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
Ar.alhindi

Can Gradings Of Muhaditheen Be Trusted If They Believed In Tahrif

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I have seen some people follow the Sunni grading style in an attempt to show them that Shia care about authenticity, so where a Sunni might have 'Sahih according to Al Albani' underneath a Hadith, I see instead 'Sahih according to Majlisi'. But the issue is, if my reading is correct, didn't some Muhaditheen like Majlisi believe in Tahrif? If that is true, then doesn't that mean he (or others) considered those Hadith indicating Tahrif to be reliable? And if this is the case, if one denies Tahrif on the basis that is not athentic*, then how can we trust the rest of their gradings?

*If it is not authentic because of the Sanad, then this brings in to question other gradings by the scholars in question.

If it is not authentic because of the Matn contradicting the Qur'an but the Sanad is sound, is this not just an abritrary assertion, and it may be the case that all early Shia believed in Tahrif but that opinion changed in the last couple of hundred years to appease Sunnis?

If Tahrif is only a position held by some because of a wide number of weak Hadith strengthening it, but it is still rejected, then can the same logic not be applied to the incident of Umar causing Fatimah to misscarry which is mentioned mainly in weak Hadith?

Sorry, there are a lot of questions in there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some form of tahrif can't be disputed, in some Quranic readings entire words are missing. Largely inconsequential but it's there. Now whether entire verses are missing or new verses added that's debatable. But there is definitely not one structure. 

In referencing tahrif I'm including intentional or non intentional. Some changes have come about naturally due to lack of dots in early manuscript. - ie jafat hafat khafat all can be written the same in early Arabic writing. All that was done were educated guesses on what the actual word should be.

Edited by Fink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences are likely from the period of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to Uthmans period. Once Qurans were distributed to various regions it's unlikely much changed since then.

You have to understand that writing was primitive when the Qur'an was collected, the sahabah were humans and made errors in their writings. The pieces were subsequently collected and the Qur'an was conanized. however because they didn't have computers and printing presses back then the various copies sent to different regions had textual differences.

This led some versions to be missing words like "هو" ، but all copies were equally as good in terms of linguistics and beauty. 

The orginal manuscripts lacked dots and phonetics and thus a single word can be turned into an entirely different word based on the reader's addition of a single dot. 

Edited by Fink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These textual differences are actually impressive because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) perfected the message entirely through fallible beings. The overall message of the Qur'an is well maintained despite these inconsistencies.

The Sunni story about 7 ahruf is a lie, as is the Shia and Sunni story about the goat eating the verse about rajm. All lies.

Edited by Fink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fink JazakAllahu Khair for expanding on that but my question is not related to Ahroof, my question is related to the belief that whole verses are missing or changed as believed by some Twelver scholars in the past. Given the majority of Twelver nowadays disagree with this kind of Tahrif, I want to know the implications it has on how we look at authentic and inauthentic Hadith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 8:04 PM, Ar.alhindi said:

@Fink JazakAllahu Khair for expanding on that but my question is not related to Ahroof, my question is related to the belief that whole verses are missing or changed as believed by some Twelver scholars in the past. Given the majority of Twelver nowadays disagree with this kind of Tahrif, I want to know the implications it has on how we look at authentic and inauthentic Hadith

Salam brother,

As a caveat I'm probably the worst to ask about hadith :) but from a philosophical perspective: 

Given that at least some minor differences are present, would it be appropriate to shut the doors on persons that theorize bigger tahrif? 

At the sametime , it would be very unconvincing to argue that the Qur'an isn't complete in it's doctrine as a result of tahrif. The message is complete regardless of any level of tahrif. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Fink said:

Salam brother,

As a caveat I'm probably the worst to ask about hadith :) but from a philosophical perspective: 

Given that at least some minor differences are present, would it be appropriate to shut the doors on persons that theorize bigger tahrif? 

At the sametime , it would be very unconvincing to argue that the Qur'an isn't complete in it's doctrine as a result of tahrif. The message is complete regardless of any level of tahrif. 

Wassalaam

The reason Tahrif matters is because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says He has completed our religion, that He will preserve the Qur'an etc, so to believe in Tahrif would be in contradiction of that even if the general message of the Qur'an is preserved in the remaining verses. 

