Researching about the validity of the readings may have some useful results in the field of Jurisprudential Inferences. In addition, this subject is very important in the true reading of surah Hamd in obligatory prayers, which has involved Muslims throughout the history
More
Researching about the validity of the readings may have some useful results in the field of Jurisprudential Inferences. In addition, this subject is very important in the true reading of surah Hamd in obligatory prayers, which has involved Muslims throughout the history. This paper is to analyze the views of Imamiyah jurisprudents and commentators historically on proving the validity of the readings for jurisprudential inference in one hand, and the permission to read them in prayer on the other hand. Shia has followed the guidance of Imams (AS) on the basis of revealing the Quran in one letter (ḥarf) and rejected the multiplicity of the readings. The uncertainty caused by the variant readings of the Qur'an and the occultation of the infallible Imam (AS), made it necessary to prove the validity in cases of conflict of readings. Thus, referring to tawātur to prove the authority of the readings, at least from the fifth century, has divided the scholars into two groups of pros and cons. The present study, based on the available details, discusses the tawātur and follow-up of the use of different readings by proponents of tawātur and dissidents who have found another way except tawātur to prove the validity of the readings or have denied the validity of the readings basically, has presented the results of discussion in jurisprudential inference and the permission to read the readings in prayer.
Manuscript profile
