₦airaland Forum

4-Groups that affirmed Allah’s names and attributes in a way that suites his majesty without asking questions. [Jumhour-ul-Salaf, Ahlul-Hadeeth, Jumhour-ul-Hanaabilah (Most Hanbalis)]

They affirm all names and attributes as they are without likening Allah to His creations. For example they will say: Allah exists and human-beings also exist but this does not mean that our existence is like Allah’s existence, for Allah Has always been in existence and shall remain eternal whereas humans have been brought into existence by Allah and they shall perish by His order.

Another example is that they will say: We affirm Allah describing Himself as powerful even though certain humans are described as powerful, such as Alexander or Genghis Khan, this does not mean that Allah is like His creation since His power differs in nature than their power which is limited by physical strength and whatever authority they have over armies for a duration of their short existence. Allah’s power however is absolute, it transcends all, is beyond imagination and He has complete control over the universe and its creation.

As for what may imply likening Allah to His creatures, for example in this verse:

{They measure not God with His true measure. The earth altogether shall be His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens shall be rolled up in His right hand. Glory be to Him! High be He exalted above that they associate!} [39:67]

Or this

{Surely your Lord is God, who created the heavens and the earth in six days — then sat Himself upon the Throne, covering the day with the night it pursues urgently — and the sun, and the moon, and the stars subservient, by His command. Verily, His are the creation and the command. Blessed be God, the Lord of all Being} [7:54]

Their way of dealing with such texts is: {We believe in it; all is from our Lord} [3:7]

They will say: We believe in this text and we do not ask “How?” We affirm what Allah affirms for Himself in a way that suites His majesty and only He knows the truth of all things. This is why they will consider things like “hands” to be an attribute and pass by such texts without asking any questions.

This group will also rely on prophetic-traditions and reports from the first generations (al-Salaf) to interpret similar texts if available.

5-Groups that refuse to address the texts. [Jama`ah min al-Salaf]

They withhold their own opinions and will not make any interpretations, they will also refuse to comment on any texts where the Creator attributes to Himself a matter possessed by the creation. They pass through such texts without diving into the meaning, leaving the matter completely up to Allah out of fear of His punishment.

Several groups of Muslims refused to address the texts for different reasons.

6-Groups that affirm the names and attributes of Allah literally in a physical way. [Qudama’-ul-Raafidah (Early Imami Shia), Al-Sabaa’iyyah (Followers of Ibn Saba’), Ba`d Ghulaat-ul-Soufiyyah (Some Extremist Soufies), Ba`d Ghulaat Ahlul-Hadeeth]

Some from the extremists of the people of Hadith in order to refute the Jahmiyyah and heretics of their time opposed them by diving into anthropomorphism.

Among the more extreme Soufi circles, some affirmed everything for Allah since they view that Allah and His creations are one and the same, they believed in Wahdat-ul-Wujoud or the Unity of Being. While this belief remains controversial among them to this day yet the Soufis were not the first to announce such anthropomorphic beliefs, they were beaten to it by the Shia who announced such beliefs during the life of `Ali ibn abi Talib.

The first of them were groups established by a Jewish convert called `Abdullah Ibn Saba’, they believed in Tajseem and claimed Allah was a man (`Ali ibn abi Talib), they also claimed al-Bada’ for God, meaning that Allah may be ignorant of a matter and change His judgement based on what He observes from later events, this is also considered Tashbeeh. Other Shia groups were influenced and ended up committing Tashbeeh, they accepted the texts in a physical way, thus literally reducing Allah to a body as we will read below. They also likened their own saints to Allah in many ways and attributed to them godly qualities as is seen from their books and writings to this day.

AlBaqir, which group do you belong to? And which group did your earlier Imami shi’ah belong to?! Talk about profound inconsistencies…the reasons why your sect is known as a reactionary, never what Islam teaches…

AlBaqir: @underline, Really? Then why this below@underline:


In madrasat Ahlulbayt, "there is no like of Him" means both in His Essence and His attributes. He, the most High, describe Himself to us with those attributes in order that we (whose knowledge and perception is limited) might have glimpse of understanding of Him. He is beyond what we can ever think of. He is Olú-odù-marè.

Wa Salam alaykum

What were the beliefs of the early leaders of your sect AlBaqir?! Well let’s do some reading…

We will go through a brief overview of some beliefs held by early leaders of the Imamiyyah as written in the book “Maqaalat-ul-Tashbeeh” by Jabir bin Idris, refer to his book for more detailed sources.

Shia leader Bayan bin Sam`an al-Tamimi said that Allah is a man made from light in the image of a human, then he shall perish except for His face. He also claimed that a godly part was incarnated inside `Ali and it united with him an this godly spirit transmigrated from Imam to Imam until it reached Bayan himself. [Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/66, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 216, al-Tabsir fil-Din 119, Khitat al-Maqrizi 3/596, Minhaj-ul-Sunnah 2/502, I`tiqadat Firaq al Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 87]

Another Shia leader called al-Mughirah bin Sa`id al-Koufi who claimed God was Muhammad bin `Ali, that he knew the unseen and that he had sent him as his messenger. Al-Mughirah and his followers went to such extremes that they claimed their Lord was a man from light wearing a crown on his head, that he had body parts as any man does, that he has insides and a heart filled with wisdom, they also said Allah’s body is based on the alphabetical letters, that “Aliph” represents the legs, “`Ayn” represents the eyes and “Haa'” is a great matter which he could not even mention. [Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/69, al-Fasl li ibn Hazm 5/43, al-Ma`arif 623, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/176, al-Tabsir fil-Din 119, al-Kamil li ibn al-Athir 4/230, Minhaj al-Sunnah 1/260, Khitat al-Maqrizi 3/296, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 118, I`tiqadat Firaq al-Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 88, Mizan al-I`tidal 4/160, Lisan al-Mizan 7/23]

Another Shia leader called abu Mansour al-Mustanir al-`Ijli claimed he was the successor to Muhammad bin `Ali. He said `Ali ibn abi Talib was a lump that descended from the heavens and said that `Ali was god. He then claimed he was god’s son and that he was made to ascend to the heavens and threatened to choke all his enemies. [Al-Fasl 5/45, Firaq al-Shia 38, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/75, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 212, al-Ma`arif 623, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/179, al-Khitat 3/297]
ِ
Another Shia leader was abu al-Khattab al-Asadi who claimed Ja`far bin Muhammad was a god and his followers established pilgrimage in Ja`far’s name. He was a polytheist who said al-Hasan and al-Husayn were god’s children then he claimed god-hood for the prophets, the household and himself. [Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 223, al-Fasl 5/48, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/179, Minhaj al-Sunnah 2/506]

Another Shia leader is `Abdullah bin Mu`awiyah bin Ja`far bin abi Talib, a greedy descendant of Ja`far al-Tayyar who sought authority. His followers went to extremes and said that god’s soul was transmitted to Adam (as) then it moved from prophet to prophet until it ended with the Imams and finally `Abdullah bin Mu`awiyah. They said that `Abdullah knew the unseen and that Allah was a light embedded into `Abdullah. [Tarikh ibn Khaldoun 3/121, Mizan al-I`tidal 3/363, Firaq al-Shia 31, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/67, al-Khitat 3/396, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 222, al-Tabsir 125]

Another Shia leader called Dawoud al-Jawaribi al-Rafidi said Allah was a carcass made from blood, flesh, bones and a head of thick black hair but He doesn’t resemble any other man. He did not believe God had a beard or genitals and refused to answer anyone who mentions them. [Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah li ibn abi al-Hadid 1/294, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/183, al-Milal 1/105, al-Bid’ wal-Tarikh lil Maqdisi 5/140]
Another Shia leader was Zurarah ibn A`yun whose followers believed in Bada’ and that Allah’s attributes were created or are emergent and that they are of the nature of the attributes of the creations. In other words, they claimed Allah was not all-hearing, all-seeing and almighty until He created those things for Himself. [al-Tabsir fil-Din 119, Minhaj al-Sunnah 2/395, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/111, Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 76, Al-A`lam lil Zarkali 3/43]

Another Shia leader called Hisham bin al-Hakam al-Koufi said Allah is a body of equal height, width and depth. He said that his god can move at times and remain idle at others, he also claimed his god has friction with the throne and that it fits him perfectly. [Al-Tanbih wal-Radd `ala Ahl al-Ahwa’ 36, Sharh al-Nahj 1/294, al-Ghuniyah lil-Jaylani 1/93, Al-Burhan fi `Aqa’id ahl al-Adyan 72, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 71, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/106, al-Tabsir 120, al-Milal 1/184, Minhaj al-Sunnah 1/71]

Another Shia leader called Hisham bin Salim al-Jawaliqi said Allah is not a body but is black light in the image of a human, he possesses five senses, is composed of a hand, a foot and an eye but not made from flesh and blood. [Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/108, Al-Milal 1/185, I`tiqadat Firaq al-Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 95, Sharh al-Nahj 1/194, Minhaj al-Sunnah 2/218,al-Khitat 3/293]

Another Shia leader called Yunus bin `Abdul-Rahman al-Qummi, the servant of `Ali bin Yaqtin, he said Allah’s upper body is hollow while the lower half is full. He also said that the angels carry Allah and that they are able to do so even if He is too great the same way a rooster’s small thin legs can support its larger body. [Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 76, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/110, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/188, I`tiqadat Firaq al-Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 98]

Another Shia leader called abu Ja`far al-Ahwal (known as Shaytan-ul-Taq) he claimed Allah does not know a matter until it occurs and that His knowledge is emergent. He believed Allah is light in the image of a godly-man. [Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah 1/294, Al-Tabsir fil-Din 121, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/111, Al-Milal 1/187]

Shia leader al-Shareef al-Murtada says in “Rasa’il al-Murtada”:
[The greatest amount of (Shia) Fiqh, rather all of it, reaches us through chains containing a Waqifi, a Ghaali (extremist), a Khattabi or a Qummi who believes in Jabr and Tashbeeh. The Qummies, all of them -with the exception of Ibn Babuwayh – until just yesterday were all Mushabbihah and Mujabbirah, their books and works are a testimony to this.]

