Holy book of Muslim nation been tampered, altered. So what? He had opinion. 

Allah said He would protect His book. 

What do you mean so easy? The guy wrote a whole book on it trying to prove his point - how is that so easy?

Quote

What is a ruling of a man who rejects verse from Quran? Still Muslim? Or in the view of Tabarsi this verse been made up by companions? 

Not sure what relevance rejecting a verse from the Qur'an has to do with considering certain verses absent from the current codex. These are two different topics so please don't mix things up. I am sure you can find some far-fetched justifications for the poor man, just like many of your scholars do for 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud when he decided not to put Surah al-Falaq and al-Naas in his codex because he didn't deem them to be part of the Qur'an. Or the justifications made for Ubay adding two extra chapters to his codex.

Quote

Man common! taghyir wa tahrif used in very well known meaning, when talk is about the book. Please be little bit more serious. We are not playing games in kinder garden here, where people can delude each other. We are discussing serious matters regarding our religion. 

Whom we supposed to believe in regards to his views? To his own book? Or to those who came after and tried their best to find excuses for him?

I feel like I am in kindergarten when a person thinks the word tahreef or protection are so blatantly clear in their meaning and can't be used in meanings other than what you intend them to be. First of all, go bring me evidence from his book (not cut-off excerpts - mind you, I own the book so I can always double-check with my copy, perhaps a specific chapter, or a range of pages) which proves without any doubt, that in his book he argues and believes in something other than the belief of verses missing from the Qur'an. 

Secondly, no one has made any excuses for him. His own words after having written the book clarify what his views were and what his argument in the book is. If you are taking his book and understanding something other than what he himself is claiming his belief to be, then you are simply not understanding his work or are on an agenda to misuse his words.

Wassalam

Share this post


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

if I am not mistaken he wrote book refuting people who refuted "Faslul khitab"

I was correct. 

 al-Muarib at-Tahrani wrote book in refutation  of "Faslul khitab". Book named ( كشف الارتياب في عدم تحريف الكتاب) "Kashf al-Irtiyad fi adami tahrif al-Kitab"

Tahrani in "adh-Dhariyat" 18/9, said:

421 : كشف الارتياب في عدم تحريف الكتاب  للفقيه الشيخ محمود ابن أبي القاسم الشهير بالمعرب الطهراني المتوفى أوائل العشر الثاني بعد الثلاثمائة كتبه ردا على " فصل الخطاب " لشيخنا النوري فلما عرض على الشيخ النوري كتب رسالة مفردة في الجواب عن شبهاته 

Translation:

Kashf al-Iritayb fi adami tahrif al-Kitab by faqih shaykh Mahmood ibn Abul Qasim known as al-Muarib at-Tahrani died in first 10-th second after 300 (seems after 1300). He wrote in refutation of "Faslul Khitab" of our shaykh an-Noori. And when it was presented to shaykh Noori, he wrote specific book in answers on his doubts (meaning doubts of Muarib).

And in volume 10 of his book "adh-Dhariyah", page 220, Tahrani spoke about this answer of Noori. 

So basically, Noori didn't simply wrote a book to prove that Quran been tampered. He also wrote refutation to people who tried to refute his book. 

Being honest it is hard to believe that he regretted, or rejected that idea later. Because no proofs for this available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2016 at 6:22 PM, Abu_Rumaysah said:

Being honest it is hard to believe that he regretted, or rejected that idea later. Because no proofs for this available. 

Seems like you didn't read my 4th post on this thread, where I quoted:

أن الاعتراض مبني على المغالطة في لفظ التحريف

Maybe you should have looked it up and seen what it says before that statement:

 ورد عليه الشيخ محمود الطهراني الشهير بالمعرب، برسالة سماها كشف الارتياب عن تحريف الكتاب فلما بلغ ذلك الشيخ النوري كتب رسالة فارسية مفردة في الجواب عن شبهات كشف الارتياب كما مر في 10: 220 و كان ذلك بعد طبع فصل الخطاب و نشره فكان شيخنا يقول: لا أرضى عمن يطالع فصل الخطاب و يترك النظر إلى تلك الرسالة. ذكر في أول الرسالة الجوابية ما معناه: أن الاعتراض مبني على المغالطة في لفظ التحريف، فإنه ليس مرادي من التحريف التغيير و التبديل، بل خصوص الإسقاط لبعض المنزل المحفوظ عند اهله، و ليس مرادي من الكتاب القرآن الموجود بين الدفتين

Not going to quote the rest here of the paragraph here.

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2016 at 6:27 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Seems like you didn't read my 4th post on this thread, where I quoted:

Yes probably, I have missed it.

