Does Imam Ali have knowledge of all things except creation?

[ShiaMan14]

3 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

Brother, even academic scholars will admit that Kulayni believed the Qur’an had Tahreef and was distorted. 

Our early classical scholars were split on the issue, with men like Saduq, Tusi, and maybe Mufid attesting there was no Tahrif, and men like Kulayni clearly believing in it.

I know at first this is difficult to digest, I am a Shia too, but it's a fact.

Luckily Kulayni was a good compiler, but we don't have to take Aqeedah from him. We can throw away the rubble and take the pearls from what he collected. 

<>

Brother - I debated this topic on a hard-core Salafi website and put it to bed. 

Kulayni wrote something along the lines that if we are to take ahadtih from certain sources and those same sources have mentioned tahreef, then we would have no choice but to accept those narrations as well. But he is also on record to say that he does not believe in tahreef.

The biggest question on this topic is to first define what tahreef is. Anyone who jumps into this topic without defining what they mean by tahreef is sincere in the discussion.

 

3 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

As for Aisha and Umar wanting to change the Quran, I'm Shia, I don't care, I don't see evidence for that, and even if I did, I still wouldn't care, it doesn't affect me and it is not in my own books in reliable form.

oh but it is. You just have to know about rajm and how Umar insists it was or should be in the Quran but Aisha let some goats eat that written down verse. So would you be willing to confirm with a Yes/No that Caliph Umar and UMM Aisha believed/aided in the tahreef of the Quran thereby committed kufr?

Edited October 17, 2023 by ShiaMan14

[Cool]

1 minute ago, Abu_Zahra said:

The point is quite simple: do you reject the hadith from the aimmah (عليه السلام) stating that ghuluw is to attribute to them what they don't attribute to themselves?

lol, I have clearly stated more than 10 ahadith which mention what they haven't claimed for themselves in another thread. 

Why don't you just look at what they haven't claimed for themselves? All of them are tantamount of giving them the status of divinity (na'udobillah) e.g., they are al-khaliq, al-razzaq, aalim ul ghayb etc. 

We simply deny all these attributes. We say they "can" provide sustenance upon divine command like Jesus brought the "Ma'idah" for his followers, like Moses brought "man o salwa" for his followers. 

They know the ghayb but that knowledge is not their ilm-al-huduri. 

They "can" create, make the dead alive, speak to dead, if God wills so. 

And we know that God has appointed them as witnesses over people. How do they witness? I can quote another beautiful hadith with which you can even understand that!

[Abu_Zahra]

@Cool somehow you forgot to answer the question, but if you are now saying that you do in fact accept the narration where the aimmah (عليه السلام) state that ghuluw is to attribute to them what they have not attributed to themselves, then the matter is settled alhamdulillah. 

[Ibn Tayyar]

9 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

-> We exist because of the Imams: No. We exist to worship and know Allah, the Imams have the same test as us.

-> The Imams can listen to dua, grant Risq, and control the atoms of the universe in real time: No. They do not delegate Risq, they can't hear your Dua, and only Allah is the one who governs the universe, listens to prayers, and answers them

You need to stop mixing corrupt beliefs with sound beliefs. 

Shaykh Al-Saduq (rah) says the following: 

We believe that Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He above all, created the whole of creation for him (the Prophet) and for the People of his House, and that but for them, Allah, Glory be to Him, would not have created the heavens or the earth, Paradise or Hell, Adam or Eve, the angels or (any) created thing (shay ') - the Blessings of Allah upon them all.

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-creed-shaykh-saduq/number-prophets-and-vicegerents

This is also in line with Ziyarat Al-Jamiah, which Al-Saduq (rah) considered sahih, and in it you see phrases such as "through you Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gives Rizq", and so on. That does not make them Raziqeen (sustainers), as the Raziq is Allah (Allah), but it is the case that just as Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) creates for them, He also sustains for them and through them. 

Shaykh Al-Mufid (rah) in his book Awa'il Al-Maqalaat also says that the Prophet (saww) and the Imams (عليه السلام) can hear you when you are near their graves, and that the munajaat (calls) reaches them from afar.

This was the aqeeda of Al-Tusi (rah) aswell.

Al-Mufid (rah) also says that the Imams (عليه السلام) are aware of the affairs of the Shi'a after their death. 

This is also in line with the reliable hadiths that the deeds are presented to the Prophet (saww) and the Imams (عليه السلام).

Stop pushing your preconcieved notions of ghulu on the qudama from our scholars.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Ibn Tayyar

[Cool]

1 hour ago, Abu_Zahra said:

but if you are now saying that you do in fact accept the narration where the aimmah (عليه السلام) state that ghuluw is to attribute to them what they have not attributed to themselves,

Everything has been stated brother. What Imams have claimed for themselves is also there in hadith books and what they haven't claimed is also there.

Attributing to them the divinity (in terms of knowledge & power) is what which is prohibited. 

They are the witnesses over people, they are the rasikhoona fil-ilm, they are the "Asma Allah", and they are the manifestation of ism e mubarak "Aalim ul Ghayb" too. 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

9 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

You're claiming the Hadith where the Imam denies knowing the drops of rain in the sky, leaves falling on the trees, stars in the sky as Taqqiyah lol ?

You are regarding clear cut saheeh narrations, in large quantity where they rebut every ghuluw belief, as well as the Ijma of Saduq, Mufid, and Tusi as invalid?

Habibi, be careful. I am not trying to scare you here but some beliefs can land you in hell, eternal hell.

Yes its definitely Taqqiyah because its against wide number of traditions narrated by companions of Aima (عليه السلام) as i mentioned from chapter of Al-kafi have you seen that? Do you know what Imam (عليه السلام) told us to accept in case of contradictory narrations?