After learning all of this, one ponder as to when did the Imami Shia reject such beliefs and move to the other side of the spectrum? Ibn Taymiyyah answers this in “Minhaj-ul-Sunnah”:

[Towards the end of the third century, some of the Shia began to embrace the opinions of the Mu`tazilah such as Ibn al-Nawbakhti the author of “Al-Araa’ wal-Diyanaat” and his likes, then after them came al-Mufid bin al-Nu`man and his followers. This is why you will find that the authors who wrote about the beliefs of sects did not mention that the Shia agreed with the Mu`tazilah about Tawheed and `Adl except when talking about the late Shia, as for their early predecessors they were only known for Tajseem.]

Shia leader al-Shareef al-Murtada himself found this problematic so he had to ask his teacher al-Mufid about it as he wrote in “al-Hikayat”:
[I (al-Murtada) keep hearing the Mu`tazilah claim that our (Shia) predecessors were all upon Tashbeeh. I also hear the same from al-`Aamah (Sunnies) who are Mushabbihah. Then I see a group from the Imami scholars of Hadith agreeing with them about this story and saying: “We (Shia) have taken the rejection of Tashbeeh from the Mu`tazillah.” I would love if you refute this for me.]

Now I understand the reasons for failing to grasp my explanations from the “where is Allah” thread and the one here…Imagine the revelations about your sect and to now imagine your effrontery to attack and accuse the Sunnis of anthropomorphism and corporeality?!…If I were you, I would have immediately renounce belonging to a sect with leaders having such beliefs…One can only just imagine the amount of falsehood they introduced and spread amongst the people, no wonder you guys are never consistent. I bet they didn't tell you about all these during your training?!

AlBaqir:
That's why we say your Wahabi ideology is inconsistent dribbling and wobbling between literalism, tafwid (leaving the meaning as it is) and Tawil (interpretation out of literal meaning).

Now consider the following noble ayah:

1. Surah ar-Rahman: 26-27 says:

"Everything on it will perish

And there will endure for ever the FACE of your Lord, the Lord of glory and honor."

* So, only His face will remain?! What about His Hands, Legs, Body that He used to describe Himself (in the Quran and hadith)? Were they all going to be perish except His face.

2. Sura Mujadalah: 7

"Do you not see that Allah knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth? Nowhere is there a secret counsel between three persons but He is the fourth of them, nor (between) five but He is the sixth of them, nor less than that nor more but He is with them wheresoever they are; then He will inform them of what they did on the day of resurrection: surely Allah is Cognizant of all things."

* "He" absolutely denote His Person, His Essence as Quran in several ayah elucidate. So, Why do your manhaj choose to interpret this ayah out of its literal meaning that it does not mean Allah in His Person is everywhere rather it means "His knowledge" is everywhere?

3. Surah Maidah verse 64 says:

"The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. ..."

* Why cant we use your tafwid and literal senses for this ayah? That is He says "Hands" that means He has hand, not even one but "many". The hand in this ayah never mean literal or tafwid. It means being miser. And if the hand is stretched, it means generosity. The underlined statement in the ayah clarifies. why did your Imam do the Tawil (interpretation) of the ayah moving away from its literal or tafwid meaning? Interestingly, here is one of your literalist Aimmah.

Imam Ibn Kathir writes in his Tafsir:

'Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas commented on Allah's statement,

{The Jews say, "Allah's Hand is tied up."} "They do not mean that Allah's Hand is literally tied up. Rather, they mean that He is a miser and does not spend from what He has. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him.'' Similar was reported from Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Qatadah, As-Suddi and Ad-Dahhak.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=759&Itemid=60


5. Al-’Isrā:72
"{And whoever remains blind in this (world) will be blind in the Hereafter as well, distracted from the path} "

*Should we will leave this ayah as it is literally or interpret out of its literal meaning? For example, the Sheik Ibn Baz, who was blind in this world, will he also blind in the next world?

In madrasat Ahlulbayt, we do not leave mutashabihat (allegorical) verses in their literal meaning rather we do tawil (interpretation) of them. Allah says, "{[We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom]}". Just like every language, Arabic has figures of speech - simile, metaphor etc, and it is use in the Quran. We interpret the allegorical verses by the guidance of the Muhkam (clear) verses because they (the clear verses) are the foundation of the Quran {[surah Ahli Imran:7]}. Hand, Face, Hearing, Seeing, Presence, Sitting or Standing (on Ar'sh) are part of Mutashabihat ayah that can never be left with literal meaning.

The people of the Qiblah divided into several opinions when it comes to dealing with the Names & Attributes of Allah especially those with anthropomorphic implications: Affirming them (Ithbaat), Interpreting them (Ta’weel) and Withholding (Tawaqquf).

Those who interpret are several groups:

1-Groups that denied all of Allah’s names and attributes. [e.g. Jahmiyyah, Falaasifah (Philosophers), Baatiniyyah (Esoteric groups like Qaraamitah), Ghulaat-ul-Soufiyyah (Extremist Soufies)].

For example, they won’t describe Allah as Knower, instead they say “He is not ignorant” nor will they describe Him as Living, they will say “He is not dead”. They have other creative ways and views as well about how to reject Allah’s attributes.

As far as Allah’s Names, they will tell you that we cannot accept His Names as that would entail Tashbeeh (Likening Allah to His creation). For instance, if we call Allah “The Powerful” then we have likened Him to others of His creatures who are described as powerful, if we call him “The Merciful” then we’ve likened Him to merciful creatures like our Prophet (saw).

In this group some groups are Waaqifah, meaning they stop and neither confirm nor deny. For example the Qaraamitah will tell you: “We cannot say He is Merciful or He isn’t” As affirming Mercy for Him is Tashbeeh (likening Allah to His creation) and denying it is likening Allah to the non-existence.

Another example are Al-Laa Adriyyah (Agnostics) who don’t affirm or deny, for example they say: “We cannot say whether He’s alive nor dead” and “We cannot say whether He exists or He doesn’t” We simply do not know. Thus they are ignorant.

2-Groups that affirmed Allah’s names but denied his attributes. They gave various interpretations to attributes they thought likened The Creator to His creatures. [e.g. Mu`tazillah, Zaydiyyah (Zaydi Shia), Muta’akhireen al-Ithnaa-`Ashariyyah (Late Imami Shia), al-Dhaahiriyyah, some of the Khawaarij]

An example of their methods when it comes to Allah’s attributes: {And your Lord has come and the angels, rank upon rank} [89:22] They explained: The verse means the “command” of your Lord has come. Not that He came or attributed to himself the act of “coming”.

As far as Allah’s Names, they will accept them but just as names without meaning for the most part, so they will say “He is the knower without knowledge” meaning Allah is Knower with¬out being characterized by any attribute of knowledge. This is because they believe that Allah’s attributes cannot be distinct from Him as that would create two eternal beings, Allah and Allah’s knowledge which is independent from Him. The difference here is, when they say Allah is The Knower, they don’t mean that He possesses knowledge, as that would mean knowledge is a separate entity but they mean that His knowledge is His essence.

Another example, they will say that Allah is “The Powerful” without power. Affirming the name and denying the attribute, for if they say “Powerful with a power” that means the power is either created and therefore Allah was not powerful before it was created, they say Allah cannot change over time and this is why we reject it. They will say, if Allah’s power was not created that means it is as ancient as Allah, this leads us to believe in the multiplicity of beginningless entities, Allah and His power which in turn negates His Oneness.

3-Groups that affirmed His names and a few of his attributes while interpreting the rest. (e.g. Kullaabiyah, Ashaa`irah, Maatureediyyah).
Similar to the group above them with the difference that they affirmed around seven of Allah’s attributes: Life, Knowledge, Will, Hearing, Seeing, Speech and Power.

For example, if we look at the verse mentioning Allah’s “hands”: {[Allah] said, “O Iblees, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands? Were you arrogant [then], or were you [already] among the haughty?”} [38:75]

They will say: Hands here mean powers. Or they will say: Attributing something to Allah is only in order to glorify Him, just as Allah says “My House” as referring to the Ka`bah although it is a creature, then these “My Hands” can also be a creature of Allah. Or they will say: Attributing hands in the language to something does not necessarily mean that thing possesses physical body-parts, for example: {falsehood does not come to it from between its hands nor from behind it.} [41:42] This doesn’t mean the book has hands but the Arabic expression means “from in front of it”. They will list various interpretations to deny the attribution of body-parts to Allah.

As for Allah’s Names, they affirmed them and explained them and their attributes. They did not just affirm the names as empty words without meaning or depth such as some of the previous groups. For example, they would affirm “The Merciful” and discuss Allah’s attribute of mercy, and they would affirm “The Just” then discuss Allah’s justice. However, if the name entails attributing something to Allah which they disbelieve in, for example “The High” means Allah is attributing a location to Himself, so they will give the name a different interpretation such as: Having a high honor and whatnot. Another example “The Light”, instead of accepting it as is, they interpreted it as meaning: The guide.

