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

5 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

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 

Do you have an evidence (quotes from his own books) for this and that he didn't believe in Tahrif of words and verses missing

Share this post


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

Do you have an evidence (quotes from his own books) for this and that he didn't believe in Tahrif of words and verses missing

http://en.mobile.wikishia.net/view/Integrity_of_the_Qur'an

The below link shows a part of his book but clearly hides text above it that says it's an argument between all Muslim scholars & they show his conclusion from their argument not his belif at omitted place by islamtxt he says Qur'an is a miracle without defect & fallacy

https://islamtxt.net/?p=36

https://images.app.goo.gl/2SGq1z4L8hu51Y3t5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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?

 Im not so sure about that.

In Ayatollah Khoie book of al bayan fee tasfisr al Qur'an, he has several chapters on this issue. He points out that the 7 letters, ahruf, is a Sunni concept which we do not find in our reports. He points out several instances where the Imams AS corrected people speech or reciting the Qur'an. 

The view that the Qur'an was revealed in more than oe form, is flatly rejected by Ayatollah Khoie, and he presents so much evidence, that it is really beyond doubt. 

The view that it was changed, is certainly true to a point, however, the change is in two forms, abrogation, eg intentional and the second is in meaning, eg people have been mislead by hadith that such and such a verse was revealed about such a situation.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 Im not so sure about that.

In Ayatollah Khoie book of al bayan fee tasfisr al Qur'an, he has several chapters on this issue. He points out that the 7 letters, ahruf, is a Sunni concept which we do not find in our reports. He points out several instances where the Imams AS corrected people speech or reciting the Qur'an. 

The view that the Qur'an was revealed in more than oe form, is flatly rejected by Ayatollah Khoie, and he presents so much evidence, that it is really beyond doubt. 

The view that it was changed, is certainly true to a point, however, the change is in two forms, abrogation, eg intentional and the second is in meaning, eg people have been mislead by hadith that such and such a verse was revealed about such a situation.

It is interesting that even in Surah al-Fatihah, which was recited by the Prophet and the Imams صلوات الله وسلامه عليهم more often than any other surah, - given its role in the daily prayers -, there are different readings. I believe the Imams sometimes read مَلِكِ يوم الدين (the King of the Day of Judgement) and at other times مالِكِ يوم الدين (Owner/master of the day of Judgement); as both readings have been reported of them.

I find it easier to believe that this verse was revealed in both ways and that both are equally correct; than to believe that one form is the original and the other is a corruption. 

Of course, not every reading is correct; for example if one reads this verse in Fatihah as مَلَكَ يومَ الدين (He owns the Day of Judgement), that would be an incorrect reading; as the Prophet and the Imams عليهم السلام did not pronounce it that way.

And God knows best.

Edited by SirajDin

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?

*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?

 

Not at all brother.

All scholars according to Shia are fallible ie they can make mistakes and be wrong but it does not negate the whole of their work. 

Whereas when a fatwa is issued which could still be not correct and hence the scholars use the words 'and Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows best', it is not just the authentication of one scholar that is taken as the final word rather it is all the scholars of rijal and hadith sciences and the ayas relating to the subject and more sciences that are all mixed into the pot and then a ruling is issued. I wish the more learned brothers elaborated and or guide us more regarding this. 

And then the scholar as an explanation in simple form will for example use a hadith graded by Allamah Majlisi as a clarification or a first point of reference, but there is a lot more that has gone into the pot and which is available in their advanced discussions,

Edited by haideriam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours 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?

That Imams (عليه السلام) not pushing for a certain recitation does not prove that they approved of them at all, it can simply mean they permitted their Shi'a to recite in the way of their opponents during the ghayba period.

There is a theory which has textual backing to it, which is that the one true recitation is with the Mahdi (عليه السلام).

Share this post


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

That Imams (عليه السلام) not pushing for a certain recitation does not prove that they approved of them at all, it can simply mean they permitted their Shi'a to recite in the way of their opponents during the ghayba period.

