Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Haydar Husayn

Were The Classical Scholars Muqassirs?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It is not bin Khalid al-Barqi, it is bin Isa al-Ash'ari --> bi Qarain Sair ar-Riwayat, and even if we were to assume for arguments sake that it was him -he is still Thiqah, and you have to decide once and for all, are you for all out Rijal or are you as you had previously preached ready to accept Akhbar for the mere possibility that the Imam could have said it.

Rijal works best as a negative filter, that is that if a hadith appears strange the presence of a known liar, a ghali, etc in the chain can help to explain its possible fabrication. Were it doesn't work so well is as an authenticator. This isn't something I'm unique in, scholars have long rejected as shaadh and gharib "sahih" hadiths whose contents are problematic.

It is a clear Hadith, and easy to understand, if there is an incidence of new knowledge which even the prophet did not know (simply this throws your theory out - since you only admit knowledge inheritance and so such a scenario cannot occur in your belief - which would be contradicting this Hadith wherein this clearly happens), and which the Imam needs in his time, (to avoid the allegation that an Imam knows something the Prophet or preceeding Imams who have died do not know it also), - it is first informed to the prophet then the preceeding Imams then the current Imam.

That in itself raises other questions, such as would there really be areas of the Shari`a that the Prophet was not aware of?

How do you think the Imams knowledge is increased, by Him studying more in the books he was left?

I'm not saying I have a definitive answer on this, but the position of the earlier companions doesn't strike me as so wrong. Why is it for example that scholars will be allowed to exercise their ijtihad (or istifta, or whatever you want to call it), but such a prerogative is not allowable for the Imams, whose abilities would be free from the possibility of error?

How much more clear than that can you get, and when you consider Abwab in al-Kafi wherein we are told that al-Aimmah Yazdaduna Yawmul Jumuah - the context is clear, for those who want to see.

Again, you're looking at these through a single lens, using a book written with an express belief already in mind by its author, and already presupposing a set of beliefs which are not stated in the hadith (e.g. angelic communication). Minus that though and what the hadith is saying is really not so clear.

Only one thing leads to Kufr, believing Muhammad is not the last prophet and that the Imams are gods or prophets, the rest is just assumptions.

And the problem is on the latter. If you are giving the Imams all the same functions and abilities as prophets, effectively, minus simply calling them that, are you really escaping from the danger? Is all this warning and danger about a mere label?

Brother can you prove that the Imams do not recieve inspiration from Allah from their words (Akhbar)?

Now you're asking me to prove a negative. The natural assumption when someone knows something is not that angels revealed it to them..

The question is directed towards you, does the Imam err in his Ijtihad if he bases it solely in his study of the prophetic legacy, and if not what protects him, and how does that mechanism of protection work?

`isma. I don't see how the case is really different for either of us in that regard, whether you believe angels were revealing answers to them or not, `isma is still the factor of protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to be clear brother, the Mu'tabar Ahadith about the Imams hearing the voices of angels are all fabrications?

al-Kulayni only collected Ahadith he found, he could not influence them himself.

And would not the Imams - if such a belief (of them receiving revelation) be so dangerous not have spken out loudly against this belief, and where are these warnings or condemnations textually or are they lost, and what does this mean about preserving our original Madhab.

But that Wahy or Ilham was also recieved by the non-prophets is proven in the Qur'an.

Edited by Islamic Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you interpret this then?

محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن ابن أبي نصر، عن ثعلبة، عن زرارة قال: سمعت أبا جعفر (عليه السلام) يقول: لولا أنا نزداد لانفدنا، قال: قلت: تزدادون شيئا لا يعلمه رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله)؟ قال: أما إنه إذا كان ذلك

عرض على رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) ثم على الائمة ثم انتهى الامر إلينا

Muhammad bin Yahya from Ahmad bin Muhammad from Ibn Abi Umayr from Tha'labah (bin Maymun) from Zurarah (bin A'yan) who said:

I heard Aba Ja'far saying: if it were not that we are increased (i.e. in knowledge) (i.e. by receiving new communication) we would have ran out (i.e. of answers) (exhausted our reserve),

he (Zurarah) said: I said: are you increased in something which the messenger of Allah did not know?

