Jump to content
Guest Account Ali

Supposed corruption of the Quran

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salaam, I would like your input on this topic. 

 

So recently I was involved in a discussion with Sunnis and they claimed that classical Shia theologians used to believe the Quran in their time was corrupted. And for evidence they have Kulyani and some of the chapter titles of his book (vague and odd I know, see the screenshot) and in general say that it is "well known" that ancient Shia theologians held this belief. They then further said that although modern ayatollahs do not believe the Quran of our time was changed, they (The Sunnis I am debating) think it shows the hypocrisy of Shia Beliefs that such a major concept had disagreements between ancient and modern Shia scholars. 

Screenshot_20180101-190338.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam from ancient shia history it is believed that Holy Quran was compelete later it was claimed by Mu’tazila that Holy Quran corrupted

Integrity of the Holy Qur'an

 
Shi'a Beliefs
Theology
Tawhid(Monotheism) Tawhid of Essence • Tawhid in Attributes • Tawhid in Actions • Tawhid in Worship
Other Beliefs Tawassul • Shafa'a • Tabarruk
Divine Justice
Bada' • Amr Bayn al-Amrayn
Prophethood
Infallibility • 'Ilm al-ghayb • Mu'jiza • Integrity of the Holy Qur'an
Imamate
Infallibility • Wilaya • 'Ilm al-ghayb • Occultation of Imam al-Mahdi (a)(Minor Occultation,Major Occultation) • Reappearance of Imam al-Mahdi (a) • Raj'a
Resurrection
Akhira • Barzakh • Bodily Resurrection • Sirat • Tatayur al-Kutub • Mizan • Hashr
Other Outstanding Beliefs
Ahl al-Bayt (a) • The Fourteen Infallibles • Taqiyya • al-Marja'iyya al-Diniyya • Tawalli • Tabarri

 

The integrity of the holy Qur'an (Arabic: سلامة القرآن من التحريف) is one of the muslim thoughts. Muslims unanimously agree that the Qur'an is unaltered and undistorted. Theologians and experts in exegetical sciences have cited some versesand narrations to reject any kind of possible omission from the Qur'an. According to mainstream Shi'a scholars, Mufassirun(commentators), faqihs (jurists), and experts in Qur'anic sciences, the present Qur'an, with all its orders and structures, was written and documented during the life of the Prophet (s).

Some Sunni theologians, like Khayyat al- Mu'tazila and Abu 'Ali al-Juba'i (Mu'tazilitheologians) have accused Shi'a of believing in Tahrif (distortion) of the Qur'an. After the publication of Fasl al-khitab by al-Muhaddith al-Nuri, this accusation entered a new phase. In many works, Shi'a scholars have criticized the book of al-Muhaddith al-Nuri.

Hadith of Thaqalayn, narrations promising rewards for recitation of each Sura, accountability of present Qur'an in different theological and jurisprudential disputes, and challenge for similar verses, are among the most substantial arguments for the fact that the Qur'an is undistorted.

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Integrity_of_the_Holy_Qur'an

http://fa.wikishia.net/view/عدم_تحریف_قرآن

 

https://article.tebyan.net/255668/آیا-قرآن-تحریف-شده-است-

http://www.valiasr-aj.com/persian/shownews.php?idnews=5645  (persian/Farsi audio debate)

http://www.hadith.net/post/48720/دلايل-مد-عيان-تحريف-قرآن/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the topics that they have addressed is the distortion of the Qur'an. We replied that Shi'a also did not have a Quran; Shiite elders from Seyyed Mortazai and Sheikh Mofid to great people like Ayatollah Khoy, who says: Belief in the distortion of the Quran is a superstitious belief and stupidity. Imam Khomeini (Rezvānullah'Aṭṭālī Ali) says: The belief in the distortion of the Qur'an is a non-rational belief; one who has reason and mind does not believe in distorting the Qur'an. And the narratives in this regard are weak or fake, or some narrations that do not perceive the distortion of the Qur'an; it is the interpretation and interpretation of the Quran, as they also have these narratives. This was a summary of our answer to this doubt, which we spoke on 7 axes. But our question about Wahhabism and the Sunni tradition: We have 7 questions here. The gentlemen say that you and some of you who believe in the distortion of the Quran, like the late Nouri, who has a book called the chapter of al-Khatab, has proved there is a distortion of the Qur'an. Allameh Majlesi says that we have the following narratives, the owner of Al-Shi'a such equipment and Sayyid Nematullah Jazayeri also says. We also ask our great scholars such as Abdul Wahab Shahnari, dying in 973, he says in the Book of Al-Kabrit al-Ahmar on the margin of Al-Yawakit and al-Jawahar: And our lordship is the result of the death of Allah, and the punishment of the wrongdoers, for all our abode, Mostafa Othman. If I really felt that some of the weak hearts of Muslims would not slip and they would not be shaken in their beliefs, I would have said that those verses that had been ousted from Mushanah Othman. البريد الأحمر, p. 143 Because you suppose that the time of Uthman was a number of Qur'ans, and since it was not printing time, everyone wrote and wrote for himself a Qur'an, and they differed from each other, such as Mashhav Aisha, Hafsa, Annas , Abdullah Masoud, Abu Heryrah, Aby Bin Kaeb and ... Osman ordered to collect all the Qur'ans and burned everyone except a Qur'an and said that this Qur'an should be distributed among the people; and it is believed that the Qur'an we have is the same Qur'an that Uthman relied on it. And published among the Muslims. Mr Poehrani, the great scholar of the Sun, says: Many verses were part of the Quran, but there was no Uthman in the Koran. What are you answering to this tradition? We give the same answer to our books. Mr. Alousi, dying in 1270, owns the Book of Spirit Al-Emani, explains the commentators who are called the Sunnah, who have a Wahhabi idea, and says: If you have any questions, please contact me. Our narrations in the books of the Sunnah regarding the distortion of the Qur'an are not counted. Roh al-Ma'ani, p. 1, p. 24 Sunni jurisprudents! Mr. Osman Al Khamis! How do you answer this doubt? We also learn from you, and we give the same answer in the command of Sayyid Nematullah Jazayeri and late Noori. Second Question: They say that your scholars have written a special book on proof of the distortion of the Qur'an. Of course, you know that the book of the late episode of Nouri, written almost two centuries ago, was written by Shi'a scholars, and wrote several books on this book, and even in Samarra and some Iraqi cities, some elders and Shi'ites, declared mourning; why A book was also written, meaning an uprising against the late Nuri. Later, he wrote on his book, and the late Nuri said that I am not satisfied that someone will read my book without this book. This puts us at a disadvantage. Well, we doubt that Abu Davoud Sajestani dies in 316 AH, a book written by al-Masahaf, in which the book proved that the Qur'an was distorted. You answered every answer to the book of Abu Davoud Sjestani. We also answered the same answer from the book of chapter al-Khatab We will give In the present century, a person named Mohammed al-Khatieb, a scholar of the Egyptian university of al-Azhar, wrote a book called al-Furqhan al-Tahrir al-Quran, when Shlutot, the Mufti of the Qa'is of Egypt, was prevented from publishing this book, and after this book was printed. . Now in the library of the Imam Sadiq Institute (as), Ayatullah Sobhani, there is an example of this book. If you disagree with our scholars who wrote the book about the distortion of the Qur'an and prove the Shi'a's unbelief and shari'ah and murder