There is a theory which has textual backing to it, which is that the one true recitation is with the Mahdi (عليه السلام).

The Imams عليهم السلام wouldn't have permitted their Shi'a to recite in an incorrect way; especially in prayer where the correctness of the recitation may affect the validity of the prayer.

To say that the one true recitation is with the Mahdi عجل الله تعالی فرجه amounts to saying that the Qur'an we read, listen to, and hold in our hands is not the very same Qur'an that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad صلّی الله عليه وآله وسلّم ; which is to say that it has been "changed" and "altered" by humans; which is to say God cannot or did not protect the Qur'an against human changes.

Once we accept that humans can add a و to the Qur'an or omit a هُوَ from it, we have accepted that the Word of God can be changed. On what basis then, can we argue that more significant changes (like the omission of an entire verse or surah) could not have taken place?

You may say that minor changes have taken place; but by and large, the message of the Qur'an remains intact. Well, that is true of many books. Words or sentences may have been added or omitted from Plato's Republic but 98% of what's in there was certainly written by Plato.

Are we saying that the Qur'an was protected against change to the same degree that the works of Plato and Aristotle were protected?!

True. There are hadiths in our literature that suggest the true recitation is with the Mahdi عجل الله تعالی فرجه; but there are also hadiths in our literature that suggest entire verses were omitted from the Qur'an, e.g. verses that mentioned Imam Ali, Fatimah Zahra, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain عليهم السلام by name.

If we reject these latter group of hadiths on the basis that they contradict the Qur'an, why not also reject this former group of hadiths that suggest tahrif in recitation?

We are told to reject any hadith that contradicts the Qur'an.

How can we evaluate hadiths based on the Qur'an, if the Qur'an itself is not authoritative and immune to any kind of human change?

Edited by SirajDin

Share this post


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

The Imams عليهم السلام wouldn't have permitted their Shi'a to recite in an incorrect way; especially in prayer where the correctness of the recitation may affect the validity of the prayer.

The prayer is valid simply because the Imams (عليه السلام) decreed the permissibility of reciting the Qur'an as the people recite. How does that prove any of the recitations are correct? Especially when the recitations themselves are different? These are two seperate issues, one can argue that the Imams (عليه السلام) gave us this temporary option of reciting as the opponents recite until we have the correct recitation in our hands, in fact, one can argue this position with textual backing. 

You said;

Quote

Once we accept that humans can add a و to the Qur'an or omit a هُوَ from it, we have accepted that the Word of God can be changed.

Well that actually proves my point, because the different recitations do - themselves - have different letters and words. For example;

Surah 57:24

الذين يبخلون ويأمرون الناس بالبخل ومن يتول فإن الله هو الغني الحميد


الذين يبخلون ويأمرون الناس بالبخل ومن يتول فإن الله الغني الحميد

The first one is the recitation of Hafs, the second is the recitation of Nafi' and Ibn Aamir. The first one has a هو "huwa" before الغني الحميد, the second one doesn't. 

The only solution they had to come up with to avoid calling it tahrif was to say the Qur'an came down in seven ahruf.

As for the authoritativeness of the Qur'an, that is a different discussion.

Edit: Nafi not Warsh, sorry.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


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

The prayer is valid simply because the Imams (عليه السلام) decreed the permissibility of reciting the Qur'an as the people recite. How does that prove any of the recitations are correct? 

It proves that the common recitations were correct; because the Imams would not allow any degree of human alteration of the Word of Allah.

Quote

One can argue that the Imams (عليه السلام) gave us this temporary option of reciting as the opponents recite until we have the correct recitation in our hands, in fact, one can argue this position with textual backing. 

So God sent down a book but was unable or unwilling to protect it against human alteration. The Imams also couldn't do much about it; and simply told their followers to keep on with the incorrect recitations for several centuries? That doesn't make much sense.

Quote

 

Well that actually proves my point, because the different recitations do - themselves - have different letters and words. For example;

Surah 57:24

 

As I mentioned in my earlier posts, I hold that the Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet صلّی الله عليه وآله وسلّم in more than one form. In the example you mention above, the verse was revealed once with waw and once without waw. This is not the same as saying humans added a waw or omitted a wav from the word of Allah.