Subsequently, rejecting the completeness of the Qur'an following its compilation has been considered a type of Kufr in Sunni Islam, though not necessarily in Twelver Shi'ism - since too many Twelver scholars thoughout histoey believed in it, they would be shooting themselves in the foot to consider all of them disbelievers. Whether or not the rest of their work would be deemed trustworthy or not is something I am exploring in this thread: can Hadith gradings be trusted if the scholar also authenticated Hadith which Twelvers no longer accept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ar.alhindi said:

Wassalaam

The reason Tahrif matters is because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says He has completed our religion, that He will preserve the Qur'an etc, so to believe in Tahrif would be in contradiction of that even if the general message of the Qur'an is preserved in the remaining verses. 

Subsequently, rejecting the completeness of the Qur'an following its compilation has been considered a type of Kufr in Sunni Islam, though not necessarily in Twelver Shi'ism - since too many Twelver scholars thoughout histoey believed in it, they would be shooting themselves in the foot to consider all of them disbelievers. Whether or not the rest of their work would be deemed trustworthy or not is something I am exploring in this thread: can Hadith gradings be trusted if the scholar also authenticated Hadith which Twelvers no longer accept?

Salam,

 

So what level of literary perfection are we looking for? At what point would you consider it to be tahrif?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 12:27 AM, Ar.alhindi said:

I have seen some people follow the Sunni grading style in an attempt to show them that Shia care about authenticity, so where a Sunni might have 'Sahih according to Al Albani' underneath a Hadith, I see instead 'Sahih according to Majlisi'. But the issue is, if my reading is correct, didn't some Muhaditheen like Majlisi believe in Tahrif? If that is true, then doesn't that mean he (or others) considered those Hadith indicating Tahrif to be reliable? And if this is the case, if one denies Tahrif on the basis that is not athentic*, then how can we trust the rest of their gradings?

This is one of the reasons that lead me to research. Which eventually resulted in me Ieaving 12er.  Zaidi follow the Ahlul Bayt but with much stricter criteria for hadith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fink said:

Salam,

 

So what level of literary perfection are we looking for? At what point would you consider it to be tahrif?

 

Great question I'm not well versed but I would say the Insertion or ommitance of a word. Or rearranging a sentence. 

Eg "the cat jumped over the rat" becomes the "the rat jumped over the cat"

Do you believe in this level of tareef ?. If so can you provide evidence.

 

Also I read the hafs recitation is traced back to Imam Ali if so it is the only correct and true reading.

Is this 

 

Edited by Warilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warilla said:

This is one of the reasons that lead me to research. Which eventually resulted in me Ieaving 12er.  Zaidi follow the Ahlul Bayt but with much stricter criteria for hadith.

I am not Twelver myself - I reverted to Islam and then did more research and chose Sunni Islam (which I won't mention yet as not to offend people on their own forum). My thread is more of one of curiosity because I find it perplexing when I see people say that Shia don't believe in Tahrif then the same person will quote a Hadith and say 'Authentic according to [scholar who believed in Tahrif]', so I was wondering what their thought process was and how they reconciled such a methodology in discussions with Sunnis.

As a side point, I always found the Zaydiyyah fascinating but unfortunately there isn't much English literature on the internet that I could find (though I haven't been thorough admittedly). How did you manage to research into core beliefs, Hadith and Fiqhi opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ar.alhindi said:

I was wondering what their thought process was and how they reconciled such a methodology in discussions with Sunnis.

As a side point, I always found the Zaydiyyah fascinating but unfortunately there isn't much English literature on the internet that I could find (though I haven't been thorough admittedly). How did you manage to research into core beliefs, Hadith and Fiqhi opinions?

Salam Majlisi talks abut issue of Tahrif but says the original text of Qur'an is intact but there different readings from it like as Imam Ali (عليه السلام) when sent his ambassador to Khawarij before start of battle of Nahrawan for convicting them said to him don't talk with them based on Qur'an because every verse can be seen from different point of view that all are true but you have one goal from saying it but they will have another goal from mentioning so they can run away from truth like as current propaganda of wahabist against saying of Majlisi but if you talk you based on rationality & sunnah (hadith) of Prophet (pbu) they won't have a way out for escaping from truth .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Warilla said:

Great question I'm not well versed but I would say the Insertion or ommitance of a word. Or rearranging a sentence. 

Eg "the cat jumped over the rat" becomes the "the rat jumped over the cat"

Do you believe in this level of tareef ?. If so can you provide evidence.

 

Also I read the hafs recitation is traced back to Imam Ali if so it is the only correct and true reading.

