Ayatollah Sayed Murtadha Qazwini believes in changed Quran

[Cool]

27 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

All people here be witness, that @Abu Hadi will now prove that Quran of Mola Ali (عليه السلام) had Tafsir.

Quran collected by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has much more features too. But you need to accept the basic fact that "tafseer" cannot become "Part of Quran". 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

4 minutes ago, Cool said:

Quran collected by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has much more features too. But you need to accept the basic fact that "tafseer" cannot become "Part of Quran". 

Definitely, that's a very good point though. Tafseer definitely is not something that could be a part of what is to be recited. also the presence of other hadiths, like the Quran had 17,000 verses, and testimony of Abdullah ibn Omar that most of Quran has been lost, points to the fact that Mushaf of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was certainly different from Mushaf that Usman compiled and distributed among Muslims after burning all the others.

There is a Sahih narration from Ibn Masood that when Quran were burned down, he asked people to protect their mushafs and said how can he stop reciting 70 chapters that he learned from Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) which points to the fact that this present Mushaf is missing around 70 juzz. I'll try to find this narration and post here it might have some different words though

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

Found it its Musnad Ahmed Hadith 3929:

It is a Sahih Hadith as tafarrud in hadith is not a reason to weaken hadiths and Ibn Hibban's Tawtheeq is accepted by AhleSunnah except for wahabi and wahabis have no basis for it either ( see wajahat Hussein Al hanafis refutation for it )

 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

 

According to Ahmed Muhammad Shakir, this Hadith has `Sahih Chain`

[Abu Hadi]

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

 

All people here be witness, that @Abu Hadi will now prove that Quran of Mola Ali (عليه السلام) had Tafsir. Please enlighten us with historical evidence, words of infallible that proves that Quran had tafseer.

I gave plenty of Hadiths in this thread that it verses were recited differently, and people like Zayd Bin Thabiq who compiled Quran and others, their words prove Quran is incomplete.

 

'Prove' depends on what your threshold of 'prove' is. Since I don't know what your threshold of proof is, I don't know if there is a way for me to do this. If you want me to send you the book by FedEx or DHL so you can examine it, carbon date it, cross reference it, etc, then I cannot do that as I do not posses this book. 

I can say that it is discussed a great deal, at least amoung Shia ulema and there are many hadith that point to it's existence. 

BTW, this has been discussed previously on ShiaChat.

Here is more information

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Mushaf_of_Imam_Ali_(a)

In the exegetic book of al-Shahristani (d. 548/1153-4) it is mentioned: after the collection of Qur'an, Ali (a) and his slave, Qanbar, brought it to the Companions, they were carrying it with difficulty and it is said that it was equal to a load of a camel. Imam Ali (a) told them: this is the book of Allah as is revealed to Muhammad (s), I collected it in a volume. They said: 'take away your Mushaf as we do not need it.' Imam Ali (a) said: 'by Allah, you will never see it again, I had the responsibility to inform you when I collected it.' Then he returned while he was reciting this verse: "O my Lord! Indeed my people consigned this Qur'an to oblivion." (Quran 25:30)[3]...

Ibn al-Nadim in his book al-Fihrist says: after the demise of the Prophet (s), Imam Ali (a) stayed in his home for 3 days and collected Qur'an and this was the first collected Qur'an. This Mushaf was among the progeny of Ja'far, and I saw the Mushaf with the handwriting of Ali b. Abi Talib (a), in possession of Abu Ya'li Hamza al-Hasani, which some of its pages was decayed. The progeny of al-Hasan (a) had inherited it and this is the order of suras in Mushaf of Imam Ali (a): …[5]

and 

According to al-Shaykh al-Mufid and some other scholars, there was the interpretation of the verses in the Mushaf of Imam Ali (a).[11] Also nasikh was before mansukh.[12] It is said that many of the ambiguous verses, including the names of some of the hypocrites, were explained in the marginal notes. These were the reasons that the Mushaf was not accepted; so Imam Ali (a), while verifying the Qur'an collected by the command of 'Uthman, hid his Mushaf.[13]...

Most Shi'a sources believe that after Imam Ali (s) the Mushaf is inherited by Imams and now it is in the possession of Imam al-Mahdi (a).

These books of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) were placed as a trust amoung the Ummah. Because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gave us free will, we can choose either to accept it or reject it. The simple and unfortunate facts of history are that the Ummah not only rejected the Mus'haf of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)), they also rejected the Wilayat of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) thru their acceptance of the (fake) Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, etc. Because they rejected, they were deprived of the true guidance, which is in this book. 

As a side note, you will probably see in the source I quoted that there are many reports that they order of the Surat(s) of Quran were different in the Quran compiled by Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) vs the Quran we currently have today. Like I said before, this is not evidence of Tahreef (distortion) because each Surat is an independent unit in it's meanings, i.e. it does not rely on a particular order of other Surat in order to give it meaning. It is not like a novel where you need to read the first chapter before the second chapter to know what is going on in the second chapter. The Quran is not like that, and this is due to it's miraculous nature which Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gave to it.

As further evidence, here is a passage from the book 'Philosophy of Islamic Laws' by Nasr Shirazi

Question: Was the Qur’an revealed to the Prophet of Islam ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).a.) in the same form as it is presently? And what is the proof of that there was no tempering with it?

 It should be kept in mind that the song of tempering with Qur’an was mostly sung by the Christians and the Jews. Since according to the admitted testimony of history the heavenly books of both those religions had became prey to change and tempering as the time passed and have lost their original charm, value and credence. That is why they make efforts that the Holy Qur’an also be polluted with allegations of distortion....

The Author gives  additional proofs for the protections Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gave to the Holy Quran against tampering and distortion. Please read.

https://www.al-islam.org/philosophy-islamic-laws-naser-makarem-shirazi-jafar-subhani/question-52-quran-safe-distortion

And the 'evidence' you presented is extremely weak, basically non existent. I'm not sure why you don't reconsider this before you take such an odd position. The Quran itself says, 

“We have sent Qur’an, and We are its Protector and Caretaker.”

Surah Hijr 15:9

As you know the 'We' is referring to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). So if you say that the Quran was changed, distorted, then I would like to know how you will justify that position vis a via this ayat. You haven't addressed that in your responses. I would be interested to hear it. 

Edited July 2 by Abu Hadi

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

If you want me to send you the book by FedEx or DHL so you can examine it, carbon date it, cross reference it, etc, then I cannot do that as I do not posses this book. 

No brother such a thing is not possible at all and i'd never ask for weird thing like that. For us shias, proof is Clear verses from Quran Pak then Sunnah / Ahlebait (عليه السلام). So if you proof that what extra was there in Mushaf e Ali (عليه السلام) was tafseer of Quran, then you can bring it forward. Because there are sooo many ahadith that clearly said a verse was recited differently in time of Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), or that Jibreal (عليه السلام) bought it to Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) like "...content of verse" thats different from present Quran.

All of things you've quoted above, are opinions of scholars that have no evidence for their claims.

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

I'm not sure why you don't reconsider this before you take such an odd position. The Quran itself says, 

“We have sent Qur’an, and We are its Protector and Caretaker.”

Surah Hijr 15:9

As you know the 'We' is referring to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). So if you say that the Quran was changed, distorted, then I would like to know how you will justify that position vis a via this ayat. You haven't addressed that in your responses. I would be interested to hear it. 

Fair question, actually I had addressed this one before. The translation of the verse you gave is from `one` interpretation of the ayah,

Ayah says: We have sent Al-Zikr and we are its / his protectors.

First of all, there is no hadith from Ahlebait (عليه السلام) in which Ahlebait (عليه السلام) used this verse to refute tehreef or claimed Quran is protected from any alteration because this verse is a proof.

Now, you take opinions of `fallible` persons who have given multiple opinions regarding this verse. this verse is not clear with its meaning.

According to arabic scholars, i have read and listened to three famous interpretations of this verse:

1. Is the one that you know, that Al-Zikr means Quran and Allah protects it.

2. Scholars say Al-Zikr is Quran but `Lahu` in verse refers to Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (We've sent Quran and we are his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) protectors)

3. Scholars say Al-Zikr refers to prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم): We've sent Al-Zikr (i:e Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and we are his protectors.

You can refer back to Quranic Tafaseer to cross-check what I'm saying.

My point is, when you have multiple scholarly opinions about this verse, what is the reason you choose to pick on specific opinion and enforce it on people to reject countless hadiths?

Secondly, even if we take 1st interpretation, you still need to first prove that Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) gave this book to ummah, What i mean is, lets say today someone compiles a Quran with 20 chapters only, would that Quran also be protected by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) just because it has verse 9 of chatper 15? That doesn't make sense.

