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

1. There is no such thing as a Wahabi.(The term wahhabi was coined by the french in the book "l'histoire de leu wahabis"

2.Salafis are ahlu sunnah. A great number of salafis are hanbali.

3.Ahlu hadith are the "salafis" of  Indian subcontinent. But they differ with the salafis on some points. The Ahlu Hadith are big fans of the Zahiris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Quite interesting as i am from Sub Continent, here the interpretation is quite different. And yet there are other thoughts existed / emerging out like Deobands, Barelvies and now even Bhais

 

 

 

1. There is no such thing as a Wahabi.(The term wahhabi was coined by the french in the book "l'histoire de leu wahabis"

2.Salafis are ahlu sunnah. A great number of salafis are hanbali.

3.Ahlu hadith are the "salafis" of  Indian subcontinent. But they differ with the salafis on some points. The Ahlu Hadith are big fans of the Zahiris.

 

Is it your personal opinion or some scholarly view, if not personal opinion please provide us the link which explicitly define these terminologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. There is no such thing as a Wahabi.(The term wahhabi was coined by the french in the book "l'histoire de leu wahabis"

2.Salafis are ahlu sunnah. A great number of salafis are hanbali.

3.Ahlu hadith are the "salafis" of  Indian subcontinent. But they differ with the salafis on some points. The Ahlu Hadith are big fans of the Zahiris.

So no Sunni/Salafi scholar has ever used the term Wahhabi to refer to himself or other members of his sect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.There is no such thing as a Wahabi  .(The term wahhabi was coined by the french in the book "l'histoire de leu wahabis"

2.Salafis are ahlu sunnah. A great number of salafis are hanbali.

3.Ahlu hadith are the "salafis" of  Indian subcontinent. But they differ with the salafis on some points. The Ahlu Hadith are big fans of the Zahiris.

 

You need to look in the mirror lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please friends no pulling legs or picking up on eachother. This thread is purely for the knowledge purpose and not for a debate. That's why I posted it under this section. I would love to have a salafi and a person from Ahlul Hadith to come here and write about who they are.


1. There is no such thing as a Wahabi.(The term wahhabi was coined by the french in the book "l'histoire de leu wahabis"

2.Salafis are ahlu sunnah. A great number of salafis are hanbali.

3.Ahlu hadith are the "salafis" of  Indian subcontinent. But they differ with the salafis on some points. The Ahlu Hadith are big fans of the Zahiris.

 

Nice but very short answer. 

 

Actually few days back, i met one of my school friend after long time. He knew that i am shia but another person with him that day did not. We went for dinner together. My friend told me when that person went away for a phone call that this guy might start religious talk but please you keep quite and dont start any debate. I said ok no worries but if he said something against about my faith, i wont sit tight and thats what happened. After sometime, the guy said looked at one banner nearby on the wall where it was written "Shia Sunni are brothers". He was like "how come we can be this possible, muslim and mushrik cant be brothers". I couldnt hold myself and introduce myself to him. He was guy with humble nature so we started the discussion. He said he is ahlul hadith salafi. I said so you are wahabi. What explanation he gave me was;

 

Wahabi is general term used for all those sects which are on the concept of Abdual wahab, that is against shrines and tombs etc. Ahlul Hadith and salafis are different. We do not like brelvi sunnis and deobandis. I said but deobandis are also wahabis. He said no they are wrong. We ahlul hadith are stanch follower of hadith. Then when i came back home did some research, i saw some ahlul hadith speaking very nice forexample Maulana Ishaq (late) of Ahlul Hadith, Maulana Tariq Jameel etc. But i also heard people like Zakir Nayk and Bilal philips calling shias deviant and praising Umayyad dynasty including yazid l.a.

I am about to have debate with him at my place. So i need to know them before i start. 
Tell me if there are different groups among Ahlul Hadith. Any good source to know their believes. Because we shias are different in research. We do not try to know a particular sect from anti sources like most of our sunni friends do but we read and research from the pure source of that sect.

