TwelverShia.net Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / A must see video.
« Last post by Soccer on September 22, 2020, 06:33:50 PM »
2
The word simply is contextual with no meaning itself except that there is some sort of relationship being established.  That being the case, why not use particular words?

The nice thing about the word, is that, you can combine so many concepts and many words into it, all at once, if your contextualization of the word makes all those relationships obvious.

For example, in Suratal Shura (42nd Surah) - the word Wali through out it includes being "the God" (Allah) but includes more then the right of being worshiped and elaborates the meaning of Wali and proves the religion through it.  In the case in 42nd Surah, the relationships or relationship meant by Wali, is unique to God, such that it's condemned right from the start of those taking Awliya (plural of Wali in this case) other then God.  Part of this Wali relationship God is being the one to refer all disputes regarding guidance among humans to God, his role of judge and arbiter for humans, but many of these relationships is proven to need God to reveal a book as well send a Messenger.   That is why it talks about that role of God sending a Messenger.  

Naturally the context with 42:23, is that Mohammad (s) seeks no reward truly, but rather what disbelievers see as a reward is really just recognizing and loving him and his family for who they are, and then argues, that this is goodness and God will increase people in that beauty and God will forgive and appreciate those who do so. The start of the verse suggest the family and loving them is the way of faith.  The next verse goes further in the defense and says suppose Mohammad (s) was a liar and forger, still, God would verify the truth with his words and so there would be guidance from him in form of scriptures and chosen ones together being the word of light brought to life and being the words of God (from plural perspective). 

The Surah because of 42:23 is arguing mainly it's not about Ahlulbayt (a) and their authority which disbelievers might accuse Mohammad (s) of being greedy for fame, glory, authority and establishing a legacy in offspring of Fatima (a),but rather, God does this through Ahlulbayt (a) because he is the Wali - and argues why he would do so.  So the verse has that context.

The words "Awliya' "Mawla" and "Wali" are all contextually defined.  Believers relationship to one another, is such we can't do the same relationship with disbelievers. We can be friends and love non-Muslims who don't fight us, this is fine. This an act of justice and goodness per a Surah that forbids it regarding those who oppressed the Muslims and were fighting them but even said perhaps God will put love between them eventually.

We can't take intimate closeness with non-believers, but there is a word for that too. 

The word 5:55 is in context of particularly the relationship some of the people of the book had over others, and that is contextual with the issue of judging by what God revealed and taking God as a judge.  Because we have to judge by revelations of God - some people might look to Jews or Christian or Muslims "scholars" "priests" "rabbis" "Mullahs" etc, to understand what God revealed in his books and what was elaborated by the leaders of guidance and chosen family.  The Quran argues don't take a people collectively as an authority in this sense, why? Well, because in fact, some of them as this over others, it's not that they all figured it out, and you are following a consensus people reflected over the revelations over and came to an agreement. They are divided and following different authorities of different sects. 5:55 is in context of that, and the Wali here is not about friendship at all.  That would have no flow with the Surah.

There is no time God uses any of the words, in which we cannot be sure, by context what it means.  The same is with the Ghadeer speech. In the Ghadeer speech, the following proves what is meant:

1. Context of Quran (the role of Quran as guidance)

2. The role of the Nabi with believers and how he compliments Quran as guidance.

3. Why Ahlulbayt is mentioned in terms of Quranic guidance.

The words "befriend who befriends him", some might be inclined to then say, see the word Mawla is obviously friend. But all this means, is loving Mohammad (S) And Ali (a) is part of the relationship of Mawla here.  As stated before the word is contextual and is useful in combining many relationship by the context.

In this case, Mohammad (s) having more right over believers then themselves, is obviously included.  

The word in 5:55 also includes love in terms of how people take their scholars and love them and hence, to an extent worship them, but in the case of 5:55 the love is in terms of guidance but others verses show while believers love God's chosen, their love for God is always more, while those who abandon truth and attribute God falsehood for their sake of their leaders, actually love their leaders as much or even in times more then God.

The Word Wali in 5:55 however definitely includes the role Prophets (a) of children of Israel had with respect to guiding people to the judgments of the Torah and the Laws.  It definitely flows with role of Mohammad (s) judging with truth. Although society of believers in general are supposed to judge by what God revealed, the only authorities pertaining to God's judgment to be the axis to rely on is God and his chosen. This also flows all the way to God perfecting the religion and the role of Musa's (a) twelve successors as Captains and Navigators by the name of God - in which there was no other Captains to bring society to safety. The word safety I emphasize this purposely, because the word momin is also contextual, and when God uses it with respect to himself, it obviously means "Granter of security", but this is what it means in 5:55, the ones who granted security in terms of the salvation to God and bring them to safety.  