8 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

The Ijma of Saduq, Tusi, and Mufid is that they did not know the munafiqoon around them, not even the Prophet did, and that they did not need to know beyond the Shariah, and perhaps a limited future info of future events etc that was an inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

 

10 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

 

أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ الاحْمَرِ عَنْ عَبْدِ الله بْنِ حَمَّادٍ عَنْ سَيْفٍ التَّمَّارِ قَالَ كُنَّا مَعَ أَبِي عَبْدِ الله ((عليه السلام)) جَمَاعَةً مِنَ الشِّيعَةِ فِي الْحِجْرِ فَقَالَ عَلَيْنَا عَيْنٌ فَالْتَفَتْنَا يَمْنَةً وَيَسْرَةً فَلَمْ نَرَ أَحَداً فَقُلْنَا لَيْسَ عَلَيْنَا عَيْنٌ فَقَالَ وَرَبِّ الْكَعْبَةِ وَرَبِّ الْبَنِيَّةِ ثَلاثَ مَرَّاتٍ لَوْ كُنْتُ بَيْنَ مُوسَى وَالْخَضِرِ لاخْبَرْتُهُمَا أَنِّي أَعْلَمُ مِنْهُمَا وَلانْبَأْتُهُمَا بِمَا لَيْسَ فِي أَيْدِيهِمَا لانَّ مُوسَى وَالْخَضِرَ (عَلَيْهما السَّلام) أُعْطِيَا عِلْمَ مَا كَانَ وَلَمْ يُعْطَيَا عِلْمَ مَا يَكُونُ وَمَا هُوَ كَائِنٌ حَتَّى تَقُومَ السَّاعَةُ وَقَدْ وَرِثْنَاهُ مِنْ رَسُولِ الله ﷺ وِرَاثَةً

Imam ((عليه السلام)) said the following. “An eye is watching over us.” We then looked right and left and did not see anyone. We said, “No eye is watching over us.” The Imam ((عليه السلام)) said, “I swear by the Lord of the Ka‘ba. I swear by the Lord of the House.” He said so three times. “Had I been with Moses and al-Khidr I would have told them that I had more than they did and would have informed them of what they had no knowledge. This is because Moses and al-Khidr were given the knowledge of what was in the past and they were given the knowledge what will be in future or what will exist up to the Day of Judgment while we have inherited all of them from the Messenger of Allah as heirs.”,

 

11 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

 

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سِنَانٍ عَنْ يُونُسَ بْنِ يَعْقُوبَ عَنِ الْحَارِثِ بْنِ الْمُغِيرَةِ وَعِدَّةٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا مِنْهُمْ عَبْدُ الاعْلَى وَأَبُو عُبَيْدَةَ وَعَبْدُ الله بْنُ بِشْرٍ الْخَثْعَمِيُّ سَمِعُوا أَبَا عَبْدِ الله ((عليه السلام)) يَقُولُ إِنِّي لاعْلَمُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الارْضِ وَأَعْلَمُ مَا فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَأَعْلَمُ مَا فِي النَّارِ وَأَعْلَمُ مَا كَانَ وَمَا يَكُونُ قَالَ ثُمَّ مَكَثَ هُنَيْئَةً فَرَأَى أَنَّ ذَلِكَ كَبُرَ عَلَى مَنْ سَمِعَهُ مِنْهُ فَقَالَ عَلِمْتُ ذَلِكَ مِنْ كِتَابِ الله عَزَّ وَجَلَّ إِنَّ الله عَزَّ وَجَلَّ يَقُولُ فِيهِ تِبْيَانُ كُلِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ.

they heard abu ‘Abdallah ((عليه السلام)) say the following. “I certainly know what is the heavens and what is in the earth. I know what is in paradise and what is the fire. I know what was there and what will be there.” The narrator has said that the Imam ((عليه السلام)) paused for a while and found that what he had just said was much heavy for the audience then he ((عليه السلام)) said, “I learned all of it from the book of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High. Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, has said, “In it there is the clarification of all things.”

Upto you if you want to ignore ahadith and beliefs of Sheikh Kyulani and his mashaikh or companions. They were also shias.

 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

9 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

You're claiming the Hadith where the Imam denies knowing the drops of rain in the sky, leaves falling on the trees, stars in the sky as Taqqiyah lol ?

You are regarding clear cut saheeh narrations, in large quantity where they rebut every ghuluw belief, as well as the Ijma of Saduq, Mufid, and Tusi as invalid?

Habibi, be careful. I am not trying to scare you here but some beliefs can land you in hell, eternal hell.

Where is the Ijma of Saduq / Mufid or Tusi? Your definition of Ilm-ul-ghaib is flawed. You think whatever is in the future is Ghaib and that's not correct. Tusi, Mufid or Saduq have correctly said Imams don't know Ghaib and I say that too. However as for events of future & past and knowledge of what's in the skies etc It's what they've received as an inheritance from the messenger of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). You're misrepresenting Tusi, Mufeed and Saduq here.

As for Tehreef, make a thread for it i'm here to discuss it. InshaAllah i'll provide clear and Sahih narrations that prove tehreef in Quran.

[In Gods Name]

4 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

 

This is also in line with Ziyarat Al-Jamiah, which Al-Saduq (rah) considered sahih, and in it you see phrases such as "through you Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gives Rizq", and so on. That does not make them Raziqeen (sustainers), as the Raziq is Allah (Allah), but it is the case that just as Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) creates for them, He also sustains for them and through them. 

 

Salam brother,

I never claimed those statements i made were agreed upon by all scholars. I've read / heard / know all of these things, and they do not affect anything i've claimed or said.

Nobody can deny, Allah created Muhammed (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to serve and worship him. He too, is being tested by Allah. The Prophet and the Aimmah are all part of this test. 

According to the noble Quran, the primary reason we were all created, including the Prophets and Ambiya, and then including the families of those Prophets who as per Tusi were not necessarily superior to the Ambiya either, is to know and worship Allah.

Nobody can deny this.