http://www.valiasr-aj.com/persian/shownews.php?idnews=5645

Edited by Hassan-
removed the large font

Share this post


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

One of the topics that they have addressed is the distortion of the Qur'an. We replied that Shi'a also did not have a Quran; Shiite elders from Seyyed Mortazai and Sheikh Mofid to great people like Ayatollah Khoy, who says: Belief in the distortion of the Quran is a superstitious belief and stupidity. Imam Khomeini (Rezvānullah'Aṭṭālī Ali) says: The belief in the distortion of the Qur'an is a non-rational belief; one who has reason and mind does not believe in distorting the Qur'an. And the narratives in this regard are weak or fake, or some narrations that do not perceive the distortion of the Qur'an; it is the interpretation and interpretation of the Quran, as they also have these narratives. This was a summary of our answer to this doubt, which we spoke on 7 axes. But our question about Wahhabism and the Sunni tradition: We have 7 questions here. The gentlemen say that you and some of you who believe in the distortion of the Quran, like the late Nouri, who has a book called the chapter of al-Khatab, has proved there is a distortion of the Qur'an. Allameh Majlesi says that we have the following narratives, the owner of Al-Shi'a such equipment and Sayyid Nematullah Jazayeri also says. We also ask our great scholars such as Abdul Wahab Shahnari, dying in 973, he says in the Book of Al-Kabrit al-Ahmar on the margin of Al-Yawakit and al-Jawahar: And our lordship is the result of the death of Allah, and the punishment of the wrongdoers, for all our abode, Mostafa Othman. If I really felt that some of the weak hearts of Muslims would not slip and they would not be shaken in their beliefs, I would have said that those verses that had been ousted from Mushanah Othman. البريد الأحمر, p. 143 Because you suppose that the time of Uthman was a number of Qur'ans, and since it was not printing time, everyone wrote and wrote for himself a Qur'an, and they differed from each other, such as Mashhav Aisha, Hafsa, Annas , Abdullah Masoud, Abu Heryrah, Aby Bin Kaeb and ... Osman ordered to collect all the Qur'ans and burned everyone except a Qur'an and said that this Qur'an should be distributed among the people; and it is believed that the Qur'an we have is the same Qur'an that Uthman relied on it. And published among the Muslims. Mr Poehrani, the great scholar of the Sun, says: Many verses were part of the Quran, but there was no Uthman in the Koran. What are you answering to this tradition? We give the same answer to our books. Mr. Alousi, dying in 1270, owns the Book of Spirit Al-Emani, explains the commentators who are called the Sunnah, who have a Wahhabi idea, and says: If you have any questions, please contact me. Our narrations in the books of the Sunnah regarding the distortion of the Qur'an are not counted. Roh al-Ma'ani, p. 1, p. 24 Sunni jurisprudents! Mr. Osman Al Khamis! How do you answer this doubt? We also learn from you, and we give the same answer in the command of Sayyid Nematullah Jazayeri and late Noori. Second Question: They say that your scholars have written a special book on proof of the distortion of the Qur'an. Of course, you know that the book of the late episode of Nouri, written almost two centuries ago, was written by Shi'a scholars, and wrote several books on this book, and even in Samarra and some Iraqi cities, some elders and Shi'ites, declared mourning; why A book was also written, meaning an uprising against the late Nuri. Later, he wrote on his book, and the late Nuri said that I am not satisfied that someone will read my book without this book. This puts us at a disadvantage. Well, we doubt that Abu Davoud Sajestani dies in 316 AH, a book written by al-Masahaf, in which the book proved that the Qur'an was distorted. You answered every answer to the book of Abu Davoud Sjestani. We also answered the same answer from the book of chapter al-Khatab We will give In the present century, a person named Mohammed al-Khatieb, a scholar of the Egyptian university of al-Azhar, wrote a book called al-Furqhan al-Tahrir al-Quran, when Shlutot, the Mufti of the Qa'is of Egypt, was prevented from publishing this book, and after this book was printed. . Now in the library of the Imam Sadiq Institute (as), Ayatullah Sobhani, there is an example of this book. If you disagree with our scholars who wrote the book about the distortion of the Qur'an and prove the Shi'a's unbelief and shari'ah and murder

http://www.valiasr-aj.com/persian/shownews.php?idnews=5645

 

6 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam from ancient shia history it is believed that Holy Quran was compelete later it was claimed by Mu’tazila that Holy Quran corrupted

Integrity of the Holy Qur'an

 
Shi'a Beliefs
Theology
Tawhid(Monotheism) Tawhid of Essence • Tawhid in Attributes • Tawhid in Actions • Tawhid in Worship
Other Beliefs Tawassul • Shafa'a • Tabarruk
Divine Justice
Bada' • Amr Bayn al-Amrayn
Prophethood
Infallibility • 'Ilm al-ghayb • Mu'jiza • Integrity of the Holy Qur'an
Imamate
Infallibility • Wilaya • 'Ilm al-ghayb • Occultation of Imam al-Mahdi (a)(Minor Occultation,Major Occultation) • Reappearance of Imam al-Mahdi (a) • Raj'a
Resurrection
Akhira • Barzakh • Bodily Resurrection • Sirat • Tatayur al-Kutub • Mizan • Hashr
Other Outstanding Beliefs
Ahl al-Bayt (a) • The Fourteen Infallibles • Taqiyya • al-Marja'iyya al-Diniyya • Tawalli • Tabarri