AlBaqir:
IBN TAYMIYYAH AND JEWISH AQIDAH
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful


According to Salafīsm, the Old Testament of the Bible has portrayed Allāh in a perfectly correct manner. Everything recorded about Him in it is true, and every Salafī must believe it as part of his ‘aqīdah. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, for instance, says in his Dar-u Ta’ārruḍ al-‘Aql wa al-Naql (Riyadh: Dār al-Kunūz al-Adabiyyah; 1391 H) [annotator: Muḥammad Rashād Sālim], vol. 3, p. 9:
http://islamport.com/w/tym/Web/3223/512.htm


"Then He said: {Those We have given the Book know it has been sent down from your Lord with truth} [6:114]. This is because the Old Testament corresponds with the Qur’ān. Whosoever examines the Torah and the Gospel in the hands of the Ahl al-Kitāb, he will know with absolute certainty that this and this are from the same niche, especially in the areas of al-Tawḥīd (Monotheism), and the al-Asmā (Divine Names) and al-Ṣifāt (the Divine Attributes). This is because the Torah corresponds with the Qur’ān, agreeing with it in a way that leaves no room for doubt. This is part of what makes it clear that what is in the Torah from those is NOT part of the distortions which the Qur’ān rejects. Rather, it is part of the truth which it confirms. This is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his Ṣaḥābah, were not denying the Ṣifāt (Divine Attributes) in the Torah, and they did not consider them part of what the Jews distorted, and did not fault them for them, saying “This is tashbīh (anthropomorphism) or tajsīm (divine corporeality)” as many deniers fault them, saying “This is part of what they distorted.” By contrast, whenever they mentioned anything from them, the Messenger used to confirm them, as he confirmed them in the report of the priest, as it is in the Two Ṣaḥīḥs from ‘Abd Allāh b. Mas’ūd as well as in other than that."



In simpler words, the “God” of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and the “Allāh” of the Qur’ān are one and the same. Moreover, all the descriptions and attributes given to God in the Bible are correct Descriptions and Attributes of Allāh. Likewise, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and the Ṣaḥābah all believed in al-Tawḥīd, al-Asmā and al-Ṣifāt as recorded in the Bible. As a practical demonstration of this, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah even approvingly quotes the New Testament to prove that Allāh is “our Father Who is in heaven,” in his Majmū’ Fatāwā, vol. 5, p. 406:
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/260.html

'And in the Gospel, it is recorded that the Messiah, peace be upon him, said: “Do not swear with the sky, for it is the Chair of Allāh.” And he said to the disciples: “If you forgive the people, your Father Who is in heaven will forgive you all.”


The student and successor of Ibn Taymiyyah, Imām Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, in his al-Ṣawā’iq al-Mursalah (Riyadh: Dār al-‘Āṣimah; 3rd edition, 1418 H) [annotator: Dr. ‘Alī b. Muḥammad al-Dakhīl Allāh], vol. 3, p. 1044, affirms his teacher, almost verbatim:
http://islamport.com/w/qym/Web/3175/897.htm

"Then He said: {Those We have given the Book know it has been sent down from your Lord with truth, so on no account be among the doubters} [6:114]. This is because the Old Testament corresponds with the Qur’ān. Whosoever examines it, he will know with certainty that this and this are from the same niche, especially in the areas of al-Tawḥīd, and the al-Asmā and al-Ṣifāt. This is because the Torah corresponds with the Qur’ān in those, agreeing with it. This proves that what is in the Torah from those is NOT part of the distortions which Allāh rejects. Rather, it is part of the truth which testifies for the Qur’ān and confirms it. This is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not deny the Ṣifāt that are in the Torah, and he did not fault them (i.e. the Jews) for them, and he did not call them tashbīh (anthropomorphism) or tajsīm (divine corporeality) or tamthīl, as many deniers do, saying “The Jews are an Ummah who believe in tashbīh and tajsīm.” But, there is no sin for them in that, because they interpreted what is in the Torah.'


So, let us quote Genesis 1:26-27 about how He allegedly looks:


"Then God said, "Let us make humans in our image, IN OUR LIKENESS. Let them rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the domestic animals all over the earth, and all the animals that crawl on the earth." So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female".


Therefore, in the Biblical doctrine of the Shaykh, human beings are similar to Allāh in appearance. However, in the ‘aqīdah of Muslims, there is nothing like our Lord (42:11):

"The Bringer into Being of the heavens and the earth: He has given you mates from among yourselves, and given mates to the livestock, in that way multiplying you. NOTHING is like Him. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing."

cc: Sino, Dammzy15, Newnas,

I tried to figure out what you are trying to prove, but I couldn’t see anything. You seem to be confused…

I believe you and your shi’a people would argue at length in proving to the Christians how God is one in the Bible, especially in the old testament (Torah) or don’t you? You would also quote Jesus (as) praying to God, by calling God, Father, hence proving Jesus (As) is not God.

Let me now “confuse” you more, the word Rabb, is used in the Qur’an to refer to Allah (SWT), but it is also used in Arabic to mean Father e.g, Rabbu-l-‘aa`ilah (father of the family)…So does it change the fact that Rabb as used in the Qur’an is referring to Allah (SWT)?! And does saying father as used in the Bible connote biological father?! Please look up other meaning of Rabb to assuage your ignorance…

Now answer the following questions (and this is in regards to your second point)

Did Allah (SWT) not use face in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use hands in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use shin in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use eyes in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use speak/speech in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use listen and hearing in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use knowing in the Qur’an?
And etc…

So if indeed Allah (SWT) used the above in the Infallible Qur’an for Himself, as being his attributes, and then again all the above can also be used to describe any human being, then what is your problem?! Did Allah (SWT) ask you and your shi’a sect to look for alternative words to explain these clear words?! Did the Prophet (SAW) explain these words differently than what is apparent?! Provide clear and authentic proofs if you are indeed truthful!

Indeed, there is none like Him, and we believe this to be true, just as we believe all that Allah (SWT) used in the Qur’an and authentic narrations to describe Himself (Suhannahu wa ta’aala) as also true.

Bro, stop fighting yourself, it is very simple; even a layman grasps this concept without trouble.

tbaba1234:
*peep

Bros! Stop peeping and write a poem

Slitz:
Fine fine. Alhamdulillah. Trust you're doing great too.
Soon In sha Allah, I'll share some poetry. @sino

Ma Sha Allah, Alhamdulilah, looking forward to reading your works soon.

Coontinuation...

Sheikh Hassan ‘Abdullah says in “Waqfah ma’a al-Jazaeri” pg.24:

[And they also inherited the mentioned, meaning: The one collected by Ameer al-Mumineen (as) and it is no different than the Quran in the hands of the Muslims except in the way it is ordered and the interpretation of verses according to the divine inspiration. Today it is found with al-Imam al-Hujjah al-Muntazar(Mahdi) may Allah hasten his honored appearance (…) And they (as) are the most knowledgeable when it comes to its interpretation and knowing its rulings and sciences that no one else knows]

Sheikh ‘Abdul-Latif al-Baghdadi says in “al-Tahqeeq fi al-Imamah” pg.235:

[Yes, that Quran remained with its correct explanations and interpretations with ‘Ali (as) and then to al-Hassan (as), and so it became from the private inheritance of the pure Imams, and now it is with Imam al-‘Asr wal-Zaman al-Mahdi from the family of Muhammad (aj).]

Observe dear reader this dangerous belief, that the Caliphs have stripped the book of Allah from its correct interpretations that were revealed by Allah to explain the meanings of the verses and the reasons for their revelation. This is a great crime the Shia scholars attributed to the Caliphs as it resulted in splitting the Muslims and dividing them on the interpretation of the verses of Allah, it states that the Muslim nation was denied the authentic revelation concerning the meaning of the verses.

Listen to what their grand Ayatullah Muhammad Hussein al-Tehrani says in “Noor Malakut al-Quran” 4/347:

[As for the fact that the Quran of ‘Ali (as) is not found in our hands, although it will cause harm in the sense of not being able to know the reasons and causes of the revealed Quranic verses, nor their explanations and interpretations, nor the correct order of verses and chapters, this matter results in not knowing the Quranic sciences and makes learning and spreading it harder.]

‘Abdullah ‘Ali al-Daqqaq says in “Haqiqat Mushaf al-Imam ‘Ali bayn al-Fariqayn” pg.285:

[So what is meant by al-Tanzeel(revelation) is the interpretation and explanation of the verses of the holy Quran, in this sense we can clearly see the great loss we suffered as a result of the refusal of the Caliphate, which caused it to be hidden from us.]

The Moustabsir shia writer, Salih al-Wardany says in “al-Khid’ah, my journey from Sunnah to Shia” pg.197:

[No doubt, stripping the Quran of these interpretations makes it even more vague, and makes understanding its texts harder and opens a door for conflict over the correct interpretation of these texts causing division between the Muslims, and this has happened.]

Contemplate with me O impartial Shia readers, contemplate this poisonous belief that turns the Quran to nothing more than empty letters we utter without being able to learn its correct meanings nor touch its true substance after the Caliphs supposedly stripped it of all of this.
Will this corrupt ‘Aqeedah plant in your heart the love and passion to read the Quran and contemplate its meanings!? Or will it further alienate you from it after knowing that the enemies of Ahlul-bayt have manipulated it and removed its soul and beauty?

Slitz:
Jayyid! @Sino
May Allah grant ease to the oppressed nations and brig back peace to our lands.
"Verily, there is no animosity except to the oppressor"

Ameen, Jazakumullahu khayran...

It's been a while Slitz, I hope you doing fine and do have lots of poems to share

Continuation...

The third belief:

The Quran collected by ‘Ali (ra) and rejected by the Caliphs contains the explanation of the Prophet (SAWS) to the verses and the reasons of revelation of each verse.

Grand Ayatullah al-Khoei says in “al-Bayan fi Tafseer al-Quran” pg.223-225:

[The additions found in his (as) Quran that are not found in ours, even if it is true yet there is no proof that they were a part of the Quran and were dropped by Tahreef, what is correct is that those additions were explanations and interpretations, and what can the words be interpreted as, or as a revelation from Allah to explain what was intended]

Grand Ayatullah Nasir Makarim al-Shirazi says in “al-Amthal fi Tafseer Kitab Allah al-Munazzal” 8/27-28:

[By taking a good look at those narrations, we reach the conclusion that the Quran of ‘Ali (as) does not differ with the rest of the copies in terms of content, except the difference in presentation and arrangement in three things:

The first: Its verses and chapters were organized based on the date or time of revelation.