 

Thank You


One thing to add, my friend also do not believe in weak, strong etc categories of Hadiths to be found in 6 books of hadith and says all hadiths are right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Quite interesting as i am from Sub Continent, here the interpretation is quite different. And yet there are other thoughts existed / emerging out like Deobands, Barelvies and now even Bhais

 

 

 

 

Is it your personal opinion or some scholarly view, if not personal opinion please provide us the link which explicitly define these terminologies.

Which of the points are you thinking about in particular?

 

So no Sunni/Salafi scholar has ever used the term Wahhabi to refer to himself or other members of his sect?

Even if a scholar of the past used the term for himself it wouldn change the origin of the word, would it now?

 

 

Please friends no pulling legs or picking up on eachother. This thread is purely for the knowledge purpose and not for a debate. That's why I posted it under this section. I would love to have a salafi and a person from Ahlul Hadith to come here and write about who they are.

 

Nice but very short answer. 

 

Actually few days back, i met one of my school friend after long time. He knew that i am shia but another person with him that day did not. We went for dinner together. My friend told me when that person went away for a phone call that this guy might start religious talk but please you keep quite and dont start any debate. I said ok no worries but if he said something against about my faith, i wont sit tight and thats what happened. After sometime, the guy said looked at one banner nearby on the wall where it was written "Shia Sunni are brothers". He was like "how come we can be this possible, muslim and mushrik cant be brothers". I couldnt hold myself and introduce myself to him. He was guy with humble nature so we started the discussion. He said he is ahlul hadith salafi. I said so you are wahabi. What explanation he gave me was;

 

Wahabi is general term used for all those sects which are on the concept of Abdual wahab, that is against shrines and tombs etc. Ahlul Hadith and salafis are different. We do not like brelvi sunnis and deobandis. I said but deobandis are also wahabis. He said no they are wrong. We ahlul hadith are stanch follower of hadith. Then when i came back home did some research, i saw some ahlul hadith speaking very nice forexample Maulana Ishaq (late) of Ahlul Hadith, Maulana Tariq Jameel etc. But i also heard people like Zakir Nayk and Bilal philips calling shias deviant and praising Umayyad dynasty including yazid l.a.

I am about to have debate with him at my place. So i need to know them before i start. 

Tell me if there are different groups among Ahlul Hadith. Any good source to know their believes. Because we shias are different in research. We do not try to know a particular sect from anti sources like most of our sunni friends do but we read and research from the pure source of that sect.

 

Thank You

One thing to add, my friend also do not believe in weak, strong etc categories of Hadiths to be found in 6 books of hadith and says all hadiths are right. 

I dont mean to be disrespectful. But you ahlu hadith friend does not seem to know very much about Islam. Esp his stand on ahadith.

 

As for the deobandis being "wahabi" this is just Barelvis use of the word. The salafis view Deobandis in the same light as Barelvis. Matter infact the barelvis and deobandis are very similar and differ on very little compared to what they agree on. The barelvis are more extreme than the deobandis when it comes to the dead and graves. The important thing to keep in mind is that Deobandis and Barelvis comes from the same root and that is the maturidi sufis. They differ on the prophet, Barelvis say that Muhammad(saw) knew everything that happend in the past and to come while deobandis attack the barelvis on this point. Barelvis also belive Muhammad(saw) was not a human being rather he was light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wahabi word was coined by the French.

 

The term Wahabi comes from Abdul Wahab, who founded this puritanical movement.  

 

Salafism is not an ism. 

 

 

So what is it?

 

And what is the difference between the Wahabi and the Salafi?

 There is no such thing as a Wahabi.

 

 

You might say that but the term is widely used all over the world. 

 

In the sub-continent, the term 'Wahabi' is  used for someone who follows the teachings of Abdul Wahab. 

Salafis are ahlu sunnah. A great number of salafis are hanbali.