 

The integrity of the holy Qur'an (Arabic: سلامة القرآن من التحريف) is one of the muslim thoughts. Muslims unanimously agree that the Qur'an is unaltered and undistorted. Theologians and experts in exegetical sciences have cited some versesand narrations to reject any kind of possible omission from the Qur'an. According to mainstream Shi'a scholars, Mufassirun(commentators), faqihs (jurists), and experts in Qur'anic sciences, the present Qur'an, with all its orders and structures, was written and documented during the life of the Prophet (s).

Some Sunni theologians, like Khayyat al- Mu'tazila and Abu 'Ali al-Juba'i (Mu'tazilitheologians) have accused Shi'a of believing in Tahrif (distortion) of the Qur'an. After the publication of Fasl al-khitab by al-Muhaddith al-Nuri, this accusation entered a new phase. In many works, Shi'a scholars have criticized the book of al-Muhaddith al-Nuri.

Hadith of Thaqalayn, narrations promising rewards for recitation of each Sura, accountability of present Qur'an in different theological and jurisprudential disputes, and challenge for similar verses, are among the most substantial arguments for the fact that the Qur'an is undistorted.

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Integrity_of_the_Holy_Qur'an

http://fa.wikishia.net/view/عدم_تحریف_قرآن

 

https://article.tebyan.net/255668/آیا-قرآن-تحریف-شده-است-

http://www.valiasr-aj.com/persian/shownews.php?idnews=5645  (persian/Farsi audio debate)

http://www.hadith.net/post/48720/دلايل-مد-عيان-تحريف-قرآن/

Thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Guest Account Ali said:

Salaam, I would like your input on this topic. 

 

So recently I was involved in a discussion with Sunnis and they claimed that classical Shia theologians used to believe the Quran in their time was corrupted. And for evidence they have Kulyani and some of the chapter titles of his book (vague and odd I know, see the screenshot) and in general say that it is "well known" that ancient Shia theologians held this belief. They then further said that although modern ayatollahs do not believe the Quran of our time was changed, they (The Sunnis I am debating) think it shows the hypocrisy of Shia Beliefs that such a major concept had disagreements between ancient and modern Shia scholars. 

 

Walaykum Salaam,

Tell him this: Shaykh-Saduq was an ancient scholar, along with Shaykh Mufid, and Shaykh Tusi, these three being some of our three greatest classical scholars and they each rejected the belief the Quran is distorted. So the idea our classical scholars were united on this is a lie they are promoting. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I basically wrote this a few months back:

Introduction

There are some who allege that the author of Al Kafi , Al-Kulayni believed in Tahreef of the Quran. Among these are not only detractors of the Jafferi madhab but some major scholars, such as Sayed al-Khui'. However, there is not a single statement from Kulayni whereby he affirms his belief. In his introduction when speaking about the Quran he never mentions nor details at any time that there are missing verses or that it had undergone Tahreef, nor that the true Quran that has all of the verses is with the Aimmah. Instead this is inferred indirectly from the narrations he includes in his own book stating that certain verses had been revealed in a certain way, namely to include the nams of Ali , Hasan and Hussain [peace be upon them all] but were not in the Quran available to most muslims They allege that the Shia of old believed that many of their key beliefs were not in the Quran and so amongst themselves proposed a theory: the companions deviously removed aspects in these verses - particularly those which were supposed to name Ali ibn Abi Talib as the successor.

If we move the discussion on and claim that al-Kulayni did not affirm everything in his book was authentic, and that we should place everything according to the Quran and reject what is not inline with it, they will then come to us and say that he is not asking us to place this criteria in his book, but claiming he himself had applied it and the result is Al Kafi. Therefore they contend that the inclusion of narrations in the book is akin to his affirmation of the veracity of these narrations.

Let us examine the discussion in the following three stages:

1. Are there any narrations implying Tahreef, in such a way that the names of Ali ibn Abi Talib was supposed to be in the Quran but was removed?

2. Are there any narrations which actually equivocally show that the names were not in the Q'uran and thus contradicting those narrations.

3. Conclusion

Are there any narrations implying Tahreef, in such a way that the names of Ali ibn Abi Talib was supposed to be in the Quran but was removed?

The reality is that there indeed are several narrations among which some which imply that the names of Ali ibn Abi Talib and some of the other Imams had been in the Quran, but were removed. These are weak and solitary single chained narrations, and were rejected by scholars such as Mufid, Saduq and Tusi. 

Al-Kafi 1/414:[(with his chain) Abu Basir, from abi `Abdillah (as), regarding Allah’s saying: “And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger in loving `Ali and loving of the leaders after him has certainly attained a great attainment” He (as) said: “This is how it was revealed.”]Whereas the verse in our Qur’an today only says: {And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly attained a great attainment} [33:71]

Al-Kafi 1/416:[(with his chain) from `Abdullah bin Sinan, from abi `Abdillah (as) regarding Allah’s saying: “And We had already taken a promise from Adam concerning Muhammad, `Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, Husayn and the leaders from their progeny, but he forgot” He (as) said: “By Allah, this is the way it was revealed upon Muhammad (saw).”] Whereas the verse in our Qur’an today only says: {And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot; and We found not in him determination.} [20:115]

Al-Kafi 1/417:[(with his chain) from Jabir, from abi Ja`far (as), he said: “Jibril (as) revealed this verse to Muhammad (saw) like this: How wretched is that for which they sold themselves – that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed about `Ali through [their] outrage.”] Whereas the verse in our Qur’an today only says{How wretched is that for which they sold themselves – that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed through [their] outrage} [2:90]

Looking at these traditions , it is therefore assumed al-Kulayni believed that these verses were originally part of the Quran and then removed. The verses above concern the name of Amirulmu'mineen in the Quran.  So they conclude that the early shia and al-Kulayni believed that the name of Ali was originally part of the Quran under the command of divine leadership, and that these were al-Kulayni's beliefs because of the supposed argument he affirmed everything in his book as true , or would at least refute what which he did not accept.

