The Qur'an should be the comprehensive reference for both Sunnis and Shi'ites, and as means of bringing about unity and mutual understanding, but it has been misinterpreted by the Shi'ites and given a meaning other than that which was understood by the noble Companions who received it directly from the Prophet, and other than that which was understood by the Imams of Islam who received it from the very generation amongst whom the Qur'an descended by way of Divine Revelation.

One of the most famous and respected Shi'ite scholars, from Najaf, Mirza Husain bin Muhammad Taqi An-Nawari At-Tabarsi, wrote in 1292 A.H. the book faslul-Khitaab fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaab Rabbil-Arbaab (The Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book of the Lord of Lords). In this book he compiled hundreds of texts written by Shi'ite scholars in different eras alleging that the Qur'an has been tampered with, that there have been both additions to it and omissions from it.

At-Tabarsi's book was printed in Iran, in 1298 A.H., and its appearance attracted much attention, frustrating the intention of certain Shi'ites that their doubts about the authenticity of the Qur'an should be restricted to the elite of religious scholars and personalities. They preferred that these allegations not be brought together in a single volume, and widely disseminated, as it could be used as a proof against them by their opponents. When the scholars made public their criticism, At-Tabarsi responded with another book entitled Raddu ba'dush-Shubahaati `an Faslil-Khitaabi fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaabi Rabbil-Arbaab (Refutation of Some Specious Arguments Regarding the Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book of the Lord of the Lords). He wrote this defense of his original book two years before his death. In order to show their appreciation of his contribution to the attempt to prove that the Qur'an had been altered, the Shi'ites buried him in one of their most prominent religious shrines, at Najaf.

Among the proofs offered by At-Tabarsi in his attempt to show that the Qur'an had been altered, was a quotation from what the Shi'ites consider to be a missing part of the Qur'an, called by them Suratul-Wilaayah (see below). It mentions the granting of wilaayah (sovereignty) to `Ali
as follows: [s]"O believers, believe in the Prophet and the wali, the two whom We sent to guide you to the straight path..."[suratul-Wilayyah[/s]



source;
http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/sources_of_shia.htm

further reading;
عقيدة الشيعة للشيخ محمد البيومي

Don't be surprised by the above, even here on nairaland, the deviant shia people don't quote their books, go through all of their posts, you will never see them mentioning a shia book.

There are two clear texts from Al-Kaafi of Al-Kulaini, which elucidate the Shi'ites' perverse position regarding the Qur'an. The first reads:

I heard Abu Jafar (upon whom be peace) say:

[s]"None of the people has claimed that he collected the Quran completely as it was revealed except a liar. No one collected and memorized the Qur'an as it was revealed except `Ali bin Abi Taalib and the Imams after him.[/s]

Every Shi'ite is required to believe in this text from Al-Kaafi as an article of their faith. As for us, Ahlus-Sunnah, we say that in fact the Shi'ites have false- ly attributed the above text to Al-Baaqir Abu Ja'far.

]The proof of our position is that `Ali, during the period of his caliphate in Kufah, never resorted to or applied any version of the Qur'an other than that with which Allah had favored the Caliph `Uthman by the distinction of its collection, publication and popularization and by its legal application in all Islamic lands for all time up to the Day of Judgment. If it were true that `Ali had a different version of the Qur'an he surely would have applied it in making legal rulings, and he would have commanded the Muslims to abide by its injunctions and guidance. Clearly, since he was the supreme ruler, none would have challenged his authority to do this.

Furthermore,

if indeed `Ali had a different version of the Qur'an and concealed it from the Muslims, then he would have betrayed Allah, His Messenger and the religion of Islam by so doing.

As for Jaabir Al-Ju'fi who claims that he heard that blasphemous conversation from the Imam Abi la'far Muhammad Al-Baaqir, it must be noted that although the Shi'ites consider him a trustworthy narrator of traditions, the fact is that he is well known in the Sunni schools of theology as a liar and forger of traditions.

Abu Yahya Al-Hammani reported that he heard the Imam Abu Hanifa saying, "Ataa' is the best i.e., the most truthful and precise in reporting from amongst those I have come across in the field of transmitting traditions, while Jaabir Al-Ju'fi is the greatest liar I have come across amongst them." (15)

[49:6] Al-Ḥujurāt: 6 reads:

"[size=15pt]O believers! If some wicked person brings you any news, inquire thoroughly into its truth (lest) you should cause (undue) harm to a people unknowingly, and later feel regret for what you have done[/size]. "

By Allah, the most High, I bear witness that Newnas is one of those wicked persons referred in the above ayah, apart from the fact that he copy-pasted an unverified write up. He deliberately post this to malign his enemy, Shi'a.

Newnas:

One of the most famous and respected Shi'ite scholars, from Najaf, Mirza Husain bin Muhammad Taqi An-Nawari At-Tabarsi,

You need to tell the world who this imaginary "most famous and respected shi'ites scholar" really was.

* His date of birth
* His date of death
* His contemporaries

MOST FAMOUS SHAYKH TABARSI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muslim scholar
Name: Fadhl ibn Hasan al-Tabarsi

Born
468 AH (1073 AD/CE) Mashad

Died
548 AH (1153 AD/CE) Bayhaq

Region: Iran

Religion: Islam

Creed: Shi'a Twelver

Main interest(s): Tafsir

Notable work(s): Majma' al-Bayan

Shrine of Shaykh Ṭabarsí
Abu Ali Fadhl ibn Hasan Tabarsi known as Shaykh Tabarsi, was a 12th-century Persian Shia scholar who died in 548 AH (1153 CE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaykh_Tabarsi

Newnas:

wrote in 1292 A.H the book faslul-Khitaab fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaab Rabbil-Arbaab (The Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book of the Lord of Lords). In this book he compiled hundreds of texts written by Shi'ite scholars in different eras alleging that the Qur'an has been tampered with, that there have been both additions to it and omissions from it. At-Tabarsi's book was printed in Iran, in 1298 A.H.,

Newnas:

, At-Tabarsi responded with another book entitled Raddu ba'dush-Shubahaati `an Faslil-Khitaabi fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaabi Rabbil-Arbaab (Refutation of Some Specious Arguments Regarding the Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book of the Lord of the Lords).

First, there is NO book of that title in Shi'i libraries. So, you are saddled with the responsibility of providing the following, O wicked Newnas:

* Publisher's name

* Publication City (in Iran)

* Annotator's name (if any)

* Volume number and page number

* Online link of your imaginary book of that title.

NB: ALL Shia books are now online
http://www.shiaislamiclibrary.com/

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/

http://shiaweb.org/books/

Newnas:

Among the proofs offered by At-Tabarsi in his attempt to show that the Qur'an had been altered, was a quotation from what the Shi'ites consider to be a missing part of the Qur'an, called by them Suratul-Wilaayah (see below).

Where can we find this scan page of this imaginary Suratul Wilaayah? Perhaps in the imaginary book mentioned above of that imaginary "Shia most famous scholar"?! Provide your proves if you are truthful{Quran says}

Newnas:
There are two clear texts from Al-Kaafi of Al-Kulaini, which elucidate the Shi'ites' perverse position regarding the Qur'an. The first reads:

I heard Abu Jafar (upon whom be peace) say:

"None of the people has claimed that he collected the Quran completely as it was revealed except a liar. No one collected and memorized the Qur'an as it was revealed except `Ali bin Abi Taalib and the Imams after him.

You need to provide the following also:

* Volume number and page number and hadith number

* Shi'i Muhadith Grade of the hadith

Make a choice, al-Kafi with all its volume is online:
http://www.shiaislamiclibrary.com/

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/

http://shiaweb.org/books/

NOTE: Come to think of that hadith, does the underlined part not true? Was the present Quran collected (compiled) in accordance to its nazal (descent)?

* Sura al-Alaq was the first chapter to be revealed yet it occupied chap. 96

* Sura al-Maidah was the last surah revealed yet it occupied chapter 5 today.

* Verse "{[Today I have perfected your religion for you...]} -Maidah:3 was the Last verse revealed yet it is found in verse 3 of chap.5

Etc etc. So, was Quran compiled exactly as it was revealed?

Newnas:

Every Shi'ite is required to believe in this text from Al-Kaafi as an article of their faith.

Newnas the wicked liar.