The second: Specifying the reasons for the revelation of each verse and chapter.

The third: It contained the Prophet’s (SAWS) explanation of the verses in addition to mentioning the Nasikh and the Mansoukh (Abrogated verses and Abrogating verses).]

Ayatullah ‘Ali al-Milani says in his book “‘Adam Tahreef al-Quran” pg.37:

[It differs from this Quran in that ‘Ali had added in the margins of the verses some benefits he heard from the Prophet (SAWS) concerning the verses (…) All there is to it is that it differed with this Quran in how it is ordered and that it has additions that Ameer al-Mumineen heard from the Prophet (SAWS) concerning the verses so he wrote them in the margins.]

Shia scholar Mir-Muhammadi Zarandi says in “Buhooth fi Tareekh al-Quran wa-‘Uloumih” pg.127-128:

[As for the Quranic compilation of ‘Ali (as), what is meant is: He wrote it based on that of the Prophet (SAWS), and added to it the Tanzeel(revelations) and the Taaweel(interpretations) like in the narration, meaning he added everything revealed concerning the Quran even if it wasn’t a part of it (…) In conclusion: there is no conflict between saying that the Quran was gathered in the time of the Prophet (SAWS) and saying that it was collected by the hands of his gate of knowledge(‘Ali) after he passed away with the explanations and interpretations and other properties of the Quran (…) and maybe the copy of the Prophet (SAWS) was with ‘Ali at that time and he copied it adding the explanations and interpretations so Abu Bakr couldn’t get to it.]

He said on pg.152:

[In conclusion: we summarize the above: some of the companions had a Mushaf the used to read from, they are: 1- ‘Ali bin abi Talib (as), he compiled a copy of the Quran and added interpretations and revelations, and it was not burned in the days of ‘Uthman, and the Imams from his pure children inherited it, until it reached the Imam al-Qaem (as) and he will reveal it to the people.]

‘Allamah Muhsin al-Ameen al-‘Amili relays to us an account by one of their scholars in “A’ayan al-Shia” 1/89:

[al-Muhaqqiq al-Sayyed Muhsin bin al-Sayyed Hassan al-A’araji al-Kathimi said in his book “‘Iddat al-Rijal” after copying this from al-Ma’alim: I say it seems that he counted the collection of the glorious Quran as a compilation because he meant general authorship or because he (as) did not only collect the revelation but he also added clarifications and interpretations so it became the greatest compilation.]

Grand Ayatullah ‘Abdul-Hussein Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi says in “Kitab al-Muraja’at” pg.411 #110:

[As for ‘Ali and his followers, they stood up for this in the first era, and the first thing Ameer al-Mumineen wrote down was the book of Allah. After he (as) finished preparing the Prophet (SAWS), he decided not to leave the house except for Prayer, he wanted to collect the Quran and he collected it and organized it in the order of revelation, and he highlighted the general verses and the specific verses, and the limited ruling and its general rulings, and the abrogated and abrogating verses, and its traditions and ethics, and explained the reasons of revelation of its clear verses, and clarified what could have been problematic (…) And more than one companion decided to gather the Quran but they weren’t able to collect it based on its revelation, nor did they include any of the properties mentioned above, so his collection (as) was closer to being a Tafseer.]

The seal of Shia Muhadditheen Hussein al-Noori al-Tabrasi says in “Khatimat Mustadrak al-Wasael” 4/113:

[As for what is in the narration through his words (as): {None touch it except the purified.} (Quran 56:79) after describing the book of ‘Ali (as) as {A register well-protected} (Kitabun Maknoun), it’s either a sign by him (as) pointing to the book gathered by Ameer al-Mumineen (as) after the Prophet (SAWS) passed away, it was known as “Mushaf ‘Ali” by everyone, he (as) clarified in it the abrogated and abrogating verses, and the Muhkam(precise verses) and the Mutashabih(unspecified verses), and the general and specific verses, and what is limited and what is absolute, and the reasons for the revelation, and some problematic areas.]

al-‘Allamah Ja’afar al-Subhani says in “‘Aqaiduna al-Falsafiyah wal-Quraniyah” pg.120-121:

[What is said about ‘Ali (as) collecting the Quran after the passing of the Prophet (SAWS), this means that he wrote the Quran in a way that is identical to how to was revealed, and he placed the abrogated verses before the abrogating verses as al-Majlisi stated in “Bihar al-Anwar” and according to what the author of “Tareekh al-Quran” says (…) What is recognized is that the Quran of the Imam (as) contained notes and clarifications about the revelation and the abrogated and abrogating verses and the precise and unspecific verses.]

Sheikh ‘Ali al-Kourani al-‘Amili says in “Alf Soual wa Ishkal” 1/256:

[What his death (SAWS) and the events of Saqifah and the pledge given to Abu Bakr, ‘Ali brought them a copy of the Quran in his own hand writing as the Prophet (SAWS) ordered but they refused to adopt it, because it contained in their opinion the explanations of some or many verses and it is all in favor of ‘Ali and his progeny peace be upon them, so ‘Ali took it and said: “You will not see it after this day.”]

So notice dear reader how the Shia scholars have tried to strip this Quran of its legitimacy because a group of people supposedly rejected the infallible Quran of ‘Ali (ra) after finding that its contents (whether the verses or the interpretation) do not suit their desires and ambitions.

How can this book have any legitimacy if it differs from the infallible book collected by the infallible Imam with special directions and supervision from the infallible Prophet (SAWS)!?

I ask the honest Shia will you feel at ease when reading a Quran gathered by those whom your scholars accuse of having rejected the infallible Quran after checking its contents!?

Sheikh ‘Ali al-Kourani says in “Tadween al-Quran” pg.181:

[They refused to adopt that copy because it contained the interpretation of all verses and many if not all were in favor of ‘Ali according to them.]

Sheikh Ja’afar Murtada al-‘Amili says in his book “Maasat al-Zahraa” 1/366-367:

[The Quran was gathered in the days of the Prophet (SAWS) but the first two Caliphs refused the Quran of the messenger of Allah (SAWS) because it contained the revelation and the interpretations and the reasons of revelation and the explanations. As well as other things that could have embarrassed many people but the Caliphs refused to embarrass them nor spread the truths about them. Then they collected the Quran in one book after they dropped the explanations and interpretations and the reasons of revelation from it as is known.]

‘Abdullah ‘Ali Ahmad al-Daqqaq says in his book “Haqiqat Mushaf al-Imam ‘Ali” pg.304:

[Also some of the narrations stated that the scandals of those folks were present in the ‘Alawie Quran (‘Ali’s copy), this is why the Caliphate rejected it.]

And on pg.313:

[When Abu Bakr opened it, on the first page he found the scandals of the folks, so ‘Umar jumped up and said: “O ‘Ali, return it, we have no need for it.” So we realize that the rejection came as a reaction to the contents and the scandals found in it, they rejected it to hide them.]

The second belief:

The way the Muslims read or recite the Quran today is not the way that pleases Allah, it is different from it.

And the proof for this is their narrations and the declaration of their scholars.

Firstly: the narrations:

1- What was narrated from Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Saffar: [From Salim bin abi Salamah that he said: A man recited to Imam abu ‘Abdullah (as) and I heard letters from the Quran that are different than those recited by the people, so the Imam (as) said: “Meh meh! stop this reading, recite it the way other people recite it until al-Qaem(Mahdi) rises, when he does he shall recite the Quran properly and reveal the Quran written by ‘Ali (as)]
source: Basaer al-Darajat pg.213.

2- What was narrated from Muhammad bin Ya’aqoub al-Kulayni: [Salim bin Salamah said: A man recited to abu ‘Abdullah (as) and I heard letters unlike those recited by the people, abu ‘Abdullah (as) said: “Enough of this recitation, recite as the other people recite until al-Qaem(Mahdi) rises, when he does he shall recite the Quran properly and reveal the Quran written by ‘Ali (as)]
source: al-Kafi 2/633.

3- What was narrated from Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Nu’umani: [From Habah al-‘Arni, He said: Ameer al-Mumineen (as) said: “It’s as if I am looking at our Shia in the Masjid of Kufa, they planted their tents and taught the people the Quran as it was revealed.]
source: al-Ghaybah pg.333.

4- What was narrated from al-Mufid: [Jabir narrated from abu Ja’afar (as) that he said: “When al-Qaem from the family of Muhammad rises, he shall plant tents for those who teach the people the Quran and its complete rulings, on that day it shall be very hard on those who had already memorized it because it differs from the way it was compiled.”]
sources:
-al-Irshad by al-Mufid 2/386.
-Bihar al-Anwar by al-Majlisi 52/339.
-al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah by ‘Abbas al-Qummi pg.384.
-Rawdat al-Wa’etheen by al-Fattal al-Naysabouri pg.265.
-Tafseer Noor al-Thaqalayn by al-Huweizi 5/27.

Secondly: the declaration of their scholars:

Shia sheikh and leader of the sect during his time, Muhammad Hassan Najafi says in “Jawahir al-Kalam” 9/292:

[Because they may the peace of Allah be upon them, accepted the people’s recitation of the Quran, and they may have prohibited people from reciting the truthful recitation, they would say: “It is intended for the time of the rising of al-Qaem (as).”]

Shia sheikh and researcher Aqa Rida al-Hamdani says in “Misbah al-Faqih” printed in Qum, 2/1/276:

[And either way, there is no doubt that the seven readings are correct in terms of clearing the Dhimmah and fulfilling the act of reciting the Quran, even if one does not know that what is being recited does not agree with the Quran revealed on the Prophet (SAWS).]