The only Quran that we had a chance to get from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) was the one the Mola Ali (عليه السلام) compiled, and this verse can only apply to that Mushaf, Zayd Bin Thabit and others selectively compiled a different book against it that by no means comes under the protection just because it has one verse from Quran saying its protected.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

22 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Failed to address any of my question regarding this verse, here an extract of tafseer from hub e Ali and before you attack Hub-e-Ali, just letting you know they've quoted Sadooq here from Uyun Akhbaar e Reza:

Zikr in the verse 15:9 refers to Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

As for Shia hadiths, we have these from Sheikh Sadooqs Uyun Akhbar e Reza and some other books which suggest Al-Zikr refers to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
we have no other hadiths in tafseer for this verse as far as I'm aware. If we do, I'd thank anyone to teach me about them.

Edited July 2 by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi
change some words

[Abu Hadi]

48 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

No brother such a thing is not possible at all and i'd never ask for weird thing like that. For us shias, proof is Clear verses from Quran Pak then Sunnah / Ahlebait (عليه السلام). So if you proof that what extra was there in Mushaf e Ali (عليه السلام) was tafseer of Quran, then you can bring it forward. Because there are sooo many ahadith that clearly said a verse was recited differently in time of Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), or that Jibreal (عليه السلام) bought it to Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) like "...content of verse" thats different from present Quran.

All of things you've quoted above, are opinions of scholars that have no evidence for their claims.

Fair question, actually I had addressed this one before. The translation of the verse you gave is from `one` interpretation of the ayah,

Ayah says: We have sent Al-Zikr and we are its / his protectors.

First of all, there is no hadith from Ahlebait (عليه السلام) in which Ahlebait (عليه السلام) used this verse to refute tehreef or claimed Quran is protected from any alteration because this verse is a proof.

Now, you take opinions of `fallible` persons who have given multiple opinions regarding this verse. this verse is not clear with its meaning.

According to arabic scholars, i have read and listened to three famous interpretations of this verse:

1. Is the one that you know, that Al-Zikr means Quran and Allah protects it.

2. Scholars say Al-Zikr is Quran but `Lahu` in verse refers to Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (We've sent Quran and we are his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) protectors)

3. Scholars say Al-Zikr refers to prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم): We've sent Al-Zikr (i:e Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and we are his protectors.

You can refer back to Quranic Tafaseer to cross-check what I'm saying.

My point is, when you have multiple scholarly opinions about this verse, what is the reason you choose to pick on specific opinion and enforce it on people to reject countless hadiths?

Secondly, even if we take 1st interpretation, you still need to first prove that Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) gave this book to ummah, What i mean is, lets say today someone compiles a Quran with 20 chapters only, would that Quran also be protected by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) just because it has verse 9 of chatper 15? That doesn't make sense.

The only Quran that we had a chance to get from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) was the one the Mola Ali (عليه السلام) compiled, and this verse can only apply to that Mushaf, Zayd Bin Thabit and others selectively compiled a different book against it that by no means comes under the protection just because it has one verse from Quran saying its protected.

Here's another simple logical proof for you

Besides the variation in sequence of Surat within the Quran (we have addressed this earlier), if there were any other variations in the Quran (wording, sequence of words within an ayat, different wording for ayat, additions of deletions of words within an ayat, changing of verb tenses, etc) these would have been recorded somewhere at some point and either A) we would have a record of it or b) we would see variations in wording within modern quran (I will come back to this point)

The fact that is accepted by 99.999% of Muslims is that the text of the Quran was standardized during the Caliphate of Uthman (The Uthman Codex). This text is now, and has been since that time, the standard text for Quran which has not changed. 

The Uthman Codex was standardized during the time of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)), the original compiler of the Quran, while he was still alive. Do you imagine that Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) with his reputation for being an upholder of Haqq, which noone disputes, would have overlooked and been silent about alterations to the Quran ? Also the Imams that came after him would also be silent ? The probability of this happening is zero. 

The text of the Quran that we have today is identical, word for word and even down to the accent marks, to the Uthman Codex. If you really want to know if this is true or not, you can see the original Codex, which is in the University of Al Azhar in Cairo, and then compare it to any modern Quran you can find. 

As to my earlier point, if there were variations in the original text, there would be variations in the modern text. This is strait logic. 

This is clear and simple logic which overrides any obscure references which you might like to pull out of your hat. As Imam Sadiq((عليه السلام)) said 'Leave what is unclear for what is clear'. 

Again, this is regarding the text of the Quran, 114 Surat beginning with Al Fatiha and ending with Al Nas. This is the Quran. As for the Tafsir, like I said the original and best tafsir is not available to us currently, which is a huge tragedy which prevents us from understanding the Quran, fully and completely. 

Edited July 2 by Abu Hadi

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

4 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Here's another simple logical proof for you

Besides the variation in sequence of Surat within the Quran (we have addressed this earlier), if there were any other variations in the Quran (wording, sequence of words within an ayat, different wording for ayat, additions of deletions of words within an ayat, changing of verb tenses, etc) these would have been recorded somewhere at some point and either A) we would have a record of it or b) we would see variations in wording within modern quran (I will come back to this point)

The fact that is accepted by 99.999% of Muslims is that the text of the Quran was standardized during the Caliphate of Uthman (The Uthman Codex). This text is now, and has been since that time, the standard text for Quran which has not changed.

Have you read ahadtih on tehreef? If you did, you'd never be asking these questions. Here i'll breifly list some examples which had entierly different wordings leaving no room for 3 caliphs to justify their caliphate:

1. Surah Maida Verse 67 according to ibn Masood had imam Ali (عليه السلام) name (tafseer dur al mansoor)

2. Verse of Ulil Amr had wording refer back to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), messenger, and Ulil-amr

3. Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) said Quran that Jibreal bought to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had 17,000 verses (must be in Mushaf e Ali (عليه السلام))

4. Ibn Umar said nobody has got complete Quran infact most of it has been lost

5. Ibn Masood said i learned 70 surahs from Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and will not stop reciting it (when Qurans were burned by Usman) means 70 chapters that were in Mushaf e Ibn Masood are missing.

6. Verse Allah chose Adam Noah Aale Ibrahim Ale Imran Ale Muhammad over alameen doesn't have aale Muhammad today

7. Sahaba used to fight over differences in Quran as Umars once almost got into a fight with someone who was reciting Quran differently.

If i were to open books, it would take alot of time to quote each and every hadith i see for tehreef, you should first read and then come up with conclusions.

You again said standard text was same hence not changed without any proofs at all.

12 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

The Uthman Codex was standardized during the time of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)), the original compiler of the Quran, while he was still alive. Do you imagine that Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) with his reputation for being an upholder of Haqq, which noone disputes, would have overlooked and been silent about alterations to the Quran ? Also the Imams that came after him would also be silent ? The probability of this happening is zero. 

I remember one thing about which i'm not soo sure where i read but i think Uthman or someone admitted theres mistake in this Mushaf. Uthman ordered to Burn all different Qurans down brother because all of them had differences have you seen Ibn Masoods narration above i Quoted?? If you did you would've never said this. Sahaba tried to save their Mushafs but they burned them down why? If they had same texts then why? Ibn masood narrations proves that atleast 70 Surahs chapters are missing from uthmans mushaf.

Secondly, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and Aima (عليه السلام) did their job, and provided people with enough guidance that is enough to take people to Jannah, If you ever read hadiths you wouldn't have said this about Aima (عليه السلام), the told us to recite the Quran just like people recite it till Qaim appears. Where it was necessary, they did tell us about plenty of verses, their context and their correct recitation.

[Cool]

52 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

According to arabic scholars, i have read and listened to three famous interpretations of this verse:

1. Is the one that you know, that Al-Zikr means Quran and Allah protects it.

2. Scholars say Al-Zikr is Quran but `Lahu` in verse refers to Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (We've sent Quran and we are his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) protectors)

3. Scholars say Al-Zikr refers to prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم): We've sent Al-Zikr (i:e Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and we are his protectors.

Salam Brother!!

Why complicating things for yourself? Here is a verse:

أَوَعَجِبْتُمْ أَن جَاءكُمْ ذِكْرٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ عَلَى رَجُلٍ مِّنكُمْ لِيُنذِرَكُمْ وَلِتَتَّقُواْ وَلَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

7:63

So thikr & rajul both are mentioned here. So Qur'an is ذكر in the first place. Then that ذكر is revealed on the heart of Rajul i.e., our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), who absorbed that ذكر to the extent that his whole being becomes a Quran, in that context, Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is also known as ذكر. 