He said: if such a situation arises, it is given (presented) to the messenger of Allah first, then the (preceding) Aimmah (i.e. are made aware of it), then the matter reaches to us.

[Hadith Sahih, Rijaluhu Imamiyun Thiqaat]

It is a clear Hadith, and easy to understand, if there is an incidence of new knowledge which even the prophet did not know (simply this throws your theory out - since you only admit knowledge through inheritance and so such a scenario cannot occur in your belief - which would be contradicting this Hadith wherein this clearly can possibly happen), and which the Imam needs in his time, (to avoid the allegation that an Imam knows something the Prophet or preceeding Imams who have died do not know), - it is first informed to the Prophet, then the preceeding Imams then the current Imam.

Well, precisely. It seems that this explanation is only to avoid a certain allegation, but the whole process is completely artificial. What purpose does it do to reveal the knowledge first to the Prophet (pbuh) and the preceeding Imams (as) (who have absolutely no need of it)? None. It appears simply to avoid saying that an Imam knew more than the Prophet (pbuh), which would obviously be problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to be clear brother, the Mu'tabar Ahadith about the Imam hearing the voice of angels are all fabrications?

It wouldn't surprise me. If it was really so clear as you consider it, why then would the most prominent family of Imami scholars of kalam, the Banu Nawbakht, have outright rejected this doctrine? Surely they would have been aware of such narrations. Or for that matter such primary companions as Hisham b. al-Hakam, Yunus b. `Abd ar-Rahman and al-Fadl b. Shadhan? Doesn't it seem very odd how those who were actually closer to the Imams (and especially reknown for their knowledge with someone like Yunus being called the Salman of his time) yet so missed the boat on what centuries later seems so clear to you from reading a post-ghayba book like al-Kafi?

al-Kulayni only collected Ahadith he found, he could not influence them himself.

You're missing the point about selection bias. al-Kulayni would have had access to many more hadiths than he included in his book which would represent what he would have considered to be correct doctrine and practice. It clearly wasn't isnads he cared about since most of the hadiths he included were weak by that measure, rather it would have been conformity to whatever he believed was right.

And would not the Imams - if such a belief (of them receiving revelation) so dangerous not have spken out loudly against this belief, and where are these warnings or condemnations textually or are they lost, and what does this mean about preserving our original Madhab.

You're asking about whether they would have spoken out loudly against a belief that probably was not associated with the mainstream Shi`a until the later Imams (where we have much less material from them due to circumstances of the times) and even the ghayba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what was the stance of Sahaba of Imams(as),we know that they used to tell many things that could n't be learned through books like decisions on matters with knowledge of unseen,knowing their murderers,telling about Khums,and there are endless examples.So the nawbakht were only ones and all other companions narrating other things are iiars.

What about Khizar and Dhul qarnain(as) as brother has mentioned above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't surprise me. If it was really so clear as you consider it, why then would the most prominent family of Imami scholars of kalam, the Banu Nawbakht, have outright rejected this doctrine? Surely they would have been aware of such narrations. Or for that matter such primary companions as Hisham b. al-Hakam, Yunus b. `Abd ar-Rahman and al-Fadl b. Shadhan? Doesn't it seem very odd how those who were actually closer to the Imams (and especially reknown for their knowledge with someone like Yunus being called the Salman of his time) yet so missed the boat on what centuries later seems so clear to you from reading a post-ghayba book like al-Kafi?

I am very wary of the post-attribution of beliefs to the Imam's companions, most of the views that are attributed to the companions are contradictory, and not provable, we cannot really be sure that what they believed in and what they are attributed to believe in are identical, for example - Yunus, we have Ahadith that he narrated in our books that support revelation to the Imams, while most of the books of the Imam's companions have not survived, it should be noted that most of these would not be books of their views but Ahadith, and what remains are just claims that X believed in this and Y believed in that, take Hisham bin al-Hakam - the amount of views that are attributed to him from Tashbih to Jabr are numerous, most of them not grounded in reality.

You're missing the point about selection bias. al-Kulayni would have had access to many more hadiths than he included in his book which would represent what he would have considered to be correct doctrine and practice. It clearly wasn't isnads he cared about since most of the hadiths he included were weak by that measure, rather it would have been conformity to whatever he believed was right.

