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  
Muntaqim Force

Ahlul Hadith, Salafis, Wahabis

Recommended Posts

Mufid said Uthman Quran is incomplete and the complete Quran is with Qaim. That is tahref on the same level as the tahref Kulayni and Majlisi believed in.

Hello mr Wisdon. It seems like you want weaken the argument that Wahabi is a term coined by the french based on me making a mistake on the title. Why dont you instead take on the challenge i put out earlier about finding an older book containing the term wahabi?

It's ok mate it doesn't matter to me it was Abdul wahhab we term you lot as that wahabi like it or not it's who you are even if you bring France into it or not

Au revoir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude al Maghribi. Isn't it narrated in the Sahihain that Aisha lost a few Ayat of the Quran because a goat ate it? Isn't it claimed that Al Ahzab is meant to be as long as Al Baqara?

Dude, we Shi3a have a rule. Any hadith that contradicts the Quran is wrong. There has been tahreef in our great Ulama's books and there sayings have been changed. Like there has been a few Tahreef in Usul Al Kafi, but there is a few copies of Al Kafi that have not been changed.

As for the goat eating the manuscripts. no where in that hadith did it say the verses only existed in those manuscripts. As for the hadith of Al Ahzab than all narration about it being the same size as Baqara are weak because they contain either Yazid bin Abi Ziyad who is weak or they contain Asim bin Bahdala who even if he his thiqa he had a weak memory and he cant be realied upon alone. Even if we would assume the hadith to be sahih it would be a case of abrogation however according to your books its corrupted.

 

 

In Thawabul Amal (of shaykh Saduq) and al-Majmua from Sadiq (alaihi salam): Who would read a lot Surah al-Ahzab, in the doomsday he would be in the vicinity of Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) and his wives, and in Thawabul Amal addition: then he said: Surah al-Ahzab exposed women of Quraish from Arabs, and IT WAS LONGER THAN SURAH AL-BAQARAH, BUT (IT WAS) SHORTENED AND CORRUPTED.Faydh al-Kashani in “Tafsir as-Safi” (4/209), and Huwayzi in “Noor as-Saqalayn” (4/233):

 

 

 

 

As for you second statement i will leave that so every learned shi3i here can laugh at you.

Edited by Al-Maghribi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Dude I am being serious. And Hadith that contradicts the Quran is thrown out. The Quran is considered the only authentic book, any other book is up for mistake.

Yes it sadly seems so. However you are wrong. Your reliigion of rafidism does not throw out any hadith that contradicts the Quran. That is why your scholars like Majlisi and Nimatullah Jazairi believed the Quran was corrupted based on ahadith. 

 

 

ATTENTION TO MODS

 

PLEASE REMOVE ALL THE MONEY BUSSINESS ON THIS POST. I STARTED THIS THREAD FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES NOT FOR SHIA SUNNI DEBATE.

hhhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATTENTION TO MODS

 

PLEASE REMOVE ALL THE MONEY BUSSINESS ON THIS POST. I STARTED THIS THREAD FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES NOT FOR SHIA SUNNI DEBATE.

 

No no, this is interesting. He is discussing with amateurs and relatively new members on this site. They have to learn to discuss with wahabis. 

The points he mentions will force the to read and to be able to refute his claims. 

 

We have members on this site that could slaughter him like they have the likes before him. But they are getting old and tired now discussing the same old subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al-Maghribi, on 31 Dec 2013 - 12:48 PM, said: As for my signature. Are the admins going to tell me not to quote shi3i books in my signature hhh? Tahref al Quran is one of the core beliefs of the Shi3a 12ers. All of the greatest scholars belived in tahref including Kulayni and Mufeed.

Tahrif al-Quran is not a "core" belief of the Shia, and no, not "all" of the greatest scholars believed in it. Are you aware that lying is a sin? Yes, there are a minority of scholars who have believed in it, however a minority of scholars doesn't render it a "core" belief, nor does this minority of scholars include "all" of the greatest scholars.

 

Al-Maghribi, on 31 Dec 2013 - 7:51 PM, said: Hello Jahan.

1.You say the likes of Saduq. However who are the likes of Saduq to speak about the likes of Kulayn?

First: Actually if you look up the entries in the early rijal books for both of them, and also take note of other information, you will see that Saduq outweighs Kulayni in praises, types of praises, contributions, great students, great teachers, etc.

 

Tusi says that Kulayni is ثقة عارف بالأخبار and جليل القدر عالم بالأخبار and Najashi says شيخ أصحابنا في وقته بالري و وجههم و كان أوثق الناس في الحديث و أثبتهم

So Kulayni is very trustworthy and accurate, knows narrations, is great in standing, was a leader of the Shia in Rayy.

 

Whereas for Saduq, Tusi says كان جليلا حافظا للأحاديث بصيرا بالرجال ناقدا للأخبار لم ير في القميين مثله في حفظه و كثرة علمه‏ and جليل القدر حفظة بصير بالفقه و الأخبار و الرجال‏ and Najashi says شيخنا و فقيهنا و وجه الطائفة بخراسان و كان ورد بغداد سنة خمس و خمسين و ثلاثمائة و سمع منه شيوخ الطائفة و هو حدث السن‏

So, Saduq is great in weight, insightful in fiqh, narrations and narrators, a memoriser of hadiths, a critic of narrations, a teacher of the shaykhs of the ta`ifa while young, and someone whose like has not come amongst the Qummis in terms of his memorisation and magnitude of knowledge, the shaykh and jurist of the Shias, and leader of the Shias in Khurasan.