In verse 33:6, the word "Awliya" refers back to "The Nabi is Awla to the believers (more so in that right and relationship) then themselves", and the Ulil-Arham are obviously his Ahlulbayt (a).  The hadiths emphasize on this as well from Shiite sources, many of them, but 33:6 due to the sorcery, is read in a very odd way about different topics and the word Awliya not allowed to flow with the start which is what gives it context.

Perhaps the clearest verse of all pertaining to Ahlulbayt (a) is 33:6, but being so manifestly clear, there is plural amount - and it's his family, that have this relationship, some of them more so then others or some of them over others which according to hadiths, would mean for example Imam Hassan (a) has more right to take this role of leading society and who society must be ready to prefer the will of their Master over theirs and love serving them more then serving themselves, etc, before Imam Hussain (a) take this role. 

These hadiths make total sense, and they break the sorcery, and 33:6 is beyond clear about the Wilayah of Ahlulbayt (a), the Nabi (s) being Awla contextualizing exactly what is meant by Awliya.  The verses after also remind of the covenant  of Prophets to truthful will be asked about their truthfulness and the punishment for hypocrites and disbelievers. 

The word Wali, Awliya, and Mawla - none of their usages in Quran is ever ambiguous with room to assume different things.  They are never used this way. This would be a misuse of the term which can mean anything if not defined by context. Some places, it means inheritor and it's obvious by context, that is the relationship being talked about as well as other verses that paraphrase it to mean that.

3
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Difference between Nabi and Rasool.
« Last post by Soccer on September 20, 2020, 05:36:37 PM »
Your topics are good topics, but it would be totally side-tracking this topic.  Make a thread about each or all of them together (since they seem related), and I will respond there.
4
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Difference between Nabi and Rasool.
« Last post by Rationalist on September 20, 2020, 03:48:52 AM »
If you believe in infallibility of the 12 imam can you answers the following?
1)  Why did Imam Ali (as) appoint Muhammad bin Abi Bakr(ra) as governor, and then was forced to replace him with Malik al Asthar (ra)? Did his infallible decision not allow a protection which blocked the future from harm?
2) Why Imam Ali (as) trusted Ziyad bin Abi with a leadership role?
3) Why he accepted bayah from a majority for Caliphate that didn't believe he was infallible, one of the 12, or believe in the Imamate or inter Ghadir as divine appointment?
5
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Difference between Nabi and Rasool.
« Last post by Soccer on September 19, 2020, 07:55:54 PM »
Do 12er Shia believe whatever the Imam says is equal to wahi?

I can't speak nor care to, for 12ver Shias.  God's words when you become familiar with his book, are calculated in such a superior way, that those who witness it's wonders and way of become clearer and clearer, deeper in guidance and deeper, that after time, you know it's impossible it's fabricated, and you come to know it's from God.

The words of Ahlulbayt (a) - some of their words (especially when a great amount of it is written (ie. the text are long in this regard)), are also what cannot be fabricated as the devils and liars and transgressors are unable to bring the like of them no matter how hard they tried "indeed they are removed from the hearing" and "it does not befit them nor are they capable".

However they aren't the same as God's words.   As for Hadith Qudsi - there are three possibilities:

1. They are words of God and revelation however, not part of the recitation or Nubuwa.
2. They are actually words of Mohammad (s) and his family (a) - paraphrasing what they learned of Quran... and there is some evidence of this type of speech, paraphrasing what is in Quran.. and they are saying among the subtle messages of God in Quran is this and that.
3. Combination of 1 and 2.

From perspective of Two, it can be said, whether Imams (a) say "Allah said..." or just do a prayer, it's paraphrasing Quran, all their words are light and guidance to Quran.

However, I think 3 is plausible  Some hadith qudsi is paraphrasing what they know God teaches, and others can be actual words he says.  In both cases, none of these constitute Nubuwa.

However, what can make it not 3 and not 1, but only 2, is the fact God doesn't want to speak to humans any words, they can't be sure he said.

Nubuwa is particularly what God establishes of his words as proof which is scripture and a book from him.