 

They  may be Hanbali Sunnis.

 

But it doesn't end there.

 

There must be something more about them that they have been given a special name. 

 

What is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concept of wahabi is cleared. Its very general term and people call all those wahabis who against visiting to graves,shrines etc. Under the umbrella of wahabi, today we have followings'

 

1- Salafis

2-Ahlul Hadith

3-Deobandis

 

 

m I right so far!!!? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term Wahabi comes from Abdul Wahab, who founded this puritanical movement.

It is very sad to see people say such non-sense. Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab did not start any religious movements. All the beliefs most Salafis hold are found in the Quran, Ahadith and the book of the salafu saleh and later scholars.The term Wahabi was coined by the French in a book titled "l'histoire de leu wahabis". Al Wahab is the name of Allah and it should not be misused like this.

 

 

 

So what is it?

 Some one who is a salafi is some one who follows the salafu saleh. He accepts the sifaat of Allah without tawil tatil takyif or tashbeeh keeping in mind There is nothing like him 42:11. Someone who is a salafi rejects all kind of bidah that was introduced later like the mawlid.

 

 

You might say that but the term is widely used all over the world. 

 

In the sub-continent, the term 'Wahabi' is  used for someone who follows the teachings of Abdul Wahab.

 

 The term is used by Barelvis, Sufis and Shi3a.

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term Wahabi was coined by the French in a book titled "l'histoire de leu wahabis". Al Wahab is the name of Allah and it should not be misused like this.

I assume the book you are referring to is "l'histoire des Wahabis", since the title you have given doesn't mean anything in French. However, you need to provide some evidence that the term was first coined in this book.

As for it calling a sect "Wahhabis", I don't see how this would be any more of a misuse than calling people Malikis. Al-Malik is also one of the names of Allah. Additionally, some of you major scholars have had no problem with the term Wahhabi either.

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very sad to see people say such non-sense. Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab did not start any religious movements. All the beliefs most Salafis hold are found in the Quran, Ahadith and the book of the salafu saleh and later scholars.The term Wahabi was coined by the French in a book titled "l'histoire de leu wahabis". Al Wahab is the name of Allah and it should not be misused like this.

 

 Some one who is a salafi is some one who follows the salafu saleh. He accepts the sifaat of Allah without tawil tatil takyif or tashbeeh keeping in mind There is nothing like him 42:11. Someone who is a salafi rejects all kind of bidah that was introduced later like the mawlid.

 

 

 The term is used by Barelvis, Sufis and Shi3a.

 

  

 

 

Before i say anything, please change your signature or you might be banned. It is among the rules of this forum that no speaking about corruption or distortion of Quran as it will give an excuse for non muslims to point and ponder over this. Have a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well didn't someone named Mohammad Ibn Abdul-Wahab start some can't of movement against shrines that led to the destruction of the shrines of our great Imams in Janat-ul-baqi?

They may not be a sect but there are some people like that with a very hating ideology...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the book you are referring to is "l'histoire des Wahabis", since the title you have given doesn't mean anything in French. However, you need to provide some evidence that the term was first coined in this book.

 

My bad. I just wrote the name of the book as how i tought it would sound in French(i dont speak french ). As for the evidence the word was never used during and after the death of Muhammad ibn abd al Wahab (rh) untill it was used by Coransez in " Histoire Des Wahbis" please feel free to try an provide something earlier than this. 

 

 

As for it calling a sect "Wahhabis", I don't see how this would be any more of a misuse than calling people Malikis. Al-Malik is also one of the names of Allah. Additionally, some of you major scholars have had no problem with the term Wahhabi either.

No not really. Malikis are based on the name Malik ibn Anas not Abd Al Maliki ibn Anas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. There is no such thing as a Wahabi.(The term wahhabi was coined by the french in the book "l'histoire de leu wahabis"

2.Salafis are ahlu sunnah. A great number of salafis are hanbali.