Are there any narrations which actually equivocally show that the names were not in the Q'uran and thus contradicting those narrations.

If al-Kulayni really did believe everything he put into al-Kafi, which is an enormous work of traditions more numerous than almost all of the major Sunni books combined, then we would expect in this palicular instance only those traditions affirming the Quran had been removed from and originally included the names of Ali, Hasan and Hussain [peace be on them all]. If we were to find a tradition which explicitly demonstrates that the names were not part of the original Quran, it would be strong evidence that Kulayni neither affirmed nor denied that the verses had originally been part of the Quran containing their names, and then subsequently removed. In fact one could argue this just shows he collected everything in his book he could generally find and felt was of importance, including the various views about the Quran and its preservation. We do not have many books from al-Kulayni in existence now and the only one that has really survived among the many he authored is Al Kafi. It would have been interesting to have his book on Rijal, as well as other ones that may have discussed Aqeedah in further depth. 

in Usool Al-Kafi (اصول الكافي), By Sheikh Al-Kulaini ( للكليني) . Volume 1, Page  # 172-173 [from two authentic chains of narrators]:

Alee ibn Ibraheem has narrated from Muhammad ibn Isa from Yunus and Alee ibn Muhammad from Sahl ibn Ziyad, Abu Sa‘id from Muhammad ibn ‘sa from Younis from ibn Muskan from Aboo Basir (r.a) who has said the following: “I asked Aboo Abd Allah (a.s) about the words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High: ‘Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority). . . .’ (Qur'aan 4:59). “The Imam (a.s) said, ‘This was sent from the heavens about Alee ibn Aboo Talib, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain, (peace be upon them all).’ I then said, ‘People say, “Why did He not specify Alee (a.s) and his family by their names in the Book of Allah , the Most Holy, the Most High?’ “The Imam said, ‘Say to them, “The command for prayer came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) but He has not specified (the number of the Rak‘ats) for them as being three or four. It, in fact, was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained to them this matter. The command for Zakat (a form of income tax) came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and there was no specific taxable number such as one Dirham on every forty Dirham. It was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained it for them. The command for Hajj came to the Messenger of Allah (saw). It did not say walk seven times around the Ka‘ba. It was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained it for them. The verse about obedience came, ‘Believers, Obey Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, His Messenger and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority)...’ (Qur'aan 4:59)

From the above tradition, the Imam is asked why he did not specify Ali or his sons [peace be on them all] in the Quran by their names. The Imam then affirms that they were not specified by name, but neither were some of the other verses specifying in great detail other key branches of faith; it was upon the Prophet [peace be upon him] to elucidate and expound upon them. This tradition is in clear contradiction with the many single chained and weak narrations which imply their names were in the Quran. If al-Kulayni allegedly only included whatever he found authentic in his book, why did he include these traditions which give polar opposite views as to whether the names of were included in the Q'uran?

Conclusion

Al-Kulayni may well have believed in Tahreef [though the definition of what is Tahreef varies]. It also does seem to point towards this owing to certain narrations in his book. However, the presence of narrations in and of themselves does not prove anything definitely. Shaykh Saduq , who was born in the life time of  Kulayni, and was firmly against the belief in any addition or subtraction in the Quran himself included many traditions which seemed to imply Tahreef in his books of hadith. We can even find similar traditions in the works of Sunni's. It may have been the case that further study was required on them, or an interpretation given to them, or that they may have been good for reference.

If whatever al-Kulayni included in his book was a clear indicator of his belief, he would not have included clear contradictions in the belief of Tahreef. On one hand he records traditions implying that the names of the Imams were in numerous verses. On another he records multiple chains implying that they were not in the Quran and an elaborate explanation given behind the philosophy of the Quran to only mention fundamental aspects of Islam in a general sense and allow the Prophet [peace be upon him] to elucidate on them. We do not know al-Kulaynis actual belief in this regard and arguments made to try to prove he had the belief by what he recorded in al-Kafi fall apart when when critically examined. It is highly plausible given the volume of al-Kafi and the fact in it are contradictions at times to understand that it may have been al-Kafi playing the role of collecting all of the main traditions as a work that is then saved and preserved and can be examined in more detail by scholars of his age and later scholars.

 
Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

From the above tradition, the Imam is asked why he did not specify Ali or his sons [peace be on them all] in the Quran by their names. The Imam then affirms that they were not specified by name, but neither were some of the other verses specifying in great detail other key branches of faith; it was upon the Prophet [peace be upon him] to elucidate and expound upon them. This tradition is in clear contradiction with the many single chained and weak narrations which imply their names were in the Quran. If al-Kulayni allegedly only included whatever he found authentic in his book, why did he include these traditions which give polar opposite views as to whether the names of were included in the Q'uran?

The above tradition was only about "ulil amr". And what has been mentioned by Imam a.s is true. This doesn't mean the he is negating that the names of Imams are not present in Quran. 

I can give you very clear example i.e., "Imam e Mubeen" (Chapter Ya-Seen), do you not know who is Imam e Mubeen?

The name of Prophet is Muhammad (peace & blessings of Allah be upon him & his pure progeny) but Allah has called him with different names like Ya-Seen, Muddassir, Muzzammil etc. Similarly Allah has mentioned the names of Imams. Some times He mentioned them as Sirat, some times as Sabil, some times as Imam e Mubeen, some times as Rasikhoona fil ilm, some times as Aliyyun Hakeem, some times as "wa man endahu ilmul kitab", some times as ummat, some times as A'imma, some times as Nafs e Mutma'innah, some times as Naba ul Azeem etc.