The more you reflect how much God hates people attributing him what they don't know, you will find that 2 is the most plausible of them all.  Perhaps you can even become certain.

It's not that God doesn't speak other words to Mohammad (s) then Quran, it's that Mohammad (s) won't share them, because the generations in the future (as opposed to those who directly witness him saying it), cannot verify it to be true.

God is such that you never want to attribute him anything you don't know for certain. This includes his laws, but also any words that don't befit him.

Hadith Qudsi pale in comparison to Quran for a reason. God when he speaks, speaks in a superior way we can verify it's him talking. That is the nature of all his divine books, but Quran is superior in this respect and he spoke in a way differently for all time while before the revelations were meant to be followed up by other revelations.

There maybe some exceptions to the rule - for example, the hadiths of Miraaj - because of the nature of the event, has to be an exception.  But in general, Mohammad (s) and his family (a) are paraphrasing God's teachings in Quran.

The Miraaj hadiths I say this because some versions of it and their nature compliments the Shariah and reality and Quran in such a way, that you can verify it.

So let's add to this, if they are going to quote God it will be in a way we can verify and be certain God actual spoke those words if we reflect and gain enough insight to see that.

Most hadith qudsi however are not of this nature and hence, it's better to believe they are paraphrasing what God teaches in the Quran.

6
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Difference between Nabi and Rasool.
« Last post by Rationalist on September 19, 2020, 03:22:20 PM »
Do 12er Shia believe whatever the Imam says is equal to wahi?

7
Imamah-Ghaybah / Nubuwa vs Resalah - the proofs.
« Last post by Soccer on September 18, 2020, 08:14:31 PM »
Proof 1: Clear conveying and manifesting the truth

The clear conveying with emphasis on it being clear, suggests, that it's not really about the Quran, since the Quran is recited by Mohammad (s) but is not his own words, and hence there is no obligation on making anything clear in this regard.   The emphasis on clear conveying suggests it's about Mohammad (s) teaching the truth in a clear manifest manner and making sure God's message is delivered to the mind of the masses.  Also the Quran distinguishes between reciting it (Quran) and clarifying it both which is upon God to do. Also, the emphasis on clear, suggests more subtle teachings although are a message, is not what is meant by the role as a Messenger or the messages, the messages themselves refers to what should be conveyed to the masses in clear terms with clear proofs.  The Quran has in it a  clear message, don't get me wrong, but the Messenger plays no role in making that clear by Quran own words, rather, it's the words he speaks that clarifies it. This suggests the role as a Messenger is to clarify to the masses the truths that God wants them to.  This is while what Mohammad (s) receives of knowledge and wisdom is much more than he can convey to the masses, and must be layered in Quran and Sunnah for the seekers of knowledge to seek. 

Proof 2: Suratal Hajj - "not from a Rasool nor a Nabi (or maybe I have this inversed)"

The Quranic verse in this regard in Suratal Hajj grammar wise means these two are not interchangeable. As someone pointed out in the other thread, to receive a message the purpose is to convey it. Also the word "arsal" is used for both, so they are both sent.  It's not the case there is a Nabi who is not sent or a Rasool not sent. Again, it doesn't make sense to define Nubuwa as in reception of the message nor a Messenger as is the Nubuwa is the message. This would make them interchangeable, but they are not.  Again, it makes more sense to look at God's book as not the message of the Messenger, but rather, what he has received and channeled from God to humanity in form of scripture. And it makes sense then to see the conveying role of a Messenger as in clarifying the truth which his role and compliments his Nubuwa (the Quran with respect to Mohammad (S)) but it's two separate roles.

Proof 3:  Verse of Ghadeer declaration

5:67 suggests something needs to be clarified that Quran already does and that Mohammad (s) already clarified, but has become unclear in the minds of masses, and that Mohammad (s) has to guarantee is conveyed to all generations.  To be simply saying you have to convey the Quran to convey the Quran, jump if you didn't jump you didn't jump, frankly, is a stupid statement.  This suggests Resalah is something that is on top of Quran or compliments Quran. Historically, this was about Ghadeer, and despite Ali (a) being in Quran and Sunnah before that, Allah (swt) was emphasizing on Mohammad (s) to make a historical emphasis so to be conveyed generation to generation, because blindness to Quran can take place with respect to the position of Ali (a) and Ahlulbayt (a).

Proof 4: There needs to be a definition purely about channeling of Scripture.