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the Protector of ذكر means Qur'an & Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

بَلْ هُوَ آيَاتٌ بَيِّنَاتٌ فِي صُدُورِ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْعِلْمَ ۚ وَمَا يَجْحَدُ بِآيَاتِنَا إِلَّا الظَّالِمُونَ

29:49)

[Abu Hadi]

15 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Have you read ahadtih on tehreef? If you did, you'd never be asking these questions. Here i'll breifly list some examples which had entierly different wordings leaving no room for 3 caliphs to justify their caliphate:

1. Surah Maida Verse 67 according to ibn Masood had imam Ali (عليه السلام) name (tafseer dur al mansoor)

2. Verse of Ulil Amr had wording refer back to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), messenger, and Ulil-amr

3. Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) said Quran that Jibreal bought to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had 17,000 verses (must be in Mushaf e Ali (عليه السلام))

4. Ibn Umar said nobody has got complete Quran infact most of it has been lost

5. Ibn Masood said i learned 70 surahs from Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and will not stop reciting it (when Qurans were burned by Usman) means 70 chapters that were in Mushaf e Ibn Masood are missing.

6. Verse Allah chose Adam Noah Aale Ibrahim Ale Imran Ale Muhammad over alameen doesn't have aale Muhammad today

7. Sahaba used to fight over differences in Quran as Umars once almost got into a fight with someone who was reciting Quran differently.

If i were to open books, it would take alot of time to quote each and every hadith i see for tehreef, you should first read and then come up with conclusions.

You again said standard text was same hence not changed without any proofs at all.

I remember one thing about which i'm not soo sure where i read but i think Uthman or someone admitted theres mistake in this Mushaf. Uthman ordered to Burn all different Qurans down brother because all of them had differences have you seen Ibn Masoods narration above i Quoted?? If you did you would've never said this. Sahaba tried to save their Mushafs but they burned them down why? If they had same texts then why? Ibn masood narrations proves that atleast 70 Surahs chapters are missing from uthmans mushaf.

Secondly, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and Aima (عليه السلام) did their job, and provided people with enough guidance that is enough to take people to Jannah, If you ever read hadiths you wouldn't have said this about Aima (عليه السلام), the told us to recite the Quran just like people recite it till Qaim appears. Where it was necessary, they did tell us about plenty of verses, their context and their correct recitation.

We proceed based on the evidence that is available to us. We are responsible before Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for what has been taught to us in a clear way. 

Yes, I know there are references to Quran containing 17,000 verses, etc, etc. None of these are decisive proofs because they don't reach the level of Mutawattir, i.e. clear and unambigous, transmitted by multiple chains of reliable transmitters. 

I am not saying these are all wrong, but what I am saying is that there is not enough evidence to accept these at this point in time. In the time of Al Qaim this might change. I am willing to accept that, but we live in 2023, in this time, not in that time. So we are responsible for what we know now not what might be known in the future. 

Don't you see that by constantly citing weak and ambiguous evidence, all you are doing is helping and strengthening the case of the Christians and Jews who are constantly attempting to bring the Quran down to the level of their books (what they call the 'Bible' and 'Torah') which are constantly being re written and changed in accordance to the whims of the ruling elite, even up the present day ? So go ahead and keep making these weak and ambiguous points. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 2 by Abu Hadi

[Cool]

9 minutes ago, Cool said:

 

بَلْ هُوَ آيَاتٌ بَيِّنَاتٌ فِي صُدُورِ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْعِلْمَ ۚ وَمَا يَجْحَدُ بِآيَاتِنَا إِلَّا الظَّالِمُونَ

29:49)

The above "tarkeeb" i.e., aayaatun baiyyenaatun" is specific for the ones whom Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has granted the knowledge. This profound verse also mentioning the sacred place where the verses of Quran are saved i.e., the hearts of those whom He granted knowledge. 

For us, Quran is a collection of verses and Ahlul Bayt عليهم السلام are Baiyyenaat:

وعن محمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن الحسين، عن يزيد شعر، عن هرول بن حمزة، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال:
سمعته يقول: * (بل هو آيات بينات في صدور الذين أوتوا العلم) * (1) قال:
هم الأئمة خاصة.

And the combination of thaqalayn i.e.,"Quran & Ahlul Bayt" gives us or help us to get to the tarkeeb where the ayaat becomes baiyyenaat. 

And if you want to know further, I would recommend you to recite sura e baiyyenah and look at the interpretation of its verses. 

Wassalam!!

 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

25 minutes ago, Cool said:

Salam Brother!!

Why complicating things for yourself? Here is a verse:

أَوَعَجِبْتُمْ أَن جَاءكُمْ ذِكْرٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ عَلَى رَجُلٍ مِّنكُمْ لِيُنذِرَكُمْ وَلِتَتَّقُواْ وَلَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

7:63

So thikr & rajul both are mentioned here. So Qur'an is ذكر in the first place. Then that ذكر is revealed on the heart of Rajul i.e., our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), who absorbed that ذكر to the extent that his whole being becomes a Quran, in that context, Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is also known as ذكر. 

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the Protector of ذكر means Qur'an & Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

بَلْ هُوَ آيَاتٌ بَيِّنَاتٌ فِي صُدُورِ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْعِلْمَ ۚ وَمَا يَجْحَدُ بِآيَاتِنَا إِلَّا الظَّالِمُونَ

29:49)

Salam un aliakum.

Thanks alot for this one, you further gave one more interpretation that al-zikr refers to both Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Quran. Just further explains Ayah can have various interpretations and not one of them is clear enough to reject mutawatir al maani ahadith.

I'd however like to point one thing out, you quoted a verse and said zikr here refers to Quran therefore al-zikr in 15:9 also means Quran. That is the definition of Qias which is haram and can't be used to prove anything atleast in Shia mazhab.

Secondly, if i accept your understanding of verse that it means both prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Quran are protected, you should also explain why and how was Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) poisoned then? Where was the protection? 

Your reply to that would be my reply to the protection of the Quran.

Also, the zikr that was revealed to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) also contains Hadith because Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) doesn't speak from his own will, its only revelation. therefore you'd also have to explain how come hadith became corrupted while Allah took duty of protection of whatever has been revealed to Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

10 minutes ago, Cool said:

And the combination of thaqalayn i.e.,"Quran & Ahlul Bayt" gives us or help us to get to the tarkeeb where the ayaat becomes baiyyenaat. 

And if you want to know further, I would recommend you to recite sura e baiyyenah and look at the interpretation of its verses. 

InshaAllah. I just came back after a long break and have started learning arabic as well maybe then i'll be able to understand and read more about Islam. I appreciate your suggestion and will start reading Quran from Surah e baiyena.

[Guest Stranger Danger]

Salam

In the past, holy books were changed, but no one challenged the fact they were. So it's good we can question these things, as other communities were too scared.

Today, the translations are horrible. 

However, because of the doctrine of Nubuwa and it coming to an end, we have to believe Quran is safeguarded in some way. In fact, the primary reason to end Nubuwa and not make Imams add to revelation and be Nabis, is due to wisdom of safeguarding the last revelation to mankind.

The relevant part I will quote:

Indeed, the elevated status of His Prophet saww has been revealed in those (explicit) Verses which are clearly understood by literate as well as illiterates, which is, for example, ‘Those who obeyed His Prophet in fact have submitted to their Lord’122 and at another place Allah azwj Says: ‘Indeed, Allah and His angels send Salwat on His Prophet, so those who have embraced Eman should also sand Salwat and be submissive as perfectly as one could’123 . The preceding verse has both inner as well as outer meanings, thus explicitly it is ‘Salu Alay’ (send salwat) whereas its implicit meanings are ‘salimu taslema’ which in fact says that they should bow down to the will of His Prophet saww regarding the choice of his successor asws, after him. He asws has been given superiority over their lives so they should fulfil their pledges of allegiance to him asws . This is the ‘news’ which I have disclosed to you, and no one else knows about its implicit explanations, the way I have described to you, except those whose thoughts are unpolluted, have clear conscious and have the righteous approach. And similarly, Allah azwj’s words on ‘A peace be upon the family of Yaseen’124, as Allah azwj called His Prophet saww with the name of ‘Yaseen’, and Says: Yaseen, by the wisdom filled Quran, You are indeed among the Prophets’125 . This title was used due to the fact that it was in the knowledge of Allah azwj that they will eliminate His azwj Words ‘Salam ala Alay Mohammed’ in the similar manner as they did so to some of His azwj other Words. Rasool Allah saww always demonstrated the status of his ‘Aal’ (progeny) to everyone by keeping them asws closer to him saww, showing his saww affection for them asws, making them asws always sit besides him saww and until Allah azwj sent His azwj Commands to move his saww enemies away from his saww proximity. As per Allah azwj‘s Words: ‘Dissociate yourself from them with politeness’.126 Similarly, at another place Allah azwj Says: What has happened to these Kafir who are flocking around you from all directions, with the hope of getting access to paradise. Of course, they do not know for what they were created from127 . And also Says: on that day everyone will be called together with his Imam’128 rather than saying ‘We shall call them with their names together with the names of their father and mother

https://hubeali.com/articles/Questions-of-Zanadiqa-on-Quran.pdf

The way it's safeguarded is neither that the meaning is preserved nor that the letters are unanimously and there is no difference in this regard, it's that upon research, a person can come to the right letters and Qariat, and meaning.  

