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

17000 verses of Quran and Article by Nader Zaveri

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Salam.

His article can be read online.

Since The hadith of 17000 verses is found in Kitab Al Qira'at of Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Sayyar, therefore article said kulyani by mistake placed this hadith under hadiths by Ahmed Bin Muhammar Bin Isa.

Please read the article if you haven't so you'd get his point of view.

Now, i was looking into chains to book Al-Qira'at by Sayyari and in Rijal Al-Nijashi, Nijashi mentioned chain to his books including Kitab Al-Qira'at as follows:

[192] أحمد بن محمد بن سيار أبو عبد الله الكاتب، بصري، كان من كتاب ال طاهر في زمن أبي محمد عليه السلام. ويعرف بالسياري، ضعيف الحديث، فاسد المذهب، ذكر ذلك لنا الحسين بن عبيد الله. مجفو الرواية، كثير المراسيل.


له كتب وقع إلينا منها: كتاب ثواب القران، كتاب الطب، كتاب القراءات، كتاب النوادر، كتاب الغارات، أخبرنا الحسين بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن يحيى وأخبرنا أبو عبد الله القزويني قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن يحيى، عن أبيه قال: حدثنا السياري

The highlighted person in chain to his book is Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Yahya.

Allamah Khoei says in his Rijal:

وكيف كان، فقد اختلف في حال الرجل، فمنهم من اعتمد عليه ولعله الأشهر، ويمكن الاستدلال عليه بوجوه:
الأول: أنه من المشايخ، فقد روى عنه الصدوق، والتلعكبري، بل قيل:
إنه من مشايخ النجاشي.
ويرده ما مر في المدخل من أن شيخوخة الإجازة، لا دلالة فيها على الوثاقة، ولا على الحسن، وتوهم أنه من مشايخ النجاشي، فيه ما ذكرناه في ترجمته: من أن أحمد بن محمد بن يحيى، ليس من مشايخ النجاشي نفسه.
الثاني: تصحيح العلامة، في الفائدة الثامنة من الخلاصة: طريق الصدوق إلى عبد الرحمان بن الحجاج، وكذا طريقه إلى عبد الله ابن أبي يعفور، وفيهما: " أحمد بن محمد بن يحيى ".
ويرده - ما مر - من أن تصحيح العلامة، مبني على بنائه على أصالة العدالة، وعلى أن أحمد من مشايخ الإجازة، وكلا الامرين لا يمكن الاعتماد عليه.
الثالث: أن الشهيد الثاني، وثقه في الدراية، وكذلك السماهيجي والشيخ البهائي.
والجواب عن ذلك: أن توثيق هؤلاء، لا يحتمل أن يكون منشأه الحس، وإنما هو اجتهاد، واستنباط، من كون الرجل من مشايخ الإجازة كما صرح بذلك الشيخ البهائي، في مشرقه: ولذلك ترى أنه ذكر في الحبل المتين، في بعض

1. He said Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Yahya isn't from Mashaikh Al-Nijashi

2. It is already well known (among members of shiaChat as well) that Khoei rejected Tarzee of Sheikh Sadooq and said it doesn't prove trustworthiness of a narrator thus a bunch of people here already graded such narrations as weak.

3. Khoei also rejects that being one of Mashaikh Al-Ijaza proves trustworthiness.

And he wrote in Mujam ur Rijal Al Hadith:

أن الرجل مجهول

Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Yahya Al-Ataar is Majhool.

And in Al Mufeed Min Mujam ur Rijal Al-Hadith:

930 - أحمد بن محمد بن يحيى العطار القمي: لم يثبت توثيقه، لأن كونه من شيوخ الإجازة لا دلالة فيه على التوثيق، وتصحيح العلامة طريقا إليه لعله مبني على أصالة العدالة أو على كونه من شيوخ الإجازة، وتوثيق الشهيد الثاني له مبني على الحدس. واعتماد القدماء على رواية شخص لا يدل على توثيقه لو كان الطريق إلى الرواية منحصرا به وليس الطريق بمنحصر.