3.Ahlu hadith are the "salafis" of  Indian subcontinent. But they differ with the salafis on some points. The Ahlu Hadith are big fans of the Zahiris.

 

1. Wahabi was used as far back as Sulayman ibn Abdul Wahhab. The Hanafi scholar Ibn Abideen ash-Shami referred to them as such as well. Also, that tired Yusuf Estes quip about Wahhab not being abused needs to just be put to rest. Scholars of the past had no problems with calling groups like that e.g. the Qadariya

 

2. I can call myself a computer but it won't make it as such. I've also heard the parroted phrase: "I am Hanbali in usool" which, when translated from rhetoric means: "I basically do what Albani Bin Baz, and Ibn Taymiyyah wrote" (although, admittedly, a lot of the miskeen have yet to see a translation of Ibn Taymiyyah's Majmu which contain volumes 10 and 11. Also, you lead me into point 3.

 

3. I have heard Zahiri more than once but the Ahle Hadees movement really isn't the same: their approach is basically how an uneducated bedouin would interpret Quran and Hadith corpus. The "Zahiris" e.g. Dawud al-Zahiri, Ibn Hazm, perhaps even Showkani basically had a methodology that delved much deeper into a complete literary and etymological analysis and not just "Zaid from the empty quarter who has never been to a madrassa would see this as... X". Also, I wonder why the aqeedah of the Zahiris is never spoken about in Ahle Hadees circles? Might want to check what Showkani said about tawassul or how Ibn Hazm was suspiciously close to the mutazila in aqeedah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very sad to see people say such non-sense. 

  

 

If you feel so sad, you must blame your fellow-believers in India and Pakistan.

 

The term 'Wahabi' is widely used by everyone there, including  your brothers-in-faith themselves

 

You are clearly living in a very small world of your own.

 

The term is used by Barelvis, Sufis and Shi3a.  

 

Nonsense

 

Go to India or Pakistan

 

The term has always been used by your brothers themselves.

 

And your signature shows how arrogant you are.

 

Is arrogance a part of your Salafi or Wahabi teachings?

There is no such thing as a Wahabi.

 

Yes, there is and there always has been.

 

You don't want to acknowledge it but we have lived with them all our lives.

 

Some of them may have stopped calling themselves Wahabi.

 

But some there still are.

 

So tell the rest to do the same.

 

Don't try and tell us what we have known all our lives.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

 

Before i say anything, please change your signature or you might be banned. It is among the rules of this forum that no speaking about corruption or distortion of Quran as it will give an excuse for non muslims to point and ponder over this. Have a shame.

 

He is persistent despite our brother has clearly told him to remove it as above, admin should take a notice of this in red:-

 

Shia 12ers/Rafida/Rawafid and the Quran (Murtadha al-Qazwini admits Tahreef)

Fayz Kashani: As for the opinion of our Scholar on this topic, then what is obvious from Thiqatul Islam Muhammad bin Ya’kub Al Kulayni that he believed in the manipulation and loss in the Quran because he recorded narrations of this meaning in his book Al-Kafi without criticizing it at all, besides he mentioned at the beginning of his book that he trusted in what he had narrated and also and also (this applies to) his teacher Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Qummi since his tafsir is full of that (manipulation of the Quraan) and he has some extremism on this topic and also Sheikh Ahmad bin Abi Talib Al-Tabrassi since he followed these two on this matter exactly in his Al-Ihtijaj” (Fayz Kashani “Tafsir as-safi” vol 1, p 52) Scan

Nimatullah Jazairi:“And our traditions that tahrif and fallout (of verses) happened in the Quran are mutawatir, so we can’t deny them. And strange, strange how is that Saduq, Ameen of Islam at-Tabarsi and al-Murtada in some of their books rejected it, and claimed that what was revealed by Allah, that is this (what) is recorded (in present Quran), in this (stance) is rejection of mutawatir narrations”. (Nurul Anwar fi sharhil Sahifa as-Sajadiyah, p 43.)