The Quran is also written in a way with "room for playful hearts to twist it's words" so as to stop people from physically changing it's words.  This is part of its design to the frustration of both believers and non-believers, it's a wise plan we have to acknowledge.

 

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِالذِّكْرِ لَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ ۖ وَإِنَّهُ لَكِتَابٌ عَزِيزٌ | Those who reject the Reminder when it comes to them and indeed, it is an august Book: | Fussilat : 41

لَا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ ۖ تَنْزِيلٌ مِنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ | falsehood cannot approach it, at present or in future, a [revelation gradually] sent down from a Wise Praiseworthy | Fussilat : 42

 

[Cool]

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

you quoted a verse and said zikr here refers to Quran therefore al-zikr in 15:9 also means Quran. That is the definition of Qias which is haram and can't be used to prove anything atleast in Shia mazhab.

Brother!!

Can we separate Quran from the very being of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? 

What has been mentioned earlier was with reference to the verse 7:63 where zikr is Quran and rajul is Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

I further explained that the zikr i.e., Quran revealed on the heart of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), this makes the very heart of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) a kitab, perhaps "kitabin maknoon" to which none can have access except the mutahharoon. 

So in 15:9, what is al-zikr? Is it the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) & not his very heart which carries the revelation? Or is it Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) & Quran both. 

And what sort of protection is intended in that verse? Is it a protection against injuries, protections against poisoning, protection against death or what? 

رَسُولٌ مِّنَ اللَّهِ يَتْلُو صُحُفًا مُّطَهَّرَةً

98:2 

So the verses of Quran are صُحُفًا مُّطَهَّرَةً, the same can be said about the Imams of Ahlul Bayt عليهم السلام:

وقوله: " رسول من الله " يعني محمدا صلى الله عليه وآله " يتلو صحفا مطهرة " يعني يدل على اولي الامر من بعده وهم الأئمة عليهم السلام وهم الصحف المطهرة

Furthermore, Quran is a zikr for Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) too, as a verse says so:

فَٱسْتَمْسِكْ بِٱلَّذِيۤ أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ إِنَّكَ عَلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ 

 وَإِنَّهُ لَذِكْرٌ لَّكَ وَلِقَوْمِكَ وَسَوْفَ تُسْأَلُونَ

43:43-44

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Secondly, if i accept your understanding of verse that it means both prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Quran are protected, you should also explain why and how was Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) poisoned then? Where was the protection? 

Brother, if your intention is debate for the sake of debate, I am not the correct person for that. 

Your whole focus is on this material limited worldly life & its harms and totally ignoring the spiritual aspect as well as the verses of Quran. So people are burning the Quran in this world, does that mean the divine promise of the protection of Quran is false (na'udobillah)? 

Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) & his Ahlul Bayt عليهم السلام are the misdaaq of "kalimatan baqiyyatan":

وَجَعَلَهَا كَلِمَةً بَاقِيَةً فِي عَقِبِهِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ

43:28

Your Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is still a witness over the Imam of your time (atfj), his Prophethood is still here, as long as any single Imam of Ahlul Bayt عليهم السلام is living on earth, his very existence itself is an evidence for the existence of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) according to his words انهم مني و انا منهم. 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

17 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

1. Is the one that you know, that Al-Zikr means Quran and Allah protects it.

2. Scholars say Al-Zikr is Quran but `Lahu` in verse refers to Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (We've sent Quran and we are his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) protectors)

3. Scholars say Al-Zikr refers to prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم): We've sent Al-Zikr (i:e Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and we are his protectors.

Salam both of Quran & prophet Muhammad (pbu) are Al-Zikr which in similar fashion Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has been speaking Quran (قرآن ناطق)  which even according to Sunni narrations according to Ayesha prophet (pbu) has been himself living Quran  &manistifation of it which in similar fashion all of infallible Imams have been speaking Quran (قرآن ناطق) while current book of Quran is silent Quran which both of them are complete & infallible & unseperable until judgment day which most unfornate event in battle of siffinn has been pritorizing silent Quran on spears over speaking Quran (قرآن ناطق) so then seperating these two by people likewise Khawarij which they just clinged to silne Quran so therfore they have been deviated by Quran .

Quote

We send down in the Quran that which is a cure and mercy for the faithful; and it increases the wrongdoers only in loss. (82)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/17:82

Quote

بعض متاخر منابع میں ہے کہ سپاہ معاویہ نے جنگ صفین میں جب اس بہانہ سے قرآن کو نیزوں پر بلند کیا کہ ہم قرآن کی حکمیت پر راضی ہیں تو حضرت علیؑ نے فرمایا: أنَا الْقُرآنُ النّاطِق؛ میں قرآن ناطق ہوں۔[4]

https://ur.wikishia.net/view/قرآن_ناطق

[Ashvazdanghe]

21 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

There is a Sahih narration from Ibn Masood that when Quran were burned down, he asked people to protect their mushafs and said how can he stop reciting 70 chapters that he learned from Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) which points to the fact that this present Mushaf is missing around 70 juzz.

It doesn't point that around 70 juzz have been missed but on the other hand only points that capacity of Ibn Masood 9ra) for learning of quran has been in level of learning 70 Juzz not whole of it which only Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & Ahl al-Kisa have capacity to learn it  from prophet Muhammad(pbu) which keeping Mushafs  mean keeping a valuable gift from prophet Muhammad (pbu) because policy of three caliphs has been based on destroying any thing which has been related to prophet Muhammad (pbu) to replace their innovation instead of teachings of prophet Muhammad (pbu).

[Ashvazdanghe]

17 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

3. Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) said Quran that Jibreal bought to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had 17,000 verses (must be in Mushaf e Ali (عليه السلام))

What is the purpose of Kulaini of the hadith of 17 thousand verses of the Quran?

1. The meaning of the Quran in this narration is a broader meaning than the original Quran, which includes everything that has been revealed as revelation, and if they are placed next to the existing Quran, the number of verses will reach seventeen thousand verses.[3]

2. There is a difference of opinion among the scholars of this field regarding the number of Quranic verses. The reason for the difference is that some have considered one verse as two verses.[4] The large number of Quranic verses may be related to this issue from the point of view of this narration. For example, verse 77 of Surah Nisa can be 7 verses:

Quote

«أَ لَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذینَ قیلَ لَهُمْ کُفُّوا أَیدِیکُمْ وَ أَقیمُوا الصَّلاةَ وَ آتُوا الزَّکاةَ * فَلَمَّا کُتِبَ عَلَیهِمُ الْقِتالُ إِذا فَریقٌ مِنْهُمْ یخْشَوْنَ النَّاسَ کَخَشْیةِ اللهِ أَوْ أَشَدَّ خَشْیةً * وَ قالُوا رَبَّنا لِمَ کَتَبْتَ عَلَینَا الْقِتالَ  * لَوْ لا أَخَّرْتَنا إِلى‏ أَجَلٍ قَریبٍ * قُلْ مَتاعُ الدُّنْیا قَلیلٌ * وَ الْآخِرَةُ خَیرٌ لِمَنِ اتَّقى‏  * وَ لا تُظْلَمُونَ فَتیلا».

3. it's possible The verses that have been removed may be due to abrogation (Naskh); This means that this number of verses has been omitted from writing due to the cancellation (Naskh) of readings.[5] Of course, accepting this type of Naskh is not very acceptable.[6]

also; The method of Kulaini (رضي الله عنه) in Al-Kafi is that he divided it into several books and arranged each book into chapters, and put a title for each chapter according to its content, and then placed the rare and strange (farfetched) hadiths in a chapter titled "Nawader"«نوادر». ; Because according to the Shia hadith culture and the hadiths narrated by Kulaini himself and other than him, the rare and strange (farfetched) hadiths - which are against the authentic and practiced book or Sunnah or contrary to the consensus - are invalid.

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/fa49093

17 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

4. Ibn Umar said nobody has got complete Quran infact most of it has been lost

His opinion has no value for Shia muslims .

17 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

7. Sahaba used to fight over differences in Quran as Umars once almost got into a fight with someone who was reciting Quran differently.

This is about story of revealing Quran in seven words which it has been refuted by Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) which in similar fashion this story is not acceptable by any Shia Marja.

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/ar22156

[Ashvazdanghe]

18 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

6. Verse Allah chose Adam Noah Aale Ibrahim Ale Imran Ale Muhammad over alameen doesn't have aale Muhammad today

This is just a word of Ghulat which has no basis anyway Ale muhammad are from  Aale Ibrahim so there is no need to repaeat it .