It means that the truth of this Madhab just depended on what al-Kulayni [and other Qummis like him] chose to include, what is the point of the Imams safeguarding the religion then, if they were only allowed to express the pre selected views that later scholars like al-Kulayni allowed them to express.

But I believe that the primary source of understanding our Madhab is Akhbar of the Aimmah, not some loosely attributed belief of the companions.

You're asking about whether they would have spoken out loudly against a belief that probably was not associated with the mainstream Shi`a until the later Imams (where we have much less material from them due to circumstances of the times) and even the ghayba.

You discount the Ahadith in our books just to prop up a belief supported by the infamous/notorious Banu Nawbakht, who most times dabbled in Kalam without any support from Akhbar and were heavily influenced the rationalist Mu'tazila.

If you extend your argument to other beliefs with such blanket conclusions any of our core beliefs can be questioned, and the Ahadith that are quoted from our books brushed away as selection bias.

Edited by Islamic Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the progression and outcome of a thought experiment that Dar and I did yesterday:

1) An imam does not oppose the precedents of prior imams or the Prophet.

This points to him having transmitted/learned knowledge.

2) An imam guides people in equipped to guide people in all time periods.

This points to him having access to divine inspiration (ilham).

3) An imam has supreme `aql, i.e. he never strays off of fitra by the grace of `isma.

This points to him being able to correctly practice ijtihad (or istifta).

4) An imam is not given a new law, partially or completely.

This is sufficient to demonstrate that he is not a nabi.

5) It is argued that in the case of ilham, the Prophet and prior imams should be given knowledge first before it is made available to the current imam.

6) In the case of ijtihad, it does not follow that the outcome of the ijtihad of an imam has to be made available to all of his forefathers because they all would have exercised ijtihad in the same way and given the same answer in that context.

7) It is argued that there is a big difference between 5 and 6 with respect to maintaining a constant pool of knowledge, but this does not seem to be the case.

8) In the case of ilham, the same answer would have been made available to any of hujjaj answering the question just as in the case of ijtihad, they would have all given the same answer.

9) In both cases, a divine vehicle (ilham or ijtihad/`aql) is being used by the imam to give an answer.

10) This indicates that there is an absolute pool of `ilm (knowledge) that they have access to that does not change, which you could consider the law so to speak, but conflating this with the knowledge that they convey to their Shi`a is really extending the problem.

11) It follows then that the difference between an imam and a prophet (or even messenger) is in their scope of authority rather than how they are communicated to or their relative amounts of knowledge, etc.

12) It may be speculated then that the messenger brings a new law, can amend it and serves as its reference. The prophet can amend the law (or bring new precedents) and serves as its reference. The imam only serves as its reference.

13) Differentiation based on scope does not necessitate the preclusion of ilham for the imam.

14) Rather ilham, transmitted knowledge and ijtihad may be used together by the imam to guide the people.

Edited by al-Irshad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more Ahadith on the subject...

محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن أبي زاهر، عن علي بن موسى، عن صفوان بن يحيى، عن الحارث بن المغيرة، عن أبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) [قال] قلت: أخبرني عن علم عالمكم؟ قال: وراثة من رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) ومن علي (عليه السلام) قال: قلت: إنا نتحدث أنه يقذف في قلوبكم وينكت في آذانكم قال: أو ذاك.

Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Abi Zahir from Ali b. Musa from Safwan b. Yahya from al-Harith b. al-Mughira from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام, he (al-Harith) said: I said to Him, inform me about the knowledge of the knowledgeable one among you,

He said: an inheritance from the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله and from Ali عليه السلام, he (al-Harith) said: I said: we narrate that it (also) settles/impinges into your hearts and that it is whispered into your ears, He said: or that (also).