 

 

I do not want to derail the topic but i hope this image will suffice for some one who blames others.

 

 

 

 

post-154479-0-92375800-1388449052_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. For those who dont like my signature why dont you first declare anyone who belived in tahreef a kaffir first. Than come and talk to me ;) 

 

As for the term wahabi. Please bring me a book older than the book of Coransez that contain the term "Wahhabi".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. For those who dont like my signature why dont you first declare anyone who belived in tahreef a kaffir first. Than come and talk to me ;)

 

As for the term wahabi. Please bring me a book older than the book of Coransez that contain the term "Wahhabi".

You know its really sad, after being given all the references from the likes of Saduq about the belief of tahreef being erroneous and disputed in shia scholarship you still continue to slander tashayyu' wholesale LightOfMonotheism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Jahan.

 

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

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.

3. Those who reject tahref do not make takfir on those who say the Quran has been corrupted. In a view of a sunni, someone who says the Quran has been corrupted is the same as the one who deny the prophethood of Muhammad.

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

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

 

So in no way im i misrepresenting the shia belief about the Quran. 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Someone wants to call someone kafir 

 

 For those who dont like my signature why dont you first declare anyone who belived in tahreef a kaffir first. Than come and talk to me ;)

 

What i asked earlier in my scanned image is Saheeh Bukhari , book of tafseer , page 1272, hadeeth number 4977: Ali bin abdullah> sufyan > abdah bin aby lubabah> zar bin hubaish said: I asked Ubay: Oh Abu Al Munthir your brother Ibn Masood Says such and such. Ubay said: I asked the messenger of Allah so he said to me: it was said to me, so I said. He said : we say as the messenger of Allah has said.

What i see is an amazing puzzle with such mysterious grammar? This narration with the same chain exists in many other books and it is a narration about the Tahreef (tempering ) of the quraan i.e ibn masood deleting the two muawithatain from the quraan which he did not believe they were part of the Quraan. So people distorted the saheeh bukhari version of this narration to hide the message, but as usual forgot that many other sources will narrate the complete version of this same narration with the same chain.

 

Since you are beating the drum about the belief in tahreef by shia scholars, so now i ask you how about declaring following as Kafir

 

Hazrat Ayesha, Imam Bukhari , Imam Muslim, Imam Mutta, Ibne Masood and many others in the chain, whose book carries these narrations (see scanned images)

 

 


More on this

post-154479-0-39279300-1388527144_thumb.

post-154479-0-78000600-1388527206_thumb.

post-154479-0-91004400-1388530250_thumb.

post-154479-0-98600700-1388530488_thumb.

post-154479-0-18110300-1388530610_thumb.

post-154479-0-88516900-1388530640_thumb.

Edited by Malagniman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Someone wants to call someone kafir 

 

 

What i asked earlier in my scanned image is Saheeh Bukhari , book of tafseer , page 1272, hadeeth number 4977: Ali bin abdullah> sufyan > abdah bin aby lubabah> zar bin hubaish said: I asked Ubay: Oh Abu Al Munthir your brother Ibn Masood Says such and such. Ubay said: I asked the messenger of Allah so he said to me: it was said to me, so I said. He said : we say as the messenger of Allah has said.

What i see is an amazing puzzle with such mysterious grammar? This narration with the same chain exists in many other books and it is a narration about the Tahreef (tempering ) of the quraan i.e ibn masood deleting the two muawithatain from the quraan which he did not believe they were part of the Quraan. So people distorted the saheeh bukhari version of this narration to hide the message, but as usual forgot that many other sources will narrate the complete version of this same narration with the same chain.