 

Also, compare that Saduq wrote approximately 300 books, while less than 10 are noted for Kulayni. And while Kulayni authored the very great and large work, al-Kafi, Saduq authored more than one great work, including al-Faqih and Medinat al-`Ilm. I could go on. But this suffices to show that Saduq outranks Kulayni.

 

Second: It is not proven that Kulayni believed in tahrif. His only surviving work is al-Kafi and Kulayni does not say in it that he believes that tahrif has occurred in al-Kafi. Just because he included some hadiths that some have interpreted as evidence for tahreef, it does not mean that he believed in tahreef. This is obvious, as a muhaddith does not necessarily believe in the authenticity of every hadith that he narrates - do note that a muhaddith can narrate a hadith that he does not know is authentic or inauthentic - nor does every muhaddith necessarily interpret a hadith in one way or on the dhahir (most apparent meaning). For example, Kulayni includes the hadith of 17,000 verses - and note that he includes it in bab an-Nawadir; does this mean that Kulayni believed the Quran originally was sent down with 17,000 verses? Well, Saduq also mentions the same hadith and reinterprets it against its more apparent meaning. So, a muhaddith could reinterpret such a hadith. It is also quite disputable that Kulayni believed in the authenticity of every single hadith in his work. The sole, contemporary explicit evidence for this is that Kulayni says one can take sahih hadiths from al-Kafi. This is a brief, vague statement, mentioned only once, so it has been pointed that this statement does not necessitate that every hadith in al-Kafi is sahih; one can take non-sahih hadiths from al-Kafi too. Furthermore, narrations of the IMAM that seem implausible are also found in al-Kafi, as well as akhbar and athar from other than the Imams which is further evidence that Kulayni's words are not restricting the narrations in his book to only sahih narrations from the Imams. And so on. Just because a scholar who came centuries after Kulayni claimed Kulayni believed in tahrif, it doesn't mean that this is the case. Rather, one should note that such people are usually supporters of tahrif themselves.

 

 

2.The one who deny tahref are the one in error in the light of your books of ahadith. Like Nimatullah Jazairi and Majlisi said the ahadith about tahreef are mutawatir. To deny ahadith mean the denial of mutawatir ahadith. You might aswell deny imama and say imama is not part of tashayyu.

Not every hadith in a work of hadith is considered authentic. Jaza'iri and Majlisi were mistaken. Indeed, since they came later, after the loss of many work, including many usul and kutub of the companions of the Imams and ancient scholars, then the scholars who are in the best situation to speak about tawattur are those who had access to these works. So, the claim of tawattur by Murtadha and Tusi holds more weight than the claim of tawattur by Majlisi and Jaza'iri, both of whom were quite influenced by Akhbari methodology and hence had little real appreciation for the authenticity of hadiths in our books. So when classical scholars deny that tahrif is muttawatir in the hadiths, as has been done by some of them, then this is the claim with greater weight.

 

 

4. Scholars who came after Saduq held belief of tahref. So his opinion hold little water here.

You have skipped multiple steps of logic in your reasoning, so what you have said doesn't make sense. It does not matter whether virtually every scholar after Saduq said Y, while Saduq said X. Saduq is still an ancient scholar, a Qummi scholar, had access to many lost books, was taught by students of the companions of the Imams, and so on. His opinion thus holds some weight. We must investigate the correctness of whatever he says, and we cannot just ignore it because many scholars after him held a contrary opinion on a matter. His rejection of tahrif holds a lot of weight when we remember that he was close to the time of the Imams, had access to many works, and other factors.

 

 

5. Some of the greatest shi3a scholars held the belief in tahref. Making the opinion of a layman like your worthless.

Actually, we, the laypeople here, are rejecting tahrif because many great scholars have rejected tahrif.

 

 

Also out of those scholars who denied the great tahref. How many of them belived the order of the Quran was changed and corrupted?

Do you have a problem with Saudi printing the Quran with the chapters out of chronological order? If you're taking about the order of verses, it's an even smaller number who subscribe to that.

 

 

You putting Khoei and Sistani in the same level as your Qudama? I do not even see how Khoei and Sistani are at the level of later scholars like Majlisi who was a hardcore beliver in tahref.

Just because a scholar is not an ancient scholar, it does not render that scholar's opinion inconsequential or weightless. Especially when the non-ancient scholar's stance is supported by a number of ancient scholars.

 

 

As for Mufid he did belive in tahref.

All of what is between the two covers of the Quran is the Speech of Allah Ta’ala and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beings, and it is most of what has been revealed, and the rest of what Allah Ta’ala has revealed as Quran is bestowed with (Al-Qaem) the Preserver of Shariah and Custodian of Rulings with none of it being omitted, even though the one who has compiled what is between the two covers as present today (Uthman) did not include this in the compilation due to reasons such as: his shortcomings in knowing some (of it), what he had doubts about, and some which he included and others he meant to exclude, while Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) compiled the revealed Quran from beginning to end, and collated it as it is supposed to be collated: so he put the Makki (verses) before Madani, and abrogated verses before those abrogating them, and put all of it as it is required to be put, and for this reason (Imam) Jafar ibn Muhammad as-Saddiq said: “By Allah if the Quran was read as it was revealed you would have found our names as those before us were named”… Authentic Hadiths have passed from our Imams (A.S.) that they have ordered (us) to read what is between the two covers, and that we do not resort to any other, be it in addition or subtraction until the Qaem emerges and he would read to people the Quran as Allah Ta’ala revealed it and as collected by Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) and they forbade us from reading what is mentioned in Hadith of words that are in excess of what is established in the Mushaf because it did not come through Mutawatir (narrations), but through individual (narrations), and a person can commit mistakes in conveying it, and whenever a person reads what is contrary to what is in the two covers he will make himself prone to (the attacks) of those who differ with us (i.e. Sunnis), and to the mighty (Sunni rulers) and thus he would expose himself to perishing. Thus, they (A.S.) prevented us from reading the Quran contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers. Source Book Title: Masa’il as-Sarawiyya Author: ash-Shaykh al-Mufid Publisher: Dar al-Mufid in Lebanon, Beirut [1993] Editor: Sa’ib `Abd al-Humayd Page(s): 78-81

Look up the doubts over the attribution of Masa'il as-Sarawiyya to Mufid.