On Yawm al Qiyamah, i will declare to Allah i read his book, and i followed the clear, rather than the unclear. What does the creator of all things tell us, in this last and final revelation as to why he ultimately created us all?:

 

Who were the ones who worshipped the Almighty best? The ambiya and Awliya. So in a sense, Allah created us in order for his creation to willingly know him and worship him, and in a way, those who achieved this worship , those slaves who are not even dust compared to Allah, like Muhammed (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were perhaps the intended purpose of creation. But don't confuse it - he did not create it because of Muhammed (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) but because of the worship and devotion to him that Muhammed (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) himself had. Muhammed is a contingent , not necessary being. 

 

<><><>

Shaykh Saduq's Thawtheeq etc is not binding on anybody. 

You can not base your Aqeedah beliefs on a Ziyarah that contains not just one, but several majhul narrators. It contains many, many deficiences.

Jaafar Al Shilbi writes:

"By merely quoting scholars who have said that the Ziyārah is authentic, does not necessarily means that the narration is authentic. If we analyse the chain of narrators, there are in fact a few deficiencies within the chain, as a number of Majhūl (unknown) narrators are present. Both chains mentioned in al-Ṣadūq's, Man Lā Yaḥḍuruh al-Faqīh, and ‘Uyūn al-Akhbār are ḍa‘īf (weak). Note, I'm only objecting to the claim that it's authentic, and not the Ziyārah. "

 

I am not going to base my Aqeedah on an Ahad report that contains weak or unknown narrators. However, if Saduq was being metaphorical by what he was saying, much in the way i have said, i have no issue with it.

However, in terms of the other claims, you can't hold Aqaid beliefs on the basis of this report.

[In Gods Name]

18 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Yes its definitely Taqqiyah because its against wide number of traditions narrated by companions of Aima (عليه السلام) as i mentioned from chapter of Al-kafi have you seen that? Do you know what Imam (عليه السلام) told us to accept in case of contradictory narrations?

 

Again brother, you are an Akhbari, who blanket authenticates almost everything in al-Kafi, and you reject ilm ul Rijal which means you accept the diamond and also the poision. You affirm and base your Aqeedah on solitary reports containing accursed Ghali narrators, Khadhabeen (infamous liars, great liars). 

This has led you to believe the Quran is distorted, and you , just like al-Kulayni, beleive in Tahreef and distortion of the Quran.

Kulayni's chapter headings, his beliefs, his misguidance is his own problem. No Muslim with sense my dear brother, should follow a man in Aqeedah who himself had corrupt Aqeedah and believed in distortion of the Quran. Majlisi himself as you agree, affirms Kulayni believed in distortion/Tahreef in the Quran. Some of the ahadith Kulayni reports makes a complete mockery of the Quran.

In fact, Kulayni's Kitab al Hujjah, a book on Aqeedah issues, as per Majlisi , is overwhelmingly weak in terms of chains of narrators, and full of ghali, majhul, major liars.

 

<>

 

Now to the issue, when in Rijal al-Kashi, the Imam is told something the Ghulaat attribute to him, that is, that he knows the number of all the drops of drain, all the leaves falling from the trees etc, and the Imam swears by Allah none has this almost omnipresent knowledge save Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), you claim this was Taqqiyah on what basis? 

Again the hadith:

 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

3 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Both chains mentioned in al-Ṣadūq's, Man Lā Yaḥḍuruh al-Faqīh, and ‘Uyūn al-Akhbār are ḍa‘īf (weak). Note, I'm only objecting to the claim that it's authentic, and not the Ziyārah. "

Funny thing here is that Sadooq testified to authenticity of narrations he included in Al Faqih. You you read the introduction of the book or ever listened to any scholar translating it?

Rijalis are sometimes very funny. They'll accept any narrator as reliable if Sadooq said he was thiqa but refuses to accept hadith graded as sahih by sadooq lol. How come a book for which sadooq said that its a hujjah and the narrations he includes in it are sahih and the ones sadooq uses to issue verdicts has majaheel? Sadooq says its authentic and scholars coming 100s of years after him somehow magically discovers people in chains are majaheel. makes no sense

[In Gods Name]

1 minute ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Funny thing here is that Sadooq testified to authenticity of narrations he included in Al Faqih. You you read the introduction of the book or ever listened to any scholar translating it?

Shaykh Saduq is not Hujjah. In ilm al Rijal, even as per Sayed Khui' you can't merely rely on this. You need objective evidence.

Shaykh Saduq was a great scholar, but he wasn't always correct and he is certainly not M'asum.

That Ziyarah can not be used to build Aqeedah. Anyone doing so is playing a dangerous game.

Edited October 17, 2023 by In Gods Name

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

8 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Shaykh Saduq is not Hujjah. In ilm al Rijal, even as per Sayed Khui' you can't merely rely on this. You need objective evidence.

Shaykh Saduq was a great scholar, but he wasn't always correct and he is certainly not M'asum.

That Ziyarah can not be used to build Aqeedah. Anyone doing so is playing a dangerous game.

Sadooq is not Hujjah? Okay.

Now when Sadooq say x is thiqa or y is ghali or z is weak, or Najashi says so, or tusi, or ibn ghadairi, or Hilli, or Khoei, or Jawahiri or Mohseni etc.
where is the objection evidence you seen init to accept/reject their claims?

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

13 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

You affirm and base your Aqeedah on solitary reports containing accursed Ghali narrators, Khadhabeen (infamous liars, great liars). 

Our aqeedah or Ahkaam we have are not from Akhbar e Ahad as the sunnis have.
Our hadeeth has been transmitted by books written by companions of Aima (عليه السلام) and scholars coming after them transmitted books or copied narrations from their books with their ijaza (permission)
If you don't understand this, then you seriously need to look more into shia hadith as you think its the same as sunni hadith. The chains in classical works are ijazaat of how they receive books not chains of hadith as A heard from B B from C and C from D etc.

[In Gods Name]

7 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

There is nothing ghuluw in my statement. 

Salam brother,

You are usually quite sensible and careful when it comes to your Aqeedah, so my post was not accusing you per say , but rather the topic in general.