There are reports indicating that the Imams sometimes pronounced the fourth verse in Surah al-Fatihah as مالِكِ يوم الدين with an alif, and at other times as مَلِكِ يوم الدين with a fatha. Would you say that they were sometimes correct and at other times incorrect? Or that they simply didn't know which one was correct? A more plausible answer would be to say that the verse was revealed in more than one way; and therefore either recitation is correct. And God knows best.

Edited by SirajDin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simplest explanation here works. As I stated before the omission or addition of letters and words is scriber error from duplication of Qurans without modern technology. It is a natural consequence of writing from that time period. That and the fact early manuscripts lacked phonetics so allowed anyone to extrapolate whatever they deemed to be accurate.

 

Share this post


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

The simplest explanation here works. As I stated before the omission or addition of letters and words is scriber error from duplication of Qurans without modern technology. It is a natural consequence of writing from that time period. That and the fact early manuscripts lacked phonetics so allowed anyone to extrapolate whatever they deemed to be accurate.

 

What theological message do you deduce from this? That God is unable to protect His book without the help of modern technology? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SirajDin said:

It proves that the common recitations were correct; because the Imams would not allow any degree of human alteration of the Word of Allah.

That's an assumption. It doesn't stand when there is actual textual proof that they say the opposite.

1 minute ago, SirajDin said:

So God sent down a book but was unable or unwilling to protect it against human alteration. The Imams also couldn't do much about it; and simply told their followers to keep on with the incorrect recitations for several centuries? That doesn't make much sense.

You can argue that the recitation was lost and still maintain an anti-tahrif stance. This is like saying Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) failed to protect His Book from incorrect tafsir, because that is also another form of human alteration. 

This is not what tahrif is, tahrif is the belief in physical alterations of the actual rasm of the Qur'an. 

7 minutes ago, SirajDin said:

There are reports indicating the Imams sometimes pronounced the fourth verse in Surah al-Fatihah as مالِكِ يوم الدين with an alif, and at other times as مَلِكِ يوم الدين with a fatha. Would you say that they were sometimes correct and at other times incorrect? Or that they simply didn't know which one was correct? A more plausible answer would be to say that the verse was revealed in more than one way; and therefore either recitation is correct. And God knows best.

Well thats a question of which reports are authentic and which ones aren't. This doesn't really say anything other than that hadiths say different things. There are hadiths that mention extra words in certain Verses, or recite Ayahs in different ways. Are these also other forms of "valid recitations"? This is simply a lazy loophole for people that want to arrive at a more comfortable position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

You can argue that the recitation was lost and still maintain an anti-tahrif stance.

Not a strong anti-tahrif stance! If you hold that humans can omit a two-letter word like هُوَ from the Qur'an, it can then easily be argued, why can't they omit a three-letter word like the name of Imam Ali عليه السلام? It will then be only a question of degree, not of principle.

58 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

This is not what tahrif is, tahrif is the belief in physical alterations of the actual rasm of the Qur'an. 

Doesn't the addition or omission of a هُوَ alter the actual rasm of the Qur'an? (as in the example you cited).

Quote

Well thats a question of which reports are authentic and which ones aren't.

My point is: the Prophet صلی الله عليه وآله وسلّم recited Surah al-Fatihah at least 6 times a day loudly in prayer. The Imams also recited it several times a day in their prayers during their lifetimes. If the Prophet and the Imams recited this verse in a uniform way (always مالِكِ يوم الدين or always ملِكِ يوم الدين) everyone would recite it as they recited. Given that Al-Fatihah was recited so frequently on a daily basis, there would be very little room for error. And yet there are reports indicating that they said مالِكِ يوم الدين; and other reports indicating that they said مَلِكِ يوم الدين. The only logical explanation is that they sometimes pronounced it this way, and other times the other way; as they considered both correct. And God knows best. 