Sayyid Murtaḍā al-Askarī, a Shī’ī scholar, in his Mu’ālim al-Madrasatayn, vol. 3, p. 282, tells us about how the Shī’ah treat Kitāb al-Kāfī: http://shiaweb.org/books/maalem_al-madresatain_3/pa53.html

"Verily, the school of the Ahl al-Bayt do NOT consider all the aḥādīth in the Four Books – al-Kāfī, al-Faqīh, al-Istibṣār and al-Tahdhīb – as authentic, as the School of the Caliphs view Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. The oldest of the Four Books, and the most quoted among them, and the most famous of them is Kitāb al-Kāfī of Shaykh al-Kulaynī. Yet, the ḥadīth scholars of the School of the Ahl al-Bayt have mentioned that there are 9,485 weak aḥādīth in it from a total of 16121 aḥādīth. When you check the commentary of al-Kāfī named Mir-āt al-‘Uqūl, you will find that its author, al-Majlisī – one of the greatest scholars of ḥadīth – has mentioned for you his grading of the aḥādīth in al-Kāfī. He declares as ḍa’īf whatever he sees as ḍa’īf in it, and declares as ṣaḥīḥ whatever he sees as ṣaḥīḥ, and he declares as muwaththaq whatever he sees as muwaththaq or qawī, based on the terminologies of the Ahl al-Bayt."

Then, Sayyid al-Askarī concludes:

"What we have mentioned proves to you that the School of the Ahl al-Bayt do not consider ANY book of ḥadīth with them as all-ṣaḥīḥ, whether it is al-Kāfī from them or any other less popular or later one. They believe that the Book of Allāh, the Qur’ān alone is all-ṣaḥīḥ from cover to cover, and it has no partner in terms of authenticity."

Newnas:

]The proof of our position is that `Ali, during the period of his caliphate in Kufah, never resorted to or applied any version of the Qur'an other than that with which Allah had favored the Caliph `Uthman by the distinction of its collection, publication and popularization and by its legal application in all Islamic lands for all time up to the Day of Judgment.

You need to provide Authentic Evidence for this submission. Newnas the fabricator.

Newnas:

As for Jaabir Al-Ju'fi who claims that he heard that blasphemous conversation from the Imam Abi la'far Muhammad Al-Baaqir, it must be noted that although the Shi'ites consider him a trustworthy narrator of traditions

Quote Authentic Shi'i book of Rijal referencing Jaabir al-Jufi as thiqah.

[size=15pt]DISTORTION OF THE QURAN IN SUNNI AHADITH[/size]

Verse of stoning (Ayat Rajm)

#1. In a very long tradition, following are extracted from a sermon delivered by Umar ibn al-Khattab:

'Umar bin al-Khattab (RAA) narrated that he addressed the people and said, 'Verily Allah has sent Muhammad with the Truth and sent down the Book to him, and the verse of stoning was included in what Allah sent down. We recited, memorized and comprehended it. The Messenger of Allah (S) accordingly (to what was in the verse) stoned to death (whoever committed adultery while being married), and we stoned after his death. [size=15pt]But I am afraid that after a long time passes, someone may say, 'We do not find the Verses of stoning in Allah's Book[/size], and thus they may go astray by abandoning an obligation that Allah has sent down. Verily, stoning is an obligation in the Book of Allah to be inflicted on married men and women who commit adultery, when their crime is proven, evident by pregnancy, or through the confession (of the adulterer).'

Ref: Sahih al-Bukhari

Kitab Hudood - Book of limit and punishment set by Allah

Chapter: The Rajm of a married lady pregnant through illegal sexual intercourse

Sahih al-Bukhari 6830
In-book reference : Book 86, Hadith 57
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 817
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/86

# The implication of this is that uptill the Khilafah of Umar b. al-Khattab, "verse of stoning" was still part of the Quran. After all some sahih ahadith in Bukhari and Muslim testified Umar and Abu Bakr appointed Zaid to compiled Quran during the Khilafah of Abu Bakr.

#2. AISHAH ALSO TESTIFIED TO AYAT RAJM

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:

“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed1, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

Grade : Hasan (Darussalam)

English reference : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1944; Arabic reference : Book 9, Hadith 2020
http://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9

Verse of Rajm - verse of stoning, is NOWHERE in the present Quran. Who removed it?

#3. IBN ABBAS

We read in Sahih al Bukhari [Arabic], Book of Tafseer, Hadith 5023:


Narrated Ibn Abbas:
When the Verse:–{’And warn your tribe of near-kindred, and thy group of selected people among them (ورهطك منهم المخلصين )} was revealed Allah’s Apostle went out, and when he had ascended As-Safa mountain, he shouted, “O Sabahah!” The people said, “Who is that?” “Then they gathered around him, whereupon he said, “Do you see? If I inform you that cavalrymen are proceeding up the side of this mountain, will you believe me?” They said, “We have never heard you telling a lie.” Then he said, “I am a plain warner to you of a coming severe punishment.” Abu Lahab said, “May you perish! You gathered us only for this reason? ” Then Abu Lahab went away. So the “Surat:–ul–LAHAB” ‘Perish the hands of Abu Lahab!’ (111.1) was revealed.

Note: The cited version of Hadith can be read in Sahih Bukhari [English] Volume 6, Book 60, Number 495 but the English translator has failed to translate the portion i.e. ‘and thy group of selected people among them’.
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/65


# 4. IBN ABBAS

Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 361 H), in his Sharḥ Mushkil al-Athār (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risālah; 1st edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaūṭ], vol. 4, p. 249, documents:

Ibn Abī Maryam – al-Firyābī – Sufyān – Shu’bah – Ja’far b. Iyās – Mujāhid:

Ibn ‘Abbās said concerning His Statement, the Almighty, the Most Glorious {You who have īmān! do not enter houses other than your own until you have asked permission [tasta-nisū] and greeted their inhabitants} [24:27]: “The scribes made a mistake. It is only {until you have asked permission [tasta-dhinū]}.."

Shaykh al-Arnaūṭ says about the report:

Its chain is ṣaḥīḥ upon the standard of the two Shaykhs.

Here, Ibn ‘Abbās said that Qur’ān 24:27 contains a mistake, an error. He even gave the “correct” version of that āyah, and it is different from what we have today in the Qur’ān

NOTE: These are just FEW of authentic traditions of Ahlu Sunnah declaring there is Tahrif (distortions) in the Quran.

A desperate attempt to defend your deviations!

I'm done trading words with a deviant like you .

Just go and repent before death catches up with you.

Newnas:
A desperate attempt to defend your deviations!

I'm done trading words with a deviant like you .

Just go and repent before death catches up with you.

Busted Newnas fasiq.

[size=15pt]Is there Tahrif (Distortions) in the Quran[/size]

"And if it had been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found in it much discrepancy" {[Quran, 4 :82]}

"Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian" {[Quran, 15:9]}

How to approach traditions on Tahreef?

# Sayed Sharaf-al-din Amali (d 1377 H) writes:

“The books of Hadiths written by Shia and Sunni Ulema contain hadiths which demonstrate that alteration has been committed in the Quran. That hence means that the present Quran is smaller [in size] from the original Quran. But these hadiths are unreliable in the eyes of Sunni and Shia Ulema because such hadiths are weak from the aspect of sanad and moreover such hadiths can be refuted by a plethora of hadiths that enjoy authentic sanads that are clear from the perspective of number and proof. One cannot therefore rely on such weak hadtihs in comparison to the presence of these countless, clear hadiths that reject the notion of distortion of the Quran,

Moreover the hadiths that evidence distortion with the Quran are single-chained narrations, and if the statement of a single-chained hadith is not useful at the place where it is to be practiced then it is not an authority. On the one side we have unequivocal proof that the present Quran is exempt from distortion in comparison to the assumption that the Quran has been distorted on the basis of some weak hadiths. It is clear that absolute, confirmed facts can never be rejected due to the existence of single chains and assumption. In conclusion, the hadiths that attribute distortion to the Quran should be thrown away”
{[Ref: Ajubat-al-Masail Jaar Allah]}


# Allamah Hussein Tabatabai writes:

"Different Shia Muhaddaitheen have recorded hadiths wherein we read that the Imams of Ahlulbait (as) would refer and recite different verses of the Holy Quran during debates and discussions whether debates and discussions were about beliefs or Holy instructions and whether they contained wisdom or examples etc. The Imams (as) would cite the Quranic verses that are present in the Quran today, and would cite Quranic verses to negate single chain narrations (Ahaad) about distortions in the Quran. This is evidence in chief proving that those traditions that have been narrated from the Imams (as) about Tahreef are actually tafseers according of the revelation and not the additions or deletions."