You have users here denying Saheeh hadith from rijal al-Kashi etc, and affirming the Imams knew everything apart from when the day of judgement was. There is definitely corruption in Aqeedah among a number of Shias, but not you.

[In Gods Name]

1 minute ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Our aqeedah or Ahkaam we have are not from Akhbar e Ahad as the sunnis have.
Our hadeeth has been transmitted by books written by companions of Aima (عليه السلام) and scholars coming after them transmitted books or copied narrations from their books with their ijaza (permission)
If you don't understand this, then you seriously need to look more into shia hadith as you think its the same as sunni hadith. The chains in classical works are ijazaat of how they receive books not chains of hadith as A heard from B B from C and C from D etc.

I can't begin to start with how flawed this is. I will make a new thread inshaAllah and maybe we can discuss on there at some point.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

@In Gods Name do you even know what Allamah Majlisi never wrote Mirat ul Uqool to be misused by people like you? He has graded ahadith as per the standards his fellow scholars in that time and also said these gradings are just to create preference in case of contradictions. Are you aware of that? 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

[Cool]

@In Gods Name, I have one simple question. 

Do you accept Imams as witness over people شهداء على الناس? 

[In Gods Name]

Imam Ridha's supplication in Shaykh Saduq's al Itiqad:

"Allahumma, verily I disassociate myself before You from those who claim for us what is not true for us.

اللهم إني أبرأ إليك من الذين قالوا فينا ما لم نقله في أنفسنا.

Allahumma, verily I disassociate myself before You from those who say regarding us what we have not said regarding ourselves.

اللهم لك الخلق ومنك الأمر، وإياك نعبد وإياك نستعين."

 

<>

What did the Imams say?

ما رواه الكشي في (رجاله) في الحديث الصحيح عن ابن المغيرة قال كنت عند أبي الحسن (ع) أنا و يحيى بن عبد الله بن الحسن (ع) فقال يحيى جعلت فداك إنهم يزعمون أنك تعلم الغيب؟ فقال: سبحان الله سبحان الله ضع يدك على رأسي فو الله ما بقيت في جسدي شعرة و لا في رأسي إلا قامت قال ثم قال: لا و الله ما هي إلا وراثة عن رسول الله (ص

ibn al Mughirah has said: I was with abi al Hasan (عليه السلام) along with Yahya b. Abdullah b. al Hasan, so Yahya said: "May we be your ransom, indeed they believe that you know ghaib (unseen)?" So Imam (عليه السلام) said: "Glory be to Allah! Glory be to Allah! Place your hand on my head, for by Allah there does not remain a hair on my body or head but that it is standing up*." Imam (عليه السلام) then continued: "No! By Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) it is not but inheritance from the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).*" 

 

SAHEEH [Rijal al Kashi]

 

حمدويه، قال حدثنا يعقوب، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن شعيب، عن أبي بصير، قال : قلت لأبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) إنهم يقولون قال و ما يقولون قلت يقولون تعلم قطر المطر و عدد النجوم و ورق الشجر و وزن ما في البحر و عدد التراب، فرفع يده إلى السماء، و قال سبحان الله سبحان الله لا و الله ما يعلم هذا إلا الله

532. Hamdawayh who said: narrated to us Ya’qub from Ibn Abi Umayr from Shuayb from Abi Basir who said: I said to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام – they do say, he said: and what do they say? I said: they say that you know the number of the drops in the rain, and the number of the stars, and the number of leaves in all the trees, and the weight of what is in the ocean, and the number of sand particles, so he عليه السلام raised his hand to the sky and said: praise be to Allah, praise be to Allah, no by Allah, no one knows this except for Allah.

SAHEEH [Rijal al Kashi]

<>

What do our top scholars, Shaykh Saduq, Mufid, Tusi say?:

ويقول الشيخ الطوسي أيضاً في كتابه المذكور: «ولم نوجب أن يكون [الإمام] عالماً بما لا تعلُّق له بالأحكام الشرعية

Shaikh Tusi wrote in his book Talkhis al Shafi (Volume 1 page 252): "It is not wajib for the Imam to have any knowledge of things which are not directly related to Islamic laws.  

والامام أيضا لم يقف على كل هذه التخاليط التي رويت لأنه لا يعلم الغيب، وإنما هو عبد صالح يعلم الكتاب والسنة، ويعلم من أخبار شيعته ما ينهى إليه

 

And Shaykh Saduq, when explaining all the confusion among the companions of the Imams:

والامام أيضا لم يقف على كل هذه التخاليط التي رويت لأنه لا يعلم الغيب، وإنما هو عبد صالح يعلم الكتاب والسنة، ويعلم من أخبار شيعته ما ينهى إليه

الصفحة ١١٠

"And the Imam also did not stop all this confusion which you saw because he does not know the unseen, rather he is just a pious slave of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) who knows the Qur'an and the sunnah, and he knows about the affairs of his shias that are not inhibited from him. (Page 110)

 

[In Gods Name]

No matter what people try to tell you, follow the book of Allah. What did God tell us his reason for creating us all was?:

Don't follow the unclear - rather follow the clear. There will be no excuse on Yawm al Qiyamah.

[Cool]

9 minutes ago, Cool said:

@In Gods Name, I have one simple question. 

Do you accept Imams as witness over people شهداء على الناس? 

@In Gods Name why you are running away from this simple question? 

[Cool]

24 minutes ago, Cool said:

@In Gods Name why you are running away from this simple question? 

@In Gods Name I am again request you to answer this question;

34 minutes ago, Cool said:

@In Gods Name, I have one simple question. 

Do you accept Imams as witness over people شهداء على الناس? 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Cool

[Ibn Tayyar]

48 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Salam brother,

I never claimed those statements i made were agreed upon by all scholars. I've read / heard / know all of these things, and they do not affect anything i've claimed or said.

Nobody can deny, Allah created Muhammed (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to serve and worship him. He too, is being tested by Allah. The Prophet and the Aimmah are all part of this test. 