On 10/13/2016 at 6:18 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

First of all, go bring me evidence from his book (not cut-off excerpts - mind you, I own the book so I can always double-check with my copy, perhaps a specific chapter, or a range of pages) which proves without any doubt, that in his book he argues and believes in something other than the belief of verses missing from the Qur'an. 

Seems you also not paying much attentions, I quoted two shia scholars on this, here:

Quote

It is horrendous how you are comparing the view of Mirza Nuri with regards to the absence of a few verses, to the alteration and changes that are attributed to the Bible and Torah.

It is not me, but Noori made comparison:

قال النوري إن اليهود والنصارى غيروا وحرفوا كتاب نبيهم بعده فهذه الأمة أيضا لا بد وأن يغيروا القرآن بعد نبينا صلى الله عليه وآله لأن كل ما وقع في بني إسرائيل لا بد وأن يقع في هذه الأمة على ما أخبر به الصادق المصدق صلوات الله عليه

“al-Nūrī said: ‘Indeed, the Jews and Christians altered and distorted the book of their Prophets after them. Thus, it is necessary that this nation will alter the Qur’ān after our Prophet (saws) because all that had occurred with Banī Isrā’īl will necessarily occur in this nation, per what is reported by the Truthful Confirmer (saws)…’”

Source: Salāmat al-Qur’ān min al-Taĥrīf wa Tafnīd al-Iftirā’āt `ala al-Shī`a al-Imāmiyya, of Fatĥ Allāh al-Muĥammadī, page 99 [Qum]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I feel like I am in kindergarten when a person thinks the word tahreef or protection are so blatantly clear in their meaning and can't be used in meanings other than what you intend them to be. First of all, go bring me evidence from his book (not cut-off excerpts - mind you, I own the book so I can always double-check with my copy, perhaps a specific chapter, or a range of pages) which proves without any doubt, that in his book he argues and believes in something other than the belief of verses missing from the Qur'an. 

as salam alaykum my dear friend.

Can we a little bit elaborate on underlined part. Correct me if I am wrong, but you argue that Tabarsi simply believed that some parts of Quran are missing. 

Let me give you brief example.

Sentence:

Yusuf says: I do not believe in brotherhood between shias and sunnis. 

Sentence  with clear meaning. Someone doesn't believe that we can be brothers in Islam.

Let me first explain how it could be tampered by addition.

Yusuf says: I do not believe in brotherhood between shias and sunnis with bahais.

See? I have added two words, and the meaning of text changed. Someone doesn't believe that Shias and Sunnis could be brothers with bahais.

Let me give another example, where by omitting word, meaning would be again tampered.

Yusuf says: I do believe in brotherhood between shias and sunnis.

See? I have simply omitted word "not", and how dramatically meaning is changed? 

First we tampered words of Yusuf by adding something, then we tampered (altered, changed - name it as you wish) his words by omitting one word from sentence. Both examples would be called alteration, tampering, changing of meaning.

So if Tabarsi, like you said simply believed that some verses or even part of the verses been missing from Quran, this again would be called that he did believe in change, tampering, alteration of Quran. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let me give example from shia hadith, how omitting of verse or part of it, end with claim that current version of verse been tampered.

Allah Taala said in the Quran (2:23):

And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.

Al-Istarabadi narrated in his book “Taweel ayatu zaheer” (1/42-43) his own version of this verse:

From Abu Jafar (alaihi salam): Jibril descended upon Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) with this verse, in this form: “And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant ABOUT ALI, then produce a chapter like it”

Now could you please tell me if the version of verse that allegedly been revealed like it was narrated by this scholar, was not tampered, changed, altered by dropping name of Ali from it? Could you please be short in answer. Yes it been tampered. Not it was not.

If Tabarsi as you claim only believed that something been dropped from Quran, he believed in such type of alteration (tahrif).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Second of all, why does the Qur'an not being protected (whatever this means) tarnish its Hujjiyyah (the ability to justify my beliefs and actions that were based on the Qur'an, on the Day of Judgment)? Don't the Sunnis generally deny the infallibility of the Prophet from minor sins and mistakes (i.e. he was not protected in these matters) and yet believe in the Hujjiyah of his words and actions? We have the Hujjiyah of the present Qur'an established due to the plenty of statements from the Imams speaking of the reliability of the Qur'an and they themselves referring to it - so the issue of protection (again, whatever this protection means) as you are making it out to be is pointless for us.

 

For the sake of not losing focus on the discussion, one of the meanings of "protected" according to most of your scholars that go against Noori, is that this includes protection from naqs.

It is only logical that the existence of naqs makes it unprotected. I hope you can admit this in your next reply.