Ref [See Al Mizan fi Tafseer al Quran, Volume 12 page 111].

ON QURAN AS A WHOLE
Sheikh Saduq (d. 381 AH)

One of the greatest Shia scolars Sheikh Saduq (rah) says:

“Regarding the Quran our belief is that it is the word of Allah, His revelation which has descended from Him, it is His words and His book, Baatil can neither enter it from the front, nor from the back. It has been revealed by the All Knowing and All Wise Allah, its tales are true and its sayings are firm. It is not a collection of forged useless incidents. Allah is its Creator, its Revealer, its Protector, and he speaks from it too.”

Ref: E’tiqadaat Sheikh Saduq pages 92-93, Published in Tehran, Iran

Sheikh Saduq (rah) further says:

“Our belief is that the Qur’an which Allah revealed to His Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two covers (daffatayn). It is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater in extent than that. The number of Surahs as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen …whoever asserts that we claim that it is greater in length than that, is a liar.”

Anyone who wants to read further should visit;

http://www.almanhaj.com/vb/showthread.php?t=14885

https://ar.m.wikisource.org/wiki/سورة_الولاية

http://answering-islam.org/Arabic/Quran/wilaya.html

The above links are in Arabic. But the links below are in English;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Husain_Noori_Tabarsi

taqiyyah people! They hide their deviations with lies (taqiyyah).


"at-taqiyyah is obligatory whoever leaves it is like the one who leaves Solah". (al-i'tiqaadaat pg 104)

and alkulaynee narrated from ja'far as-Soodiq that he said;

ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﻭ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺁﺑﺎﺋﻲ ،ﻭ ﻻ ﺇﻳﻤﺎﻥ ﻟﻤﻦ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻪ "
at-taqiyyah is part of my religion and the religion of my fathers, and whoever has no eeman has no taqiyyah" (Usoolul Kaafee 2/219)

And he reported from Abu AbdiLLaah that he said;
ﺇﻥ ﺗﺴﻌﺔ ﺃﻋﺸﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﺔ، ﻭ ﻻ ﺩﻳﻦ ﻟﻤﻦ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻪ، ﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺇﻻ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻴﺬ، ﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺨﻔﻴﻦ

Indeed a ninth of ten (parts) of the religion is taqiyyah, and there is no religion for the one who has no taqiyyah, and taqiyyah applies to everything except wine and wiping over the khuff (leather socks)

(Usuulul Kaafee 2/217)

So, it's clear that the deviant hypocrite is just trying to escape using his back door !

Newnas:

One of the most famous and respected Shi'ite scholars, from Najaf, Mirza Husain bin Muhammad Taqi An-Nawari At-Tabarsi,

Newnas:
Anyone who wants to read further should visit;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Husain_Noori_Tabarsi

# So from Mirza Husain bin Muhammad Taqi an-Nawari At-Tabarsi (of Najaf, Iraq), it has now become Mirza Husain NooriTabarsi Mazandarami (of Nouri in Mazandarami, Iran).?

About the imaginary book you talk about, here is what your link says:

Faṣl al-khiṭāb fī ithbāt taḥrīf kitāb Rabb al-arbāb.Meaneing "final argument in the distortion of the book of God of gods". On distortion of Qur'an. This book is his masterpiece and also the most controversial. this book's content was, anyway, disputed by some Shia clergymen while some other have been silence or even defends the very argument and resources of the book.[8] PDF Format : Columbia University City of New York , Digitized by Google

Is that kind of thrash a evidence against Shi'a belief, O fasiq Newnas?

# Can you give us the very content of the book in addition to what we have asked you to provide, fasiq Newnas?

# Even if this scholar believed in tahrif of the Quran, does he present the entire Shi'i beliefs? Umar ibn al-Khattab, Aishah bint Abu Bakr and Abdullah ibn Abbas (and many others) all claimed according to your AUTHENTICATED AHADITH that the present Quran has been distorted. Does that represent Sunni Aqaeedah, O fasiq Newnas?

Surah Al-Qiyama, Verse 14-15:
بَلِ الْإِنسَانُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ بَصِيرَةٌ

وَلَوْ أَلْقَىٰ مَعَاذِيرَهُ

Nay! Man will be a witness against himself [as his body parts (skin, hands, legs, etc.) will speak about his deeds].
Though he may put forth his excuses (to cover his evil deeds).
(English - Mohsin Khan)

via iQuran
Surah Al-Qiyama, Verse 15:

Brother AlBaqir, please come and explain this narration I found, it is said to be in Al-Kafi, and authenticated by Al-Majilisi and Al-‘Aamilee, perhaps you may enlighten us what your scholars say in regards to the following narration:


Ali bin Al-Hakam from Hisham bin Salim from Abi Abdullah (alaih al-salam), he said, “The Qur’an that Jibreel (as) brought down to Mohammad (salalahu alaihi wa salam) has seventeen thousand verses (17000).”

Grading:
1.Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq (Reliable).Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 12, pg. 525
2. Al-Majlisi I (Al-Majlisi’s Father) said this hadeeth is Sahih (Authentic). RawDah Al-Muttaqoon, vol. 10, pg. 21.
3. Hoor Al-`Aamilee said this hadeeth is Sahih (Authentic). Al-Fuwaa’id Al-Toosiyyah, topic # 96, pg. 483

Please present opinions of your scholars on this narration first before you project your own thoughts…Many thanks in advance.

sino:
Brother AlBaqir, please come and explain this narration I found, it is said to be in Al-Kafi, and authenticated by Al-Majilisi and Al-‘Aamilee, perhaps you may enlighten us what your scholars say in regards to the following narration:

[size=20pt]علي بن الحكم ، عن هشام بن سالم ، عن أبي عبد الله ( عليه السلام ) قال إن القرآن الذي جاء به جبرئيل ( عليه السلام ) إلى محمد ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) سبعة عشر ألف آية .[/size]

Ali bin Al-Hakam from Hisham bin Salim from Abi Abdullah (alaih al-salam), he said, “The Qur’an that Jibreel (as) brought down to Mohammad (salalahu alaihi wa salam) has seventeen thousand verses (17000).”

Grading:
1.Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq (Reliable).Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 12, pg. 525
2. Al-Majlisi I (Al-Majlisi’s Father) said this hadeeth is Sahih (Authentic). RawDah Al-Muttaqoon, vol. 10, pg. 21.
3. Hoor Al-`Aamilee said this hadeeth is Sahih (Authentic). Al-Fuwaa’id Al-Toosiyyah, topic # 96, pg. 483

Please present opinions of your scholars on this narration first before you project your own thoughts…Many thanks in advance.

In fact while I haven't check sharh on the hadith, if I may ask is there anything wrong from that statement?
How many of those ayah were abrogated and erased from the 17,000 altogether? According to Ubai ibn kaaab reported by Imam Muslim, surah Ahzab used to be the size of al-Baqarah/Tawbah. Haven't you read that before?

AlBaqir:
[49:6] Al-Ḥujurāt: 6 reads:


By Allah, the most High, I bear witness that Newnas is one of those wicked persons referred in the above ayah, apart from the fact that he copy-pasted an unverified write up. He deliberately post this to malign his enemy, Shi'a.

Surah Aal-e-Imran, Verse 61:
فَمَنْ حَاجَّكَ فِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنفُسَنَا وَأَنفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَل لَّعْنَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ

Then whoever disputes with you concerning him ['Iesa (Jesus)] after (all this) knowledge that has come to you, [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus)] being a slave of Allah, and having no share in Divinity) say: (O Muhammad SAW) "Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves - then we pray and invoke (sincerely) the Curse of Allah upon those who lie."
(English - Mohsin Khan)

via iQuran

If indeed you are truthful!!!

Newnas:


Surah Aal-e-Imran, Verse 61:

Then whoever disputes with you concerning him ['Iesa (Jesus)] after (all this) knowledge that has come to you, [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus)] being a slave of Allah, and having no share in Divinity) say: (O Muhammad SAW) "Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves - then we pray and invoke (sincerely) the Curse of Allah upon those who lie."
(English - Mohsin Khan)

via iQuran

If indeed you are truthful!!!