18 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

7. Sahaba used to fight over differences in Quran as Umars once almost got into a fight with someone who was reciting Quran differently.

 

From al-Fudhail Ibn Yasaar said: I told Abi Abdillah (Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام).): People say that Quran was revealed on seven Ahruf (words). He said: They are liars, enemies of Allah. Quran was revealed on One Word from The One . (Kitab Al-Kaafi).

https://www.al-islam.org/ask/topics/11268/questions-about-Ahruf

Tahrif or Not? A Shi’i Perspective on the Seven Ahruf Reports (Pt. I)

https://shiiticstudies.com/2022/05/30/tahrif-or-not-a-shii-perspective-on-the-seven-ahruf-reports-pt-i/

The Interpretations of the Seven Harfs

https://www.introducingislam.org/info/7harfs/7harfs3.php

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 7/1/2023 at 5:31 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

However to think that Zayd Bin Thabit would compile a book and it would be protected by Allah is just non-sense and falsehood.

Salam

4. The third theory, i.e. replacing the intervals of the verses, is rejected for the following reasons:

A- Based on the verse of Hefz حفظ, any theory that requires the acceptance of interference in the verses of the Qur'an is rejected.

B - Shifting between intervals of verses is strongly denied in the Qur'an:

وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ قَالَ أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ وَلَمْ يُوحَ إِلَيْهِ شَيْءٌ وَمَن قَالَ سَأُنزِلُ مِثْلَ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ ۗ. [19]

( Who is a greater wrongdoer than him who fabricates a lie against Allah, or says, ‘It has been revealed to me,’ while nothing was revealed to him, and he who says, ‘I will bring the like of what Allah has sent down?’ )

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/6:93

According to the commentators, this verse was revealed about one of the writers of the Qur'an, named Abd Allah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh, who used to move the intervals of the verses while writing them, and when the Prophet told him: write "knowingly and wisely"«عَليماً حَكيماً». He wrote "Forgiving, Merciful"«غَفوراً رَحيماً» and based on this, he claimed that he could reveal the Qur'an himself.[20]

C - This possibility is rejected by all experts; Because it is against the consensus of the Ummah that any change in the Qur'an is prohibited.[21]

D - The precision in the intervals of the verses shows that these intervals are very accurate and in accordance with the content of the verses, which generally have the role of providing evidence on the content of the verses. [22]

http://hadith.net/post/45878/نزول-قرآن-بر-هفت-حرف/

[Ashvazdanghe]

 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

I'll briefly address some points raised by a brother here. Most of them are either not related to topic and at some places he didn't even bother to read the hadith fully.

On 7/3/2023 at 12:05 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

t doesn't point that around 70 juzz have been missed but on the other hand only points that capacity of Ibn Masood 9ra) for learning of quran has been in level of learning 70 Juzz not whole of it which only Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & Ahl al-Kisa have capacity to learn it  from prophet Muhammad(pbu) which keeping Mushafs  mean keeping a valuable gift from prophet Muhammad (pbu) because policy of three caliphs has been based on destroying any thing which has been related to prophet Muhammad (pbu) to replace their innovation instead of teachings of prophet Muhammad (pbu).

How can you say that? Listen if you don't have any defense then admit it rather than saying something that hadith as nothing to do with. Where did hadith talk about learning capacity of Ibn Masood? In short hadith is as follows:

Qurans were being burnt down other than Mushaf of Uthman, Ibn Masood used to say save Quran and said you want me to leave 70 chapters Surahs that I learned from Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

Where did learning capacity come from? Its clear in itself that Uthmans book is missing 70 chapters. Don't attach nonsense to thread if you have nothing to say.

On 7/3/2023 at 12:35 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

What is the purpose of Kulaini of the hadith of 17 thousand verses of the Quran?

Purpose is that Al-Quran that Jibreal bought to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had 17,000 verses. Hadith mentions Quran not tafsir.

On 7/3/2023 at 12:35 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

1. The meaning of the Quran in this narration is a broader meaning than the original Quran, which includes everything that has been revealed as revelation, and if they are placed next to the existing Quran, the number of verses will reach seventeen thousand verses.[3]

This view contradicts what is in the hadeeth itself. Hadith explicitly mentions QURAN which was revealed to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had 17,000 verses and this guy here says it includes everything that has been revealed as a revelation. Lol. If i were to count hadtihs of Kutab e Arba they alone exceed 17,000 count easily.

On 7/3/2023 at 12:35 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

2. There is a difference of opinion among the scholars of this field regarding the number of Quranic verses. The reason for the difference is that some have considered one verse as two verses.[4] The large number of Quranic verses may be related to this issue from the point of view of this narration. For example, verse 77 of Surah Nisa can be 7 verses:

In Preset Quran, there are more than 6,000 verses. You gave one example of Surah Nisa Verse 77. Please rationally think about it. How much examples you can make like this compared to count of verses in Quran? If you can prove something regarding a single verse or single chapter, doesn't mean it holds true for all of the verses. Also, keep in mind OPINION OF SCHOLARS IS NOT A HUJJAH NOR SERVE AS A PROOF. if you want to quote a scholar, present the evidence he/she has for his/her claim. Otherwise it won't help.

On 7/3/2023 at 12:35 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

. it's possible The verses that have been removed may be due to abrogation (Naskh); This means that this number of verses has been omitted from writing due to the cancellation (Naskh) of readings.[5] Of course, accepting this type of Naskh is not very acceptable.[6]

Shias don't believe in abrogation in recitation. Sunnis claim it without having proof for it. Since you admitted it in your own thread, there was no point in quoting it.

 

On 7/3/2023 at 12:35 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

also; The method of Kulaini (رضي الله عنه) in Al-Kafi is that he divided it into several books and arranged each book into chapters, and put a title for each chapter according to its content, and then placed the rare and strange (farfetched) hadiths in a chapter titled "Nawader"«نوادر». ; Because according to the Shia hadith culture and the hadiths narrated by Kulaini himself and other than him, the rare and strange (farfetched) hadiths - which are against the authentic and practiced book or Sunnah or contrary to the consensus - are invalid.

How is this related to our discussion? Maybe sometime we'd discuss hadiths but not yet.

On 7/3/2023 at 12:35 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

His opinion has no value for Shia muslims .

On 7/2/2023 at 6:37 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

You fail to realize that he is the son of the person in whose era the Quran was compiled, his testimony matters a lot when it comes to talking about a book that has been compiled by them. Also i presented hadiths from  Al--Kafi where Ahlebait (عليه السلام) also supported this view. where Imam (عليه السلام) said in a hadith summarized as: whoever claims zaahir & baatin of Quran has fully reached him / her is a liar and that whole Quran is only with Ahlebait (عليه السلام).

On 7/3/2023 at 12:35 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

This is about story of revealing Quran in seven words which it has been refuted by Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) which in similar fashion this story is not acceptable by any Shia Marja.

Yes that's correct with don't believe in that. But whether Quran was revealed in 7 Huruf or 1 Harf, it doesn't prove or negate the preservation of Quran hence not related (in a shia-shia discussion) however according to sunnis they'd need to show us the other 6 huruf otherwise they gotta accept alot of Quran has been lost.

On 7/3/2023 at 12:43 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

This is just a word of Ghulat which has no basis anyway Ale muhammad are from  Aale Ibrahim so there is no need to repaeat it .

Prove that its word of Ghulat. Like i said, you are just a master at making claims without proving anything. If its about repetition, there are alot of things that have been repeated at different places in the Quran more over, who are you to tell Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that there is no need to repeat it? also Then why is Aale Ibrahim and Aale Imran repeated?

In the end, i'd again say verse 15:9 refers to only Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as per hadith of Imam Reza (عليه السلام) quoted by Sheikh Sadooq in Uyun Al Akhbar where Imam Reza (عليه السلام) is reported to have said that Al-Zikr refers to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Just because at some places in Quran, zikr refers to what has been revealed to prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), doesn't mean everywhere it has same meaning. What you people did is exact definition of Qias. So prove it first, that Quran 15:9 refers to the Book we recite. And address the points i raised above.

Presence of different opinions of scholars regarding this verse proves that if you only resort to arabic, this verse is not clear hence ambiguous therefore can't be used to reject mutawatir al maani ahadith.

[Ashvazdanghe]

25 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Qurans were being burnt down other than Mushaf of Uthman, Ibn Masood used to say save Quran and said you want me to leave 70 chapters Surahs that I learned from Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

Where did learning capacity come from? Its clear in itself that Uthmans book is missing 70 chapters. Don't attach nonsense to thread if you have nothing to say.