Mohammad (s) roles are emphasized in Quran, there needs to be a word, about the function of receiving scripture from God and handing to the people. I argue that is Nubuwa.  There also needs to be a word that is about clarifying the truth and manifesting it, as did Musa (a) and Harun (s) before they were given the Tablets, and this I argue about their role as Messengers.  Also, simply defining the messages as any words of truth is not fair definition. There is a lot of truth that Mohammad (s) knows and wishes to teach, and did teach some people, but there has to be a word for the role of manifesting the truth in a way that reaches the mind of the masses.  This role is the difficult role - because - say someone like me received a holy book from God, I might have the capacity to write it down and publish it or something, it's a whole different thing making the truth of it reach the minds of people.  That takes effort. The only time a Nabi doesn't need to be Rasool then would be when the message is clear in the minds of people and people are not going back to ignorance - so then God can reveal a scripture that is not about the basics but is continuing to communicate to them and guide them or confirm them and give them good news.

Proof 5: The Mahdi and ultimatum.

The Quran talks about ultimatum humans will face again, accept God's Messenger or be destroyed, and this ultimatum and term only comes with a Messenger that manifests to them. Since there is no more Nubuwa, the definition of Rasool with respect to the Mahdi, is not about revealing a scripture, but rather the scripture he must work with is the Quran.  God only destroys and punishes in this sense when a Messenger delivers the clear conveyance and comes with clear proofs.  The waiting for this day is clear in Quran and it's a promise binding on God.

There is more proofs but I believe these are sufficient.  I will add more after the dialogue with respect to these.
8
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Difference between Nabi and Rasool.
« Last post by Abu Muhammad on September 18, 2020, 05:52:17 AM »
1. A Rasool is one entrusted to convey God's messages clearly and bring out the higher hidden to the people's understanding.

2. A Nabi is one entrusted to be a channel of a revelation from God to people in a form of a scripture.

3. A Nabi is not necessarily a Rasool and a Rasool is not necessarily a Nabi.

4. A Nabi that is not a  Rasool is one which the clear messages are established that God wants in society - and the Nabi receives a book from God for the people.

5. A Rasool that is a not a Nabi is one who is required to clarify things to the people but doesn't receive a revelation in form of scripture for the people from God.

6. Almost every Nabi has been a Rasool and almost every Rasool a Nabi.

7. The Ulil-Amr were only to take task of being a Rasool if people differed with respect to the truth and religion and became ignorant, and disputes then would have to be solved through God's book but as well a Messenger that clarifies it.

8. If people didn't dispute after Mohammad (s), there was no requirement for the Ulil-Amr (a) to become Rusul.

9. As people deviated and didn't understand Quran properly - the Imams (a) essentially were Messengers as well and had the task of conveying clear messages of God regarding Quran. 

10. Revelation as in words talked to God to people and to Imams is not necessarily all Nubuwa, Nubuwa specifically refers to that revelation which is to be entrusted as scripture to be held on to as proofs from God and insights, specifically a book from God that is a proof and miracle in itself and a lasting one. 

11. Ghadeer khum speech is part of the Resalah of the Rasool, but the exacts words all though proven in Quran, are not part of Quran.  The Resalah and Nubuwa of Mohammad (s) are interlinked, the Quran plays a vital role and the Message of Mohammad plays a vital role in clarifying Quran.

12. The Sunnah was dynamically built with the Quran and Quran was dynamically built with the Sunnah. 

13. 23 years of Nubuwa of Mohammad (s) with his Sunnah - made Islam very strong - and the Quran is foundational in this sense,  but if Imams (a) were to be Anbiya - it would probably be that divisions are worse, and that their revelations would be difficult for humans to accept as scripture and shia sects would not unite on them and Quran would lose it's prestige if revelations of Imams say they were to be Anbiya were to be disputed, and that since God doesn't force humans but wanted to put an end to the Ahlulbayts sent to humanity, in his wisdom, put an end to scripture and revelations revealed to humanity. 

14. The ending of Nubuwa is a big trial - essentially - God is not talking to humans. But the Quran is meant for all the times to come and has been written in a way to guide in all times.  However, darkness in the form of sorcery has made a trial regarding it and people are blind - hence the Imams (a) messages are essential to listen to pertaining to it.