 

Since you are beating the drum about the belief in tahreef by shia scholars, so now i ask you how about declaring following as Kafir

 

Hazrat Ayesha, Imam Bukhari , Imam Muslim, Imam Mutta, Ibne Masood and many others in the chain, whose book carries these narrations (see scanned images)

 

 

More on this

First of it seems like you dont know tahref means which is really not worth adressing. Worst of all is that you are lying about the sahaba.

 

Ibn Masud did belive in muawidatayn as its narrated 

 

وأخرج الطبراني في الأوسط بسند حسن عن ابن مسعود عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال‏:‏ ‏”‏لقد أنزل علي آيات لم ينزل علي مثلهن المعوذتين‏”‏‏.‏

 

So i dont really bother answering arguments from people who dont really know anything about the ahadith they quote. Such as with the goat eaing the ms and the stoning verse, These are argu,ents made by people who are not worth adressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Jahan.

 

 

Hello.

 

 

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

 

There's also Khoei, Sistani, Tabtabai, Sharif Murtada, Shaykh Tusi and even Shaykh Mufid (who implicitly denied tahrif in one of his books); are they not among the greatest?

 

 

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.

 

This is the akhbari belief of tawatur, their methodology differs from the usulis who explicitly reject ahad reports. All the reports on tahrif are ahad.

 

 

3. Those who reject tahref do not make takfir on those who say the Quran has been corrupted. In a view of a sunni, someone who says the Quran has been corrupted is the same as the one who deny the prophethood of Muhammad.

 

We don't make takfir that is true, but per your terminology that's our ijtehad and you should be consistent in giving your scholastic heritage a good image by tolerating our ijtehad.

 

 

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

 

 

And many after Saduq didn't, whats your point?

 

 

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

 

Not my opinion, the opinion of some of the other greatest scholars of ours.

 

 

So in no way im i misrepresenting the shia belief about the Quran. 

 

You did, you claimed all our greatest scholars believed in tahrif which is blatantly rubbish.

 

 

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

 

I'd assume most of them believed the order was changed, because the Quran's final format wasn't arranged in the order of revelation and Imam Ali's Quran was compiled in the order of revelation. So I don't really see whats controversial here, it doesn't imply any tahrif/corruption.

Edited by Jahangiram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's also Khoei, Sistani, Tabtabai, Sharif Murtada, Shaykh Tusi and even Shaykh Mufid (who implicitly denied tahrif in one of his books); are they not among the greatest?

 

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.

 

 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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

This is the akhbari belief of tawatur, their methodology differs from the usulis who explicitly reject ahad reports. All the reports on tahrif are ahad.

 

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.

 

You admit you dont make takfir(as that would destroy your religion as you would have throw out books like al kafi and bihar al anwar). There is no difference between the denial of prophethood and beliving the Quran has been corrupted. 

 

 

You did, you claimed all our greatest scholars believed in tahrif which is blatantly rubbish.

 

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

 

 

I'd assume most of them believed the order was changed

 

 

 

 it doesn't imply any tahrif/corruption.

Yes it does :) Not at the same lever as the other (tahrif al kabir)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here Is a little info for our our salafi brother on WAHHABISM and it's origins

Almaghribi

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Isn't wiki great instead of reading French books of which you don't know French but somehow know that it was coined here first but couldn't even bother to find out if the title was correct

Hypocrisy at its finest again mr maghribi from the wahabies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here Is a little info for our our salafi brother on WAHHABISM and it's origins

Almaghribi

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Isn't wiki great instead of reading French books of which you don't know French but somehow know that it was coined here first but couldn't even bother to find out if the title was correct

Hypocrisy at its finest again mr maghribi from the wahabies

http://riyada.blogspot.com/2006/09/glimpses-into-early-wahhabi-thought.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Ok leave out Sistani (Khoei's mujam al rijal and prolegomena of the Quran is impressive material though, judge it how you will), don't pretend you didn't read the rest of the list of qudama though. Besides Allamah Al-Hilli being included in the list of the greatest ulema rejecting tahrif, there's also lesser known figures such as :

 

Allama Mudhaffar, Allamah Kashif, Shaykh Musawi, Allamah Shaykh Jafar Kashif, Faithullah Kashani, Allamah Ashob, Shostari, al-Amali, Allamah Tuni, Sadruddin Shirazi & the well known Shaykh Tabrasi.