Shia scholar ‘Abdul-Karim al-Haeri says in “Kitab al-Salat” pg.205:

[What can be said is that the seven readings are correct in terms of clearing the Dhimmah and fulfilling the act of reciting the Quran, even if it is not known that what is being recited does not match the Quran as it was revealed, and even if it is known as we have learned from the narrations ordering us to recite as the people recite.]

Grand Ayatullah Muhammad Sadiq al-Roohani says in “Kitab Fiqh al-Sadiq” 4/423:

[As for the text of the narrations, what is apparent is the prohibition of reciting all the additions found within their narrations (as), nor do they point to the superiority of one of the readings over the other, Yes they do reveal the permissibility of reciting while knowing that it is contrary to the Quran as originally revealed.]

al-Mujaddid al-Shirazi says in “Kitab Taqreerat Ayatullah al-Mujaddid al-Shirazi” 1/173 by Mawla ‘Ali:

[What the narrations show is that they (as) accepted the recitation of the different readings and offered the choice between them, by saying: “Recite it as the people recite.”]

al-Muhaqqiq al-Khawansari says in “Jami’I al-Madarik” 1/334:

[What we benefit from the narrations is the permissibility of reciting as the people do like the narration of Salim bin abi Salamah]

al-Moujaddid al-Waheed al-Bahbahani says in “al-Fawaed al-Haeriyyah” pg.286:

[What is popular between us: is the permissibility of reciting by the seven famous readings, and the proof or should I say the order of the Imams (as) is: “read it like the people read it until the rise of al-Qaem (as).”]

al-Fadil al-Touni says in “al-Wafiyah” pg.260:

[What is also narrated is the permissibility of using this Quran found today, until the rise of al-Qaem from the family of Muhammad (SAWS)]

al-‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi says in “Bihar al-Anwar” 82/65-66:

[Undoubtedly, it is allowed for us at this time to recite according to their famous readings as the countless narrations state until the rise of al-Qaem (as), then he will reveal the Quran in one letter and one reading, may Allah enable us to live in those times.]

Grand Ayatullah and the leader of the sect in his time abu al-Qassim al-Khoei says in “al-Bayan fi Tafseer al-Quran” pg.167:

[It was related from them (as) that these readings are acceptable by their saying: “Recite it as the people recite it” “Recite like you have been taught”.]

al-Mirza Muhammad Taqi al-Isfahani says in “Mikyal al-Makarim” 1/197:

[al-Qaem (as) when he appears to the people of the earth shall recite the Quran as it was revealed on the seal of Prophets (SAWS).]
I want the wise reader to observe these hideous beliefs that push one away from reading the book of Allah, these beliefs state that one cannot read or recite the Quran like the Prophet (SAWS) did in his time, they state that our readings are wrong and that they are contrary to what Allah had revealed and intended.

In other words, the reading of all the Muslim nation in the east and the west of the Islamic world is incorrect and does not match that of the originally revealed Quran, and that the Imams ordered their followers to recite it like everyone else does even while knowing that the recitation is wrong and faulty.

I ask the honest Shia, do these beliefs not make you avoid reciting the Quran, don’t they make you lose all the joy and passion you had for worshipping Allah by reading his words? The intention of these scholars is simply to keep you away from the book of pure monotheism, to keep you away from the book that obviously does not mention the Imamah of ‘Ali (ra) or his children, until the Mahdi supposedly finally rises to teach people what they should have been taught a thousand four hundred years ago.

Finally, I urge the readers to remember the narration of al-Mufid in which they attribute to the Imam that he said: “On that day it shall be very hard on those who had already memorized it because it differs from the way it was compiled.” As if to say: Don’t bother memorizing it, the correct Quran revealed by the Mahdi is going to be different anyway.

.....To be continued....

“I swear, that in saying: “there is no corruption and change”, this is considered nothing more than thinking Well of the evil leaders, and that they did not betray the biggest and most important of things entrusted to us (Qur’an), although it is apparent to all that they betrayed the other important thing entrusted to us (Imamah) and the latter is more harmful to the religion.”

You can see above that the Shia scholar thinks that by betraying Imamah which he described as being more harmful to the religion, one must not be so naïve as to think that they wouldn’t change and corrupt the Quran.

The second choice:

To stick to their principals and turn this great virtue into a lowly despicable act by stating that the companions never collected the Quran properly in the manner that Allah had intended for it to be collected, and that they did this only to hide the truth that was revealed by the Prophet (SAWS) and to misguide the people.

What is evident to all those who have experience and are well informed about the ways of the Shia scholars, is that they will go for the second choice and this is why they started casting doubts on the book of Allah claiming that the way it was collected was wrong and that this wasn’t the collection that pleases Allah and his Prophet (SAWS). They did this in two methods.

The first method:

That the rightly guided Caliphs when collecting the Quran have corrupted it by deleting many verses that show the virtues of Ahlul-Bayt and their divine right of Imamah. This is the method of casting doubt on the entire Quran and it was adopted by the Shia scholars who clearly declared the corruption of the Quran in form of deletion such as al-Qummi, al-‘Ayyashi, al-Majlisi, Ni’imatullah al-Jazaeri, al-Noori al-Tabrasi and many others.

The second method:

That the rightly guided Caliphs when collecting the Quran did not corrupt it by deleting verses, instead they corrupted it by changing the order of verses and chapters and the way it is recited and deleting the explanation of the Prophet SAWS and the interpretation of the verses or words and the reasons for revelation. This method of casting doubt on the book of Allah was adopted by the Shia scholars that deny Tahreef in the form of deletion and addition and they are the subject of our research in this article.

Chapter 2: Displaying some of the beliefs of their scholars who deny Tahreef openly but push people away from the Quran.

We saw previously that this team of Shia scholars disagrees with the other team on the corruption of the Quran in form of addition or deletion but they agree with them on casting doubts on it and pushing people away from it because it was collected by the Caliphs. They would start casting doubts using hidden twisted ways so as to plant these doubts in the minds of all those who read their books thus alienating the Shia laymen from it and this way they hit two birds with one stone. They distance their followers from its teachings from one side, from another side they protect themselves from being accused of believing in the corruption of the Quran.

Here I present a quick list of these beliefs:

1- The Caliphs only collected the Quran when ‘Ali(ra) came to them with the correct Quran that he had collected, after checking its contents they rejected ‘Ali’s (ra) collection and made their own.

2- The way the Muslims read or recite the Quran today is not the way that pleases Allah, it is different from it.

3- The Quran collected by ‘Ali (ra) and rejected by the Caliphs contains the explanation of the Prophet (SAWS) to the verses and the causes for revelation of each verse.

4- The Quran collected by the Caliphs is different than that of ‘Ali (ra) in terms of order of chapters and verses.

5- The Quran collected by ‘Ali (ra) has acquired miraculous power and all matter of perfection and accuracy in compilation as opposed to the one spread all over the world today.

6- The Quran of ‘Ali (ra) that the 12th hidden Imam al-Mahdi shall reveal is a new Quran, different than the one the Muslims are used to because of its miraculous power and difference in interpretation and accuracy and the perfection of its collection.

Now we shall discuss these ‘Aqaed one by one, starting with the first one.

The first belief:

The Caliphs collected the Quran after ‘Ali (ra) came to them with the correct Quran that he had collected, after checking its contents they rejected ‘Ali’s (ra) collection and made their own.

The leader of the Shia Muhaddiths (Scholars of Hadith) ibn Babaweih al-Qummi whom they call al-Saduq says in one of the most important Shia books of ‘Aqaed “Kitab al-I’itiqadat fi Deen al-Imamiyah” pg.86:

[ Ameer al-Mumineen (as) had collected it, and when he brought it to them, he said: “This is the book of your Lord as it was revealed on your Prophet, without any added or removed letters.” They said: “We have no need for it, we have one like the one you have.” so he left while reciting: {But they threw it away behind their backs and exchanged it for a small price. And wretched is that which they purchased.} (Quran 3:187)]

The grand Shia scholar Murtada al-Ansari says in the old print of “Kitab al-Salat” pg.119:

[For this they rejected the Quran of Ameer al-Mumineen (as) when he presented it to them, so he hid it for his son al-Qaem(Mahdi) may Allah hasten his appearance.]

‘Allamah and Muhaqqiq(Researcher) ‘Ali bin Musa al-Tabrizi says in “Miraat al-Kutub” pg.32:

[As was stated in the narrations that he (as) collected the Quran after the passing of the Prophet (SAWS) and he brought it to them but they never accepted it, so it remained preserved and stored until the appearance of the Qaem (aj)]

‘Allamah Muhammad Hussein TabaTabaei says in “Kitab al-Quran fil-Islam” pg.137:

[And the Imam Ameer al-Mumineen (as) although he was the first to collect the Quran in the order it was revealed and they rejected his compilation and they did not allow him to participate in the first or second collections.]

He also says in “Kitab al-Shia fil-Islam” pg.28-29:

[And the Prophet (SAWS) had declared that ‘Ali was the most knowledgeable in Islamic and Quranic sciences, and they did not allow him to participate in collecting the Quran (and they knew that after the death of the Prophet (SAWS) ‘Ali was sitting in his home gathering the Quran) and his name was never mentioned in their meetings and gatherings.]

Sheikh ‘Ali al-Kourani al-‘Amili says in his book “Alf Soual wa Ishkal” 1/243:

[In reality there was no problem in the task of collecting the Quran, this problem was created by the government! (the government here means ‘Umar) Who did not accept the copy of the Quran brought forth by ‘Ali (as) as the official copy used by the Muslims.]

He also said in his book “Tadween al-Quran” pg.256:

[And with this ‘Ali (as) had fulfilled his responsibility towards the nation, and presented them with the Quranic copy by order of the Prophet (SAWS) and ‘Ali’s (as) own handwriting, but they saw (in their interests) that it must not be the official copy of the Quran.]