أحمد بن محمد، عن محمد بن الحسن، عن أحمد بن الحسن بن علي، عن عمرو ابن سعيد، عن مصدق بن صدقة، عن عمار الساباطي قال: سألت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام عن الامام؟ يعلم الغيب؟ فقال: لا ولكن إذا أراد أن يعلم الشئ أعلمه الله ذلك

Ahmad b. Muhammad from Muhammad b. al-Hasan from Ahmad b. al-Hasan b. Ali from Amru b. Said from Musadiq b. Sadaqah from Ammaar as-Sabity who said: I asked Aba Abdillah عليه السلام about the Imam, does he know the Ghayb (unseen)? so He said: No, but if He wants to know about something, Allah informs him about that (i.e. through revelation).

Edited by Islamic Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You discount the Ahadith in our books just to prop up a belief supported by the infamous/notorious Banu Nawbakht, who most times dabbled in Kalam without any support from Akhbar and were heavily influenced the rationalist Mu'tazila.

On what basis is the whole family notorious, considering their proximity to the twelfth Imam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting this in this thread since it doesn't seem enough to warrant another one at this point, though it not all of it quite fits this one. I mention it here to show another very early perspective on Imami beliefs which is somewhat alternative to what you might be used to.

Last couple of days been researching the Banu Nawbakht, who were a prominent family of early Imami scholars particularly known for their contribution and ideas in kalam. Members of the family included al-Hasan b. Musa an-Nawbakhti, author of Firaq ash-Shi`a, and Abu 'l-Qasim Husayn b. Ruh an-Nawbakhti, the third safir of the Imam (ajfs). They were based in Baghdad from what I can tell, though this is earlier than the period of Baghdadis such as al-Mufid and so on.

It seems they were more rational-leaning theologians with some affinity for Mu`tazilism, though they did not subscribe wholly to it of course (they were after all Imamis).

In Shaykh Mufid's Awa'il al-Maqalat, he mentions the Banu Nawbakht where they had different views (though he spoke of them with the respectful May Allah have mercy on them). I've compiled these, and here's a summary of what I found. Some I did not include because I did not understand quite what the position was, as well as a couple having to do with physics (so not really about `aqa'id). Here's the summary:

The Quran has been added to and subtracted from (i.e. tahrif)

"As for the scholars, theologians, and rational debaters of our school such as Abu Ja'far ibn Qiba, Abu'l-Ahwas, the Nawbakhtis and their predecessors and successors, we have never come across any opinion among them concerning alleged omissions in the text of the Qur'an." - Murtadha (I think)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it could be better argued that Shaykh Saduq's view in al-I`tiqad is the odd one here, standing at least on the surface at variance from the views of the Imami scholars prior to him (and contradicting material in his own other books).

How do you know that Banu Nawbakht was the norm, instead of Shaykh Saduq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ especially when banu nawbakhts and bistami families had issues with their aqeedah when they started believing in reincarnation stuff and so called naib e imams. So a letter from the wali e amr ajf was sent to them. Al majlisi kitab al ghayba.

And sadooq party used to banish people like mansur who claimed that he was naib eimam and stuff like wahdat ul wujood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ especially when banu nawbakhts and bistami families had issues with their aqeedah when they started believing in reincarnation stuff and so called naib e imams. So a letter from the wali e amr ajf was sent to them. Al majlisi kitab al ghayba.

And sadooq party used to banish people like mansur who claimed that he was naib eimam and stuff like wahdat ul wujood.

Banu Nawbakht did not believe in reincarnation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banu Nawbakht did not believe in reincarnation.

Apparently some of their family members did and you can't expecy everyone from their family to have the correct opinion about religion.I think the meaning was transferring of souls and not bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Ghuluw entered the mainstream Shi'ism.

Some people had extremist beliefs and other people choose to follow them. And then there is a third group who think anything which sounds supernatural must be ghulaw. And they haven't stop fighting until now.

In a world where Wilayah Takwini, which is almost indistinguishable from Tafwid, is a standard belief, I'd say that ghuluw has very much entered mainstream Shi'ism. Certainly ghuluw in the sense that the classical scholars understood it anyway.

Anyone who thinks Shaykh Saduq, who apparently considered not believing in sahw an-nabi to be the first step towards ghuluw, and Shaykh Mufeed, who said that a sufficient sign of ghuluw was to say that "the Imams are the creators of bodies, originators of substances, and bring into existence accidents which are beyond human power", wouldn't have considered Wilayah Takwini to be major ghuluw is deluding themselves in my opinion.