Allahu Akbar! One of the very blessed verses which honoured the Ahlulbayt. Imam Muslim, Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim of ibn Kathir, al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn of al-Hakim among many references all documented Rasulullah only took Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussein in obeying the command of his Lord; and prophet yet again introduced these four as his Ahl al-bayt. Why was 'Aishah and other wives of the Prophet denied of this blessing after all they were all "nisa'ana (prophet's women)"? Why were Abu Bakr and Umar not part of "yourselves (anfusana)"?

# Fasiq like you continue shouting with NO single prove from Rasulullah that the wives of the Prophet, Aqil and his offspring, Abbas and Jafar and their offsprings were part of Ahlulbayt in reference to ayat Mubahala, ayat tathir, hadith Thaqalain and hadith Khalifatain!

AlBaqir:


In fact while I haven't check sharh on the hadith, if I may ask is there anything wrong from that statement?

Please check the explanation given by your scholars and post them, and you don't need to be told what the problem is, is the Quran with you having 17,000 Ayaat? And mind you, this is coming from an infallible Imam.... So do the needful!

AlBaqir:
How many of those ayah were abrogated and erased from the 17,000 altogether? According to Ubai ibn kaaab reported by Imam Muslim, surah Ahzab used to be the size of al-Baqarah/Tawbah. Haven't you read that before?

Bros just give explanations from your scholars and leave out the sunnis for once! Don't you people have pride in what is contained in your books and explained by your scholars?! Na wa o!

AlBaqir:


Allahu Akbar! One of the very blessed verses which honoured the Ahlulbayt. Imam Muslim, Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim of ibn Kathir, al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn of al-Hakim among many references all documented Rasulullah only took Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussein in obeying the command of his Lord; and prophet yet again introduced these four as his Ahl al-bayt. Why was 'Aishah and other wives of the Prophet denied of this blessing after all they were all "nisa'ana (prophet's women)"? Why were Abu Bakr and Umar not part of "yourselves (anfusana)"?

# Fasiq like you continue shouting with NO single prove from Rasulullah that the wives of the Prophet, Aqil and his offspring, Abbas and Jafar and their offsprings were part of Ahlulbayt in reference to ayat Mubahala, ayat tathir, hadith Thaqalain and hadith Khalifatain!

Stop begging the question!!!

May the curse, anger and wrath of Allah be upon the one who is calling to hell between me and you AlBaqir

I ask Allah to cause the one who is calling to misguidance between you and me to live a wretched life and die a miserable death

Newnas:


Stop begging the question!!!

May the curse, anger and wrath of Allah be upon the one who is calling to hell between me and you AlBaqir

I ask Allah to cause the one who is calling to misguidance between you and me to live a wretched life and die a miserable death

Easy brother

sino:

Please check the explanation given by your scholars and post them, and you don't need to be told what the problem is, is the Quran with you having 17,000 Ayaat? And mind you, this is coming from an infallible Imam.... So do the needful!


Bros just give explanations from your scholars and leave out the sunnis for once! Don't you people have pride in what is contained in your books and explained by your scholars?! Na wa o!

Assalamualykum AlBaqir.. .....anticipating your reply to this

sino:
Brother AlBaqir, please come and explain this narration I found, it is said to be in Al-Kafi, and authenticated by Al-Majilisi and Al-‘Aamilee, perhaps you may enlighten us what your scholars say in regards to the following narration:

[size=20pt]علي بن الحكم ، عن هشام بن سالم ، عن أبي عبد الله ( عليه السلام ) قال إن القرآن الذي جاء به جبرئيل ( عليه السلام ) إلى محمد ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) سبعة عشر ألف آية .[/size]

Ali bin Al-Hakam from Hisham bin Salim from Abi Abdullah (alaih al-salam), he said, “The Qur’an that Jibreel (as) brought down to Mohammad (salalahu alaihi wa salam) has seventeen thousand verses (17000).”

Grading:
1.Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq (Reliable).Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 12, pg. 525
2. Al-Majlisi I (Al-Majlisi’s Father) said this hadeeth is Sahih (Authentic). RawDah Al-Muttaqoon, vol. 10, pg. 21.
3. Hoor Al-`Aamilee said this hadeeth is Sahih (Authentic). Al-Fuwaa’id Al-Toosiyyah, topic # 96, pg. 483

Please present opinions of your scholars on this narration first before you project your own thoughts…Many thanks in advance.

Here are Al-Majlisi’s comments after he has graded this hadeeth in his Mir’aat Al-`Uqool:

"The khabar (hadeeth) is SaHeeH and it is obvious that this khabar (hadeeth) and other SaHeeH ones like it are clear about the Qur'aan being shortened and changed, and in my opinion, this is mutaawatir in meaning, and discarding these narrations would lead us to rejecting all akhbaar (narrations) in general."

Source: Al-Majlisi, Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 12, pg. 525

Al-Majlisi has unfortunately erred in his ijtihaad (opinion), and may Allaah (swT ) forgive him inshaa’Allaah. Now inshaa’Allaah we will dissect this Hadeeth in depth and we will show that this hadeeth is actually considered da`eef (weak).


From the look of this hadeeth alone it seems that it is Da`eef (weak), because there are only two narrators (`Alee bin Al-Hakam & Hishaam bin Saalim) before Abaa `Abd Allaah ( alayhi Salam), our sixth Imaam. But this is not the case. Al-Kulayni has been known to do this, he truncates an isnaad if the previous hadeeth’s isnaad is relatively the same. So what we will need to do is go to the previous hadeeth. Here is the chain to the Previous hadeeth.

{[Muhammad ibn Yahya - Ahmad ibn Muhammad - Ali ibn alHakam - Abd Allah ibn Far'qad and Muhaliy ibn Khunaysi who said:]}


As you can see the commonality between the isnaad is there, that being `Alee bin Al-Hakam, so the Hadeeth’s isnaad would actually look like this.


{[Muhammad ibn Yahya - Ahmad ibn Muhammad - Ali ibn alHakam - Hashim ibn Sahlam - Abi Abd Allah (as) who said:]}


Any rijaal scholar or muHadithoon (hadeeth scholar) will look at this hadeeeth, and say, “Wow, Great chain.” But in actuality this hadeeth is Da`eef.


The fault in what Al-Majlisi and other hadeeth scholars have done is with aHmad bin Muhammad (in red) in the chain. By looking at this hadeeth and the tareeq (pathway) that `Alee bin Al-Hakam narrates to, the hadeeth scholars automatically assumed that the aHmad bin Muhammad is aHmad bin Muhammad bin `Eesaa. This is incorrect. It is actually aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar (Al-Sayyaaree), a known da`eef (weak) person.


Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar is Da`eef Jiddan, Ghuluww, Faasid Madhhab (Very Weak, Exaggerator, and Corrupt beliefs) according to:

1. Ibn Al-GhaDaa’iree, Kitaab Al-Du`afaa, pg. 40, person # 11

2. Al-Najaashee, Rijaal, pg. 80, person # 192

3. Al-Toosi, Fihrist, pg. 57, person # 70

4. Al-Hillee, Al-KhulaaSah, pg. 203, person # 9 & pg. 268, person # 27

5. Al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijaal Al-Hadeeth, vol. 2, pg. 282, person # 871


This is what it said in Al-Toosi’s Fihrist under aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar’s name:

“And he compiled these books: Kitaab Thawaab Al-Qur’aan (Rewards of the Qur’aan), Kitaab Al-Tibb (Medicine), Kitaab Al-Qiraa’aat (Recitations), and Kitaab Al-Nawaadir (Rare (hadeeth)). al-Husayn b. `Ubaydullah reported to us an-Nawadir specifically, from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya. He said: My father (Muhammad bin YaHya) narrated to us. He said: as-Sayyari narrated to us except for what was in it of ghuluww (exaggeration) or confusion.”

Source: Al-Toosi, Fihrist, pg. 57, person # 70

I will talk about the book Kitaab Al-Qiraa’aat (Recitations) that is in green (bold) a little later. Notice the chain of narrators that Al-Toosi has received the books of Al-Sayyaaree from. He is narrating to the same person (Muhammad bin YaHya) as is stated in the isnaad of the 17,000 verses hadeeth.