 

Also, look at what Mufid said:

 

وفي ( أجوبة المسائل الروية ) ، قال : « فان قال قائل : كيف يصحّ القول بأنّ الذي بين الدفّتين هو كلام الله تعالى على الحقيقة من غير زيادة فيه ولا نقصان ، وأنتم تروون عن الأئمة عليهم‌السلامأنّهم قرءوا « كنتم خير أئمّة أُخرجت للناس » ، « وكذلك جعلناكم أئمّة وسطاً ». وقرءوا « يسألونك الأنفال ». وهذا بخلاف ما في المصحف الذي في أيدي الناس ؟

قيل له : إنّ الأخبار التي جاءت بذلك أخبار آحاد لا يُقْطَع على الله تعالى بصحّتها ، فلذلك وقفنا فيها ، ولم نعدل عمّا في المصحف الظاهر ، على ما أُمِرنا به (٢) حسب ما بيّناه مع أنّه لا يُنْكر أن تأتي القراءة على وجهين منزلين ، أحدهما : ما تضمّنه المصحف ، والثاني : ما جاء به الخبر ، كما يعترف به مخالفونا من نزول القرآن على أوجهٍ شتّى » (٣).

 

Al-Maghribi, on 04 Jan 2014 - 8:01 PM, said:

As for Khoei, he did belive narrators who narrated about tahref were thiqa at some point in his life.

And yet he rejected tahrif.

 

 

So in the end your greatest scholars including the teacher of Al Tusi believed in Tahref.

Yet Shaykh at-Ta`ifa rejected tahrif.

 

 

Now you come with the akhbari argument hhh. Earlier you didnt mind using an Akhbari like Saduq for a shield. Usulis reject ahad reports hhhhh. Usulis go as far as accepting chainless and weak ahadith. Dont come with this ahad nonsense to try and deny the core belief of shiism which is tahreef.

Akhbarism vis-a-vis Usulism didn't exist at Saduq's time.

 

 

I let you answer your self. Also i did not include the likes of sistani and al khoei in "greatest scholars"

Your opinion is worthless, as you have amply demonstrated with your dishonesty, lack of akhlaq and ignorance in more than one thread. Khui and Sistani are recognised as great scholars of Shia.

 

Al-Maghribi, on 06 Jan 2014 - 10:45 PM, said: We quoting names now?

Lets se what we find is Faslu khitab fi athbat tahref kitab rabbul arbab

1. Shaikh Ali bin Ibrahim al Qumi 2. Shaykh Kulayni 3. Sayyid Muhsin al-kazmi 4. Allama Majisi 5. Muhammad bin Hasan al Safar 6. Muhammad bin Ibrahim al Numan , Sudent of Kulayni 7. Sad bin Abdullah al Qummi 8. Sayyid Ali bin Ahmad al Kufi 9. Muhammad bin Masud al Ayyashi 10. Furat bin Ibrahim al Kufi 11. Muhammad bin Abbas al-Mahiyar 12. Shaykhul Azam Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Numan al Mufeed 13. Najashi 14. Abu Sahal Ismail bin Ali bin Ishaq al Nawbakht 15. Shaykh Abu Muhammad Hasan 16. Shaikh Abu Ishaq bin Nawbakht 17. Shaikh Ishaq al Katib 18. Shaykh Abul Qasim Hasnain bin Ruh bin Abu Bahr al Nawbakhti 19. Hajib bin al-Layth bin Al Sarah 20. Shaykh Fadhal bin Shadhan 21. Shaykh Muhammad bin Hasan al Shaybani 22. Shaykh Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Khalid al Barqi 23. Shaykh Muhammad bin Khalid al Barqi 24. Shaykh Ali bin Hasan bin Fadhal 25. Shaykh Muhammad bin Hasan 26. Shaykh Ahmad bin Muhmamad bin Siyyar 27. Shaykh Hasan bin Sulayman al Hilli 28. Shaykh Muhammad bin Abbas bin Ali bin Marwan al Mahiyar , Ibn Hijam 29. Abu Tahir Abdul Wahid bin Umar al Qummi 30. The author of Kitab ul Rad ala Ahlal Tabdil (Ahlal tabdil is used for Sunnis) Now thats something.

 

What nonsense. Some of them have books that are unreliably attributed to them that side with tahrif, some of them have had their words misinterpreted and positions attributed to them, some of them have included hadiths in their works that might look to some as though they are advocating tahrif which has been ignorantly been taken as the opinion of that compiler, and so on. So, for examples, you cannot prove that as-Saffar and Sa`d bin `Abdullah believed in tahrif. They were major Qummis, and major teachers of Saduq's teachers. It is far-fetched that Saduq would claim that the belief of the Shia is that the Quran has been preserved, while two very important, high-standing shaykhs, from his own city of Qum, who taught his teachers, would believe otherwise. Or, for example, Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyar is not a scholar of the sect but a very weak ghali. And so on.

Edited by Cake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no, this is interesting. He is discussing with amateurs and relatively new members on this site. They have to learn to discuss with wahabis. 

The points he mentions will force the to read and to be able to refute his claims

 

We have members on this site that could slaughter him like they have the likes before him. But they are getting old and tired now discussing the same old subject. 

 

Yes we can see that.