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a world where Wilayah Takwini, which is almost indistinguishable from Tafwid, is a standard belief, I'd say that ghuluw has very much entered mainstream Shi'ism. Certainly ghuluw in the sense that the classical scholars understood it anyway.

Anyone who thinks Shaykh Saduq, who apparently considered not believing in sahw an-nabi to be the first step towards ghuluw, and Shaykh Mufeed, who said that a sufficient sign of ghuluw was to say that "the Imams are the creators of bodies, originators of substances, and bring into existence accidents which are beyond human power", wouldn't have considered Wilayah Takwini to be major ghuluw is deluding themselves in my opinion.

Wilayat e takweeni does n't say they are originators of bodies and whatever you mentioned above.

Yes we don't believe sahw e Nabi(saww) if Sadooq really believed it then he was fallible man,we can say he could be mistaken.Won't it be ghuluw to take one scholar's view as its Ayat or Hadees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you missed this bit: "bring into existence accidents which are beyond human power".

No i did n't,its clear from word 'accidents',these are earthquakes,tsunamis,typhoons,volcanic eruption etc.

Who bring these things? Allah.May He protects us from every kind of catastrophe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that Banu Nawbakht was the norm, instead of Shaykh Saduq?

Because just about any Imami book I've seen that predates him where something of this subject comes up appears pro-tahreef to whatever extent (e.g. tafsir al-qummi, tafsir an-nu`mani, tafsir `ayyashi, kitab al-qira'at, al-kafi, heck even other stuff in saduq's own books...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No i did n't,its clear from word 'accidents',these are earthquakes,tsunamis,typhoons,volcanic eruption etc.

Who bring these things? Allah.May He protects us from every kind of catastrophe.

Not sure where you get that from, but even so I think quite a few Shias will dispute that the Imams (as) can't create earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, and volcanic eruptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No i did n't,its clear from word 'accidents',these are earthquakes,tsunamis,typhoons,volcanic eruption etc.

Who bring these things? Allah.May He protects us from every kind of catastrophe.

I imagine accident in the metaphysical sense was meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where you get that from, but even so I think quite a few Shias will dispute that the Imams (as) can't create earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, and volcanic eruptions.

Their prayers can be the reason,i mean invoking of wrath for certain nations or people.But Allah brings all these things into action,can't speculate for other Shias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine accident in the metaphysical sense was meant:

http://en.wikipedia....nt_(philosophy)

But Imams(as),and other Prophets(as) showed miracles,so i don't think so it could mean metaphysical here.

How do you understand Wilayah Takwini exactly?

For me its like Imams(as)'s prayers and wishes are considered before Allah before He decides for affairs of universe,and then He issues commands accordingly,and they act only like administrator, like slaves in any kingdom with given authority by the King. Edited by Kaniz e Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is being referred to in a metaphysical sense with respect to their ability to create.

That was mentioned in clear words there ,that they can't create,can't bring accidents etc,which meant it was something beside creation,obviously can't be miracle related things,but those i counted. Edited by Kaniz e Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was mentioned in clear words there ,that they can't create,can't bring accidents etc,which meant it was something beside creation,obviously can't be miracle related things,but those i counted.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you're saying here.

I meant that they can't create was already mentioned by mufeed,as for accidents beyond human power i believe it was n't supernatural powers as even Prophets showed miracles but it might meant the catastrophes,which are in Allah's power only,now got it? Edited by Kaniz e Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An off topic, but relevant information:

If you're looking for the discussions on the tahrif of al-Qur'an, bro Dar'ul has splitted this topic so you can find it in the Quran, Hadeeth & Du'a section, with the title of Tahreef & Qira'aat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect to ay.khoei,Allah's view is more authentic than any fallible human being,even if they are scholars but His promise can't be violated.

The Meaning of Tahrif

The Meaning of Tahrif (interpolation or tampering)

This word is used with common denotations, some of which are acceptably applicable to the Qur’an; and the others are either inapplicable or disputed. The details are as below.

(...)

The third meaning of Tahrif is an omission or an addition of a word or two, at the same time leaving the essence of the Qur’an untouched.