The Sunnis believe in the Hujjiyah of the Prophet peace be upon him because of the evidences of his infallibility in bringing us the message, which we find in the Quran, like in Al Najm 3-4 and Al Haqa 44-47.

 

If the Imams taught that the Quran is protected from naqs, which makes it a hujja, wouldn't rejecting their view and holding the view that it is not protected from naqs, and that it isn't a hujja, kufur? 

 

 

 

Edited by submitter71

Share this post


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

If the Imams taught that the Quran is protected from naqs, which makes it a hujja, wouldn't rejecting their view and holding the view that it is not protected from naqs, and that it isn't a hujja, kufur? 

Excellent point brother, barakallahu fik.

Share this post


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

If the Imams taught that the Quran is protected from naqs, which makes it a hujja, wouldn't rejecting their view and holding the view that it is not protected from naqs, and that it isn't a hujja, kufur?

There is an aayah inside Qur’an where Allah is saying:

Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian (15:9)

As this verse is telling us, Qur’an is protected by Allah himself. This verse implies that Qur’an is not altered by the prophet, and it is not altered by the end of the prophet’s life.

Not even one single human being can add any letter, reduce any letter, or change any letter of it. This does include all types of human beings. It is , in reality, out of the power of human being to do that.

Now i quote some narrations to mention the belief  about alteration in the number of verses i n the quran:

1- Muslim also reported in the Sahih in book of Nursing (al-Ridha), v10 pages 29 (Arabic), that Aisha said the following:

There was in what was revealed in the Qur’an that ten (10) times of nursing known with certainty makes the nursing woman a mother of the nursed child. This number of nursing would make the woman ‘Haram’ to the child. Then this verse was replaced by ‘ five (5) known nursing ‘ to make the woman forbidden to the child. The Prophet died while these words were recorded and read in the Qur’an.

2- Also al-Zamakhshari recorded that Aisha said that the Qur’anic verse enjoining stoning for adultery was written on a leaf, but the leaf was accidentally eaten by a goat while the Prophet Muhammad was on his death-bed, and thus the verse was lost.

3- Umar (reportedly) Said Chapter 33 Is Incomplete:

al-Muttaqi ‘Ali Ibn Husam al-Din in his book (Mukhtasar Kanz al-Ummal, printed on the margin of Imam Ahmed’s Musnad, v2, p2) in his Hadith about chapter 33, that said Ibn Mardawayh Reported that Huthaifah said:

Umar said to me: How many verses are contained in the Chapter al-Ahzab ? I said 72 (seventy two) or 73 (seventy three) verses. He said: It was almost as long as the chapter of the Cow, which contains 287 (two eighty seven) verses, and in it there was the verse of stoning.

.The Messenger of God stoned and we stoned after him. I am concerned that if time goes on, some one may say ‘ By God we do not find the verse of stoning in the Book of God ‘; thus, the Muslims will deviate by neglecting a commandment the Almighty revealed.

Again, we used to read in what we found in the Book of God:
Do not deny the fatherhood of your fathers in contempt because it is a disbelief on your part to be ashamed of your fathers.

More references of similar tradition:

- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (in the Musnad of Umar under the caption of the Hadith al-Saqeefah, pp 47,55)

- Sirah of Ibn Hisham (Pub. by Issa al-Babi al-Halabi of Egypt 1955), v2, p658

On the basis of above narrations can it be concluded  that the Aisha  &  Umar  had talked about their kufur?

Or

Did Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari had made a kufur by including such narrations in their books?

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Muhaddith Nuri himself was a scholar and discusses this verse in his book. Clearly he didn't understand the same thing that the majority of Shi'i scholars did. 

Being infallible strictly in one's message is different than being infallible in other matters, especially when one has the view that they could do minor-sins and make mistakes. This completely jeopardizes the role of the Messenger when it comes to his words and actions, and this one of the main reasons why there is such a huge discussion on Hujjiyah al-Sunnah within the Sunni madhhab.

First of all, Muhaddith Nuri obviously did not believe that the Imams taught us that there is no naqs in the Qur'an (in fact quite the opposite) and then despite this held the view that there is naqs. Second of all, let us say our scholars arrive at the conclusion that there can't and isn't any naqs in the Qur'an. Does that mean that whoever else holds such a view (that there are some verses missing from the present copy of the Qur'an) based on their research is outside the folds of Islam (i.e. are Kafir)? For a straight-forward Fiqhi response, the answer is no.

Nice words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Abu_Rumaysah         @submitter71

Salaam brothers.

This is another one of those useless topics that you bring up.