Ayatullah ‘Ali al-Milani says in “Muhadarat fil-I’itiqadat” 2/602:

[It’s true that Ameer al-Mumineen (as) collected the Quran, and I pointed to this previously, the Imam came to them with the Quran but they refused it, ‘Ali had a Quran, this is proven and everyone remembers it.]

Ayatullah Muhammad al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Tehrani says in “Noor Malakut al-Quran” 4/345:

[As for the narrations of the Shia, we see that he (as) placed the Quran on a camel and brought it to the Masjid(Mosque) and said: “This is your Quran!” they replied: “We don’t need your Quran!” and they did not pay him any attention, so he grabbed the reins of his camel and went home and said: “You will never see it until the day of judgment.”]

He also said on pg.343:

[Ameer al-Mumineen (as) was the first to express the idea of collecting the Quran directly after the death o the Prophet (SAWS), even though his own collection was rejected.]

Grand Ayatullah Muhammad al-Husseini al-Shirazi says in “Mata Jumi’a al-Quran” pg.31:

[As for the issue of ‘Ali’s (as) Quran that he had collected but was rejected, what is meant here is what was collected in terms of Tafseer(explanations) and Taaweel(Interpretations) like he (as) had mentioned in a narration that was narrated from him.]

Shia writer Dr. Zuhair al-Bitar says in “al-Imamah Tilka al-Haqiqah al-Quraniayh” pg.49:

[But when they denied him, they had to work based on their own opinions, so they rejected the Quran he (as) gathered for them according to the reasons of revelation so that no one may misinterpret it, and they gathered it in the known fashion.]

He said on pg.50:

[The reality of the matter is that Ameer al-Mumineen ‘Ali (as) remained playing the role of the lawyer who defends the Sunnah and the Quran, as we stated earlier he collected the Quran according to the reasons of revelation because it is directly linked to the interpretation, so they rejected it because it displayed facts that disagree with their methods.]

Shia writer ‘Abdullah ‘Ali Ahmad al-Daqqaq says in “Haqiqat Mushaf al-Imam ‘Ali ‘ind al-Sunnah wal-Shia” pg.309-314:

[The narrations found within the Imami Shia sources confirm that the Caliphate had refused the Quran of Imam ‘Ali (as) (…) And because the Imami narrations showing the rejection of the Caliphate to the Quran of Imam ‘Ali (as) are many, we feel reassured that this matter has occurred (…) the reluctance to accept the Quran of Imam ‘Ali (as) and its rejection, and even trying to find a replacement]

The Fractious Schizophrenia (Discussing the reality of the crisis between the Shia scholars and the Quran)

Preface:
The purpose of this brief study is to show the ‘Aqaed(beliefs) the Twelver Shia sect has concerning the holy book of Allah, and how their ‘Aqeedah(belief) pushes them away from this book and alienates them from it.

There is a crisis between the Shia scholars and the book of Allah, a crisis they will not admit to having in any debate or interview because the only thing they care about is to win and look as best as they can in the eyes of the people. this study shall uncover this crisis by exposing the root of the problem, a set of corrupt beliefs that the Shia scholars hold on to as part of their ‘Aqeedah (Which they attribute to Ahlul-Bayt).

Before I begin, I need to clarify that the purpose of this article is only to uncover the truth and that I do not doubt that the average Shia layman believes in everything that is found within the book of Allah and glorifies it as opposed to those wearing the black turbans. Although the time an average Shia layman spends with the book of Allah is much less than that spent by the average Muslim from Ahlul-Sunnah, this is because their scholars keep them occupied with Nauhas and Maatam and weeping for al-Hussein (ra) and reading Ziyarat and doing Latmiyat instead of reciting the book of Allah. This is an honest cry to warn the average Shia laymen from the dangers of the beliefs that their scholars hold on to, beliefs that led them away from the book of Allah and made them estranged from it, poisonous beliefs that must not creep into the hearts of the average Shia laymen.

Introduction:

The one who is familiar with the beliefs of the Shia scholars towards the Quran, based on their narrations and the declarations of their scholars and teachers, will see that there is psychological barrier between them and the book of Allah, and that they have greatly distanced themselves from it. This is natural and inevitable, it is caused by the beliefs they have chosen to carry, and although they are divided into two teams when it comes to the preservation and protection of this book from Tahreef(corruption), yet this crisis towards the Quran affects both teams.

You see the first team declaring a negative position towards the Quran, claiming that the evil hands have reached it and corrupted it, they claim that many of its verses were deleted and some changed. This team has saved us the time since they themselves declared that the book of Allah is not binding upon them and they rejected it completely, placing a thick solid wall between themselves and the Quran, so it is no secret that they suffer from this crisis.

As for the second team, it is they who have declared that the book is preserved and protected from additions or deletions, this is a positive position that leads the researcher to believe for a second that they are not affected by the crisis. Unfortunately, after reading this brief research one will see that the symptoms of this disease are deeply rooted into the belief system of this second team and it’s incumbent upon me to mention the origins of the problem and to clarify why it was unavoidable.

Chapter 1: Unveiling the disease causing the crisis towards the Quran.

The observer will realize quickly that the root of the disease in the Shia ‘Aqeedah is their belief in Imamah (divine appointment of Ahlul-Bayt as rulers) which in turn leads them to believe in the treachery of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) in general and the first three rightly guided Caliphs in specific (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar & ‘Uthman may Allah be pleased with them) because they usurped the right of rulership that Allah had supposedly bestowed on the twelve Imams from the progeny of the Prophet (SAWS).

Based on this, the image of the companions in the eyes of those who have been breast fed Shia ‘Aqeedah is a dark and ugly image, because they believe that the companions betrayed that which Allah had entrusted them with and did not offer the position of divine leadership to ‘Ali (ra) and his children but instead they oppressed them, tortured them, murdered them and forced them to give a pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra).

The ones who have absorbed a great quantity of this Shia belief will most probably reach a stage where they cannot even imagine that the companions are capable of doing anything positive in Islam. This is why you often see the Shia scholars doing their best to turn the smallest positive virtue or any good deed done by a companion into a crime and a negative act even if the opposite is clear.

I shall mention some examples below:

1- The virtue of the emigration of Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (ra) with the Prophet (SAWS):

It is a virtue that has been preserved by Allah in his eternal book when he said: {If you do not aid the Prophet – Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out [of Makkah] as one of two, when they were in the cave and he said to his companion, “Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.” And Allah sent down his tranquility upon him and supported him with angels you did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah – that is the highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.} [Quran 9:40]

The Shia scholars would put all their effort into turning this great virtue into a horrible crime, the Shia scholar and leader of their sect al-Tusi said in his book of Tafseer “al-Tibyan al-Jami’I li-‘Uloum al-Quran” while commenting on the saying of Allah “He said to his companion: do not grieve”:

“If this is not disparagement then it has no virtue in it, it is just a prohibition from being fearful”

Meaning that these words vilify Abu Bakr (ra) or at least cannot be counted as a virtue. He continued when commenting on the saying of Allah “Indeed Allah is with us”:

“What is meant here is only the Prophet (SAWS), but even if Abu Bakr was also included then this is still not a virtue, it may be a threat to him, like the one who says to a man whom he sees doing an evil act: Don’t do it! Allah is with us! meaning Allah is watching over our actions.”

2- The honor bestowed upon Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (ra) when the Prophet (SAWS) chose him to accompany him in the “‘Arish” or the tower of command during battle:

Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr would transform this from virtue to criticism in his book “Fadak fi al-Tareekh” page 128:

“I have no reasonable explanation for this other than him attempting to stand beside the Prophet (SAWS) to earn a position that is naturally the furthest point away from the battle-field and from danger (…) We know from the methods of al-Siddeeq that he loved being beside the Prophet (SAWS) in wars because his position is the most protected where all the Islamic forces are concentrated to guard and defend him.”

He also said on page 125:

“A certain person (meaning Abu Bakr) who found it enough during the holy Jihad to stand in the last lines -al-‘Arish-“
We say in response to al-Sadr: And if we ignore the fact that Abu Bakr (ra) remained there by orders of the Prophet (SAWS), I ask those whose eyes have been blinded by the darkness of hatred: When he had accompanied the Prophet (SAWS) in the cave and the Kouffar were searching for them to kill them as they stood right above their heads, was this the “furthest point possible from battle”?

{May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?} [Quran 9:30]

Based on the above and based on the fact that they do not tolerate any virtue for the companions, let us discover what their position was regarding the biggest of all virtues achieved by the rightly guided Caliphs, the virtue of collecting the Quran we have in our hands today after the death of the prophet (SAWS), we need to discover their views regarding the book that was collected by the men whom they accused of the most hideous crimes and described with the worst of descriptions, the men whom they labeled as being traitors and betrayers of the divine command of God.

The Shia scholars will be faced with two choices here, the first choice:

To admit that they collected the Quran in a matter that pleases Allah and his Prophet (SAWS), and thus accept this as a great historical virtue and that the entire nation would be thankful to them until the day of judgment for preserving and protecting the holy Quran. This is something that their hateful and vile souls shall never accept, because of all the loathing and hatred they absorbed as a result of their belief in Imamah. Believing in such a virtue for them is worse than being struck with swords and stabbed with knives.

An example of this, is that when one of their scholars wanted to defend the position that says that the Quran is Muharraf (corrupted), he stated that believing otherwise means that we think well of the Caliphs and have a good opinion of them, this directly opposes the base of their religion and their principals that state that the Caliphs were evil usurpers that betrayed the divine orders of God (Imamah). Shia scholar al-Muhaqqiq Yusuf al-Bahrani wrote in his book “al-Durar al-Najafiyah” 4/83:

AlBaqir:
If you want to be fair on me, I will remind you that immediately you posted the hadith, I replied that I see nothing wrong with it and I brought a case of abrogation of some verses. However, a hadith might be weak by its sanad but sahih by its matn provided it has corroboration. In this case, the hadith is authenticated by Allamah majlisi only by its sanad. What about its matn? It has no corroboration and by the first standard of Shi'i ilm hadith which says any hadith must be test by the Quran before being authenticated (I have given you two ahadith on this already), I believe the hadith should be discarded.