15. Kulayni and our scholars were wrong about the Shiite sect that believed Imams to be Rusul to be out of Islam and out of Shiism, it's rather, the hadiths that Kulayni collected about the difference between Nabi, Rasool and Muhadath that frankly makes no sense what so ever. 

16. All Rusul and all Anbiya are Imams  but it's also the case than an Imam is not necessarily a Rasool or Nabi. For example, our Imams would not have been Messengers if people didn't divide and stook to the clear truths - rather - they would have been guidance and God's Guides true - and expand on knowledge and increase us in it and continue to increase us in guidance, but the clear messages would not need conveying, but rather deeper truths would have been the central role they play.  However, since divisions did occur and the truth covered by sorcery and corruption took place with translations and interpretation of Quran in the most basic essential teachings, they were Messengers as well and hence it's vital we pay attention what is left of their words. This another thing that Al-Kafi get's wrong, in that it makes Imamate something that not all Anbiya or Rusul are in some hadiths, however, in a hadith from Imam Reda (a) - it's confirmed the Anbiya and Rusul all have this station. So there is a contradiction in Al-Kafi in this respect.

17. Mursaleen is umbrella term that covers Rusul, Anbiya, and Imams. When applied to an Imam who is neither a Rasool or Nabi, it means with regards to guidance and knowledge he is sent with to guide humans to and teach them. Also the witnessing role as a witness is something that God sends. Imam Mahdi is specifically called one of these, and hence is a chosen one by God with no ambiguity in the hadiths. When applied to a Non-Nabi Rasool, it means he sent with messages to paraphrase in his words. And when a non-Rasool Nabi - it means as far that Nubuwa, he sent with scripture from God. Again, Imams who would be neither (but ours had to become Messengers because people became ignorant) - would also be sent with role of being witness (vision of people's deeds) and Guidance that plays addition to the messages established - but is additional guidance to the essential messages. Also, if you are sent with miracles, this is another thing his sent ones are sent with.

18. This is an important thing to note: Sunni and their scholars tried to bully the definitions of Nubuwa and Resalah to be inversed in this respect and even to some degree made Nubuwa into the definition of what an Imam is, and made Rasool do the definition of what a Nabi is, to argue, that all such guidance came to an end by the sealing of Nubuwa verse. However, they have no proof from Quran that this is the proper way. Look at the verses of Rusul and Anbiya and you will see Rasools convey clear messages but paraphrase in their own words, and hence "they convey the clear messages from God" while Nubuwa definition wise is not about conveying - the word itself about receiving news from God for the people or receing tidings from God for the people, that means their role as a Nabi is receiving, this refers to their role to channel scripture from God to people, but it's not their message, and hence Nubuwa is about reception.  Don't be bullied by any scholars - and Kulayni was wrong. Don't blindly follow but look at Quran usage of these terms. Also while all Nubuwa is wahy it's not the case all Wahy is Nubuwa.  There is hadith qudsi and also God talks to Pharaoh and he is not a Nabi..

Just blabbering. Not a single reference provided to support those points.
9
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Difference between Nabi and Rasool.
« Last post by TAHIR on September 17, 2020, 04:45:16 PM »
Like somebody is going to read it
10
Imamah-Ghaybah / Difference between Nabi and Rasool.
« Last post by Soccer on September 17, 2020, 03:50:34 AM »
1. A Rasool is one entrusted to convey God's messages clearly and bring out the higher hidden to the people's understanding.

2. A Nabi is one entrusted to be a channel of a revelation from God to people in a form of a scripture.

3. A Nabi is not necessarily a Rasool and a Rasool is not necessarily a Nabi.

4. A Nabi that is not a  Rasool is one which the clear messages are established that God wants in society - and the Nabi receives a book from God for the people.

5. A Rasool that is a not a Nabi is one who is required to clarify things to the people but doesn't receive a revelation in form of scripture for the people from God.

6. Almost every Nabi has been a Rasool and almost every Rasool a Nabi.

7. The Ulil-Amr were only to take task of being a Rasool if people differed with respect to the truth and religion and became ignorant, and disputes then would have to be solved through God's book but as well a Messenger that clarifies it.

8. If people didn't dispute after Mohammad (s), there was no requirement for the Ulil-Amr (a) to become Rusul.

9. As people deviated and didn't understand Quran properly - the Imams (a) essentially were Messengers as well and had the task of conveying clear messages of God regarding Quran.  