Salam Mushaf of ibn Masood has not been only reference for compiling Quran by Uthman which he used other Mushafs from other companion & wives of prophet Myhammad (pbu) which even he would destroy all of Mushaf of ibn Masood so then these 70 chapters have been repaeted in other sources .

25 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Where did learning capacity come from? Its clear in itself that Uthmans book is missing 70 chapters. Don't attach nonsense to thread if you have nothing to say.

It's very clear even now some people only can learn few suras while some people can memorize whole Suras .

25 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

This view contradicts what is in the hadeeth itself. Hadith explicitly mentions QURAN which was revealed to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had 17,000 verses and this guy here says it includes everything that has been revealed as a revelation. Lol. If i were to count hadtihs of Kutab e Arba they alone exceed 17,000 count easily.

There is hadih Qudsi & verses of holy Quran by excluding hadiths of other infallible Imams from  Kutab e Arba 

Quote

Sacred tradition or al-ḥadīth al-qudsī (Arabic:الحدیث القدسی) is non-Quranic sayings of God, which is quoted by the Prophet (s). It is also called al-ḥadīth al-rabbānī (Arabic:الحدیث الرّبّانی) or al-hadīth al-ilāhī (divine tradition).

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Hadith_Qudsi

27 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

In Preset Quran, there are more than 6,000 verses. You gave one example of Surah Nisa Verse 77. Please rationally think about it. How much examples you can make like this compared to count of verses in Quran? If you can prove something regarding a single verse or single chapter, doesn't mean it holds true for all of the verses. Also, keep in mind OPINION OF SCHOLARS IS NOT A HUJJAH NOR SERVE AS A PROOF. if you want to quote a scholar, present the evidence he/she has for his/her claim. Otherwise it won't help.

Article itsel is full of evidences which it's just an Idea in middle  not a total idea .

you want to prove your nonsense just base on your false interpretation wich until now you have not proovided  a reliable evidence for your claims.

29 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Shias don't believe in abrogation in recitation. Sunnis claim it without having proof for it. Since you admitted it in your own thread, there was no point in quoting it.

it has bolded that it's too weak idea .

30 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

How is this related to our discussion? Maybe sometime we'd discuss hadiths but not yet.

your mentioned hadith is just a single & rare  hadith which although of having reliable documentation it has a level of contradition with holy Quran & Mutawatir relaible hadiths which you have founded your castle on sand.

32 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

You fail to realize that he is the son of the person in whose era the Quran was compiled, his testimony matters a lot when it comes to talking about a book that has been compiled by them. Also i presented hadiths from  Al--Kafi where Ahlebait (عليه السلام) also supported this view. where Imam (عليه السلام) said in a hadith summarized as: whoever claims zaahir & baatin of Quran has fully reached him / her is a liar and that whole Quran is only with Ahlebait (عليه السلام).

It has been refuted in previous posts which you just have repaeted your nonsense .

33 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Yes that's correct with don't believe in that. But whether Quran was revealed in 7 Huruf or 1 Harf, it doesn't prove or negate the preservation of Quran hence not related (in a shia-shia discussion) however according to sunnis they'd need to show us the other 6 huruf otherwise they gotta accept alot of Quran has been lost.

It's their problem but we believe that Quran is complete without Tahreef which radical wahabists accuse us to beleieving to Tahreef.

35 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

that there is no need to repeat it? also Then why is Aale Ibrahim and Aale Imran repeated?

it's about Salawat on prophet which in full Salawat we send Salaat to prophet Ibrahim & his progeny also there is an idea that reffering to Aale Imran is indirect refering to Imam Ali(عليه السلام) 7 his progeny which real name of Abu Talib has been Imran anyway he is more known due to his title Abu Talib.

Quote

a complete salawat contains the following phrase. For instance it is narrated that the Prophet (s) said to a man who asked about salawat; "Say, 'O Allah, May you grant peace and honor on Muhammad and his family, so as You granted peace and honor on the dynasty of Ibrahim, verily You are the Laudable, the Glorious. O Allah, May you grant blessing on Muhammad and his family, so as You granted blessing on Ibrahim, verily You are the Laudable, the Glorious'.^[4]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Salawat

37 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

In the end, i'd again say verse 15:9 refers to only Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as per hadith of Imam Reza (عليه السلام) quoted by Sheikh Sadooq in Uyun Al Akhbar where Imam Reza (عليه السلام) is reported to have said that Al-Zikr refers to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Just because at some places in Quran, zikr refers to what has been revealed to prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), doesn't mean everywhere it has same meaning. What you people did is exact definition of Qias. So prove it first, that Quran 15:9 refers to the Book we recite. And address the points i raised above.

Presence of different opinions of scholars regarding this verse proves that if you only resort to arabic, this verse is not clear hence ambiguous therefore can't be used to reject mutawatir al maani ahadith.

name of prophet as Muhammad only has repeated 4 times clearly  in holy Quran which you just interpret any hadith based on your Qias & wrong mindset .

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

You fail to realize that he is the son of the person in whose era the Quran was compiled, his testimony matters a lot when it comes to talking about a book that has been compiled by them.

We don't take our religion from him or any narration from him which only remarkable points about him is refuting Tarawih through him in sunni sources which has been innovation of his father & relaesing Mukhtar (رضي الله عنه) from prison due to asking of his wife from him which Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said about him & people likewise him

Quote

Hadith n. 18

18. Amir al-mu'minin, peace be upon him, said about those who avoided fighting on his side: They abandoned right but did not support wrong.10

18. وقال عليه السلام في الذين اعتزلوا القتال معه: خَذَلُوا الْحَقَّ، وَلَمْ يَنْصُرُوا

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/selections-sayings-and-preaching-amir-al-muminin-ali#hadith-n-18

[Zainuu]

On 7/1/2023 at 7:26 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Failed to address any of my question regarding this verse, here an extract of tafseer from hub e Ali and before you attack Hub-e-Ali, just letting you know they've quoted Sadooq here from Uyun Akhbaar e Reza:

Zikr in the verse 15:9 refers to Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

Can you also see the tafsir in Hub-e-Ali for the word dhikr used in verse 15:6?

Let me make it easy. Tafsir Hub e Ali says that their the word 'dhikr' is the Quran. And in the same context the verse 15:9 is also revealed where he concludes it to be the prophet (S) and the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). So, tafsir Hub-e-Ali is clearly contradicting it's own commentary on the word 'dhikr' in the same context. Hence, this cannot be accepted.

Also, 'dhikr' is never used in Quran anywhere for the Holy Prophet (S) but rather for the Holy book. Examples:

Surah al Hud, verse 120

Surah an Nahl, verses 43-44 mention both Ahl ul dhikr and dhikr. Dhikr is the Quran and ahl ul dhikr are the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). 

Surah Ta'Ha, verse 3

Surah Al Ambiya, verse 10

[Cool]

22 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

In the end, i'd again say verse 15:9 refers to only Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as per hadith of Imam Reza (عليه السلام) quoted by Sheikh Sadooq in Uyun Al Akhbar where Imam Reza (عليه السلام) is reported to have said that Al-Zikr refers to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Salam Brother!!

Perhaps you are misquoting the hadith of Imam (عليه السلام) here. The Imam (عليه السلام) has referred the verses of Sura e Talaq while mentioning the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as Zikr:

فتقوا الله يا اولى الباب الذين أمنوا قد انزل اليكم ذكرا رسولا يتلوا عليكم أيات الله....الخ

I would like you to present a single hadith where any of our Imam عليهم السلام have mentioned the ta'veel of 15:9 and have categorically said that al-Zikr here only means Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Please do so if you want to end this discussions.

22 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Just because at some places in Quran, zikr refers to what has been revealed to prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), doesn't mean everywhere it has same meaning. What you people did is exact definition of Qias. So prove it first, that Quran 15:9 refers to the Book we recite. And address the points i raised above.

Not in some places brother, in majority of place. al-Zikr is Quran e Hakeem primarily, according to Quran. Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was named zikr after revelation of the Quran on his heart, that is again with reference to Quran which made him a Natiq Quran (speaking quran).

And I can quote hundred's of verses in support of this claim.

إِنَّمَا تُنْذِرُ مَنِ اتَّبَعَ الذِّكْرَ وَخَشِيَ الرَّحْمَٰنَ

 وَأَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ

ذَالِكَ نَتْلُوهُ عَلَيْكَ مِنَ الْآيَاتِ وَالذِّكْرِ الْحَكِيمِ

 وَلَا تُطِعْ مَنْ أَغْفَلْنَا قَلْبَهُ عَنْ ذِكْرِنَا

Furthermore my dear brother, I would also like to advise you to see the verses of al-Talaq where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has mentioned the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as Zikr so that you may find the difference between انزلنا & ارسلنا.