Why did I posted the submission on that link? It is a good job of ilm hadith whereby what Allamah majlisi seem to be right is exposed to be wrong. That's an independent research. There are lots of ahadith in both schools tagged sahih but independent research exposed them otherwise.

Finally, you will need to go back and read my submissions immediately after posting the link. That's my own personal view with evidences.

Bros I have been fair to you all this while, I asked you to explain a narration found in your book according to your scholars, instead of you to give me explanations from your scholars, you decided to go the route of weakening the narration, as it has been your way with all the narrations being quoted from your books that clearly go against your shi'ism or exposes some of you people's innovations in the deen. It is your way, and was refuted...But I see you didn't touch the refutation, and still hold on to the article as being correct (remind me again what it means to be open-minded?). Another issue is your point that Al-Majilisi authenticated the narration based on sanad alone, with your statement, "by the first standard of Shi'i ilm hadith which says any hadith must be test by the Quran before being authenticated" how come Al-Majilisi was basing his authentication only on the sanad? You may explain if this "testing of matn" was not applicable during the time of Al-Majilisi and perhaps you do have a clear proof that Al-Majilisi was only looking at the sanad to authenticate narrations in Al-Kafi. I would love to read it. (You know I have been asking you to explain how you guys go about deriving the classifications of narrations in your books, this might be an opportunity for you o, start a thread bro).

As a form of reminder...

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

AlBaqir:
Tahrif

Ayatullah Abul Qassim al-Khoei writes:

First, the meaning is to transfer an object from its place to another.

Allah says:

"And some amongst the Jews pervert the words (of the Torah) from their (original) places..." [Al-Nisā: 46 ]

Muslims are agreed upon the fact that such an interference has occurred in the Qur’an, because whenever someone interprets the Qur’an without understanding its true meaning and transforms its real meaning to something irrelevant, he tampers with it.

Many have introduced innovations and unfounded beliefs into Islam by basing their arguments on interpretation of the Qur’an according to their own whims and opinions. There are several traditions which forbid this type of interpretations, and condemn its perpetrators. In al-Kafi, a tradition by Imam Muhammad al‑Baqir (‘a) says that he wrote to Sa'ad al‑Khayr: "One of the examples of their repudiation of the Book has been that they stood by its letters and distorted its injunctions; they narrate it, but do not have deference to its teachings. The ignorant are impressed by their narrations and recitations, while the learned are grieved to see their disregard for its protection..."

Secondly, the meaning of Tahrif is an omission or an addition of a letter or a change in grammatical inflections, without effecting any change in the content of the Qur’an. This change may sometimes not be discernible from the rest of the Qur’an. This type of change has definitely occurred in the Qur’an. We have already pointed out earlier that the so called various readings of the Qur’an were not based on tawattur, which means that the Qur’an was really based on only one authentic system of reading, and the rest were either additions or omissions.

The third meaning of Tahrif is an omission or an addition of a word or two, at the same time leaving the essence of the Qur’an untouched. It is the type of interpolation which surely occurred in the first century of Islam, and in the days of the companions of the Prophet (‘s). The fact that Uthman burnt up all other copies of the Qur’an, and ordered his emissaries to do away with all the copies other than the codex prepared by himself, is an ample proof that there existed some difference between his copy and the others, else he would not have asked for their destruction.

In fact, some of the scholars have recorded those differences, like Abdullah b. Abi Dawud as‑Sajistani who wrote a book titled: Kitabul Masahif. It could be inferred that some interpolation had occurred, either on the part of Uthman or on the part of the scribes who prepared their copies. But we will soon establish that the copy of Uthman was actually the one already known to the Muslims. It was the one which was handed over from the Prophet (‘s) and widely used. The Tahrif by way of addition or omission had occurred in those copies which ceased to exist after the era of Uthman. As for the existing Qur’an, it is totally free from any omission or addition....

The fourth meaning of Tahrif is addition or suppression of an ayah or a Surah, at the same time preserving the revealed Qur’an intact, and accepting the fact that the Prophet (‘s) recited it as a part of the Qur’an. And this has definitely occurred in the Qur’an. The "basmalah" for example, is an ayah for which Muslims unanimously hold that the Prophet (‘s) recited it before every Surah except the Surah of al‑Tawbah. Yet, among the Ulama’ of Ahlus Sunnah, it is a subject of dispute. Some of them suggest that it is not a part of the Qur’an, and the Malikites have gone to the extent as to consider it Makruh to recite it before the Surah of Fatihah in the daily prayers, except when one intends to thereby digress from another Surah. And then there is a group among them who say that it is a part of the Qur’an. The Shi’as are unanimous that basmalah is a part of every Surah except al‑Tawbah, and this has been accepted by some Sunni scholars as well. When we start our commentary the Surah al‑Fatihah, we will enlarge upon this subject. So we see that Tahrif in the form of exclusion or suppression has certainly taken place.

The fifth meaning of Tahrif is that an addition of such a nature has taken place which rendered certain parts unauthentic. This indeed is totally inapplicable to the Holy Qur’an. Such a change has not occurred in the Qur’an, and this must be believed in as cardinal part of the faith.

The sixth meaning is Tahrif by omission. This would imply that the Qur’an we have today is incomplete and that people are deprived of some parts of Qur’an. It is over this implication that the dispute arose, with certain people rejecting it altogether, and certain group conceding it."

Source: The collection and the preservation of the Quran, p. 5
http://www.al-islam.org/the-collection-and-preservation-of-the-quran-extract-ayatullah-adul-qasim-al-khui

Thank you for the definitions, but you missed something, with respect to the definitions given, especially the sixth, what is the verdict from your scholars in regards to one who believes in the tahreef (i.e distortion/corruption/omission) of the Qur'an and due to this tahreef, the Qur'an is incomplete?!

AlBaqir:
# On this very thread, I have posted earlier various Shi'i Ulama submission on Tahrif. Kindly flip back. There are more if you want.

And I had also posted that many of your early scholars (and later ones) and their followers believed in the tahreef (i.e distortion/corruption/omission) of the Qur'an , do you want me to post more?! So where does that leave us? Aren't these people your teachings came from?!

AlBaqir:
@underlined, that's a wrong accusation. Why then did I submit a contrary personal opinion to what I posted?

@bold, I never used the word "strongly". That's an exaggeration

# Quran we have today is complete with no distortion. That's my firm believe, take it or leave it. If you can read the book I posted its link by Ayatullah al-Khoei (may Allah raise his station), you will see Shi'i arguments on the compilation and preservation of the holy Quran.

Don't mind me, the exaggeration was for special effect and it is not a wrong accusation, this is not the first time i'll ask for explanation of a narration only for you to whip up the weak narration card...like I said earlier, it has been your way.

Anyway, Alhamdulilah you believe the Qur'an is complete. My issue is with some of your big scholars who believed otherwise, it is on record that they believed the Qur'an with us is incomplete, and the complete one is with the Imams, Al-Majilisi also holds this opinion, so what do you have to say AlBaqir?

AlBaqir:
@underlined, even if it is 5,000, its something. Only an insincere person can deny those facts except we altogether rubbish the authenticity of those ahadith.

In sha Allah, this would be my last comment on this thread.

Salam alaykum. Fi amanillah

Its quite unfortunate this is your last comment on this thread, and I see you had helped me post a link to explain the Sunni view in regards tahreef...It is not a difficult issue as you are making it, anyone who believes in tahreef (distortion/corruption/omission) of the Qur'an is a Kafir! Simple! You may find it easy to reject a narration that states that verses of the Qur'an are 17,000, but some of your scholars believed this to be true, they explained their views, and these are not just your regular guy on the streets, they were leaders and teachers of the shi'a sect.

NB: The cases of abrogation are quite different from the believe that the Qur'an with us is incomplete due to omission/distortion/corruption by fallibles (i.e Companions (Rodiyallahu 'anhum ajma'in)...

Wa alaykum Salam.

Newnas:
Pls don't engage the guy again.

He has already confirmed his misguidance.

Jazakumullahu khayran brother, I usually would not respond to AlBaqir's allegations and suspicions, but for the fact that the truth must be told, and that I have done something, even if it is just copy and paste to dispel these false allegations and pure lies which I have found to be quite prevalent in shi'ism...it doesn't matter if AlBaqir accepts or not, I am used to him already, and due to my busy schedules, I see this as an opportunity for me to always read more about the deen...

AlBaqir:
^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.

*Why did you post the article in the first place if you truly believed in the matn of the narration and a big scholar such as Majilisi had already authenticated it?!

*Please define tahreef and what are your scholars position on those who believed in tahreef? If you can't find any information in shi'ism in regards to this, please feel free to bring what the scholars in sunni said about tahreef, and please for Allah's sake, show how those you have mentioned believed in tahreef of the Qur'an.

I see your attempt to copy and paste an article so as to weaken the narration from al-Kafi fell flat on its face. Since you strongly believe in the matn of the narration in question from your infallible Imam, I also want to know if you believe the Qur'an with us is incomplete?! or how do you explain 17,000 verses, which is double the amount we have?! Mind you, I would appreciate a scholars opinion far above yours, what you put up there as an explanation does not account for over 10,000 verses which are obviously missing in the Qur'an with us. Also, it seems in shi'ism, everyone is a scholar?... Since we do not even know your level of Islamic education, why should your opinion matter?!