Edited by SirajDin

Share this post


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

What theological message do you deduce from this? That God is unable to protect His book without the help of modern technology? 

That the world wasn't made to be perfect. 

Share this post


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

The only solution they had to come up with to avoid calling it tahrif was to say the Qur'an came down in seven ahruf.

Is this not an assumption also? I am unsure how you would be able to assess the intentions of scholars when narrating Hadith speaking of Ahroof and Qira'at without revelation or a crystal ball of sorts

Share this post


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

That the world wasn't made to be perfect. 

If the Qur'an is imperfect then how can we be any more guided than someone of another religion with a corrupted book? We would just be like school kids saying 'yours is more corrupted than mine'

Share this post


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

Not a strong anti-tahrif stance! 

Why is it not any stronger than claiming there was alteration in tahrif?

1 hour ago, SirajDin said:

If you hold that humans can omit a two-letter word like هُوَ from the Qur'an, it can then easily be argued, why can't they omit a three-letter word like the name of Imam Ali عليه السلام? It will then be only a question of degree, not of principle.

This is not an issue of recitation, this is an issue of rasm. Because of the different recitations, differen't Qur'ans were made that contained different letters and omissions. Only one of them has the correct rasm.

1 hour ago, SirajDin said:

Doesn't the addition or omission of a هُوَ alter the actual rasm of the Qur'an? (as in the example you cited).

Yes it does. And one of them is wrong.

1 hour ago, SirajDin said:

My point is: the Prophet صلی الله عليه وآله وسلّم recited Surah al-Fatihah at least 6 times a day loudly in prayer. The Imams also recited it several times a day in their prayers during their lifetimes. If the Prophet and the Imams recited this verse in a uniform way (always مالِكِ يوم الدين or always ملِكِ يوم الدين) everyone would recite it as they recited. Given that Al-Fatihah was recited so frequently on a daily basis, there would be very little room for error. And yet there are reports indicating that they said مالِكِ يوم الدين; and other reports indicating that they said مَلِكِ يوم الدين. The only logical explanation is that they sometimes pronounced it this way, and other times the other way; as they considered both correct. And God knows best. 

Do you have proof 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 4:34 AM, 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

 

I don't think any of Twelver scholars claim whole verses are missing or changed.
yes some scholars claim that some verses are missing according to some Hadiths, but their understanding of meaning or interpretation are not profound

today's scholars have a different view, they are not saying that some Hadith about Tahrif is not authentic in Sanad aspect, but some Hadith have another meaning beyond Tahrif
some if theme address those Hadith to Ahroof
some address to Tafsir
some address to Tahrif in meaning

mostly they are silent in which those Hadith if are weak or sound in Sanad

Share this post


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

Yes it does. And one of them is wrong.

Which one?

Quote

Do you have proof 

عن محمد بن علي الحلبي، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام أنه كان يقرأ (مالك يوم الدين) ويقرأ (إهدنا السراط المستقيم) (٢)
ومنه: عن داود بن فرقد قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقرء ما لا أحصي: ملك يوم الدين (٣).

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1513_بحار-الأنوار-العلامة-المجلسي-ج-٨٢/الصفحة_23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 5:27 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?

The simple answer may be to look into broader sense. The point of view comes from your side that Shia scholars  may have believed in tehreef in the meaning of few verses of Qur'an. and their grading may not be acceptable as per your thought. This is mentions in OP.

The simple question from a rational person can be that we have many narrations mentioned in Sahih bukhari and Sahih Muslim for  the missing verses and missing Suras from Qur'an, This is considered as tahreef by scholars in the protected Qur'an. does it also mean that the works of their hadith collection in Sahih books may be doubtful? 

I reject both the above assumptions since Qur'an is protected by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and hadith have been collected by the persons who have spent their life in this process. Their work whether in the collected hadith or grading them must be respected. Thus any such thought about both Sunni as well as Shia scholars are rejected.

Shia and Sunni do have the process of verification of hadith. Shia also evaluate each hadith for its authenticity as well as inline with the verses of Qur'an.

waslaam

Edited by skyweb1987

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...