Share this post


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

I basically wrote this a few months back:

Introduction

There are some who allege that the author of Al Kafi , Al-Kulayni believed in Tahreef of the Quran. Among these are not only detractors of the Jafferi madhab but some major scholars, such as Sayed al-Khui'. However, there is not a single statement from Kulayni whereby he affirms his belief. In his introduction when speaking about the Quran he never mentions nor details at any time that there are missing verses or that it had undergone Tahreef, nor that the true Quran that has all of the verses is with the Aimmah. Instead this is inferred indirectly from the narrations he includes in his own book stating that certain verses had been revealed in a certain way, namely to include the nams of Ali , Hasan and Hussain [peace be upon them all] but were not in the Quran available to most muslims They allege that the Shia of old believed that many of their key beliefs were not in the Quran and so amongst themselves proposed a theory: the companions deviously removed aspects in these verses - particularly those which were supposed to name Ali ibn Abi Talib as the successor.

If we move the discussion on and claim that al-Kulayni did not affirm everything in his book was authentic, and that we should place everything according to the Quran and reject what is not inline with it, they will then come to us and say that he is not asking us to place this criteria in his book, but claiming he himself had applied it and the result is Al Kafi. Therefore they contend that the inclusion of narrations in the book is akin to his affirmation of the veracity of these narrations.

Let us examine the discussion in the following three stages:

1. Are there any narrations implying Tahreef, in such a way that the names of Ali ibn Abi Talib was supposed to be in the Quran but was removed?

2. Are there any narrations which actually equivocally show that the names were not in the Q'uran and thus contradicting those narrations.

3. Conclusion

Are there any narrations implying Tahreef, in such a way that the names of Ali ibn Abi Talib was supposed to be in the Quran but was removed?

The reality is that there indeed are several narrations among which some which imply that the names of Ali ibn Abi Talib and some of the other Imams had been in the Quran, but were removed. These are weak and solitary single chained narrations, and were rejected by scholars such as Mufid, Saduq and Tusi. 

Al-Kafi 1/414:[(with his chain) Abu Basir, from abi `Abdillah (as), regarding Allah’s saying: “And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger in loving `Ali and loving of the leaders after him has certainly attained a great attainment” He (as) said: “This is how it was revealed.”]Whereas the verse in our Qur’an today only says: {And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly attained a great attainment} [33:71]

Al-Kafi 1/416:[(with his chain) from `Abdullah bin Sinan, from abi `Abdillah (as) regarding Allah’s saying: “And We had already taken a promise from Adam concerning Muhammad, `Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, Husayn and the leaders from their progeny, but he forgot” He (as) said: “By Allah, this is the way it was revealed upon Muhammad (saw).”] Whereas the verse in our Qur’an today only says: {And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot; and We found not in him determination.} [20:115]

Al-Kafi 1/417:[(with his chain) from Jabir, from abi Ja`far (as), he said: “Jibril (as) revealed this verse to Muhammad (saw) like this: How wretched is that for which they sold themselves – that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed about `Ali through [their] outrage.”] Whereas the verse in our Qur’an today only says{How wretched is that for which they sold themselves – that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed through [their] outrage} [2:90]

Looking at these traditions , it is therefore assumed al-Kulayni believed that these verses were originally part of the Quran and then removed. The verses above concern the name of Amirulmu'mineen in the Quran.  So they conclude that the early shia and al-Kulayni believed that the name of Ali was originally part of the Quran under the command of divine leadership, and that these were al-Kulayni's beliefs because of the supposed argument he affirmed everything in his book as true , or would at least refute what which he did not accept.

Are there any narrations which actually equivocally show that the names were not in the Q'uran and thus contradicting those narrations.

If al-Kulayni really did believe everything he put into al-Kafi, which is an enormous work of traditions more numerous than almost all of the major Sunni books combined, then we would expect in this palicular instance only those traditions affirming the Quran had been removed from and originally included the names of Ali, Hasan and Hussain [peace be on them all]. If we were to find a tradition which explicitly demonstrates that the names were not part of the original Quran, it would be strong evidence that Kulayni neither affirmed nor denied that the verses had originally been part of the Quran containing their names, and then subsequently removed. In fact one could argue this just shows he collected everything in his book he could generally find and felt was of importance, including the various views about the Quran and its preservation. We do not have many books from al-Kulayni in existence now and the only one that has really survived among the many he authored is Al Kafi. It would have been interesting to have his book on Rijal, as well as other ones that may have discussed Aqeedah in further depth. 

in Usool Al-Kafi (اصول الكافي), By Sheikh Al-Kulaini ( للكليني) . Volume 1, Page  # 172-173 [from two authentic chains of narrators]:

Alee ibn Ibraheem has narrated from Muhammad ibn Isa from Yunus and Alee ibn Muhammad from Sahl ibn Ziyad, Abu Sa‘id from Muhammad ibn ‘sa from Younis from ibn Muskan from Aboo Basir (r.a) who has said the following: “I asked Aboo Abd Allah (a.s) about the words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High: ‘Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority). . . .’ (Qur'aan 4:59). “The Imam (a.s) said, ‘This was sent from the heavens about Alee ibn Aboo Talib, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain, (peace be upon them all).’ I then said, ‘People say, “Why did He not specify Alee (a.s) and his family by their names in the Book of Allah , the Most Holy, the Most High?’ “The Imam said, ‘Say to them, “The command for prayer came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) but He has not specified (the number of the Rak‘ats) for them as being three or four. It, in fact, was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained to them this matter. The command for Zakat (a form of income tax) came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and there was no specific taxable number such as one Dirham on every forty Dirham. It was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained it for them. The command for Hajj came to the Messenger of Allah (saw). It did not say walk seven times around the Ka‘ba. It was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained it for them. The verse about obedience came, ‘Believers, Obey Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, His Messenger and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority)...’ (Qur'aan 4:59)

From the above tradition, the Imam is asked why he did not specify Ali or his sons [peace be on them all] in the Quran by their names. The Imam then affirms that they were not specified by name, but neither were some of the other verses specifying in great detail other key branches of faith; it was upon the Prophet [peace be upon him] to elucidate and expound upon them. This tradition is in clear contradiction with the many single chained and weak narrations which imply their names were in the Quran. If al-Kulayni allegedly only included whatever he found authentic in his book, why did he include these traditions which give polar opposite views as to whether the names of were included in the Q'uran?