Is this 

 

One example, from Surah Al-Imran. In the recitation of Hafs from Asim, the verse appears thus:

وَكَأَيِّن مِّن نَّبِيٍّ قَاتَلَ مَعَهُ رِبِّيُّونَ كَثِيرٌ فَمَا وَهَنُوا لِمَا أَصَابَهُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَمَا ضَعُفُوا وَمَا اسْتَكَانُوا ۗ وَاللَّهُ يُحِبُّ الصَّابِرِينَ (146)

Translation (Abdul Haleem): Many Prophets fought, with large bands of godly men alongside them who, in the face of their sufferings for God’s cause, did not lose heart or weaken or surrender: God loves those who are steadfast.

But in other recitations (Qalun fr. Nafi', for example), the verse is

وَكَأَيِّن مِّن نَّبِيٍّ قُتِلَ مَعَهُ رِبِّيُّونَ كَثِيرٌ

The difference is only in diacritics; but the meaning changes. It would be:

'Many Prophets were killed, with large bands of godly men alongside them...'

Of course, the two meanings are not irreconcilable. Putting both together, we understand that these Prophets and godly men fought, some of them were killed in the battlefield; and others (who remained alive) responded with patience and steadfastness. 

The common view among the Sunnis is that both recitations were revealed by God; and that both can be traced back to the Prophet, peace be upon him; therefore, no tahreef (even at the level of diacritics) ever took place.

But if Shia scholars hold that the Qur'an was revealed only in one form, the question would be which recitation is the correct one? Should we read the word قتل in the verse above as qaatala (fought) or as qutila (were killed)? Which was the meaning intended by Allah? A more critical question: if we hold that the Qur'an is not immune to unintentional and inconsequential tahreef (things like the two recitations of the verse above), then doesn't this make it easier for those who believe in more substantial tahreef (addition or substraction of an ayah or surah) to argue their case? 

As for the recitation of Hafs fr. Asim: This is now the 'default' recitation of the Qur'an in most Muslim countries; however, this was simply because the Ottoman sultans published the Qur'an with this recitation and distributed it across their territory. In areas that were not ruled by the Ottomans (e.g. Morocco, Sudan), other recitations (e.g. Warsh from Nafi' or Qalun from Nafi') remains more common. 

Edited by SirajDin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam Majlisi talks abut issue of Tahrif but says the original text of Qur'an is intact but there different readings from it .

 Mirat al Uqul

”  However, there is no doubt that people are obliged to work with what is included in the Mushafs and to read it until Al-Qayem appears, and this is known through numersous traditions (mutawatir) from the way of Ahlul Bayt and most traditions relating to this topic point to omission and change"

Baqir Majlisi.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly twelver Shia Imams had numerous opportunities to address this topic but we don't have a "Jafari reading"  - either because they simply didn't know or the hadith is weak it wasn't picked up. 

The uthmani script wasn't in a particular reading after it was written down, that would insinuate that people knew how to read it as it was intended. They didn't! The script lacked phonetics and could be read in numerous ways by people who picked up the scripts.

The omissions in words and or the addition of words came after it was conanized- I personally believe due to textual differences in the Uthmani copies. They didn't have Microsoft word or any editing software so mistakes occurred. 

No one can say with concrete yaqeen that any one reading is more proper than the other. 

Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Warilla said:

Great question I'm not well versed but I would say the Insertion or ommitance of a word. Or rearranging a sentence. 

Eg "the cat jumped over the rat" becomes the "the rat jumped over the cat"

Do you believe in this level of tareef ?. If so can you provide evidence.

 

Also I read the hafs recitation is traced back to Imam Ali if so it is the only correct and true reading.

Is this 

 

Salam 

Warilla see my post above , but to answer your question, the evidence is clear in the type of readings we have present today, some have missing or added words like هو . Both would be literary sound.

Some words are changed entirely, the lack of dots in early manuscripts meant linguists had to theorize what the proper word was. So instead of يسيركم they say ينشركم - close meaning but they are two different words. Both readings are valid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Fink said:

Surprisingly twelver Shia Imams had numerous opportunities to address this topic but we don't have a "Jafari reading"  - either because they simply didn't know or the hadith is weak it wasn't picked up. 

As far as I know, the Imams didn't push for any one particular recitation; rather, they allowed their followers to recite according to any of the recitations that were well-known in their time. I cannot accept that they didn't know what the correct recitation was. They were the most knowledgeable of people about the Qur'an. I also cannot accept that they knew the correct recitation but kept silent about it. Wasn't it their most important role, as Imams, to teach the Word of God, as it was revealed to the Prophet, peace be to him? 