According to the noble Quran, the primary reason we were all created, including the Prophets and Ambiya, and then including the families of those Prophets who as per Tusi were not necessarily superior to the Ambiya either, is to know and worship Allah.

Nobody can deny this.

On Yawm al Qiyamah, i will declare to Allah i read his book, and i followed the clear, rather than the unclear. What does the creator of all things tell us, in this last and final revelation as to why he ultimately created us all?:

wa alaykum al salam

You keep conflating issues and mixing them up, which is a terrible way to present your arguments. First you use the sayings of the qudama in an attempt to make it out that most of the Shi'a are ghulat, and then when it is pointed out that some of the qudama believe in things which you consider ghulu, you simply say it is not binding upon you. So is the words of the qudama hujjah upon you or not?

Answer the questions: Is Al-Saduq (rah) a mughali for believing that the creation was created for the Prophet (saww) and his Family?

Is Al-Mufid (rah) a mughali for believing that the Imams (عليه السلام) can hear you when you are near their graves, and that the calls of the Shi'a reach them from afar, and that they are aware of the affairs of their Shi'a after their death?

Secondly, that we are created to worship Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) does not have to contradict that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) would not have created us had it not been for the Prophet (saww) and his family. 

An example that can be made is the following: if you ask Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for a son and He grants you a son because of your Du'a, then his existence is due to your Du'a and by extension your taqwa, but the goal of his existence is to worship Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

This belief is actually in line with another belief we see in other authentic hadiths, that the Earth would become void without an Imam or Hujjah therein.

Now, you may disagree, but if you call it ghulu, then you might aswell call Al-Saduq (rah) a mughali.

1 hour ago, In Gods Name said:

Shaykh Saduq's Thawtheeq etc is not binding on anybody. 

You can not base your Aqeedah beliefs on a Ziyarah that contains not just one, but several majhul narrators. It contains many, many deficiences.

Jaafar Al Shilbi writes:

"By merely quoting scholars who have said that the Ziyārah is authentic, does not necessarily means that the narration is authentic. If we analyse the chain of narrators, there are in fact a few deficiencies within the chain, as a number of Majhūl (unknown) narrators are present. Both chains mentioned in al-Ṣadūq's, Man Lā Yaḥḍuruh al-Faqīh, and ‘Uyūn al-Akhbār are ḍa‘īf (weak). Note, I'm only objecting to the claim that it's authentic, and not the Ziyārah. "

 

I am not going to base my Aqeedah on an Ahad report that contains weak or unknown narrators. However, if Saduq was being metaphorical by what he was saying, much in the way i have said, i have no issue with it.

However, in terms of the other claims, you can't hold Aqaid beliefs on the basis of this report.

That Al-Saduq (rah) believed in its authenticity is proof that the content in the ziyarah was considered sound even in Qum, which was known for its harshness towards anything close to ghulu. 

And even if you don't believe in its authenticity, most of what is in it can be seen through other authentic hadiths, and you can see that even the brother whom you quoted is not objecting to the ziyarah, but only its sanad.

For example this hadith is sahih and contains some of the meanings found in the ziyarah:

My father - Allah have mercy on Him - said: Sa`d b. `Abdullah narrated to us, he said: Ahmad b. Muhammad b. `Isa narrated to us, from Hasan b. Sa`eed, from Fudalah b. Ayyub, from Abban b. `Uthman, from Muhammad b. Muslim, who said: I heard Aba `Abdillah (al-Sadiq) [a] say: Indeed Allah, Mighty and Exalted, created certain creatures from His light, and a mercy from His mercy for the sake of His Mercy. For these are the eye of Allah that sees, and His ear that hears, and His tongue that speaks to His creation by His permission, and the safeguards over what has descended from (His) justifications and warnings and proofs. And through them He wards off grievances, and through them He sends down mercy, and through them He enlivens the dead, and causes to die the living. And through them He afflicts His creation (with tribulations), and through them He judges cases among His creation.

I asked: May I be your ransom - Who are these?
He [a] replied: Al-Awsiyaa (the vice-regents).

https://discovershiaislam.blogspot.com/2012/01/existence-of-ahlulbaytas-before-adamas.html?m=1

[In Gods Name]

8 minutes ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

wa alaykum al salam

You keep conflating issues and mixing them up, which is a terrible way to present your arguments. First you use the sayings of the qudama in an attempt to make it out that most of the Shi'a are ghulat, and then when it is pointed out that some of the qudama believe in things which you consider ghulu, you simply say it is not binding upon you. So is the words of the qudama hujjah upon you or not?

 

I will dissect and rebut your post thoroughly soon brother.

However, i have never claimed the majority of Shias as Ghulat, kindly do not ascribe to me things which i have not claimed myself.

Secondly, on the issue of Ilm ul Ghayb, the ahadith are clear - and the Qudama i.e. Saduq, Mufid, Tusi are united on that issue, contrary to the view of a number of SC users.

However i am not obliged then, to accept the hadith gradings authentication or statements of everything they say on every issue.  All three agree on the issue of Ilm al Ghayb, and are in line with the traditions and the noble Quran.

However if Saduq authenticates a report, he is not an authority for me in Ilm ul Rijal, i will use objective sciences of Ilm Ul Rijal. 

If Saduq, Mufid, and Tusi all claim that it is not necessary for the imams to have knowledge beyond Shariah, which the narrations support, i will rightly use this.

However, if Mufid believes that the Quran is distorted/has Tahreef, or if Saduq claims a certain narration is authentic, i don't need to agree with them on everything they say, because even they contradict, differ and dispute with each other. However, when there is a consensus among them, and the issue is pretty clear, i will happily show that.

Once again, i won't accept something authentic just because Saduq says it is. This is hardly me picking and choosing. 

Why? Because i have an objective standard of ascertaining reliability of ahadith which i use across the board, which is Ilm Ur Rijal.