Conclusion

Al-Kulayni may well have believed in Tahreef [though the definition of what is Tahreef varies]. It also does seem to point towards this owing to certain narrations in his book. However, the presence of narrations in and of themselves does not prove anything definitely. Shaykh Saduq , who was born in the life time of  Kulayni, and was firmly against the belief in any addition or subtraction in the Quran himself included many traditions which seemed to imply Tahreef in his books of hadith. We can even find similar traditions in the works of Sunni's. It may have been the case that further study was required on them, or an interpretation given to them, or that they may have been good for reference.

If whatever al-Kulayni included in his book was a clear indicator of his belief, he would not have included clear contradictions in the belief of Tahreef. On one hand he records traditions implying that the names of the Imams were in numerous verses. On another he records multiple chains implying that they were not in the Quran and an elaborate explanation given behind the philosophy of the Quran to only mention fundamental aspects of Islam in a general sense and allow the Prophet [peace be upon him] to elucidate on them. We do not know al-Kulaynis actual belief in this regard and arguments made to try to prove he had the belief by what he recorded in al-Kafi fall apart when when critically examined. It is highly plausible given the volume of al-Kafi and the fact in it are contradictions at times to understand that it may have been al-Kafi playing the role of collecting all of the main traditions as a work that is then saved and preserved and can be examined in more detail by scholars of his age and later scholars.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

The above tradition was only about "ulil amr". And what has been mentioned by Imam a.s is true. This doesn't mean the he is negating that the names of Imams are not present in Quran. 

I can give you very clear example i.e., "Imam e Mubeen" (Chapter Ya-Seen), do you not know who is Imam e Mubeen?

The name of Prophet is Muhammad (peace & blessings of Allah be upon him & his pure progeny) but Allah has called him with different names like Ya-Seen, Muddassir, Muzzammil etc. Similarly Allah has mentioned the names of Imams. Some times He mentioned them as Sirat, some times as Sabil, some times as Imam e Mubeen, some times as Rasikhoona fil ilm, some times as Aliyyun Hakeem, some times as "wa man endahu ilmul kitab", some times as ummat, some times as A'imma, some times as Nafs e Mutma'innah, some times as Naba ul Azeem etc.

 

3 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Walaykum Salaam,

Tell him this: Shaykh-Saduq was an ancient scholar, along with Shaykh Mufid, and Shaykh Tusi, these three being some of our three greatest classical scholars and they each rejected the belief the Quran is distorted. So the idea our classical scholars were united on this is a lie they are promoting. 

 

Salaam, thanks guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

 

8 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

The above tradition was only about "ulil amr". And what has been mentioned by Imam a.s is true. This doesn't mean the he is negating that the names of Imams are not present in Quran. 

I can give you very clear example i.e., "Imam e Mubeen" (Chapter Ya-Seen), do you not know who is Imam e Mubeen?

The name of Prophet is Muhammad (peace & blessings of Allah be upon him & his pure progeny) but Allah has called him with different names like Ya-Seen, Muddassir, Muzzammil etc. Similarly Allah has mentioned the names of Imams. Some times He mentioned them as Sirat, some times as Sabil, some times as Imam e Mubeen, some times as Rasikhoona fil ilm, some times as Aliyyun Hakeem, some times as "wa man endahu ilmul kitab", some times as ummat, some times as A'imma, some times as Nafs e Mutma'innah, some times as Naba ul Azeem etc.

I am not disagreeing with you in principle, in that the Aimmah or Prophet could be mentioned by honorific titles, for example 'the people of Dhikr' or have other names as you have given here.  

However what i was trying to show is that we have explicit narration from al-Kafi which say to follow the Prophet in loving Ali the leaders after him, with the claim this line was in the Quran explicitly. There are a number of traditions which explicitly claim the names were in the Quran, not in terms of symbolic titles or other phrases as you mentioned but verbatim 'Ali' , 'Hasan' Hussain' 'Fatima' and the like.  The tradition i have quoted is when a man asks the Imam why do we not find the Quran explicitly telling us who the divine leaders to follow are by name, verbatim? Even if this is referring to the Ulil Amr verse, the Hadith negates any direct mentioning of the Imams in the Quran, even revealed , and again i stress verbatim names, not the kind you mention. I also want to clarify i am only trying to prove that al-Kulayni brought forth contradictory hadith on this issue and not that i want there to be their names because i agree with the explanations of the Imams.

The tradition is rather clear: no Imam is named explicitly in the Quran and this was not revealed, however, the Prophet was the one to give the name(s) and direct us to where to seek guidance.  This is a Saheeh narration, from two authentic chains, that contradicts the weaker chained solitary reports claiming that their names were in the Quran. 

Just to illustrate again:

Weak chained report claiming the names were explicitly in the Quran under the subject matter of them being leaders after the Prophet (saw):

Al-Kafi 1/414:[(with his chain) Abu Basir, from abi `Abdillah (as), regarding Allah’s saying: “And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger in loving `Ali and loving of the leaders after him has certainly attained a great attainment” He (as) said: “This is how it was revealed.”]Whereas the verse in our Qur’an today only says: {And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly attained a great attainment} [33:71]

Strong chained report contradicting their names were ever in the Quran generally, but the Prophet (saw) elucidated on who they were:

Alee ibn Ibraheem has narrated from Muhammad ibn Isa from Yunus and Alee ibn Muhammad from Sahl ibn Ziyad, Abu Sa‘id from Muhammad ibn ‘sa from Younis from ibn Muskan from Aboo Basir (r.a) who has said the following: “I asked Aboo Abd Allah (a.s) about the words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High: ‘Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority). . . .’ (Qur'aan 4:59). “The Imam (a.s) said, ‘This was sent from the heavens about Alee ibn Aboo Talib, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain, (peace be upon them all).’ I then said, ‘People say, “Why did He not specify Alee (a.s) and his family by their names in the Book of Allah , the Most Holy, the Most High?’ “The Imam said, ‘Say to them, “The command for prayer came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) but He has not specified (the number of the Rak‘ats) for them as being three or four. It, in fact, was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained to them this matter. The command for Zakat (a form of income tax) came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and there was no specific taxable number such as one Dirham on every forty Dirham. It was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained it for them. The command for Hajj came to the Messenger of Allah (saw). It did not say walk seven times around the Ka‘ba. It was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained it for them. The verse about obedience came, ‘Believers, Obey Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, His Messenger and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority)...’ (Qur'aan 4:59)