Had the very being of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is intended in 15:9 by zikr, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) would not have used the word انزلنا in:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

Now see how Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) becomes zikr according to the verses of al-Talaq:

أَعَدَّ اللَّهُ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا ۖ فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ يَا أُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۚ قَدْ أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكُمْ ذِكْرًا

In above verse, the word أَنْزَلَ referring to the revelation. Now in the next verse which starts with the word رسولا:

رَسُولًا يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ مُبَيِّنَاتٍ لِيُخْرِجَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ ۚ 

The very being of Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) becomes the zikr who recite the verses of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for taking out the believers from darkness into light. This is again in relation to what we understand al-zikr primarily is. 

22 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Presence of different opinions of scholars regarding this verse proves that if you only resort to arabic, this verse is not clear hence ambiguous therefore can't be used to reject mutawatir al maani ahadith.

Please share the opinion of those scholars. I can quote here the words of Allama Majlisi here who has referred the verse 15:9 while rejecting the concept of tehreef in Quran:

إنا نحن نزلنا الذكر " أي القرآن " وإنا له لحافظون " عن الزيادة والنقصان والتغيير والتحريف، 

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1440_بحار-الأنوار-العلامة-المجلسي-ج-٩/الصفحة_115

I hope this is going to help you brother.

Wassalam!

[Zainuu]

55 minutes ago, Cool said:

Furthermore my dear brother, I would also like to advise you to see the verses of al-Talaq where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has mentioned the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as Zikr so that you may find the difference between انزلنا & ارسلنا.

Had the very being of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is intended in 15:9 by zikr, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) would not have used the word انزلنا in:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

Salaam brother,

This was beautifully added.

Although, Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) referred as 'dhikr' is being quoted as an interpretation in Tafsir Hub-e-Ali and this is what brother @Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi is sighting.

But yes, as you mentioned. Use of anzalna instead of arsalna.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

On 7/6/2023 at 10:36 AM, Zainuu said:

Can you also see the tafsir in Hub-e-Ali for the word dhikr used in verse 15:6?

Let me make it easy. Tafsir Hub e Ali says that their the word 'dhikr' is the Quran. And in the same context the verse 15:9 is also revealed where he concludes it to be the prophet (S) and the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). So, tafsir Hub-e-Ali is clearly contradicting it's own commentary on the word 'dhikr' in the same context. Hence, this cannot be accepted.

Also, 'dhikr' is never used in Quran anywhere for the Holy Prophet (S) but rather for the Holy book. Examples:

Surah al Hud, verse 120

Surah an Nahl, verses 43-44 mention both Ahl ul dhikr and dhikr. Dhikr is the Quran and ahl ul dhikr are the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). 

Surah Ta'Ha, verse 3

Surah Al Ambiya, verse 10

Correct and I'd agree with you on this except for the part where you mentioned its a contradiction.

It's quite common in Quran, that context of the verse is not the same as its preceding or succeeding verses. If verses before talk about Quran and verses after talk about Quran, doesn't mean that verse in between has to be about Quran as well. I'll give two examples:

1. Ayah Baligh: If you read 5:67s preceding verses, they talk about Ahle Kitab see: 5:59. Now how come 5:67 addresses Ghadeer? Because mufasireen of Quran know it happens.

2. Ayah Tatheer: It is supposed to be an address to wives if you look at succeeding and preceding verses but its not the case.

Also, if at one place in Quran, Zikr refers to the Book (according to you) it doesn't mean everywhere it has to refer to the Book. Thats your QIAS that is haram.

On 7/6/2023 at 10:36 AM, Zainuu said:

Surah an Nahl, verses 43-44 mention both Ahl ul dhikr and dhikr. Dhikr is the Quran and ahl ul dhikr are the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). 

الكافي - الشيخ الكليني - ج ١ - الصفحة ٢١٠
(باب) * (ان أهل الذكر الذين أمر الله الخلق بسؤالهم هم الأئمة عليهم السلام)

عمه عبد الرحمن بن كثير قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: " فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمون "
قال: الذكر محمد صلى الله عليه وآله

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1122_الكافي-الشيخ-الكليني-ج-١/الصفحة_258

Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) said: Al-Zikr is Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Just like i said, it depends, it can mean any of the two as per tafseer we have.

But for verse 15:9, its not clear that it refers to Quran or Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and I haven't seen one single hadith in the interpretation of verse 15:9. We just have opinions of scholars for that verse that too are different and opinions alone are not a hujjah in our mazhab.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

On 7/6/2023 at 11:38 AM, Cool said:

Salam Brother!!

Perhaps you are misquoting the hadith of Imam (عليه السلام) here. The Imam (عليه السلام) has referred the verses of Sura e Talaq while mentioning the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as Zikr:

فتقوا الله يا اولى الباب الذين أمنوا قد انزل اليكم ذكرا رسولا يتلوا عليكم أيات الله....الخ

I would like you to present a single hadith where any of our Imam عليهم السلام have mentioned the ta'veel of 15:9 and have categorically said that al-Zikr here only means Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Please do so if you want to end this discussions.

I never claimed that Imam (عليه السلام) said Al-Zikr means Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) while mentioning verse 15:9. From the beginning, i have been saying that this verse is not clear in its meanings according to scholars as they have given multiple tafseers of what is the meaning of Al-Zikr. 

My point is, we can't use an ambiguous verse to form an aqeedah against mutawatir al maani ahadith that prove tehreef.

On 7/6/2023 at 11:38 AM, Cool said:

Not in some places brother, in majority of place. al-Zikr is Quran e Hakeem primarily, according to Quran. Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was named zikr after revelation of the Quran on his heart, that is again with reference to Quran which made him a Natiq Quran (speaking quran).

And I can quote hundred's of verses in support of this claim.

إِنَّمَا تُنْذِرُ مَنِ اتَّبَعَ الذِّكْرَ وَخَشِيَ الرَّحْمَٰنَ

 وَأَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ

ذَالِكَ نَتْلُوهُ عَلَيْكَ مِنَ الْآيَاتِ وَالذِّكْرِ الْحَكِيمِ

 وَلَا تُطِعْ مَنْ أَغْفَلْنَا قَلْبَهُ عَنْ ذِكْرِنَا

I don't disagree with you on this one and i don't think anyone would. It can mean Quran, it can mean revelation (includes Quran and hadith).

On 7/6/2023 at 11:38 AM, Cool said:

Please share the opinion of those scholars. I can quote here the words of Allama Majlisi here who has referred the verse 15:9 while rejecting the concept of tehreef in Quran:

إنا نحن نزلنا الذكر " أي القرآن " وإنا له لحافظون " عن الزيادة والنقصان والتغيير والتحريف، 

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1440_بحار-الأنوار-العلامة-المجلسي-ج-٩/الصفحة_115

Brother only if you quoted a bit more of the same book and same page, it would've answered you.

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1440_بحار-الأنوار-العلامة-المجلسي-ج-٩/الصفحة_115

" إنا نحن نزلنا الذكر " أي القرآن " وإنا له لحافظون " عن الزيادة والنقصان والتغيير والتحريف، (2) وقيل: نحفظه من كيد المشركين فلا يمكنهم إبطاله ولا يندرس ولا ينسى، وقيل: المعنى: وإنا لمحمد حافظون

Majlisi just mentions different opinions about this verse, one of them is that there is no tehreef, and one is that it means we are protectors of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

However, once i get time, i'll mention different opinions of scholars about this verse here. This again suggests verse isn't clear and scholars have cited multiple tafseers. The opinion at end would mean wa inna lahu lahafizon lahu refers to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) again that's one of the opinions. even if Al-zikr means Quran, protection is for Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

On 7/6/2023 at 11:38 AM, Cool said:

Furthermore my dear brother, I would also like to advise you to see the verses of al-Talaq where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has mentioned the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as Zikr so that you may find the difference between انزلنا & ارسلنا.

Had the very being of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is intended in 15:9 by zikr, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) would not have used the word انزلنا in:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

Now see how Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) becomes zikr according to the verses of al-Talaq:

أَعَدَّ اللَّهُ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا ۖ فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ يَا أُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۚ قَدْ أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكُمْ ذِكْرًا

In above verse, the word أَنْزَلَ referring to the revelation. Now in the next verse which starts with the word رسولا:

رَسُولًا يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ مُبَيِّنَاتٍ لِيُخْرِجَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ ۚ 

The very being of Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) becomes the zikr who recite the verses of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for taking out the believers from darkness into light. This is again in relation to what we understand al-zikr primarily is. 

I've noted this question down and will try to understand this one and ask people. What i understand is you say that if it was for Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), there should've been Arsalna instead of Anzalna.

Lets keep this one at pending.