 

 

 

Copy/paste Al-islam, Rev or Shiapen are some excelent debate skill repenter. Did the older members fingers get tired by clicking Copy and than paste?

 

@Cake

 

Hello Cake. How are you? Nice that you joined the convo.

 

As for your first claim that Saqud is greater than al Kulayni. That is a fair view i guess. But i would disagree and i am sure many other shiites would disagree. Kulayni is seen by many of your scholars as the Mujadid of the 3rd century just as stated by Muhammad Jazarī. As for him beliving in Tahref, than it is very clear from what he said that he believed in what he had narrated in that book just as Fayd al kashani pointed out. All of your greatest scholars belived in tahref al zaghir however some of them like Kulayni,Mufeed,Nimatullah jazairi, Majlisi and the so called "Light of God" Nuri Tabrassi belived in tahref al kabir. And it is in the core of shiism as the Shia belive the real uncorrupted Quran is with Qaim. 

 

As for the order of the Quran. We ahlu sunnah belive the order the Quran is in now is the order Prophet Muhammad(saw) ordered as we have narrated 

 

“Sometimes the beginning of a surah is revealed to the Prophet, so I write it down; then another revelation comes to him so he says, ‘Ubayy! Write this down in the surah where such and such is mentioned.’ At other times a revelation comes down to him and I await his instructions, till he informs me of its rightful place.” (al-Intisar lil-Qur’an 1/291)

 

As for Masa’il as-Sarawiyya it is accepted that Mufed wrote it.

 

As for the 250year old sect of usulism who have ahlu sunnah to thank for their establishment. I agree they did not at the time of Saduq. However even if the akhbaris did not "exist" what the shia believed at saduqs time is close to the akhbari belief than the usuli belief.

 

As for Al Khoei. Maybe you can tell me more how his son spoke about his "greatness" when he said Al Khoei was not qualified to hold the position that he held.

 

 

What nonsense. Some of them have books that are unreliably attributed to them that side with tahrif, some of them have had their words misinterpreted and positions attributed to them, some of them have included hadiths in their works that might look to some as though they are advocating tahrif which has been ignorantly been taken as the opinion of that compiler, and so on. So, for examples, you cannot prove that as-Saffar and Sa`d bin `Abdullah believed in tahrif. They were major Qummis, and major teachers of Saduq's teachers. It is far-fetched that Saduq would claim that the belief of the Shia is that the Quran has been preserved, while two very important, high-standing shaykhs, from his own city of Qum, who taught his teachers, would believe otherwise. Or, for example, Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyar is not a scholar of the sect but a very weak ghali. And so on.

 

Just like i said. Tahref is in the core of shiism. And Tabrassi just demonstrated that by mentioning 30 Shia scholars (some can be called founding fathers) of the shia who believed in Tahref. So in the end the only shield you have left is Saduq stand while those who came before him were hardcore belivers in tahref.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hello Ja

 

We quoting names now?

 

Lets se what we find is Faslu khitab fi athbat tahref kitab rabbul arbab

 

1. Shaikh Ali bin Ibrahim al Qumi

2. Shaykh  Kulayni

3. Sayyid Muhsin al-kazmi

4. Allama Majisi

5. Muhammad bin Hasan al Safar

6. Muhammad bin Ibrahim al Numan , Sudent of Kulayni

7. Sad bin Abdullah al Qummi

8. Sayyid Ali bin Ahmad al Kufi

9. Muhammad bin Masud al Ayyashi

10. Furat bin Ibrahim al Kufi

11. Muhammad bin Abbas al-Mahiyar

12. Shaykhul Azam Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Numan al Mufeed

13. Najashi

14. Abu Sahal Ismail bin Ali bin Ishaq al Nawbakht

15. Shaykh Abu Muhammad Hasan

16. Shaikh Abu Ishaq bin Nawbakht

17. Shaikh Ishaq al Katib

18. Shaykh Abul Qasim Hasnain bin Ruh bin Abu Bahr al Nawbakhti

19. Hajib bin al-Layth bin Al Sarah

20. Shaykh Fadhal bin Shadhan

21. Shaykh Muhammad bin Hasan al Shaybani

22. Shaykh Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Khalid al Barqi

23. Shaykh Muhammad bin Khalid al Barqi

24.  Shaykh Ali bin Hasan bin Fadhal

25. Shaykh Muhammad bin Hasan

26. Shaykh Ahmad bin Muhmamad bin Siyyar

27. Shaykh Hasan bin Sulayman al Hilli

28. Shaykh Muhammad bin Abbas bin Ali bin Marwan al Mahiyar , Ibn Hijam

29. Abu Tahir Abdul Wahid bin Umar al Qummi

30. The author of Kitab ul Rad ala Ahlal Tabdil (Ahlal tabdil is used for Sunnis)

Now thats something.

 

 

What made you think i was speaking about the order of revelation. I was speaking about the order the Quran was meant to be in. The Quran we have today is in the correct order unlike the other shi3a scholars who did not belive in the great tahref but believed in the small tahref to explain away 33:31-33

 

 

 

Shaykh Nouri's book was more of a thesis trying to show that tahrif is genuine, his work was already spoken against by contemporary ulema in the 19th and early 20th century. The fact that he put Shaykh Mufid in that list is enough to show his research was rushed and disingenuous, as we shall see below.