To me, the very fact that Shia Imams allowed various recitations indicates that they accepted all of them as the Word of God revealed to Muhammad, peace be upon him; which is why I tend to side with the Sunnis on this point: that the Qur'an was revealed, from the beginning, in more than one form.

To say that it was revealed in one form but then changed later (even at the level of diacritics) would contradict the verse that says, "Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian." (15:9).

 

Out of curiosity, what does Shia Quranist non-Ithna Ashari Muslim mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SirajDin said:

As far as I know, the Imams didn't push for any one particular recitation; rather, they allowed their followers to recite according to any of the recitations that were well-known in their time. I cannot accept that they didn't know what the correct recitation was. They were the most knowledgeable of people about the Qur'an. I also cannot accept that they knew the correct recitation but kept silent about it. Wasn't it their most important role, as Imams, to teach the Word of God, as it was revealed to the Prophet, peace be to him? 

To me, the very fact that Shia Imams allowed various recitations indicates that they accepted all of them as the Word of God revealed to Muhammad, peace be upon him; which is why I tend to side with the Sunnis on this point: that the Qur'an was revealed, from the beginning, in more than one form.

To say that it was revealed in one form but then changed later (even at the level of diacritics) would contradict the verse that says, "Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian." (15:9).

 

Out of curiosity, what does Shia Quranist non-Ithna Ashari Muslim mean?

I can see why you would hold such position. But I don't believe in Imamah as twelvers do or infallibility. The story about Allah revealing the Qur'an in numerous ahruf is a fabrication and silly as these inconsistencies in text mostly arise from a single text. Meaning the collection of the Qur'an during Uthmans period into one version could've been read numerous ways. This wasn't necessarily intentional,  it was as a result of primitve writing without phonetics. So you and I could read it differently and both could be sound.

Furthermore I theorize that when Qur'an was distributed to various regions, it was distributed with textual differences because they didn't have printing presses at that time. 

Before this collection, Quranic script was written by various people and sometimes it was written differently. Uthmans move was positive because we would probably have many more textual differences today. 

The differences are clearly human and there is no evidence to suggest the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was receiving readings in more than one way. It's completely illogical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fink said:

I can see why you would hold such position. But I don't believe in Imamah as twelvers do or infallibility. The story about Allah revealing the Qur'an in numerous ahruf is a fabrication and silly as these inconsistencies in text mostly arise from a single text. Meaning the collection of the Qur'an during Uthmans period into one version could've been read numerous ways. This wasn't necessarily intentional,  it was as a result of primitve writing without phonetics. So you and I could read it differently and both could be sound.

Furthermore I theorize that when Qur'an was distributed to various regions, it was distributed with textual differences because they didn't have printing presses at that time. 

Before this collection, Quranic script was written by various people and sometimes it was written differently. Uthmans move was positive because we would probably have many more textual differences today. 

The differences are clearly human and there is no evidence to suggest the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was receiving readings in more than one way. It's completely illogical. 

The way I see it: it was the other way around. The Uthmanic collection was written in a way that would incorporate multiple recitations (I.e. recitations that already existed before the collection came about).

When this was not possible, (for example, when one recitation had a هو which the other ones didn't), two different copies were made; one with the huwa and one without. Nevertheless, the oral recitation predates the written text. The text was based on the recitation, not the recitation on the text. 

What do you make of God's promise to protect the Qur'an?

Differences in recitation are mostly minor and inconsequential; but if God cannot (or does not) protect His book against minor and inconsequential human changes, (which is what you apparently hold), on what basis can we argue that more significant human changes (like the omission of a verse or a surah) could not have happened? (Or do you hold that this too could have happened?)

Edited by SirajDin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Warilla said:

 Mirat al Uqul

”  However, there is no doubt that people are obliged to work with what is included in the Mushafs and to read it until Al-Qayem appears, and this is known through numersous traditions (mutawatir) from the way of Ahlul Bayt and most traditions relating to this topic point to omission and change"

Baqir Majlisi.

 

The omision & change in his viewpoint is about not mentioning name & attribute of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) & why each verse revealed  specially about Imam Ali (عليه السلام) but people omitted & changed mosr of it & kept just text of Qur'an & then interpreted it on their mindset not what was described by Prophet (pbu) & preserved by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) but people like as second caliph rejected it & just stick to original text without understanding true meaning of each verse & surah 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...