It has been clearly explained.

Thus if we go by Nijashi's chain to Kitab Al-Qira'at of Sayyari, then then our Path to Kitab Al-Qira'at is weak.

So now, how can one pick such a book which according to his standards isn't even proven to be book of Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Sayyar since path to the book is weak and declare that since that narration is found in Kitab Al-Qira'at, therefore Kulayni made a mistake? While your path to book is weak.

If there is no other chain to book, then hadith of 17,000 verses of Quran is definitely by Ahmed bin Muhammad Bin Isa hence a Sahih riwayat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I googled the article, and also found this response from an anti Shia site.

In response to these points, we argue the following:

 

1- As Nader has stated, both are named Ahmad bin Mohammad and both are the shaikh of Mohammad bin Yahya. However, as any student of Shia hadith will know, when Al-Kulayni doesn’t include the full name of a narrator, it is because he is referring to the most famous narrator with that name. We find in Al-Kafi more than one thousand and eight-hundred instances in which Mohammad bin Yahya narrates from Ahmad bin Mohammad. Al-Kulayni makes it a habit to name the narrator in full if he is anyone other than Ahmad bin Mohammad bin Eisa. Al-Kulayni is careful with this, for example when he mentions the narration of Mohammad bin Yahya from Ahmad bin Mohammad bin Khalid. Moreover, Al-Kulayni did not ever include any narrations of Al-Sayyari in his book that are narrated directly by Mohammad bin Yahya. This fact supports that the narrator in this chain is Ahmad bin Mohammad bin Eisa.

 

2- The existence of Al-Sayyari’s book has proven to be a double edged sword. For starters, the existence of this narration in the book of Al-Sayyari does prove that Al-Sayyari did narrate it. However, it does not prove that Ahmad bin Mohammad in Al-Kafi is Al-Sayyari as well. It is quite possible that both men narrated the same hadith.

 

Our view does have supplementary proof of course, and is not just a mere suggestion.

 

We find in Al-Kafi the following narration:

 

محمد بن يحيى عن أحمد بن محمد عن ابن فضال عن الرضا عليه السلام: (فأنزل الله سكينته على رسوله وأيده بجنود لم تروها)، قلت: هكذا نقرؤها وهكذا تنزيلها

 

[Muhammad bin Yahya from Ahmad bin Muhammad from ibn Faddal from al-Rida (as): {Then Allah caused His peace of reassurance to descend upon his messenger and supported him with hosts ye cannot see}[9:40], I said: This is how we read it and this is how Allah revealed it.]

 

NOTE: What is underlined is Tahreef, it is not found in the book of Allah.

 

Ironically, the narration does not exist in Al-Sayyari’s book. Instead, we find another version:

 

حماد عن حريز عمن أخبره عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام أنه قرأ: (فأنزل الله سكينته على رسوله وأيده بروح منه)، قلت: ليس هكذا نقرأها، قال: لا، هكذا فاقرأها لأن تنزيلها هكذا

 

[Hammad from Hurayz from whom he heard from abu Ja`far (عليه السلام) that he recited: {Then Allah caused His peace of reassurance to descend upon his messenger and supported him with a spirit from him} [9:40] I said: This isn’t how we recite it? He said: No, this is how we recite it because this is how it was revealed.]

 

As we can see, the chains and the narration are different, even though both narrations are about the same topic. If Ahmad bin Mohammad in the first narration was Al-Sayyari, then we would have found the first narration in the book of Al-Sayyari as well.