 

 

 

 

Too bad for you that they are closer to akhbaris than to Usulis. Also atleast akhbaris do not hide their belief about tahref unlike Usulis. Making them more honest :)

 

 

 

 

You say akhbaris don't hide their beliefs, refer to Saduq as akhbari-inclined yet still recognise he didn't believe in tahrif? Hhhhh I think you're a little confused ya sidi. Shaykh Tusi was writing in a time of great freedom under the buwayhiye, a time when he wrote explicitly that he believed Aisha was a kafira (since he was of the opinion she didn't repent of her rebellion against Imam Ali (as) ) . This same Shaykh Tusi rejected tahrif exactly for the same reason usulis do, that is, that all the reports on tahrif are ahad with no worthy qarain to back it up; these are his words in his Tibyan. Shaykh Mufid says the exact same thing in Cake's quotation of him, that the hadiths are all ahad; so basically here are two of the greatest qudama, using the exact same methodology usulis use in rejecting the tahrif reports. Too bad for you I guess.

 

 

 

 

Mufid said Uthman Quran is incomplete and the complete Quran is with Qaim. That is tahref on the same level as the tahref Kulayni and Majlisi believed in.

 

 

 

He did believe that, but what he meant was that it was incomplete in that it didn't have the tawil revealed by God that Imam Ali's (as) mushaf had. Here's none other than Shaykh Mufid himself clarifying all this, saying its acceptable to believe in a certain type of tahrif whilst rejecting it nonetheless:

 

وأما النقصان فإن العقول لا تحيله ولا تمنع من وقوعه، وقد امتحنت مقالة من ادعاه، وكلمت عليه المعتزلة وغيرهم طويلا فلم اظفر منهم بحجة اعتمدها في فساده. وقد قال جماعة من أهل الإمامة إنه لم ينقص من كلمة ولا من آية ولا من سورة ولكن حذف ما كان مثبتا في مصحف أمير المؤمنين (ع) من تأويله وتفسير معانيه على حقيقة تنزيله وذلك كان ثابتا منزلا وإن لم يكن من جملة كلام الله تعالى الذي هو القرآن المعجز، وقد يسمى تأويل القرآن قرآنا قال الله تعالى: (ولا تعجل بالقرآن من قبل أن يقضى إليك وحيه وقل رب زدني علما) فسمى تأويل القرآن قرآنا، وهذا ما ليس فيه بين أهل التفسير اختلاف.

وعندي أن هذا القول أشبه من مقال من ادعى نقصان كلم من نفس القرآن على الحقيقة دون التأويل، وإليه أميل والله أسأل توفيقه للصواب.

وأما الزيادة فيه فمقطوع على فسادها من وجه ويجوز صحتها من وجه، فالوجه الذي أقطع على فساده أن يمكن لأحد من الخلق زيادة مقدار سورة فيه على حد يلتبس به عند أحد من الفصحاء، وأما الوجه المجوز فهو أن يزاد فيه الكلمة والكلمتان والحرف والحرفان وما أشبه ذلك مما لا يبلغ حد الاعجاز، و يكون ملتبسا عند أكثر الفصحاء بكلم القرآن،...ولست أقطع على كون ذلك بل أميل إلى عدمه

 

 

"And as for the subtraction (of the Quran) then verily the enlightened minds neither deem it impossible nor do they rule it out from happening, and I have been tested by the opinion of those who propagate this. And I have spoken about this with the Mutazila and others at a lengthy rate, but I never gained any proof from them to rely on for showcasing its corruption (this opinion). And a group from the Imamis have said that neither a word, nor a verse, nor a Sura has been subtracted but rather that what was established in the mushaf of Amir Al-Mumineen (as) - from the tawil and tafsir of its meanings based on the proper purpose of the revelation - has been deleted. And this (tawil) is established and revealed even if it isn't a part of the words of God the Most High - that is, the miraculous Quran. And the tawil of the Quran is called 'quranan' (recital), God the Most High has said: "And do not hasten with the Qur'an before its revelation is completed to you, and say, 'My Lord, increase me in knowledge.'" (20:114) So He labelled the tawil of the Quran quranan, and in this there is no disagreement amongst the people of tafsir.

 

And according to me this opinion is similar to the the opinion of those who propagate the subtraction of the Quran's words itself without reference to the tawil, and I incline to this and I ask God for His guidance to clear reasoning.

 

And as for the addition (to the Quran) then it is definitively rejected due to its corrupt nature (i.e. the opinion) from one viewpoint, and it is allowable to authenticate it from another viewpoint; as for the viewpoint that is definitively rejected - due to its corruption - it is the possibility of one of the created adding the measure of a Sura in it to the point of obscuring it among the linguists; and as for the allowable view it states that addition is made to the extent of one or two words and one or two letters and of the like that doesn't exceed the boundaries of inimitablity, being in itself obscure - to the majority of the linguists - amidst the words of the Quran...and I refuse to definitively accept the existence of this (tahrif), rather I incline to its absence" - (Awail Al-Maqalat, pg. 81-82)

 

So not only does Mufid reject major tahrif, he even rejects the possibility of even one or two words being added to the Quran!

Edited by Jahangiram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we can see that.

 

 

 

Copy/paste Al-islam, Rev or Shiapen are some excelent debate skill repenter. Did the older members fingers get tired by clicking Copy and than paste?

 

You do have reading comprehension issues which in most cases needs training, so you try to being a comedian instead. 

No, the older members got tired from the likes of you, because milking a dead cow is fruitless. I'm just enjoying this thread so go on. 

Edited by repenter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no, this is interesting. He is discussing with amateurs and relatively new members on this site. They have to learn to discuss with wahabis. 

The points he mentions will force the to read and to be able to refute his claims. 

 

We have members on this site that could slaughter him like they have the likes before him. But they are getting old and tired now discussing the same old subject. 

Why he does not create new thread under the debate section and discuss over there!!! I think he is trying to hide his cult and runing this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Maghribi,

 

Please could you explain why you think the book Masa’il as-Sarawiyya is written by Sheikh Al Mufeed?, when he himself does not include it in his named collection of works, and neither does Najashi? Al Khoe has written that this book is not related to Sheikh Al Mufeed in his book, Kuliyat fi Ilm ar-Rijal Page 316-7.