[Guest Stranger Danger]

Salam

There is the explanation of Imam Ali (a) as to why "Auli-Yaseen" is stated in Quran rather then "Auli-Mohamad". I think that explanation per words of Imam Ali (a) (I'm paraphrasing) that in the past books were corrupted both in meaning and words (not just interpretation) but that Quran has been written in a way that keeps it from distortion in text, while allowing misinterpretation.

The reference is in here: https://hubeali.com/articles/Questions-of-Zanadiqa-on-Quran.pdf

[elite]

 First accusation of the Kuffar upon the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in the Surah al-Hijr.

وَقَالُوا يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِي نُزِّلَ عَلَيْهِ الذِّكْرُ إِنَّكَ لَمَجْنُونٌ

"And they say “ O you upon whom al-Dhikr is being revealed, Indeed you are mad." 15:6

Reply to them.

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

"Indeed we have revealed al-Dhikr and indeed we are his guardian." 15:9

Pronoun ‘hu’ in “ lahu lahafizun’  refers to the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) because here kuffar accused the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as a mad man. They have not accused upon the quran here.

Second accusation

لَوْ مَا تَأْتِينَا بِالْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ

Why do you not bring us the Angels, If you are of the truthful ones ? 15:7

Reply

مَا نُنَزِّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةَ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَمَا كَانُوا إِذًا مُنْظَرِينَ

We do not send the Angels but with the truth, and then they would not be respited. 15:8

Finally

وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِكَ فِي شِيَعِ الْأَوَّلِينَ

And certainly we sent (messengers) before you among  group of the former people. 15:10

وَمَا يَأْتِيهِمْ مِنْ رَسُولٍ إِلَّا كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِئُونَ 

And there never came to them any messenger but they were mocking with them.15:11

[Cool]

23 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

My point is, we can't use an ambiguous verse to form an aqeedah against mutawatir al maani ahadith that prove tehreef.

I do agree with you in principle, but if the verse isn't ambiguous, it alone is sufficient to rule out even the mutawatir ahadith if they are contradicting with that verse. This is another principle set by the Aimmah عليهم السلام. And I have quoted those ahadith earlier on this thread.

23 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

On 7/6/2023 at 11:38 AM, Cool said:

I don't disagree with you on this one and i don't think anyone would. It can mean Quran, it can mean revelation (includes Quran and hadith).

Look how you are making a clear verse ambiguous!

How can the revelation include the hadith when hadith itself need to be weighed on the scale of verses of Qur'an? 

23 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Brother only if you quoted a bit more of the same book and same page, it would've answered you.

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1440_بحار-الأنوار-العلامة-المجلسي-ج-٩/الصفحة_115

" إنا نحن نزلنا الذكر " أي القرآن " وإنا له لحافظون " عن الزيادة والنقصان والتغيير والتحريف، (2) وقيل: نحفظه من كيد المشركين فلا يمكنهم إبطاله ولا يندرس ولا ينسى، وقيل: المعنى: وإنا لمحمد حافظون

I have seen it and I have no problem in accepting it. Because I do not separate the Qur'an from Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). So even if  و انا له لحافظون said about the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), it doesn't negate the fact that al-zikr sent down (نزل) by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is only Quran. And protection of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) means protection of the revelation as well which He has revealed on the very heart of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), just look how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is addressing in the following verses:

وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الْأَقَاوِيلِ

لَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِينِ

ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ

69:44-46) And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings, We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, Then We would certainly have cut off his aorta.

23 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

The opinion at end would mean wa inna lahu lahafizon lahu refers to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) again that's one of the opinions. even if Al-zikr means Quran, protection is for Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

How can the protection of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) becomes assured if what is revealed on his very heart left open for distortion & changing? 

إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا جَمْعَهُ وَقُرْآنَهُ 

فَإِذَا قَرَأْنَاهُ فَاتَّبِعْ قُرْآنَهُ 

ثُمَّ إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا بَيَانَهُ

75:17-19) Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it. Therefore when We have recited it, follow its recitation. Again on Us (devolves) the explaining of it.

Are the above verses not giving you any hint of divine protection of revelation from collection to explanation? 

بَلْ هُوَ آيَاتٌ بَيِّنَاتٌ فِي صُدُورِ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْعِلْمَ

29:49

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

On 7/8/2023 at 12:45 PM, Cool said:

I do agree with you in principle, but if the verse isn't ambiguous, it alone is sufficient to rule out even the mutawatir ahadith if they are contradicting with that verse. This is another principle set by the Aimmah عليهم السلام. And I have quoted those ahadith earlier on this thread.

agreed

but it's about how you understand ayahs and force them to contradict hadiths, this can't be accepted especially if we can adopt a meaning of Ayah / Hadith that removes the contradiction between the two (and with their own group as well)

On 7/8/2023 at 12:45 PM, Cool said:

Look how you are making a clear verse ambiguous!

How can the revelation include the hadith when hadith itself need to be weighed on the scale of verses of Qur'an? 

The hadith you are referring to is agreed-upon hadith and has no contradiction with what i said.

All hadiths of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (and ones by Aima (عليه السلام)) were revealed to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

Surah Najam:

 Nor does he speak of his own whims. (3)
It is only a revelation sent down ˹to him˺. (4)
He has been taught by one of mighty power (5)

so, if protection refers to Tehreef, its practically invalidated. Its an erroneous interpretation that holds no basis.
If you say, everything is protected enough that in every era, it will reach the person who seeks it, then yes i agree with that definition of Protection as its much more practical than the other one.

On 7/8/2023 at 12:45 PM, Cool said:

it doesn't negate the fact that al-zikr sent down (نزل) by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is only Quran.

Just to make it clear, no Muslim on earth would ever deny that. If you think i reject Quran, please don't as i testify that Quran is the Book of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that he (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) revealed to Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

On 7/8/2023 at 12:45 PM, Cool said:

How can the protection of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) becomes assured if what is revealed on his very heart left open for distortion & changing? 

Just like Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) raised Isa (عليه السلام) to the skies and protected him, but Bible we have today is corrupted. The two don't contradict each other.

Obviously, the Protection of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) ensures the Protection of the Quran. and we believe it is Protected from all Tehreef and corruption. This was the duty of his caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام) and the Quran is with the Imam of our time.

But as for the compilation of Zayd bin Thabit of Usman, this claim is just absurd. They compiled a book, and you people just assume it is the same book that was revealed to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (which of course it is but many verses and chapters are missing as their compilers and people of that time testified to it. not even compilers of the current Quran testified that the book we have is complete and ibn Umar is just one of them).

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

21 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

But as for the compilation of Zayd bin Thabit of Usman, this claim is just absurd. They compiled a book, and you people just assume it is the same book that was revealed to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (which of course it is but many verses and chapters are missing as their compilers and people of that time testified to it. not even compilers of the current Quran testified that the book we have is complete and ibn Umar is just one of them).

You are a pardoxical person because you have confesed that Amir al Muminin  Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & rest of infallible Imams have been protectors of holy Quran from "all Tehreef and corruption" but on the other hand you oppose them by considering curent Quran as unreilable book while it  has been approved by  Amir al Muminin  Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & rest of infallible Imams as only holy Quran by referring to too weak statements of fallible people likewise ibn Umar & rest of enemeies of Ahlulbayt which all of their nonsense about missing chpters or verses has been refuted by Amir al Muminin  Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & rest of infallible Imams .

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

22 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

All hadiths of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (and ones by Aima (عليه السلام)) were revealed to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

Surah Najam:

 Nor does he speak of his own whims. (3)
It is only a revelation sent down ˹to him˺. (4)
He has been taught by one of mighty power (5)

Salam respectfully you totally misunderstood it which these verses have been revealed in response of enemies of Allah & prophet Muhammad (pbu) who accused him to creating or interpreting of verses by himself not saying exact words of Allah but on the other hand all hadiths are not revelations  which some of hadiths are interpretation & responding of "Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (and ones by Aima (عليه السلام))" of about questions of people about meaning & interpretation of verse of holy Quran or what prophet has seen in Miraj which it has been his exprience or some of hadiths fabricated or forged in their name  so therefore all hadiths except a part of it as hadith Qudsi are not revelations by Allah which your assumption about hadiths is in similar fashion of Sunnis who consider all of hadiths in their so called Sihah equivalent to word of Allah even if their hadiths will be in opposition of holy Quran.

I swear by what you see (38) and what you do not see: (39) it is indeed the speech of a noble apostle (40) and it is not the speech of a poet. Little is the faith that you have! (41) Nor is it the speech of a soothsayer. Little is the admonition that you take! (42) Gradually sent down from the Lord of all the worlds. (43) Had he faked any sayings in Our name, (44) We would have surely seized him by the right hand (45) and then cut off his aorta, (46) and none of you could have held Us off from him. (47) Indeed it is a reminder for the Godwary. (48)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/69:44