10. Revelation as in words talked to God to people and to Imams is not necessarily all Nubuwa, Nubuwa specifically refers to that revelation which is to be entrusted as scripture to be held on to as proofs from God and insights, specifically a book from God that is a proof and miracle in itself and a lasting one.  

11. Ghadeer khum speech is part of the Resalah of the Rasool, but the exacts words all though proven in Quran, are not part of Quran.  The Resalah and Nubuwa of Mohammad (s) are interlinked, the Quran plays a vital role and the Message of Mohammad plays a vital role in clarifying Quran.

12. The Sunnah was dynamically built with the Quran and Quran was dynamically built with the Sunnah.  

13. 23 years of Nubuwa of Mohammad (s) with his Sunnah - made Islam very strong - and the Quran is foundational in this sense,  but if Imams (a) were to be Anbiya - it would probably be that divisions are worse, and that their revelations would be difficult for humans to accept as scripture and shia sects would not unite on them and Quran would lose it's prestige if revelations of Imams say they were to be Anbiya were to be disputed, and that since God doesn't force humans but wanted to put an end to the Ahlulbayts sent to humanity, in his wisdom, put an end to scripture and revelations revealed to humanity.  

14. The ending of Nubuwa is a big trial - essentially - God is not talking to humans. But the Quran is meant for all the times to come and has been written in a way to guide in all times.  However, darkness in the form of sorcery has made a trial regarding it and people are blind - hence the Imams (a) messages are essential to listen to pertaining to it.

15. Kulayni and our scholars were wrong about the Shiite sect that believed Imams to be Rusul to be out of Islam and out of Shiism, it's rather, the hadiths that Kulayni collected about the difference between Nabi, Rasool and Muhadath that frankly makes no sense what so ever.  

16. All Rusul and all Anbiya are Imams  but it's also the case than an Imam is not necessarily a Rasool or Nabi. For example, our Imams would not have been Messengers if people didn't divide and stook to the clear truths - rather - they would have been guidance and God's Guides true - and expand on knowledge and increase us in it and continue to increase us in guidance, but the clear messages would not need conveying, but rather deeper truths would have been the central role they play.  However, since divisions did occur and the truth covered by sorcery and corruption took place with translations and interpretation of Quran in the most basic essential teachings, they were Messengers as well and hence it's vital we pay attention what is left of their words. This another thing that Al-Kafi get's wrong, in that it makes Imamate something that not all Anbiya or Rusul are in some hadiths, however, in a hadith from Imam Reda (a) - it's confirmed the Anbiya and Rusul all have this station. So there is a contradiction in Al-Kafi in this respect.

17. Mursaleen is umbrella term that covers Rusul, Anbiya, and Imams. When applied to an Imam who is neither a Rasool or Nabi, it means with regards to guidance and knowledge he is sent with to guide humans to and teach them. Also the witnessing role as a witness is something that God sends. Imam Mahdi is specifically called one of these, and hence is a chosen one by God with no ambiguity in the hadiths. When applied to a Non-Nabi Rasool, it means he sent with messages to paraphrase in his words. And when a non-Rasool Nabi - it means as far that Nubuwa, he sent with scripture from God. Again, Imams who would be neither (but ours had to become Messengers because people became ignorant) - would also be sent with role of being witness (vision of people's deeds) and Guidance that plays addition to the messages established - but is additional guidance to the essential messages. Also, if you are sent with miracles, this is another thing his sent ones are sent with.

18. This is an important thing to note: Sunni and their scholars tried to bully the definitions of Nubuwa and Resalah to be inversed in this respect and even to some degree made Nubuwa into the definition of what an Imam is, and made Rasool do the definition of what a Nabi is, to argue, that all such guidance came to an end by the sealing of Nubuwa verse. However, they have no proof from Quran that this is the proper way. Look at the verses of Rusul and Anbiya and you will see Rasools convey clear messages but paraphrase in their own words, and hence "they convey the clear messages from God" while Nubuwa definition wise is not about conveying - the word itself about receiving news from God for the people or receing tidings from God for the people, that means their role as a Nabi is receiving, this refers to their role to channel scripture from God to people, but it's not their message, and hence Nubuwa is about reception.  Don't be bullied by any scholars - and Kulayni was wrong. Don't blindly follow but look at Quran usage of these terms. Also while all Nubuwa is wahy it's not the case all Wahy is Nubuwa.  There is hadith qudsi and also God talks to Pharaoh and he is not a Nabi.. 





Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10