"Muhammad ibn Yahya - Ahmad ibn Muhammad"

This is what is stated in Al-Najaashee’s Rijaal under aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar’s name:

“Kitaab Thawaab Al-Qur’aan (Rewards of the Qur’aan), Kitaab Al-Tibb (Medicine), Kitaab Al-Qiraa’aat (Recitations), and Kitaab Al-Nawaadir (Rare (hadeeth)), Kitaab Al-Ghaaraat (Military Invasions): Reported to us Al-Hussayn bin `Ubayd Allaah He said: aHmad bin Muhammad bin YaHya narrated to us and Aboo `Abd Allaah Al-Qazweenee reported to us. He said: aHmad bin Muhammad bin YaHya narrated to us from his father (Muhammad bin YaHya). He said: Al-Sayyaaree narrated to us except what was in it of ghuluww or confusion"

Source: Al-Najaashee, Rijaal, pg. 80, person # 192


Once again, Al-Najaashee gives the chain of narrators to the books that he has received that has been authored by Al-Sayyaaree. And in this chain of narrator, you can see again, that he has mentioned the same person (Muhammad bin YaHya) whom he has narrated the 17,000 verses in the Qur’aan hadeeth to.


Now, in one of aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar’s books (Kitaab Al-Qaraa’aat) he has narrated this EXACT same hadeeth, same wording with the same chain that is presented in Al-Kaafi.

Al-Nooree had the book Kitaab Al-Qaraa’aat of aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar, and he has narrated this hadeeth in one of his books with the same chain.

“aHmad bin Muhammad Al-Sayyaaree in his Kitaab Al-Qaraa’at (narrates) from `Alee bin Al-Hakam from Hishaam bin Saalim he said that Aboo `Abd Allaah (عليه السلام) said: “The Qur’aan that Jibra’eel brought to Muhammad (SAWAS) had 10,000 verses”

Source: Al-Nooree, FaSl Al-Kitaab, pg. 235


Here is what Al-Nooree has said after the hadeeth:

“So in my copy it is ill (wrong) and apparently the word saba`ah (seven) has been dropped before the `ashrah (ten). The same matn (content) and sanad (chain of narrators) that is in Al-Kaafi”

This shows that, Al-Nooree has said for some reason the seven before the ten was dropped from his copy of Al-Sayyaaree’s book, but he said that it is actually suppose to have the seven before the ten, making it 17,000 verses and not 10,000 verses.


Al-Sayyaar’s book is still in our possession, alHamdulillaah, and I will present to you a scanned copy of the Front image of the book and this EXACT hadeeth with the same sanad that is in his book.

(Front Cover – Kitaab Al-Qiraa’at by aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar)[see attached file].

As you can see, this hadeeth that is in Al-Kaafi, is actually narrated from aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar, and not aHmad bin Muhammad bin `Eesaa, thus making this hadeeth da`eef (weak).

http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/09/hadeeth-17000-verses-in-quraan-saheeh.html

udatso:

Assalamualykum AlBaqir.. .....anticipating your reply to this

WA alaykum Salam. Here's my personal opinion

ALBAQIR'S PERSONAL OPINION
The above author has actually done a great job. That is ilm rijal. Hence, I respect his opinion. However, I do not personally see anything wrong in the statement per se. Following are my personal submission:

SHORT AYAHS CONJOINED TO ONE
* Verses were known initially to be shorter but compilations conjoined several shorter verses to make one. For example:

1. Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279H) documents;

Umar Ibn Abi Salamah, the dependent of the Prophet, peace be upon him: WHEN THIS VERSE {Allah intends but only to keep impurity away all from you, O AHL AL-BAYT, and to purify you absolutely} WAS REVEALED upon the Prophet, peace be upon him, in the house of Umm Salamah, he called Fatima, Hassan and Hussayn and spread a cloak over them while ‘Ali was behind him. Then, he covered them with a cloak. Then, he said, “O Allah! THESE ARE MY AHL AL-BAYT. So keep impurity away from them and purify them absolutely.”

Umm Salamah said, “Am I with them, O Prophet of Allah? He replied,“You are upon your place and you are upon a good thing.”

Allamah Nasir deen alAlbani comments: Sahih (authentic)

Ref: {al-Jami al-Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi, [annotator: Nasir deen al-Albani], vol. 5, p. 351, #3205}.

NOTE: This short individual ayah is now conjoined as part of verse 33 of surah Ahzab which now has 73 verses. Obviously if it occupies its on individual verse, the verses will increase to 74.


2. Imam Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim under the ayah {This day, I have perfected your religion for you and have completed My blessings upon you, and have chosen for you Islam} writes:

Ibn Jarir recorded that Harun bin `Antarah said that his father said, "WHEN THE AYAH, (This day, I have perfected your religion for you...) WAS REVEALED, during the great day of Hajj (the Day of `Arafah, the ninth day of Dhul-Hijjah) `Umar cried. The Prophet said, `What makes you cry' He said, `What made me cry is that our religion is being perfected for us. Now it is perfect, nothing is perfect, but it is bound to deteriorate.' The Prophet said, (You have said the truth.)''
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=822&Itemid=60

NOTE: Today the ayah does not enjoy its individual lone place. It is however conjoined with other verses and occupied verse 3 of Surah al-Maidah.

3. CASE OF SOME "REVEALED STATEMENTS" NOT RECORDED

Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d.310H) in his Tafsir [Jāmi al-Bayān fī Tāwīl al-Qur'ān (Dār al-Fikr; 1415 H), vol. 5, p. 19], Imam 'Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211H) in his al-Musannaf [vol. 7, p. 498, # 14022], Imam al-Hafiz ibn Kathir (d. 774H) in his Tafsīr alQur'ān al-'Aẓīm [( 2nd edition, 1420 H), vol. 2, p. 259], Imam al-Hakim (d. 410H) document with more or less similar versions:

“Abū Naḍrah: I read to Ibn 'Abbās: {Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah, give them their prescribed dowries} [4:24]. He said: “{Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah for a specified period }”.

Abū Naḍrah said: I said, “We do not recite it like that!” Ibn 'Abbās replied, “I swear by Allāh, Allāh certainly revealed it like that.”

Al-Ḥākim and Imām al-Dhahabī (d. 748 H) comments: This ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ upon the standard of (Imām) Muslim.

Ref: {al-Mustadrak 'alā al-Ṣaḥ īḥ ayn (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H), vol. 2, p. 334, # 3192}

Imam Ibn Kathir gives further information [ref. cited above]: “Ibn 'Abbās, Ubayy b. Ka'b, Sa'īd b. Jubayr and al-Suddī used to recite: {Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah for a specified period, give them their prescribed dowries}

On this note which we have in abundant in our traditions, Sheik Saduq (ra), one of Shi'i greatest Muhadith writes:

"We say that so much of revelation has come down which is not embodied in the present Qur’an that if it were to be collected, its extent would undoubtedly be 17000 verses ... Although all of them were revelation but they (the extra ones) are NOT a part of Qur’an. If they would be a part of Qur’an, it would surely have been included in the Qur’an we have."

Ref: Shi’ite Creed (al-I’tiqadat al-Imamiyyah), by Shaykh Saduq, English version, pp 78-79.

We believe all these "extra revelations" are part of "al-Hikma" which Quran says its being revealed and recited alongside Quran. See surah Ahzab: 34 for example.

4. DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENTS
There is absolutely no doubt that before Uthman ibn Affan unified ONE coded Quran officially, there were different versions in arrangements and number of verses but for sure all of them were of the same content.

* Abdullah ibn Mas'ud had its own version with arrangements different from Ubay ibn Kaab.

* Shi'i traditions and some Sunni documents (esp. Imam Suyuti) document Ali's version. Ali's arrangement was in chronological order and he added Tafsir to it.

5. ERASED AND ABROGATED VERSES

There are lots of verses that were abrogated and erased from the Quran since there rulings is no longer used. Although Shi'a firmly believed Allah replaced each of these abrogated or erased ayah with others better or equivalent [surah Baqarah: 106]

Imam Muslim gives sample:

Book of suckling

Chapter: Becoming Mahram is established by Five Breastfeedings

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (s) died and it was at that time in the Holy Qur'an recited (by the Muslims).

Reference : Sahih Muslim 1452 a
In-book reference : Book 17, Hadith 30
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 8, Hadith 3421
http://sunnah.com/muslim/17

No verse talks about 10 or 5 suckling in the present Quran. Personally I do not believe in the bolded part of the hadith unless I see a reasonable and valid argument.

6. Is Basmala a verse of the Quran
This is another difference between the Sunni and the Shi'i school. Shi'a and few Sunni believed Basmala (i.e Bismillah Rahman Raheem) is verse one of every Surah except Tawbah. This no doubt will increase the number of verses we have in the Quran.