 

Furthermore, we find another narration in Al-Kafi that supports this:

 

عدة من أصحابنا ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر ، عن ثعلبة بن ميمون ، عن زرارة قال : سألت أبا جعفر عليه السلام عن قول الله عز وجل : ” وكان رسولا نبيا ” ما الرسول وما النبي ؟ قال : النبي الذي يرى في منامه ويسمع الصوت ولا يعاين الملك ، والرسول الذي يسمع الصوت ويرى في المنام ويعاين الملك ، قلت : الامام ما منزلته ؟ قال : يسمع الصوت ولا يرى ولا يعاين الملك ، ثم تلا هذه الآية : وما أرسلنا من قبلك من رسول ولا نبي ولا محدث

 

[Some of our companions, from Ahmad bin Muhammad, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin abi Nasr, from Tha`labah bin Maymoun, from Zurarah that he said: I asked aba Ja`far (عليه السلام) about the saying of Allah {And he was a messenger, a prophet} what is the messenger and what is the prophet? He replied: The prophet is he who sees in his dream, and hears the voice but doesn’t see the true form with his eyes. The messenger hears and sees in the dream and in reality with his eyes. I asked: The Imam, what is his rank? He said: Listens to the voice but does not see the angel in dreams or with his eyes. Then he (عليه السلام) recited: {Never sent We a messenger or a prophet or a Muhaddath before thee}[22:52]]

 

This narration also supports what we have suggested since this narration is nowhere to be found in Al-Sayyari’s book. If Ahmad bin Mohammad in this narration is Al-Sayyari, then surely, he would have added this narration into his book.

 

It is due to these reasons that we hold the opinion that all these narrations in Al-Kafi are in fact the narrations of Ahmad bin Mohammad bin Eisa, the reliable leader of the Qummis, and not Ahmad bin Mohammad Al-Sayyari, the infamous liar, and therefore, the hadiths are all authentic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Ansar Shiat Ali said:

It was a misprint in wording.

I believe sheikh Sadooq said the hadith is authentic but uses other proofs to show it includes hadith qudsi to get to 17000 and the Qur'an we have is complete and revealed as it should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

On the contrary we say that so much of revelation has come down, which is not part of the Qur'an, that were it to be collected, its extent would undoubtedly be 17,000 verses. And this, for example, is like the saying of Gabriel to the Prophet: Allah says to thee, O Muhammad, act gently with My creatures, in the same manner as I do.

 

Or his (Gabriel's) saying: Be careful of the bitter hatred of the people and their enmity. Or his (Gabriel's) saying: Live as you desire, for verily you shall die. Love what you will, for verily you shall be separated. Act how you will, for verily you shall be faced with it.

From his book in creed.

Edited by Ali bin Hussein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Ali bin Hussein said:

@Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

On the contrary we say that so much of revelation has come down, which is not part of the Qur'an, that were it to be collected, its extent would undoubtedly be 17,000 verses. And this, for example, is like the saying of Gabriel to the Prophet: Allah says to thee, O Muhammad, act gently with My creatures, in the same manner as I do.

 

Or his (Gabriel's) saying: Be careful of the bitter hatred of the people and their enmity. Or his (Gabriel's) saying: Live as you desire, for verily you shall die. Love what you will, for verily you shall be separated. Act how you will, for verily you shall be faced with it.

From his book in creed.

You see, its Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) who mentioned that Quran that Jibreal (عليه السلام) bought to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had 17,000 verses.

I see Sadooq said it includes Hadith e Qudsi but that would mean they were abrogated in recitation to which shias dis agree and say abrogation in recitation is nothing.

Also word **Quran** means those were recited at some point right? Therefore what would shias say on it now?

Plus we have many narrations in which our imams recited verses a bit differently. That could be different Qira'at and not necessarily Tahreef right?

And then we also have some narrations suggesting no Tahreef?

I need some clarification of abrogation in recitation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'm not sure the answers to your questions I was just mentioning sheikh Sadooq opinion.

Zaidi have no narrations regarding Tahreef as far as I know. And there is consensus Qur'an is complete and with us, in both order and content in the way Allah intended.

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...