Edited October 17, 2023 by In Gods Name

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

4 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

However if Saduq authenticates a report, he is not an authority for me in Ilm ul Rijal, i will use objective sciences of Ilm Ul Rijal. 

yeah only Ibn Ghadairi is an authority and the rest are only to be relied upon when they declare someone weak or ghali.

[Ibn Tayyar]

1 hour ago, In Gods Name said:

I will dissect and rebut your post thoroughly soon brother.

However, i have never claimed the majority of Shias as Ghulat, kindly do not ascribe to me things which i have not claimed myself.

Secondly, on the issue of Ilm ul Ghayb, the ahadith are clear - and the Qudama i.e. Saduq, Mufid, Tusi are united on that issue, contrary to the view of a number of SC users.

However i am not obliged then, to accept the hadith gradings authentication or statements of everything they say on every issue.  All three agree on the issue of Ilm al Ghayb, and are in line with the traditions and the noble Quran.

However if Saduq authenticates a report, he is not an authority for me in Ilm ul Rijal, i will use objective sciences of Ilm Ul Rijal. 

If Saduq, Mufid, and Tusi all claim that it is not necessary for the imams to have knowledge beyond Shariah, which the narrations support, i will rightly use this.

However, if Mufid believes that the Quran is distorted/has Tahreef, or if Saduq claims a certain narration is authentic, i don't need to agree with them on everything they say, because even they contradict, differ and dispute with each other. However, when there is a consensus among them, and the issue is pretty clear, i will happily show that.

Once again, i won't accept something authentic just because Saduq says it is. This is hardly me picking and choosing. 

Why? Because i have an objective standard of ascertaining reliability of ahadith which i use across the board, which is Ilm Ur Rijal.

Except you mentioned many beliefs beyond the discussion of Ilm Al-Ghayb that you either said is ghulu or alluded to it being ghulu, despite the fact that many of our qudama considered these beliefs to be sound.

And so I will await your response and I hope you keep it consistent.

[Muslim2010]

15 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

@Ashvazdanghe Do you deny Majlisi has said this in his Mirat al Uqul ?

We do not believe in taking hindu rituals to justify any claim about shia like you have done in these threads. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Muslim2010

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

Have a look at his hate for Shaykh Kyulani:

7 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

Kulayni's chapter headings, his beliefs, his misguidance is his own problem.

 

7 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

In fact, Kulayni's Kitab al Hujjah, a book on Aqeedah issues, as per Majlisi , is overwhelmingly weak in terms of chains of narrators, and full of ghali, majhul, major liars.

When Shaykh Kulayni himself has affirmed that he's gathered reports from Asaar e Sahihya then how come majlisi coming 100s of years after him magically found out that people Shaykh Kulayni narrated from 500+ years ago were kazzab, majaheel and ghalis? You're sanadi manhaj is broken just admit it and makes literally no sense.

7 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

Now to the issue, when in Rijal al-Kashi, the Imam is told something the Ghulaat attribute to him, that is, that he knows the number of all the drops of drain, all the leaves falling from the trees etc, and the Imam swears by Allah none has this almost omnipresent knowledge save Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), you claim this was Taqqiyah on what basis? 

What points towards Taqqiyah is contradiction of this report with Quran and Mutawatir traditions. (as mentioned from al-kafi)

7 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

Shaykh Saduq is not Hujjah

oh really? then who is lol

7 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

even as per Sayed Khui' you can't merely rely on this.

we all want to see a shred of objective evidence for this claim of Khoie.

7 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

Imam Ridha's supplication in Shaykh Saduq's al Itiqad:

"Allahumma, verily I disassociate myself before You from those who claim for us what is not true for us.

اللهم إني أبرأ إليك من الذين قالوا فينا ما لم نقله في أنفسنا.

Allahumma, verily I disassociate myself before You from those who say regarding us what we have not said regarding ourselves.

اللهم لك الخلق ومنك الأمر، وإياك نعبد وإياك نستعين."

As you said Sadooq is not a Hujjah, where is the chain for this narration and what is status of narrators? Are you blindly trusting Sadooq here because this view of his suits your agenda?

Please address above questions when you've time. Ya Ali (عليه السلام) Madad

[In Gods Name]

6 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

wa alaykum al salam

 

Salam,

I have no problems at all believing that Allah created us because of Muhammed and ale Muhammed [saw], but, it must be taken in terms of a metaphorical context in view of the verse of the Quran where Allah explicitly states he did not create Men and Jinn except to worship him.

The primary , undisputable reason we all exist, is to serve and worship Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). We don't exist because of the Prophet or Imams, because the Prophet and Imams are contingent beings, they are not necessary beings and there was a time when they were not even a thing mentioned or relevant. However, it is because they are the epitome of worship of Allah, Ibadah to Allah, that one can perhaps begin to intepret Ahadith like that in view of the clear verses of the Quran.

<>

Interestingly, Sunnis also have similar ahadith, and their interpretation is completely in line with the Quran. I also believe we Shias also should have no issue with it, the two can reconcile.

This is quite an interesting read: https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/article/details/404/did-god-create-the-world-for-the-love-of-prophet-muhammad

Al-Hakim included in al-Mustadrak and Abu al-Sheikh in Tabaqat al-Asfahanin through Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas [may Allah be pleased with them both] a hadith mawquf which states: "Allah revealed to Isa [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)] and said: 'O Isa! Believe in Muhammad and order those from among your people who will be present at his time to believe in him. For if it were not for Muhammad, I would not have created Adam and if it were not for Muhammad, I would not have created Paradise or Hellfire. I have placed the throne over water and it quavered, but when I wrote on it that there is no Deity except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, it became still" [Al-Hakim declared it authentic. Bukhari and Muslim did not record it).