Allah knows best.

AlBaqir:


Here are Al-Majlisi’s comments after he has graded this hadeeth in his Mir’aat Al-`Uqool:

"The khabar (hadeeth) is SaHeeH and it is obvious that this khabar (hadeeth) and other SaHeeH ones like it are clear about the Qur'aan being shortened and changed, and in my opinion, this is mutaawatir in meaning, and discarding these narrations would lead us to rejecting all akhbaar (narrations) in general."

Source: Al-Majlisi, Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 12, pg. 525

Al-Majlisi has unfortunately erred in his ijtihaad (opinion), and may Allaah (swT ) forgive him inshaa’Allaah. Now inshaa’Allaah we will dissect this Hadeeth in depth and we will show that this hadeeth is actually considered da`eef (weak).


From the look of this hadeeth alone it seems that it is Da`eef (weak), because there are only two narrators (`Alee bin Al-Hakam & Hishaam bin Saalim) before Abaa `Abd Allaah ( alayhi Salam), our sixth Imaam. But this is not the case. Al-Kulayni has been known to do this, he truncates an isnaad if the previous hadeeth’s isnaad is relatively the same. So what we will need to do is go to the previous hadeeth. Here is the chain to the Previous hadeeth.

{[Muhammad ibn Yahya - Ahmad ibn Muhammad - Ali ibn alHakam - Abd Allah ibn Far'qad and Muhaliy ibn Khunaysi who said:]}


As you can see the commonality between the isnaad is there, that being `Alee bin Al-Hakam, so the Hadeeth’s isnaad would actually look like this.


{[Muhammad ibn Yahya - Ahmad ibn Muhammad - Ali ibn alHakam - Hashim ibn Sahlam - Abi Abd Allah (as) who said:]}


Any rijaal scholar or muHadithoon (hadeeth scholar) will look at this hadeeeth, and say, “Wow, Great chain.” But in actuality this hadeeth is Da`eef.


The fault in what Al-Majlisi and other hadeeth scholars have done is with aHmad bin Muhammad (in red) in the chain. By looking at this hadeeth and the tareeq (pathway) that `Alee bin Al-Hakam narrates to, the hadeeth scholars automatically assumed that the aHmad bin Muhammad is aHmad bin Muhammad bin `Eesaa. This is incorrect. It is actually aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar (Al-Sayyaaree), a known da`eef (weak) person.


Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar is Da`eef Jiddan, Ghuluww, Faasid Madhhab (Very Weak, Exaggerator, and Corrupt beliefs) according to:

1. Ibn Al-GhaDaa’iree, Kitaab Al-Du`afaa, pg. 40, person # 11

2. Al-Najaashee, Rijaal, pg. 80, person # 192

3. Al-Toosi, Fihrist, pg. 57, person # 70

4. Al-Hillee, Al-KhulaaSah, pg. 203, person # 9 & pg. 268, person # 27

5. Al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijaal Al-Hadeeth, vol. 2, pg. 282, person # 871


This is what it said in Al-Toosi’s Fihrist under aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar’s name:

“And he compiled these books: Kitaab Thawaab Al-Qur’aan (Rewards of the Qur’aan), Kitaab Al-Tibb (Medicine), Kitaab Al-Qiraa’aat (Recitations), and Kitaab Al-Nawaadir (Rare (hadeeth)). al-Husayn b. `Ubaydullah reported to us an-Nawadir specifically, from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya. He said: My father (Muhammad bin YaHya) narrated to us. He said: as-Sayyari narrated to us except for what was in it of ghuluww (exaggeration) or confusion.”

Source: Al-Toosi, Fihrist, pg. 57, person # 70

I will talk about the book Kitaab Al-Qiraa’aat (Recitations) that is in green (bold) a little later. Notice the chain of narrators that Al-Toosi has received the books of Al-Sayyaaree from. He is narrating to the same person (Muhammad bin YaHya) as is stated in the isnaad of the 17,000 verses hadeeth.

"Muhammad ibn Yahya - Ahmad ibn Muhammad"

This is what is stated in Al-Najaashee’s Rijaal under aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar’s name:

“Kitaab Thawaab Al-Qur’aan (Rewards of the Qur’aan), Kitaab Al-Tibb (Medicine), Kitaab Al-Qiraa’aat (Recitations), and Kitaab Al-Nawaadir (Rare (hadeeth)), Kitaab Al-Ghaaraat (Military Invasions): Reported to us Al-Hussayn bin `Ubayd Allaah He said: aHmad bin Muhammad bin YaHya narrated to us and Aboo `Abd Allaah Al-Qazweenee reported to us. He said: aHmad bin Muhammad bin YaHya narrated to us from his father (Muhammad bin YaHya). He said: Al-Sayyaaree narrated to us except what was in it of ghuluww or confusion"

Source: Al-Najaashee, Rijaal, pg. 80, person # 192


Once again, Al-Najaashee gives the chain of narrators to the books that he has received that has been authored by Al-Sayyaaree. And in this chain of narrator, you can see again, that he has mentioned the same person (Muhammad bin YaHya) whom he has narrated the 17,000 verses in the Qur’aan hadeeth to.


Now, in one of aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar’s books (Kitaab Al-Qaraa’aat) he has narrated this EXACT same hadeeth, same wording with the same chain that is presented in Al-Kaafi.

Al-Nooree had the book Kitaab Al-Qaraa’aat of aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar, and he has narrated this hadeeth in one of his books with the same chain.

“aHmad bin Muhammad Al-Sayyaaree in his Kitaab Al-Qaraa’at (narrates) from `Alee bin Al-Hakam from Hishaam bin Saalim he said that Aboo `Abd Allaah (عليه السلام) said: “The Qur’aan that Jibra’eel brought to Muhammad (SAWAS) had 10,000 verses”

Source: Al-Nooree, FaSl Al-Kitaab, pg. 235


Here is what Al-Nooree has said after the hadeeth:

“So in my copy it is ill (wrong) and apparently the word saba`ah (seven) has been dropped before the `ashrah (ten). The same matn (content) and sanad (chain of narrators) that is in Al-Kaafi”

This shows that, Al-Nooree has said for some reason the seven before the ten was dropped from his copy of Al-Sayyaaree’s book, but he said that it is actually suppose to have the seven before the ten, making it 17,000 verses and not 10,000 verses.


Al-Sayyaar’s book is still in our possession, alHamdulillaah, and I will present to you a scanned copy of the Front image of the book and this EXACT hadeeth with the same sanad that is in his book.

(Front Cover – Kitaab Al-Qiraa’at by aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar)[see attached file].

As you can see, this hadeeth that is in Al-Kaafi, is actually narrated from aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar, and not aHmad bin Muhammad bin `Eesaa, thus making this hadeeth da`eef (weak).

http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/09/hadeeth-17000-verses-in-quraan-saheeh.html

I quite find it interesting how easy it is for you or the author of the above to excuse Al Majilisi and seek forgiveness for him after admitting his clear belief in the tahreef of the Qur'an but you would not even entertain contrary views and proper explanations of your allegations against the wives and close companions of the Prophet (SAW)...'

Well, the opinion as it is called of Majilisi is not odd amongst the shi'a, in fact there are evidences to show that there is no consensus amongst the scholars in regards to this issue, example,

Al-Mufid in Awa’il al-Maqalaat, when speaking about the belief in additions to the Qur’an says:

[The form (of Tahreef) that I consider to be false with certainty, is if one of the people was able to add (to the Qur’an) the amount of a chapter (Surah), in a way that even the Arab linguists would be fooled by it. As for the form that is possible, is if one or two words or letters were added in a way that it would not alter its miraculous nature, and it would fool most of the Arab linguists who specialize in the Qur’an. However, if this does happen then Allah has to point it out, and clarify its truth, and I do not believe this with certainty but I only lean towards the safety of the Qur’an from such (additions). And I have to back this a Hadith from al-Sadiq Ja`far bin Muhammad (as), and this is in opposition to what we heard from (the people of) bani Nawbakht may Allah have mercy on them, who believed in the additions to the Qur’an as well as the deletion from it, A group of the speakers and the people of Fiqh and value from among the Imamiyyah believed this.]

This shows that some of your early and even late scholars do believe in the thareef of the Qur'an, which is kufr! Thus, this topic presented by Newnas has legitimacy, and many of you may deny it now, but was believed by big scholars of shi'ism of old as well as their followers. This is actually a big issue, and really puts a big question mark on the foundations on which shi'sm stands...