 

Yet we have Shiekh Al Mufeed saying such things in books we know are written by him like:

 

Awa`il al-Maqalat page 81 (Qum, published 1413 AH) says: 

و قد قال جماعة من أهل الإمامة إنه لم ينقص من كلمة و لا من آية و لا من سورة و لكن حذف ما كان مثبتا في مصحف أمير المؤمنين ع من تأويله و تفسير معانيه على حقيقة تنزيله

"And the group from the people of Imamah says there is no shortening in the words, and not in the ayah, and not in the Surah, but the cancellation of what was established in the mus`haf of Amir al-Mu`mineen  (as) from his ta`wil/interpretation of its meanings"

 

From his other books such as Kitab al-Irshad, again Sheikh Al Mufeed explains how it is more difficult to understand the Quran now , as the notes form the Imams are missing and the order has changed. This is not contentious, no one thinks the Quran was revealed and structured in the way it is now, however the content is the same. There is a special copy of the Quran which is with the Imams which contains the verses in the original order with a tafseer and taweel of every ayat. This was unfortunately rejected by Uthman. Additionally His teacher, Sheikh Saduq also wrote :

“Our belief is that the Quran which Allah revealed to His Prophet
Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two covers (daffatayn).
And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not
greater in extent than that. The number of surahs as generally
accepted is one hundred and fourteen …And he who asserts that we say
that it is greater in extent than that, is a liar.”

Shi’i reference: Shi’ite Creed (al-I’tiqadat al-Imamiyyah), by Shaykh
Saduq, English version, p77.

Sheikh Al Mufeed had written a book which is a like an amendment of the above, and he does not criticise or mention Sheikh Saduq view on the Quran.

 

Secondly, we have traditions that imply tahreef, the ones that suggest obvious addition / deletion are ahad, and we do not accept that as a basis for our belief. We have tawatir hadith on the Quran in our hands being the protected Quran.

 

It is important to understand the difference between tahreef of the words, meaning, sounds, order etc,   It is my understanding that the meaning has been distorted, whilst the words have not changed. 

 

Do you have any other arguments for Shia belief in Tahreef of the text of the Quran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol where is wiki and where is this wahabi INFLUENCED blog you are so easily led keep it up

That blog is not wahabi influenced at all. The returning to Quran and Sunnah and rejecting innovated belief didnt start with Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab. Many earlier scholars tried to do the same thing. It is poor Shiite education (which we see comes from wikipedia) that makes them belive Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab started some knd of a new school or sect.

 

 

Shaykh Nouri's book was more of a thesis trying to show that tahrif is genuine, his work was already spoken against by contemporary ulema in the 19th and early 20th century. The fact that he put Shaykh Mufid in that list is enough to show his research was rushed and disingenuous, as we shall see below.

 

 

 

 

 

You say akhbaris don't hide their beliefs, refer to Saduq as akhbari-inclined yet still recognise he didn't believe in tahrif? Hhhhh I think you're a little confused ya sidi. Shaykh Tusi was writing in a time of great freedom under the buwayhiye, a time when he wrote explicitly that he believed Aisha was a kafira (since he was of the opinion she didn't repent of her rebellion against Imam Ali (as) ) . This same Shaykh Tusi rejected tahrif exactly for the same reason usulis do, that is, that all the reports on tahrif are ahad with no worthy qarain to back it up; these are his words in his Tibyan. Shaykh Mufid says the exact same thing in Cake's quotation of him, that the hadiths are all ahad; so basically here are two of the greatest qudama, using the exact same methodology usulis use in rejecting the tahrif reports. Too bad for you I guess.

 

 

 

 

 

He did believe that, but what he meant was that it was incomplete in that it didn't have the tawil revealed by God that Imam Ali's (as) mushaf had. Here's none other than Shaykh Mufid himself clarifying all this, saying its acceptable to believe in a certain type of tahrif whilst rejecting it nonetheless:

 

وأما النقصان فإن العقول لا تحيله ولا تمنع من وقوعه، وقد امتحنت مقالة من ادعاه، وكلمت عليه المعتزلة وغيرهم طويلا فلم اظفر منهم بحجة اعتمدها في فساده. وقد قال جماعة من أهل الإمامة إنه لم ينقص من كلمة ولا من آية ولا من سورة ولكن حذف ما كان مثبتا في مصحف أمير المؤمنين (ع) من تأويله وتفسير معانيه على حقيقة تنزيله وذلك كان ثابتا منزلا وإن لم يكن من جملة كلام الله تعالى الذي هو القرآن المعجز، وقد يسمى تأويل القرآن قرآنا قال الله تعالى: (ولا تعجل بالقرآن من قبل أن يقضى إليك وحيه وقل رب زدني علما) فسمى تأويل القرآن قرآنا، وهذا ما ليس فيه بين أهل التفسير اختلاف.

وعندي أن هذا القول أشبه من مقال من ادعى نقصان كلم من نفس القرآن على الحقيقة دون التأويل، وإليه أميل والله أسأل توفيقه للصواب.