Let us for example argue the this was just an instruction of the imam to his follower as to how to talk to non-Shia, rather than a belief the Shia must hold. This on the surface seems a good argument but if you read the remainder of the Hadith it becomes no longer valid:

"It came to declare that Alee, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain, recipients of divine supreme covenant, were the Leaders who possessed Divine Authority. The Messenger of Allah (saw) then said about Alee, recipient of divine supreme covenant, 'Over whomever I have Divine Authority, Alee (a.s), recipient of divine supreme covenant, also has Divine Authority over him.' He also has said, 'I enjoin you to follow the Book of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى and my family (a.s). It is because I have prayed to Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى, the Most Holy, the Most High, not to separate these two from each other until He will make them arrive at Al-Kawthar (the pond of paradise) to join me. He has granted my prayer as such.' The Holy Prophet (saw), recipient of divine supreme covenant, has said, 'Do not try to teach them (A'immah); they are far more knowledgeable than you.' The Holy Prophet (saw) has said, 'A'immah, recipients of divine supreme covenant, will never take you out of the gate of guidance and they will never make you enter the gate of error.' Had the Messenger of Allah (saw) remained silent and had not explained anything about his Ahlulbayt (the family) the family of so and so would have advanced their claim for Imamat (Leadership with Divine Authority).""

If their names were really explicitly in the Quran as the divine leaders (according to the solitary weak reports) why then would the Prophet (saw) have needed to elucidate and explain further ? If 'so and so' would have advanced their claim for leadership, it surely means the Quran gave the overall ruling, and the Prophet (saw) elucidated on it to further elaborate on it. However if their names were in the Quran, the Prophet would not have needed to explain as much as he did about his Ahlulbayt.

 

 

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

I basically wrote this a few months back:

Introduction

There are some who allege that the author of Al Kafi , Al-Kulayni believed in Tahreef of the Quran. Among these are not only detractors of the Jafferi madhab but some major scholars, such as Sayed al-Khui'. However, there is not a single statement from Kulayni whereby he affirms his belief. In his introduction when speaking about the Quran he never mentions nor details at any time that there are missing verses or that it had undergone Tahreef, nor that the true Quran that has all of the verses is with the Aimmah. Instead this is inferred indirectly from the narrations he includes in his own book stating that certain verses had been revealed in a certain way, namely to include the nams of Ali , Hasan and Hussain [peace be upon them all] but were not in the Quran available to most muslims They allege that the Shia of old believed that many of their key beliefs were not in the Quran and so amongst themselves proposed a theory: the companions deviously removed aspects in these verses - particularly those which were supposed to name Ali ibn Abi Talib as the successor.

If we move the discussion on and claim that al-Kulayni did not affirm everything in his book was authentic, and that we should place everything according to the Quran and reject what is not inline with it, they will then come to us and say that he is not asking us to place this criteria in his book, but claiming he himself had applied it and the result is Al Kafi. Therefore they contend that the inclusion of narrations in the book is akin to his affirmation of the veracity of these narrations.

Let us examine the discussion in the following three stages:

1. Are there any narrations implying Tahreef, in such a way that the names of Ali ibn Abi Talib was supposed to be in the Quran but was removed?

2. Are there any narrations which actually equivocally show that the names were not in the Q'uran and thus contradicting those narrations.

3. Conclusion

Are there any narrations implying Tahreef, in such a way that the names of Ali ibn Abi Talib was supposed to be in the Quran but was removed?

The reality is that there indeed are several narrations among which some which imply that the names of Ali ibn Abi Talib and some of the other Imams had been in the Quran, but were removed. These are weak and solitary single chained narrations, and were rejected by scholars such as Mufid, Saduq and Tusi. 

Al-Kafi 1/414:[(with his chain) Abu Basir, from abi `Abdillah (as), regarding Allah’s saying: “And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger in loving `Ali and loving of the leaders after him has certainly attained a great attainment” He (as) said: “This is how it was revealed.”]Whereas the verse in our Qur’an today only says: {And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly attained a great attainment} [33:71]

Al-Kafi 1/416:[(with his chain) from `Abdullah bin Sinan, from abi `Abdillah (as) regarding Allah’s saying: “And We had already taken a promise from Adam concerning Muhammad, `Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, Husayn and the leaders from their progeny, but he forgot” He (as) said: “By Allah, this is the way it was revealed upon Muhammad (saw).”] Whereas the verse in our Qur’an today only says: {And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot; and We found not in him determination.} [20:115]

Al-Kafi 1/417:[(with his chain) from Jabir, from abi Ja`far (as), he said: “Jibril (as) revealed this verse to Muhammad (saw) like this: How wretched is that for which they sold themselves – that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed about `Ali through [their] outrage.”] Whereas the verse in our Qur’an today only says{How wretched is that for which they sold themselves – that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed through [their] outrage} [2:90]

Looking at these traditions , it is therefore assumed al-Kulayni believed that these verses were originally part of the Quran and then removed. The verses above concern the name of Amirulmu'mineen in the Quran.  So they conclude that the early shia and al-Kulayni believed that the name of Ali was originally part of the Quran under the command of divine leadership, and that these were al-Kulayni's beliefs because of the supposed argument he affirmed everything in his book as true , or would at least refute what which he did not accept.

Are there any narrations which actually equivocally show that the names were not in the Q'uran and thus contradicting those narrations.