Well, there happens to be a rebuttal of the above effort to weaken the narration in Al-Kafi, please read and digest accordingly...

The following is a response to Nader Zaveri’s “Hadeeth: 17,000 Verses in the Qur’aan, Saheeh?” article, which can be found on his Revivingalislam website. The article was published on the 10th of September 2010, and can be found here.

TwelverShia.Net Team also discuss 10 authentic shia narration which support tahreef in this following article “Authentic Shia Narration Declaring The Corruption of the Qur’an“

In this article, Nader Zaveri attempts to weaken the infamous tahreef narration that can be found in Al-Kafi. The narration is as follows:
Aboo `Abd Allaah (عليه السلام) said: “The Qur’aan that Jibra’eel brought to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) had 17,000 verses”
Source:
1. Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, Kitaab FaDl Al-Qur’aan, Ch. Rare Traditions, pg. 634, hadeeth # 28
Grading:
1. Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq (Reliable)
–> Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 12, pg. 525
2. Al-Majlisi I (Al-Majlisi’s Father) said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
–> RawDah Al-Muttaqoon, vol. 10, pg. 21
3. Hoor Al-`Aamilee said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
–> Al-Fuwaa’id Al-Toosiyyah, topic # 96, pg. 483

Even though some of the late scholars authenticated this narrator, Nader insists that this was due to some confusion regarding the identity of a narrator. He said:

Any rijaal scholar or muHadithoon (hadeeth scholar) will look at this hadeeeth, and say, “Wow, Great chain.” But in actuality this hadeeth is Da`eef.

The fault in what Al-Majlisi and other hadeeth scholars have done is with aHmad bin Muhammad (in red) in the chain. By looking at this hadeeth and the tareeq (pathway) that `Alee bin Al-Hakam narrates to, the hadeeth scholars automatically assumed that the aHmad bin Muhammad is aHmad bin Muhammad bin `Eesaa. This is incorrect. It is actually aHmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar (Al-Sayyaaree), a known da`eef (weak) person.

Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sayyaar is Da`eef Jiddan, Ghuluww, Faasid Madhhab (Very Weak, Exaggerator, and Corrupt beliefs) according to:

1. Ibn Al-GhaDaa’iree, Kitaab Al-Du`afaa, pg. 40, person # 11

2. Al-Najaashee, Rijaal, pg. 80, person # 192

3. Al-Toosi, Fihrist, pg. 57, person # 70

4. Al-Hillee, Al-KhulaaSah, pg. 203, person # 9 & pg. 268, person # 27

5. Al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijaal Al-Hadeeth, vol. 2, pg. 282, person # 871

Nader provides a few evidences to prove that the narrator in the chain is Al-Sayyari:

1- His name is Ahmad bin Mohammad and his student is Mohammad bin Yahya.

2- The narration is about tahreef, and Al-Sayyari wrote a book about this topic and the narration can be found in the book of Al-Sayyari with the same chain.

Regarding the last point, Nader says:

Al-Sayyaar’s book is still in our possession, alHamdulillaah, and I will present to you a scanned copy of the Front image of the book and this EXACT hadeeth with the same sanad that is in his book.

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:

[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:

[Hammad from Hurayz from whom he heard from abu Ja`far (as) 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:

[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 (as) 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 (as) 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.


To read more and follow links go to: http://twelvershia.net/2014/02/19/response-to-hadeeth-17000-verses-in-the-quraan-saheeh/

^Sino, you can clearly see my approach to the issue you put forth.

* First, I posted an argument from a website which basically deals with ilm rijal thereby the author tried to weaken the hadith.

* Second, I submitted my personal opinion. The sanad of the hadith might be controversial but personally I see nothing wrong with the matn of the hadith. And I clearly present my justifications for it.

* Third, the only thing I feel like replying in the epistle you copied is this:
This shows that some of your early and even late scholars do believe in the thareef of the Qur'an, which is kufr! Thus, this topic presented by Newnas has legitimacy, and many of you may deny it now, but was believed by big scholars of shi'ism of old as well as their followers. This is actually a big issue, and really puts a big question mark on the foundations on which shi'sm stands...

@bold, So, has Umar ibn al-Khattab, Aishah, Ibn Abbas et al became kafirun for there are account in your documents (which have been exposed greatly on this thread) that they actually believed in tahrif? There is no twisting to these ahadith.

That is very disappointing of you. The obvious truth is both Schools (Sunni and Shi'a) have tawattur reports in their documentations that point out clearly, that there is Tahrif of the holy Quran. Nobody can ever denied this. That is the naked truth. So, personally I might not be able to fault any scholar who argue through this mutawattir ahadith. As I have posted earlier under the title: Is there Tahrif in the Quran, majority of our scholars clearly, after admitting there are ahadith in both schools that point out tahrif, states that such ahadith should be discarded outrightly even despite the ruling of Tawattur reports. But this is not the case in Sunnism. Sunnism still want to preserve the so-called 100% authenticity of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. Albaqir doesn't discuss this kind of topic unless I am forced to do so.

The way of innovators is the same.

They distort verses of the Quran, leaving the muhkam for the mutashaabih.

They distort the sunnah by 'panel beating' weak narrations if it supports them. And they brush authentic narrations under the carpet if it exposes their misguidance.

They hasten to call a scholar allamah, sheikh, imam etc if they see something that they can cling to in his statement. And they hasten to call call him an ignorant if he rebukes their deviations.

So, thank you AlBaqir for saving me the stress of typing the shia deviation regarding the authenticity of the Quran.

You have explicitly confirmed two of your -shia- misguidances;

#Saying the Quran is not authentic
#Cursing the sahabah

I'm looking forward to the next one you will confirm for us.

How I wish those who are defending the shia blindly could see this!

And look AlBaqir what I found in one of your shia books!

I got this from one of the links you advised us to visit for authentic shia books.

http://shiaweb.org/books/al-imama/index.html

I didn't even need to search, the first page I opened, I found this book. And guess what the title is?!

tafdeelul a'immah 'alaa al-Anbiyaa (Alyhimussalam) meaning giving excellence to the imams over the prophets

Am I dreaming, what kind of dumbard would say this crap and still attribute it to Islam. So I thought when I saw it.

Then I opened the book hoping that the content would be different from the title but I was wrong, the title represents the topic.

#first he 'proofs' that Ali rodiyaLLaahu anhu is equal to the Prophets Alyhimussalam. And uses fabricated narrations to support his claim.

#Then he likens Ali to the prophets Alyhimussalam

#then he states that Ali is the beloved creation to Allah (even more beloved than Muhammad alyhissolaat wassalaam)

#then this excellence he gave to Ali,he extends it to all the imams stating as evidence the authentic hadith that Eesa alyhissolaat wassalaam will pray behind the Mahdi


What kind of blind and deviant extremism is this?!

The strange thing about extremists is that they are quick to label others with different names.

The Boko Haram label the scholars warning against them with different names. So also the shia label the people of sunnah as Nasibi (hater of Ali) . see deviation!!!

When I read Sheikh Muhammad al-Bayyoomi's book; aqeedatu shia (the creed of shia) I found a hadith in which the shia venerated Ali beyond reasoning, claiming that Ali said all those crap!!! But Allah knows that Ali rodiyaLLaahu anhu and his family are free of all the lies the shia attribute to them.

Anyway the weakness of all the arguments that deviant mentioned in my previous comment is very clear and need no explanation except the last point which I will simply clarify;

#Ali prayed behind the Messenger of Allah alyhissolaat wassalaam, Abu Bakr, Umar etc that didn't make you shia believe that they are better than him!!!

The next thing a typical shia will say is that Ali only prayed behind them out of taqiyyah
See how they accuse Ameerul mumineen of hypocrisy and cowardice. only Allah can recompense these deviants for their evils.

#The messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam prayed behind AbdurRahman bn Auf, that didn't make you raise him beyond the messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam rather you even labelled him an infidel!!!