وأما الزيادة فيه فمقطوع على فسادها من وجه ويجوز صحتها من وجه، فالوجه الذي أقطع على فساده أن يمكن لأحد من الخلق زيادة مقدار سورة فيه على حد يلتبس به عند أحد من الفصحاء، وأما الوجه المجوز فهو أن يزاد فيه الكلمة والكلمتان والحرف والحرفان وما أشبه ذلك مما لا يبلغ حد الاعجاز، و يكون ملتبسا عند أكثر الفصحاء بكلم القرآن،...ولست أقطع على كون ذلك بل أميل إلى عدمه

 

 

"And as for the subtraction (of the Quran) then verily the enlightened minds neither deem it impossible nor do they rule it out from happening, and I have been tested by the opinion of those who propagate this. And I have spoken about this with the Mutazila and others at a lengthy rate, but I never gained any proof from them to rely on for showcasing its corruption (this opinion). And a group from the Imamis have said that neither a word, nor a verse, nor a Sura has been subtracted but rather that what was established in the mushaf of Amir Al-Mumineen (as) - from the tawil and tafsir of its meanings based on the proper purpose of the revelation - has been deleted. And this (tawil) is established and revealed even if it isn't a part of the words of God the Most High - that is, the miraculous Quran. And the tawil of the Quran is called 'quranan' (recital), God the Most High has said: "And do not hasten with the Qur'an before its revelation is completed to you, and say, 'My Lord, increase me in knowledge.'" (20:114) So He labelled the tawil of the Quran quranan, and in this there is no disagreement amongst the people of tafsir.

 

And according to me this opinion is similar to the the opinion of those who propagate the subtraction of the Quran's words itself without reference to the tawil, and I incline to this and I ask God for His guidance to clear reasoning.

 

And as for the addition (to the Quran) then it is definitively rejected due to its corrupt nature (i.e. the opinion) from one viewpoint, and it is allowable to authenticate it from another viewpoint; as for the viewpoint that is definitively rejected - due to its corruption - it is the possibility of one of the created adding the measure of a Sura in it to the point of obscuring it among the linguists; and as for the allowable view it states that addition is made to the extent of one or two words and one or two letters and of the like that doesn't exceed the boundaries of inimitablity, being in itself obscure - to the majority of the linguists - amidst the words of the Quran...and I refuse to definitively accept the existence of this (tahrif), rather I incline to its absence" - (Awail Al-Maqalat, pg. 81-82)

 

So not only does Mufid reject major tahrif, he even rejects the possibility of even one or two words being added to the 

The book of Nuri Tabrassi was a book written to proe Tahref did happen. As for him including Mufed you did a good favour by proving Muffeed did belive in some form of tahref and he said revelation was lost. As for Tusi and Saduq even if they did not belive in tahref their teachers and theirs teachers teachers belived in tahref.

 

As for the akhbari statement. I made it very clear their belief were much closer to that of the Akhbar than that of the Usulis. So the confusion is on your part.

 

So in the end the statements of Saduq and Tusi does not weaken the argument that the core of shiism is tahref as we have a mountain of scholars at the same level and even greater who did belive in Tahref. And Tahref is mutawatir in your books as Majlisi said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Saduq (RA) "Our belief is that the Quran (K) which Allah (SWT) revealed to His Prophet (SAWW) is (the same as) between the two covers (daffatayn).

And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and it is not greater in extent than that. The number of Surah's as generally accepted is 114. And he who asserts that it is greater in extent than that is a liar.

Shi'ite reference : Shi'ite creed (Al I'3tiqadat Al Immamiyah) by Sheikh Al Saduq, English version, page 77.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

 

I think no need to know the differences between Wahabis , Salafis etc as my friend who wanted to debate with me, benefited too from this thread and he is now willing to read more about teachings of Ahle Bait p.b.u.t because of what Mr Al-Maghrabi started. He read about topic of Tahreef and Quran and accepted that the shia islam is the true one but as converting to something against your father's and fore father's sect is difficult so he put the condition of "further" research.

 

Alhumdulilah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Maghribi, 

 

I am sure your a busy man, however please take the time to retract your argument or refine it further, as you can see from my post, it now appears quite incorrect.

Hello. I answered a long time ago(3-4days ago). The admins didnt approve my post i guess. They seem to be the busy ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The book of Nuri Tabrassi was a book written to proe Tahref did happen. As for him including Mufed you did a good favour by proving Muffeed did belive in some form of tahref and he said revelation was lost. As for Tusi and Saduq even if they did not belive in tahref their teachers and theirs teachers teachers belived in tahref.

 

 

 

Indeed that's my point, Tabrasi's thesis wasn't meticulous since he didn't investigate what type of tahrif Mufid (and the others) believed in. Mufid was saying there are many views of tahrif which you can believe in that do not make you a kafir (hence the reason he said they were 'majooz'), yet he rejected most of these views nonetheless. He said the only type of tahrif he believed in was the one which said the tawil revealed by Allah was deleted from the Uthmani manuscript. And he made it clear in my quotation that the tawil of the Quran is not the quran itself.

 

Cake has already quoted Mufid refuting those who believed there was addition/deletion to the Quran by saying all the hadiths on this are 'ahad'.

 

As for the akhbari statement. I made it very clear their belief were much closer to that of the Akhbar than that of the Usulis. So the confusion is on your part.

 

Is that why they rejected all ahad reports then? That's what im saying, theyre using the usuli methodology in rejecting tahrif reports - making your point invalid.

Hence both of these qudama didn't believe these narrations were mutawatir and adhered to the same methodology usulis do.

 

Checkmate.

Edited by Jahangiram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed that's my point, Tabrasi's thesis wasn't meticulous since he didn't investigate what type of tahrif Mufid (and the others) believed in. Mufid was saying there are many views of tahrif which you can believe in that do not make you a kafir (hence the reason he said they were 'majooz'), yet he rejected most of these views nonetheless. He said the only type of tahrif he believed in was the one which said the tawil revealed by Allah was deleted from the Uthmani manuscript. And he made it clear in my quotation that the tawil of the Quran is not the quran itself.

 

Cake has already quoted Mufid refuting those who believed there was addition/deletion to the Quran by saying all the hadiths on this are 'ahad'.