If al-Kulayni really did believe everything he put into al-Kafi, which is an enormous work of traditions more numerous than almost all of the major Sunni books combined, then we would expect in this palicular instance only those traditions affirming the Quran had been removed from and originally included the names of Ali, Hasan and Hussain [peace be on them all]. If we were to find a tradition which explicitly demonstrates that the names were not part of the original Quran, it would be strong evidence that Kulayni neither affirmed nor denied that the verses had originally been part of the Quran containing their names, and then subsequently removed. In fact one could argue this just shows he collected everything in his book he could generally find and felt was of importance, including the various views about the Quran and its preservation. We do not have many books from al-Kulayni in existence now and the only one that has really survived among the many he authored is Al Kafi. It would have been interesting to have his book on Rijal, as well as other ones that may have discussed Aqeedah in further depth. 

in Usool Al-Kafi (اصول الكافي), By Sheikh Al-Kulaini ( للكليني) . Volume 1, Page  # 172-173 [from two authentic chains of narrators]:

Alee ibn Ibraheem has narrated from Muhammad ibn Isa from Yunus and Alee ibn Muhammad from Sahl ibn Ziyad, Abu Sa‘id from Muhammad ibn ‘sa from Younis from ibn Muskan from Aboo Basir (r.a) who has said the following: “I asked Aboo Abd Allah (a.s) about the words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High: ‘Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority). . . .’ (Qur'aan 4:59). “The Imam (a.s) said, ‘This was sent from the heavens about Alee ibn Aboo Talib, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain, (peace be upon them all).’ I then said, ‘People say, “Why did He not specify Alee (a.s) and his family by their names in the Book of Allah , the Most Holy, the Most High?’ “The Imam said, ‘Say to them, “The command for prayer came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) but He has not specified (the number of the Rak‘ats) for them as being three or four. It, in fact, was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained to them this matter. The command for Zakat (a form of income tax) came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and there was no specific taxable number such as one Dirham on every forty Dirham. It was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained it for them. The command for Hajj came to the Messenger of Allah (saw). It did not say walk seven times around the Ka‘ba. It was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who explained it for them. The verse about obedience came, ‘Believers, Obey Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, His Messenger and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority)...’ (Qur'aan 4:59)

From the above tradition, the Imam is asked why he did not specify Ali or his sons [peace be on them all] in the Quran by their names. The Imam then affirms that they were not specified by name, but neither were some of the other verses specifying in great detail other key branches of faith; it was upon the Prophet [peace be upon him] to elucidate and expound upon them. This tradition is in clear contradiction with the many single chained and weak narrations which imply their names were in the Quran. If al-Kulayni allegedly only included whatever he found authentic in his book, why did he include these traditions which give polar opposite views as to whether the names of were included in the Q'uran?

Conclusion

Al-Kulayni may well have believed in Tahreef [though the definition of what is Tahreef varies]. It also does seem to point towards this owing to certain narrations in his book. However, the presence of narrations in and of themselves does not prove anything definitely. Shaykh Saduq , who was born in the life time of  Kulayni, and was firmly against the belief in any addition or subtraction in the Quran himself included many traditions which seemed to imply Tahreef in his books of hadith. We can even find similar traditions in the works of Sunni's. It may have been the case that further study was required on them, or an interpretation given to them, or that they may have been good for reference.

If whatever al-Kulayni included in his book was a clear indicator of his belief, he would not have included clear contradictions in the belief of Tahreef. On one hand he records traditions implying that the names of the Imams were in numerous verses. On another he records multiple chains implying that they were not in the Quran and an elaborate explanation given behind the philosophy of the Quran to only mention fundamental aspects of Islam in a general sense and allow the Prophet [peace be upon him] to elucidate on them. We do not know al-Kulaynis actual belief in this regard and arguments made to try to prove he had the belief by what he recorded in al-Kafi fall apart when when critically examined. It is highly plausible given the volume of al-Kafi and the fact in it are contradictions at times to understand that it may have been al-Kafi playing the role of collecting all of the main traditions as a work that is then saved and preserved and can be examined in more detail by scholars of his age and later scholars.

 

In my opinion I think that the best way to counter sunni's on Kulayni's beliefs is to then ask if the authors of the six sunni hadith books also had "strange" beliefs regarding the Quran, etc. Such as did Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Al-tirmidhi, etc. hold strange beliefs regarding the Quran among other things? For sunnis a major point of contention is the whole "Was the Quran created or not?" spiel. So that could be a place to start...

 

Maybe others here could help in answering these questions about the authors of the six sunni hadith books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guest Account Ali said:

In my opinion I think that the best way to counter sunni's on Kulayni's beliefs is to then ask if the authors of the six sunni hadith books also had "strange" beliefs regarding the Quran, etc. Such as did Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Al-tirmidhi, etc. hold strange beliefs regarding the Quran among other things? For sunnis a major point of contention is the whole "Was the Quran created or not?" spiel. So that could be a place to start...

 

Maybe others here could help in answering these questions about the authors of the six sunni hadith books.

From what i've seen, not the best method. Their reliable traditions on this issue don't really contradict, and with regards to Tahreef like traditions they have good alibis.  The best book to compare al-Kafi to in this regard is the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, which contains strange traditions a number of ulema have said are very weak or fabricated, some pertaining to the Quran but i'm not sure how strong that case would be.

The clearest way to go forward with your interlocutor is this:

1. His assumption that al-Kulayni is our greatest classical scholar is absolutely false. He may be the compiler of our most important book of traditions. 

2. The assumption that our classical scholars were united in the belief in distortion, whereas the modern ones changed tune is also a lie. Anyone with knowledge of Shia Islam will be rather aware that three of our greatest classical scholars are Shaykh Saduq, born by the dua of Imam Mahdi ajfs, his student Shaykh Mufid, a genius, and the man who was widely proclaimed the leader of our sect , Shaykh Tusi, all three opposed the idea of distortion in the Quran in terms of verses added or removed in any way shape or form.

3. Even with al-Kulayni, it is not certain he believed in Tahreef, there is not a single statement of his that explicitly states this. Furthermore, the traditions in al-Kafi on three contradict as i demonstrated. As for the titles 'only the Imams have collected the Quran' many Shias actually believe it was Ali ibn Abi Talib who collected the Quran in its true order and this is what is meant. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kulayni's intro to Al-Kafi is:

“Brother, may God lead you to the right road. You ought to know that it is impossible for anyone to distinguish the truth from the untruth when Muslim scholars disagree upon statements attributed to the Imams. There is only one way to separate the true from the untrue reports, through the standard which was declared by the Imam: “Test the various reports by the Book of God; whatever agrees with it take it, whatever disagrees with it reject it”.

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/creed-of-shia-explained/tahreef-of-quran.html

Even to laymen, his stance on the authenticity of the Quran should be quite clear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×