The weakness of your religion is clear, only the one who has taken his desires as a Deity will follow your evil path

Surah Al-Jathiya, Verse 23:
أَفَرَأَيْتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلَٰهَهُ هَوَاهُ وَأَضَلَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ عِلْمٍ وَخَتَمَ عَلَىٰ سَمْعِهِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَجَعَلَ عَلَىٰ بَصَرِهِ غِشَاوَةً فَمَن يَهْدِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ اللَّهِ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ

Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilah (god), and Allah knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart, and put a cover on his sight. Who then will guide him after Allah? Will you not then remember?
(English - Mohsin Khan)

via iQuran

Surah Al-Ankaboot, Verse 41:
مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ كَمَثَلِ الْعَنكَبُوتِ اتَّخَذَتْ بَيْتًا وَإِنَّ أَوْهَنَ الْبُيُوتِ لَبَيْتُ الْعَنكَبُوتِ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ

The likeness of those who take Auliya' (protectors and helpers) other than Allah is as the likeness of a spider, who builds (for itself) a house, but verily, the frailest (weakest) of houses is the spider's house; if they but knew.
(English - Mohsin Khan)

via iQuran

Then I read on Wikipedia the profile of your Imam, your Allamah, almajlisi that you dearly love and quote.

And this is what I found;

Muhammad Baqir Majlesi (1616–1698 AD) ( Persian: ﻋﻼﻣﻪ ﻣﺠﻠﺴﯽ Allameh Majlesi; also Romanized as: Majlesi,
Majlessi , Majlisi, Madjlessi ), known as
Allamah Majlesi or Majlesi-ye Thani (Majlesi the Second), was a renowned and very powerful Iranian Twelver Shi'a cleric, during the Safavid era. He has been described as "one of the most powerful and influential Shi'a ulema of all time", whose "policies and actions reoriented Twelver Shia'ism in the direction that it was to develop from his day on." [1]

Majlesi is "credited with propagating numerous Shi'a rituals that Iranians regularly practice", such as mourning ceremonies for the fallen imams , particularly the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali at Kerbala, and pilgrimages to shrines of imams and their families. [6]

Beyond this, he warned, the seeking of knowledge is "a waste of one's life," and worse would "generally lead to apostasy and heresy, in which case the likelihood of salvation is remote."
.........................

but Allah says;

Surah Taha, Verse 114:
فَتَعَالَى اللَّهُ الْمَلِكُ الْحَقُّ وَلَا تَعْجَلْ بِالْقُرْآنِ مِن قَبْلِ أَن يُقْضَىٰ إِلَيْكَ وَحْيُهُ وَقُل رَّبِّ زِدْنِي عِلْمًا

Then High above all be Allah, the True King. And be not in haste (O Muhammad SAW) with the Quran before its revelation is completed to you, and say: "My Lord! Increase me in knowledge."
(English - Mohsin Khan)

via iQuran

.......................

Allamah Majlisi was also a very prolific writer. He wrote more than 100 books, both in
Arabic and Persian
..............

Just hundred?! He was reeeaaally prolific!!!

Maybe you should see how many books the scholars of sunnah wrote. Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Hajar, Imam Suyootee, Ibn Qoyyim, Imam Albany, Ibn Uthymeen etc then maybe you will understand and appreciate what it takes to be a scholar.

Note; this majlisi man is your creme de la creme

Even Inn Asaakir 's tarikh almost swallows all his works.

Chai, it's good to do your homework ooo!!!

Newnas:
And look AlBaqir what I found in one of your shia books!

I got this from one of the links you advised us to visit for authentic shia books.

http://shiaweb.org/books/al-imama/index.html

I didn't even need to search, the first page I opened, I found this book. And guess what the title is?!

tafdeelul a'immah 'alaa al-Anbiyaa (Alyhimussalam) meaning giving excellence to the imams over the prophets

Am I dreaming, what kind of dumbard would say this crap and still attribute it to Islam. So I thought when I saw it.

Then I opened the book hoping that the content would be different from the title but I was wrong, the title represents the topic.

#first he 'proofs' that Ali rodiyaLLaahu anhu is equal to the Prophets Alyhimussalam. And uses fabricated narrations to support his claim.

[size=15pt]SUPERIORITY OF NON-PROPHETS OVER PROPHETS[/size]

# Imam al-Hakim records:

Ibn ‘Umar:

The Messenger of Allāh (s) said: “Verily, there are worshippers of Allāh who are neither prophets nor martyrs. THE MARTYRS AND THE PROPHETS WILL ENVY THEM on the Day of al-Qiyāmah DUE TO THEIR CLOSENESS TO ALLĀH, THE MOST HIGH AND THEIR STATUS TO HIM … They are the awliyā of Allāh the Almighty, those upon whom no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve.”

Al-Ḥākim comments:

This ḥadīth has a ṣaḥīḥ chain but they (i.e. al-Bukhārī and Muslim) both have not recorded it.

Imām al-Dhahabī (d. 748 H) agrees: Ṣaḥīḥ

Ref: { al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Muṣtafā ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā], vol. 4, p. 188, # 7318}

# Imam Abu Dawud also records:

Zuhayr b. Ḥarb and ‘Uthmān b. Abī Shaybah – Jarīr – ‘Amārah b. al-Qa’qā’ – Abū Zur’ah b. ‘Amr b. Jarīr – ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb:

The Prophet (s) said: “Verily, among the worshippers of Allāh are people who are neither prophets nor martyrs. The prophets and the martyrs will envy them on the Day of al-Qiyāmah DUE TO THEIR POSITION TO ALLĀH THE MOST HIGH.” They asked, “O Messenger of Allāh, inform us about them?” He replied, “They are a people who love one another with the Spirit of Allāh, despite that they are not related by blood and do not give wealth to one another. I swear by Allāh, their faces surely will be light, and they will be upon light. They will not fear when the people will fear, and they will not grieve when the people grieve.” Then, he recited this verse {No doubt! Verily, the awliyā of Allāh, no fear shall come upon them nor shall they grieve}.

And al-Albānī declares: Ṣaḥīḥ

Ref: {Sunan Abu Dawud (Dār al-Fikr) [annotator: Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī], vol. 2, p. 310, # 3527}

EXAMPLE OF AL-MAHDI (as)

# Imam Muslim records:

Jābir b. ‘Abd Allāh:

I heard the Prophet, peace be upon him, saying: “There will never cease to be a group within my Ummah who will be fighting upon the Truth, victorious till the Day of al-Qiyāmah. Then, ‘Īsā b. Maryam, ṣallallāhu ‘alaihi wa salam, will descend, and their Amir will say, ‘Come and lead us in ṣalāt.’ But, he (‘Īsā) will reply, ‘No. Verily, some of you are the Amirs of the others. This is the honour of Allāh to this Ummah.

Ref: {Abū al-Ḥusayn Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrī al-Naysābūrī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Beirut: Dār Iḥyā al-Turāth al-‘Arabī) [annotator: Muḥammad Fuād ‘Abd al-Bāqī], vol. 1, p. 137, # 156 (247)]

# Dr. Bastawi also documents:

Ibn Sirrīn said: “The Mahdī is from this Ummah, and he will be the Imām of ‘Īsā b. Maryam

Its chain is Sahih. Its narrators are trustworthy

Ref: Dr. ‘Abd al-‘Alīm ‘Abd al-‘Aẓīm al-Bastawī, al-Mahdī al-Muntaẓar fī Ḍaw-i al-Aḥādīth wa al-Āthār al-Ṣaḥīḥah wa Aqwāl al-‘Ulamā wa Arā al-Firaq al-Mukhtalifah (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm; 1st edition, 1420 H), p. 219, # 14

ONLY MUHAMMAD RASULULLAH, salallahu alayhi wa Ahli, is the greatest and the Imam of all mankind altogether. And talk about 'Ali, he is the anfus (self) of Rasulullah, as Allah puts it in His glorious book.

* SEEMS YOU HAVE NOT HEARD THIS BEFORE?!
"If I have not been sent as a prophet, Umar ibn al-Khattab would have been sent instead" - Ibn Taymiyyah

"If there would be prophet after me, it would have been Umar" - al-Jami sahih Tirmidhi

The implication of this hadith is that Umar had credentials and qualifications to be a prophet. But not just any prophet rather Last prophet, the greatest of them. Invariably Umar had the same credentials as the holy Prophet Muhammad, salallahu alayhi wa Ahli. This made Umar greater than previous prophets and of course Abu Bakr whom your manhaj took as the best of this Ummah after the Prophet.

Newnas:
Chai, it's good to do your homework ooo!!!

Hey yah! You must have been having sleepless nights. You can see how you are jumping like mountain goat from one topic to another, derailing your own thread. You even start cursing! That really show your immaturity and desperations. Honestly you need deliverance.