Although these ahadith and non-Prophetic narrations are weak or include some which are weak, their meanings are valid. The meaning of the statement 'were it not for our master Muhammad [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)], Allah Almighty would not have created anything', is found in a Qur`anic verse in which Allah Almighty says,

I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me. [Az-Zariyat: 56).
The purpose of creation is the worship of Allah which is not fulfilled except through the existence of worshippers. Worship is contingent upon worshippers and the best of worshippers is Prophet Muhammad [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)] because he represents the epitome of worship and monotheism. Moreover, the verse mentions Jinns and man and not all creation. The rest of creation on the Earth and Heavens were created for the service of man. Allah Almighty says,

And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth: Behold, in that are Signs indeed for those who reflect. [Al-Jathiya: 13).

Likewise, our master, Prophet Muhammad [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)], is not only the epitome of humanity but is the perfect human. Many scholars have maintained the validity of this such as Imam al-Busiri who said in the poem "Al-Burda" (about Prophet Muhammad) that if it weren’t for the Prophet [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)], the world would not have been created from nonexistence. Other scholars who maintained this same position include the luminary Mulla 'Ali al-Qari, al-'Ajluni and others. From among those who maintained that it is acceptable to interpret the above ahadith based on the Qur`an and Sunnah is Ibn Taimiya, the Hanbali scholar [may Allah grant him mercy], who mentioned in Majmu' al-Fatwa: "The excellence of our Prophet [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)] over the angles became manifest on the Night of Ascension when he was elevated so high in the Heavens that he could hear the scratching of the Pen [writing destinies].

Muhammad is the master of the children of Adam and the best and most honorable among all creation. Because of this, it was said that Allah Almighty created the universe for his sake and if it were not for him, Allah would not have created the Throne, the Footstool, Heavens, earth, sun or moon. It is possible to interpret [the ahadith] with a sound meaning: since man is the seal and last of all creation and its microcosm, then the best of mankind is the best of all creation. Muhammad, being the dearest and most important of all creation, is the ultimate purpose of creation. Therefore, it cannot be denied that everything was created for his sake and if it were not for him, nothing would have been created. If these words are interpreted [based on evidence from] the Qur`an and sunnah, it would then be acceptable."

 

[Cool]

41 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

The primary , undisputable reason we all exist, is to serve and worship Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

And how could we serve Him if there were no messengers? I mean to serve God, you have to have His commands, you have to have teachers, manners, wisdom etc. 

[Ibn Tayyar]

7 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

Salam,

I have no problems at all believing that Allah created us because of Muhammed and ale Muhammed [saw], but, it must be taken in terms of a metaphorical context in view of the verse of the Quran where Allah explicitly states he did not create Men and Jinn except to worship him.

The primary , undisputable reason we all exist, is to serve and worship Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). We don't exist because of the Prophet or Imams, because the Prophet and Imams are contingent beings, they are not necessary beings and there was a time when they were not even a thing mentioned or relevant. However, it is because they are the epitome of worship of Allah, Ibadah to Allah, that one can perhaps begin to intepret Ahadith like that in view of the clear verses of the Quran.

<>

Interestingly, Sunnis also have similar ahadith, and their interpretation is completely in line with the Quran. I also believe we Shias also should have no issue with it, the two can reconcile.

This is quite an interesting read: https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/article/details/404/did-god-create-the-world-for-the-love-of-prophet-muhammad

Al-Hakim included in al-Mustadrak and Abu al-Sheikh in Tabaqat al-Asfahanin through Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas [may Allah be pleased with them both] a hadith mawquf which states: "Allah revealed to Isa [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)] and said: 'O Isa! Believe in Muhammad and order those from among your people who will be present at his time to believe in him. For if it were not for Muhammad, I would not have created Adam and if it were not for Muhammad, I would not have created Paradise or Hellfire. I have placed the throne over water and it quavered, but when I wrote on it that there is no Deity except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, it became still" [Al-Hakim declared it authentic. Bukhari and Muslim did not record it).

Although these ahadith and non-Prophetic narrations are weak or include some which are weak, their meanings are valid. The meaning of the statement 'were it not for our master Muhammad [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)], Allah Almighty would not have created anything', is found in a Qur`anic verse in which Allah Almighty says,

I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me. [Az-Zariyat: 56).
The purpose of creation is the worship of Allah which is not fulfilled except through the existence of worshippers. Worship is contingent upon worshippers and the best of worshippers is Prophet Muhammad [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)] because he represents the epitome of worship and monotheism. Moreover, the verse mentions Jinns and man and not all creation. The rest of creation on the Earth and Heavens were created for the service of man. Allah Almighty says,

And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth: Behold, in that are Signs indeed for those who reflect. [Al-Jathiya: 13).

Likewise, our master, Prophet Muhammad [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)], is not only the epitome of humanity but is the perfect human. Many scholars have maintained the validity of this such as Imam al-Busiri who said in the poem "Al-Burda" (about Prophet Muhammad) that if it weren’t for the Prophet [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)], the world would not have been created from nonexistence. Other scholars who maintained this same position include the luminary Mulla 'Ali al-Qari, al-'Ajluni and others. From among those who maintained that it is acceptable to interpret the above ahadith based on the Qur`an and Sunnah is Ibn Taimiya, the Hanbali scholar [may Allah grant him mercy], who mentioned in Majmu' al-Fatwa: "The excellence of our Prophet [(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)] over the angles became manifest on the Night of Ascension when he was elevated so high in the Heavens that he could hear the scratching of the Pen [writing destinies].

Muhammad is the master of the children of Adam and the best and most honorable among all creation. Because of this, it was said that Allah Almighty created the universe for his sake and if it were not for him, Allah would not have created the Throne, the Footstool, Heavens, earth, sun or moon. It is possible to interpret [the ahadith] with a sound meaning: since man is the seal and last of all creation and its microcosm, then the best of mankind is the best of all creation. Muhammad, being the dearest and most important of all creation, is the ultimate purpose of creation. Therefore, it cannot be denied that everything was created for his sake and if it were not for him, nothing would have been created. If these words are interpreted [based on evidence from] the Qur`an and sunnah, it would then be acceptable."