 

Which is why al-Ghita says there was near ijma' amongst shia ulema that there's no tahrif in the Quran, making the opinion of a layman like yours worthless.

 

 

 

 As for Mufid he did belive in tahref.

 

Ah I can see why your copied&pasted quote would be seen as tahrif, seeing as Mufid said there's some 'extra' revelation reserved with the Qaim ÚÌøá Çááøå ÝÑÌå ÇáÔÑíÝ. Well Mufeed has explained that statement in Awail al-Maqalat where he says that Imam Ali's (as) mushaf has tafsir of the Quran revealed by God and that it wasn't technically the Quran but merely under the heading of what was considered "al-Quran" divinely revealed in toto. And ofcouse this divinely revealed tafsir isn't with us now and indeed al-Qaim has it with him.

 

 

 

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

 

Read his work on tahrif and how he reconciled the traditions about the former with the belief that the Quran hasn't been corrupted; he explained there are different types of tahrif, accepting only the tahrif of the meaning and not the words themselves.

 

 

 

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

 

In the end some of the greatest scholars believed in Tahrif, excluding the other greatest scholars who also happened to be the majority.

 

 

 

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.

 

Too bad for you the usuli and akhbari methodologies weren't clearly distinguished in the days of Saduq and Tusi. Ahad has never been accepted as dalil in our ilm ur rijal. The whole reason behind akhbaris being called 'akhbaris' in the first place was because they accepted whatever akhbar (reports) there was from the Imams in our books.

 

 

 

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

 

Nah you lied :)

 

 

 

Yes it does :) Not at the same lever as the other (tahrif al kabir)

 

How is this even controversial? Every muslim with a brain knows the Quran's final format isn't the order of revelation.

Edited by Jahangiram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Ja

 

 

 

Ok leave out Sistani (Khoei's mujam al rijal and prolegomena of the Quran is impressive material though, judge it how you will), don't pretend you didn't read the rest of the list of qudama though. Besides Allamah Al-Hilli being included in the list of the greatest ulema rejecting tahrif, there's also lesser known figures such as :

 

Allama Mudhaffar, Allamah Kashif, Shaykh Musawi, Allamah Shaykh Jafar Kashif, Faithullah Kashani, Allamah Ashob, Shostari, al-Amali, Allamah Tuni, Sadruddin Shirazi & the well known Shaykh Tabrasi.

We quoting names now?

 

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

 

f-alktab30.jpg

 

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.

In the end some of the greatest scholars believed in Tahrif, excluding the other greatest scholars who also

How is this even controversial? Every muslim with a brain knows the Quran's final format isn't the order of revelation.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Too bad for you the usuli and akhbari methodologies weren't clearly distinguished in the days of Saduq and Tusi. 

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ah I can see why your copied&pasted quote would be seen as tahrif, seeing as Mufid said there's some 'extra' revelation reserved with the Qaim ÚÌøá Çááøå ÝÑÌå ÇáÔÑíÝ. Well Mufeed has explained that statement in Awail al-Maqalat where he says that Imam Ali's  (as) mushaf has tafsir of the Quran revealed by God and that it wasn't technically the Quran but merely under the heading of what was considered "al-Quran" divinely revealed in toto. And ofcouse this divinely revealed tafsir isn't with us now and indeed al-Qaim has it with him.

 

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.

 

Here Is a little info for our our salafi brother on WAHHABISM and it's origins

Almaghribi

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Isn't wiki great instead of reading French books of which you don't know French but somehow know that it was coined here first but couldn't even bother to find out if the title was correct

Hypocrisy at its finest again mr maghribi from the wahabies

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?

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.

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...