 

Is that why they rejected all ahad reports then? That's what im saying, theyre using the usuli methodology in rejecting tahrif reports - making your point invalid.

Hence both of these qudama didn't believe these narrations were mutawatir and adhered to the same methodology usulis do.

 

Checkmate.

Im afraid there is no checkmate here my friend. Back than the shi3a 12ers did not have a universal accepted methodology. Mufid had his own methodology(as he was a hardcore mutazilli). that differed from his teacher Sheikh Saduq ibn Babawayh al Qummi which is you saviour in the field of tahref. So my statement still stand (we can have a field day showing much of Usulism is innovated as its a 250year old sect while akhbarism can be dated earlier when Tahreef was more open as even today tahref is part of the akhbari creed. So in short Tusi and Saduq statements about tahref does not refute the scholars i brought and the 30 scholars Nuri Tabrassi quoted. Also Mufeed did belive in Tahref as he belived the Quran was incomplete and therfor "corrupted" even if its not corruption in verses its corruption in revelation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im afraid there is no checkmate here my friend. Back than the shi3a 12ers did not have a universal accepted methodology. Mufid had his own methodology(as he was a hardcore mutazilli). that differed from his teacher Sheikh Saduq ibn Babawayh al Qummi which is you saviour in the field of tahref. So my statement still stand (we can have a field day showing much of Usulism is innovated as its a 250year old sect while akhbarism can be dated earlier when Tahreef was more open as even today tahref is part of the akhbari creed. So in short Tusi and Saduq statements about tahref does not refute the scholars i brought and the 30 scholars Nuri Tabrassi quoted. Also Mufeed did belive in Tahref as he belived the Quran was incomplete and therfor "corrupted" even if its not corruption in verses its corruption in revelation. 

I never said there was a universally accepted methodology, as far as i recall it was me who had to inform you that usuli and akhbari methodologies didn't really exist as separate entities in those days. Im saying when it comes to the reports on tahrif they provide the same explanation us modern usulis do, they say all the reports are ahad; hence their methodology is closer to ours in this respect and not in line with akhbari methodology as you incorrectly asserted.

 

I don't need to repeat Mufid's words again, he couldn't be any clearer in my quote and Cake's quote.

 

Or do you want me to translate Cake's quote for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this guy ignorant or what? The proof is right in front of him. His false lies got destroyed yet he fails to believe what is in front of his eyes. This is the part where he is just going to keep repeating himself, tell a few jokes, and tell a few more lies....

Brothers whom provides sources disproving magribi, I'm sorry for your wasted effort on him but I'm sure us shias and other honest readers will benifit from these sources.

(Wasalam)

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said there was a universally accepted methodology, as far as i recall it was me who had to inform you that usuli and akhbari methodologies didn't really exist as separate entities in those days. 

If i recall, you misunderstood what i said. As for the method of your scholar we can show they were more akhbari than usuli.

 

 

 

Im saying when it comes to the reports on tahrif they

Yes they(2 persons)

 

 

 

they say all the reports are ahad; hence their methodology is closer to ours in this respect

In the field of narrations of tahref in light of narrations sure. I dont deny that.  Nor do i deny that much of Usulism was based on al Tusi.

 

As for Mufid. We both agreed that he did belive in tahref so i dont see a problem there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this guy ignorant or what? The proof is right in front of him. His false lies got destroyed yet he fails to believe what is in front of his eyes. This is the part where he is just going to keep repeating himself, tell a few jokes, and tell a few more lies....

Brothers whom provides sources disproving magribi, I'm sorry for your wasted effort on him but I'm sure us shias and other honest readers will benifit from these sources.

(wasalam)

 

Hello PureEthics(Your name does not suit you sir).

 

A quote from Tusi and Saduq is not a proof that is right in front of me. It seems like you wrote what you wrote without even knowing what the topic is about.

If what i told is a lie than its not my lie but the lie of Your scholars (Like al Majlisi, Nuri Tabrassi and now Mufeed has joined the ranks of his own Version of tahref).

Perhaps i need to repeat myself in order for you to fully grasp what the topic is about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello PureEthics(Your name does not suit you sir).

 

A quote from Tusi and Saduq is not a proof that is right in front of me. It seems like you wrote what you wrote without even knowing what the topic is about.

If what i told is a lie than its not my lie but the lie of Your scholars (Like al Majlisi, Nuri Tabrassi and now Mufeed has joined the ranks of his own Version of tahref).

Perhaps i need to repeat myself in order for you to fully grasp what the topic is about?

 

It astonishes me really. You quote without poviding references, or at least correct references, and you interpret and add in what you think they said. I call that a lie. Not theirs, yours. The brothers on this site CLEARLY posted the arabic and translation for you but I can understand, its hard for you to comprehend. Its okay brother. I feel for ya. For someone who cannot understand the arabic term "Tahrif", you seem to be really sure of yourself. I dont know how you conclude, that when some says, there is no tafsir in the quran orginally, that means the quran is distorted???!! Do you even know what the quran is? The Quran is a holy book in which revelations recieved by Muhammad A.S is written in the book in arabic Arabic. That is seperate from the tafsirs in which the prophet had. Go tell you saudi masters who insert "Muhammad A.S" where ever they seem fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Mufid. We both agreed that he did belive in tahref so i dont see a problem there.

Yeah its the tahrif Khoei believes in as well.... and any rational shia should since its the only way to reconcile the hadiths about verses being lost with the other hadiths which say the whole Quran is from God and a complete guide.

 

Its also the type of tahrif I personally believe in.

 

However as Mufid makes it clear shias are allowed to believe in tahrif of the words and they wont be considered kafirs.

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...