 

So instead of outright dismissing certain beliefs because of the way they sound at first, it is best to research and see how they can be reconciled.

And that goes for all the other beliefs which you dismissed as ghulu and is accepted by many of the qudama, and which I am waiting for your answer.

- That the Imams (عليه السلام) can hear near their graves, and that calls reach them from afar (a belief of Al-Mufid and Al-Tusi).

- That the Imams (عليه السلام) are aware of the affairs of the Shi'a after their death (a belief of Al-Mufid).

Edited October 18, 2023 by Ibn Tayyar

[Abu Nur]

So we accept that God created the creation out of love of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) but the Prophet does not have much (or salafi much) affairs to do with the creations? 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Abu Nur

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 10/17/2023 at 3:48 AM, In Gods Name said:

 Do you deny Majlisi has said this in his Mirat al Uqul ?

Salam  general intention of Majlisi (رضي الله عنه) has been collecting all of Shia sources from all available sources in colllection of Hadith which he has mentioned all what he has found with a nearly authentic chain also he has been a great  Akhbari which he collected all Hadith based on his doctrine although he has allowed judging all of collected hadiths by other Shia scholars based on comparison holy quran & teaching of Ahlulbayt in addition  in opposition to Sunnis we don't have rigid & too solid narrow mindset that every hadith in shia sources are Sahih which we can't examine these hadith . 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 10/17/2023 at 8:18 PM, In Gods Name said:

This is quite an interesting read: https://www.dar-alifta.org

Salam lol you even accept most weak articles from Wahabi sources without examining it but on the other hand you reject similar things in shia sources because it has been not accepted  by Wahabi sites .

[In Gods Name]

On 10/18/2023 at 2:25 AM, Ibn Tayyar said:

So instead of outright dismissing certain beliefs because of the way they sound at first, it is best to research and see how they can be reconciled.

And that goes for all the other beliefs which you dismissed as ghulu and is accepted by many of the qudama, and which I am waiting for your answer.

 

I will reply to the others in due course (none of them contradict anything i've said or claimed, and i have not called them Ghuluw outright).

However, i want to address this post. I never dismiss a belief based on how it sounds, and in fact, i have already explained how my position never changed. 

<>

I'm not ignorant of Batni/esoteric interpretations. I also don't blanket dismiss beliefs because of how they sound at face value. On an academic front, i did a large amount of analysis on literature, poetry, exploring the various layers of meaning behind text.  However, this has been taken to extremes by some Shia, who shoehorn Imam into every Quranic verse.

In the other thread, i claimed that the main purpose we were created was not for the Prophet and Imams. Rather, Allah clearly states, the main purpose of our creation is to worship him. The Prophet and Imams have also been created to worship him, and they are all also being tested by Allah.

However, even before i read the works of Sunnis in terms of how they explain their Ahadith, i acknowledged that i have no problem if we say that because the Prophet was the best worshipper, Allah has created us to try to work towards the epitome of worship towards him, and this is manifested by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) - nobody came close to him even from his ahlulbayt, though they reached high stations.

Therefore, i objected the view that we were made for the Prophet and Imams. Rather, we must be clear - we were made to worship Allah, and the Prophet/imams are contingent beings that did not even have to exist and are insignificant less than specs of dust compared to Allah, the Almighty. However, because of their worship of Allah, they symbolise the epitome of why we were made and so in a sense we were all created to try to strive for that, and the Prophet manifests this best and his worship is a reason why we all were therefore created.

 

<>

Some Shias take offence when you clearly say, therefore, our main purpose of creation is to worship Allah. They will say no, we have been made for the Imams.

However, it is clear that the main purpose of creation is to worship Allah. Us being made because of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is a symbolic T'awil of this - and a derivative of this, but it does not detract from the fact the main purpose is solely to worship Allah, and that the Prophet himself was created to solely worship Allah. The Prophet represents the best worship and so in a symbolic way, we have been created to be like the epitome of worship and the epitome of worship of Allah is why he would create us. However what comes first? Allah. What is the main purpose? The worship of Allah. What are then , symbolic secondary things? Derivatives of this total worship and submission of Allah.

Thus, we were not created for the Prophet or Imams, and if one claims we were created because of them - the reality is this is a derivative symbolic meaning of the fact we were created to worship Allah. 

One must therefore never purely just claim that without qualifying that it is only the worship of Allah primarily that we exist, and not contingent beings that were the epitome of it and symbolically were by extension the reason of creation. 

Edited October 21, 2023 by In Gods Name

[In Gods Name]

5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam  general intention of Majlisi (رضي الله عنه) has been collecting all of Shia sources from all available sources in colllection of Hadith which he has mentioned all what he has found with a nearly authentic chain also he has been a great  Akhbari which he collected all Hadith based on his doctrine although he has allowed judging all of collected hadiths by other Shia scholars based on comparison holy quran & teaching of Ahlulbayt in addition  in opposition to Sunnis we don't have rigid & too solid narrow mindset that every hadith in shia sources are Sahih which we can't examine these hadith . 

Majlisi and Kulayni both beleived in Tahrif of the Quran. You know this to be true also brother. Majlisi claimed Tahreef was Muttawatir.

Open al-Kafi and you will find some of the biggest distortions of Quranic verses, and fabricated claims that the verse today was not the original verse, but had additional words included often replacing Allah with Imam etc. 

I have to double check but i think as per consensus of Sunni scholars, anyone who claims the Quran is distorted is a Kaffir.

And i say, anyone who claims the book of Allah is distorted is definitely Jahil (ignorant).  And honestly, after reading the Quran it appears to me these scholars might not necessarily be safe in terms of their Islam, because to doubt a verse of the Quran is exactly what Allah revealed and to claim there were additional parts that completely change the meaning is ignorance on a scale i can't even comprehend. I would not take Aqeedah from such a person, and i don't regard them to be valid scholars. But i will be respectful and not abuse anyone , as per the rules, and as per good Islamic conduct. 

Edited October 21, 2023 by In Gods Name