You haven't defined tahreef but you are saying anyone who believes in tahreef is a kafir so I will go with the following statements:

1) Caliph Uthman consolidated 7 harf into 1. That is tahreef; he is a kafir

2) Hz Aisha let a goat eat the verse of adult-suckling. She is directly responsible for the missing verse. That is tahreef; she is kafir

3) Caliph Umar claims the verse of stoning is missing in the Quran and he would have added it in the Quran himself if he did not fear people. He believes in tahreef; he is a kafir.

4) The Quran today has diacritical marks which was not in the original hence every quran has been tampered aka tahreef so all Muslims are kafir.

The bastions and pillars of Sunni Islam believe in tahreef and if your point is that Nuri believing in tahreef makes all shia kafir, then Nuri came a long time after the 3 personalities mentioned above.

Please consolidate and organize your thoughts before proceeding further on this topic. Either all of the above is true or you are just trying to malign the shias.

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2016 at 9:25 PM, shiaman14 said:

@Abu_Rumaysah         @submitter71

Please consolidate and organize your thoughts before proceeding further on this topic. Either all of the above is true or you are just trying to malign the shias.

Wonderful advice with explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late replies.

 

On 10/14/2016 at 3:24 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

First of all, Muhaddith Nuri obviously did not believe that the Imams taught us that there is no naqs in the Qur'an (in fact quite the opposite) and then despite this held the view that there is naqs. Second of all, let us say our scholars arrive at the conclusion that there can't and isn't any naqs in the Qur'an. Does that mean that whoever else holds such a view (that there are some verses missing from the present copy of the Qur'an) based on their research is outside the folds of Islam (i.e. are Kafir)? For a straight-forward Fiqhi response, the answer is no.

 

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. 

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? 

Please give an answer with an explanation.

 

@shiaman14 I will respond to you in my other thread on the Quran so that this topic doesn't get derailed. 

Edited by submitter71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Through my discussions with others it has been claimed that the Shi'a believe that the Qur'an we have today is not the complete Qur'an.  Not only that, but they believe, it was claimed, that the holy Qur'an has been corrupted.  A book, Fasl-il-Khitab fi Ithbat wa Tahreef al-Kitab, written by a prominent Shi'a scholar, al-Noori, was cited to prove their point, in which the author 'proves' the Qur'an has been corrupted!  It this true?  Do the Shi'a believe that the holy Qur'an we have today is incomplete and corrupted?  And about the book mentioned above, what is your comment?  Is its author an odd one out amongst the Shi'a or does he represent a broad view of the Shi'a in this respect?

 

  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. 

Allah Almighty has declared about the protection of the Qur'an from corruption, saying:

{We have, without doubt, sent down the Reminder; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).}  15:9.

And corruption is one of the foremost manifestations of the Batil - falsehood - as well as being contrary to any protection.  All of our eminent Maraje' and Tafsir scholars have established that Qur'an is and has been immune from corruption in their books.  This is in addition to the many and frequent hadith from the Ma'soomeen of the Ahl-ul-Bayt (AS). 

All of our Maraje' and scholars without exception have confirmed on the authority /proof (Hujjah) of the holy Qur'an.  For if the Qur'an were corrupted or distorted, then it would carry no authority, since every Ayah referred to might be corrupted or distorted, as detailed in their books.   Allah Almighty declares in the holy Qur'an:

{And indeed it is a Book of exalted power.  No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: it is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise.}  41:41-42.

It is a book elevated from corruption of distortion.  In fact there is no one of our scholars who claims that any of the ayat of the book has changed.

As for the book you have referred to in your email, it has an a devious and a cunning story behind it, created by the opponent of the Shi'a in order to discredit them.  The eminent scholar Sheikh al-Noori wrote a book called (read the title of the book carefully) Fasl-il-Khitab fi al-Radd Ala Tahreef al-Kitab{Detailed Account in Refuting the Corruption of the Book}in which he reported all the statements made by others (none-Shi'a) about the corruption of the holy Qur'an and refuted all of them, by presenting relevant evidence and arguments, therefore establishing the immunity of the Qur'an from corruption and distortion.  What the opponents of the Shi'a did was to reprint the book again but removing all of his arguments he had made against the claims made by others about the corruption of the Qur'an, and leaving only the statements the author has reported from those who have claimed that the Qur'an has been corrupted in the book, and furthermore they went on to make a slight change to the title of the book: Fasl-il-Khitab fi Ithbat wa Tahreef al-Kitab {Detailed Account in Proving the Corruption of the Book}!!! This is of course not the first time that the opponents of the Shi'a have attempted to defame the Shi'a in order to cover up the truth and spread falsehood.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:
  1.  
  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. 

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.

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...