It is the type of interpolation which surely occurred in the first century of Islam, and in the days of the companions of the Prophet (‘s). The fact that Uthman burnt up all other copies of the Qur’an, and ordered his emissaries to do away with all the copies other than the codex prepared by himself, is an ample proof that there existed some difference between his copy and the others, else he would not have asked for their destruc­tion.

In fact, some of the scholars have recorded those differences, like Abdullah b. Abi Dawud as‑Sajistani who wrote a book titled: Kitabul Masahif. It could be inferred that some interpolation had occurred, either on the part of Uthman or on the part of the scribes who prepared their copies. But we will soon establish that the copy of Uthman was actually the one already known to the Muslims. It was the one which was handed over from the Prophet (‘s) and widely used. The Tahrif by way of addition or omission had occurred in those copies which ceased to exist after the era of Uthman. As for the existing Qur’an, it is totally free from any omission or addition.

In short, those who rightly believe that those extra codices of the Qur’an were not authenticated by tawattur,that is to say that their authenticity was not established by wide currency and acceptance among Muslims, for them it is also right to believe that this sort of tampering had occurred in the beginning, but it ceased to exist after the time of Uthman. This leads us to believe that only that Qur’an remained authentic which was supported by a continuous chain joined with the Prophet (‘s).

Notes:

[2]al-Wafi, p.274

http://www.al-islam.org/tahrif_quran/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Meaning of Tahrif

The Meaning of Tahrif (interpolation or tampering)

This word is used with common denotations, some of which are acceptably applicable to the Qur’an; and the others are either inapplicable or disputed. The details are as below.

(...)

The third meaning of Tahrif is an omission or an addition of a word or two, at the same time leaving the essence of the Qur’an untouched.

It is the type of interpolation which surely occurred in the first century of Islam, and in the days of the companions of the Prophet (‘s). The fact that Uthman burnt up all other copies of the Qur’an, and ordered his emissaries to do away with all the copies other than the codex prepared by himself, is an ample proof that there existed some difference between his copy and the others, else he would not have asked for their destruc­tion.

In fact, some of the scholars have recorded those differences, like Abdullah b. Abi Dawud as‑Sajistani who wrote a book titled: Kitabul Masahif. It could be inferred that some interpolation had occurred, either on the part of Uthman or on the part of the scribes who prepared their copies. But we will soon establish that the copy of Uthman was actually the one already known to the Muslims. It was the one which was handed over from the Prophet (‘s) and widely used. The Tahrif by way of addition or omission had occurred in those copies which ceased to exist after the era of Uthman. As for the existing Qur’an, it is totally free from any omission or addition.

In short, those who rightly believe that those extra codices of the Qur’an were not authenticated by tawattur,that is to say that their authenticity was not established by wide currency and acceptance among Muslims, for them it is also right to believe that this sort of tampering had occurred in the beginning, but it ceased to exist after the time of Uthman. This leads us to believe that only that Qur’an remained authentic which was supported by a continuous chain joined with the Prophet (‘s).

Notes:

[2]al-Wafi, p.274

http://www.al-islam.org/tahrif_quran/

Thanks brother for your effort, but this topic has been shifted into Quran and Hadees forum.So we xan say even if some people tried to make some efforts of omissions,these efforts were failed and essence of Quran remains preserved by the will of God.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't surprise me. If it was really so clear as you consider it, why then would the most prominent family of Imami scholars of kalam, the Banu Nawbakht, have outright rejected this doctrine? Surely they would have been aware of such narrations. Or for that matter such primary companions as Hisham b. al-Hakam, Yunus b. `Abd ar-Rahman and al-Fadl b. Shadhan? Doesn't it seem very odd how those who were actually closer to the Imams (and especially reknown for their knowledge with someone like Yunus being called the Salman of his time) yet so missed the boat on what centuries later seems so clear to you from reading a post-ghayba book like al-Kafi?

 

you mentioned some person, whih source indicate that they refuse this doctrine, for example which soure indicates Yunus b. `Abd ar-Rahman refuse this doctrine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Pakistani and other communities, from what i see, there is ghuluw. People think excess unwarranted unevidenced love is akin to greater love. It will may you to hell.

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...