I hope you do not mind my many questions, I just want to be sure of what you believe, and the source of your beliefs and I know you love epistles and I love to learn.

Many thanks in advance...

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/

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!

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.

AlBaqir:
Do you know how many jail term your Mujassim, Nasibi and Takfiri Sheik (Ibn Taymiyyah) bagged before "admitting" apparently those statements? I believe you, its many jail term. Ibn Taymiyyah is a full blown heretic though sometimes devil speaks the truth.

Bros, I thought you claimed to be open-minded?! it seems you don't even know what open-mindedness is all about...anyways, your above vituperation no move me, you people say worst things about the mothers of the believers, the wives of our beloved prophet (SAW), you denigrate the closest companions of the Prophet (SAW), what else should surprise me?! I guess you do not fully grasp the implication of these ways and actions peculiar to shi'ism (especially twelvers), I hope its not going to be too late before you realize the error in your ways, and I sincerely hope you are not doing all these for worldly gains...

Remember, we all would return to Allah (SWT) to give account of our deeds....

Jazakumullah Khayran @Newnas, Just love to add this, and let us see how open-minded AlBaqir is...

Shaykhul Islam Abul Abbas ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

And who would say: Knowledge of Allah is like my knowledge, or power of Allah is like my power, or His speech is like my speech, or his will is like my will, or His love, Pleasure, Anger are like my love, pleasure, anger. Or his Istiwa on the Throne is like my Istiwa, or His descending is like my descending or His coming is like my coming. Or something like this, he would make tashbih of Allah and liken Him to His creation. Allah is away from what they say, and he (the one who would say such things) IS MISGUIDED, UGLY (HABITH), MUBTIL, AND KAFIR!


Source: Majmaul Fatawa 11/482

AlBaqir, please explain to us these narrations found in one of your most revered book AlKafi, I hope they are not all daif jiddan this time around...

Narrated by Kulayni in “Kafi” 1/126:

Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from Sahl ibn Ziyad from Muhammad ibn Isa who has said the following.

“I wrote to Imam abu al-Hassan, Ali ibn Muhammad (a.s.) to clarify a question. May Allah take my soul in your service, O my master, it is narrated to us that Allah is in one place and not in another place on Arsh, (the Throne) resting. He comes down to the sky above the earth every night during the last half of the night. It is narrated that He comes down at the ninth evening of the month of Dhul Hajj and then He returns back to His place. Certain individuals among your friends have said that if He would be found in certain places and not in other places the air must have come in contact with Him and would surround Him because air is a thin form of body that surrounds everything proportionate to its size. How then the air would surround Allah, the Most Holy and the Most High, According to this assumption? The Imam replied in writing, “He has the knowledge of this. He is the best One in having the true measurements of all things. You must, However, note that His being in the sky over the earth is just as He on the Throne. All things to Him are the same in the matters of His knowledge and power, domination and control.”

Muhammad ibn Jafar al-Kufi has narrated from Muhammad ibn Isa a similar Hadith

Majlese said weak about first chain, and said sahih ala thahir about second way of transmission.

Did the Imam just say Allah (SWT) is on the throne?! OMG! Shi'a Imam is an anthropomorphist!


Kafi by Kulayni. vol 1, p 209:

A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from al-Husayn ibn Said from Fudala ibn Ayyub from abu a1-Maghra from Muhammad ibn Salim from Aban ibn Taghlib from abu Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following.

“The Messenger of Allah has said, Whoever would want to live like my living, die like I will die and enter the garden of Eden that my Lord has planted with His own hands, he must love (acknowledge the Divine authority of) Ali (a.s.) ibn abu Talib. He must love (acknowledge the Divine authority of his successor) those who love him, be the enemy of his enemies and submit in obedience to his successors after him because they are of my family and my flesh and blood. Allah has given them my understanding and knowledge. I appeal to Allah and complain to Him about the case of my peoples dealings, their denying the virtue and excellence of the Imams from my family. I complain to Allah for their disregard of my relation with them. By Allah, they will murder my son (al-Husayn (a.s.). May Allah deprive them of my intercession.

Hands?! plural form, OMG! God planted garden of Eden with his hands!!! OMG!

Kulayni in “Kafi” 1/126-127, and authenticated by Majlese in “Mirat” 1/67.

It is narrated from him (the narrator of the above Haddith) from a group of our people from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from Yaqub ibn yazid from ibn abu Umayr from ibn Udhaynah from Imam abu Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following.
It is about the words of Allah “There is not a single place wherein any secret counsel can take place between any three people without God being the fourth, nor five people without His being the sixth. . .” (58:7). “He is One, the One only in His Own-self. He is different from His creatures and as such He has said about His Own-Self. He has control over all things through His presence, control and power. Nothing as small as an atom in the heavens or earth is absent from Him, not even things smaller or bigger. It is all through His control and knowledge not by His-self. It is because the places are limited by the four boundaries. If it would be by His-self it would limit Him.

It is quite obvious you guys do not read your books, they indoctrinate you all with opposing the sunni, not knowing that your books contains evidences that shows that the sunnis are correct after all. Subhanallah! I wonder what you would have to call this infallible Imam for buttressing the point of the Ahlu Sunnah in the above last narration...Taqqiyah?! Fabrication? Weak?! well, the ball is in your court AlBaqir!

^^O Sheikh AlBaqir, the muhadith of our time, with special specialty and expertise in the kutub sitah, especially, sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, a shi’a extraordinaire who hardly quotes from shi’a books and avoids narrations from shi’a scholars like a plaque, please explain to us the following narration from Al-Kafi, volume 1, page 237:

Ali bin abi Talib RAA was told that the Prophet’s donkey, Ufair, committed suicide!
So Ali said: That donkey spoke to the Prophet ASWS, he said: May my father and mother be sacrified for you, my father told me, that his father told him, that his grandfather told him, that his father was with Noah ASWS on the arc, so Noah ASWS approached him and wiped over his back and said: from the offspring of this donkey there will come a donkey which will be ridden by the best and final prophet.
Ufair then said: so Alhamdulillah, that He made me this donkey.

Why on earth would a respectable shi’a scholar like Kulayni include this kind of narration in one of the most reliable books of the shi’a?! and kindly explain to us how a donkey commits suicide, and what could lead to a donkey committing suicide, while at it, can you kindly give us the names of the donkeys father and grandfather and perhaps if they are reliable too i.e thiqah? Many thanks in advance…

^^^ LOL, your shi'ism is indeed strange, after fighting tooth and nail that Qur'an 4:24 is about mut'ah (the word "istamt'atum minhuna" meaning what you enjoy in the (women) being your strength of argument for mut'ah), bringing narrations that clearly attributes mut'ah to sex, remember the narration of Ibn Mas'ood, and your continuous demand for solution to one who has high libido and being on expedition or travel, then all of a sudden, your Imams and scholars now start saying it is not about sex, especially in regards to virgins?! So AlBaqir, inform us, what would an adult man who is traveling, or on military expedition (as you want us to believe that mut'ah is meant for) be doing with a virgin in mut'ah?! even with a non-virgin, would they be alone in the same apartment or would they be monitored by a wali?! O! I know, they would sit, hold hands and discuss world politics ...This is absolutely absurd and ridiculous, you guys just like deceiving yourselves...

Thank you for quoting a sahih narration, since all I quoted were daif, even jiddan follow sef

Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā – Aḥmad and ‘Abd Allāh, sons of Muḥammad b. ‘Īsā – ‘Alī b. al-Ḥakam – Ziyād b. Abī al-Ḥilāl:

I heard Abū ‘Abd Allāh, peace be upon him, saying: “There is no problem in doing mut’ah with the virgin as long as he does not have sex with her, for fear of the disgust of the blemish upon her family."

Allamah al-Majlisi: Sahih

The bold is what I am particular about, how would a marriage sanctioned by Allah (SWT), in which you claim a good thing cause blemish, disgust upon her family?! why?!

Please stay on your conviction, the narrations are weak, you scholars cannot try to explain it or even get religious injunctions from it, so please, its isnad contains a majhul, we do away with it, or else, we also accept the fact that the woman in mut'ah is rented, and that is derogatory to the entire women folk...How can you say you rent a woman for a few hours?! Who does that?!

and mind you, I just decided not to respond to the arbitrary weakening of narrations found in your books especially due to majhul narrators, I had posted that on the Mahdi thread in which you ran away from...feel free to attend to it when you have the time...

AlBaqir:
PERHAPS ITS JEWISH MONKEY

Imam al-Bukhari records this beautiful hadith in his Sahih

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them

http://islamport.com/w/mtn/Web/3007/6501.htm

The Shuyukh in the house Empiree , Newnas , Sino , tbaba1234, Abuamam , kazlaw2000, et al

I chanced upon the discussion of the above narration posted on Shiachat, and lo and behold, there are even damning narrations from the books of the Shi’a, not that it is surprising though, but to think that someone who lacks in his own books of hadiths would come here to make fun of a narration that is not even attributed to the Prophet (SAW) and of an incident that happened in Jahiliyah, shows you guys are plain ridiculous. I wonder what you were trying to prove...

Well, I would just post responses that suffice, and if you are a person of intellect, the narration shouldn’t be an issue in the first place…

Farid posted: In response to the sarcastic title from a Shiachatter who makes fun of the narration of Amr bin Maymoun:

If you want to make jokes on Amr bin Maymoun for saying that he saw monkeys stone a monkey for committing adultery, then be my guest. This is the same narrator that narrates all those narrations in praise of Ali in Musnad Ahmad.

Oh, wait! Now he is reliable again?! Make up your minds.

Furthermore, Shias believe in Jewish monkeys since it is authentically narrated in Al Kafi, in the Book of Food, under the second chapter and fifth hadith, that lizards, mice, MONKEYS, and pigs, were transformed from humans into those creatures, and therefore, it is haram to eat them in Shiasm.

Therefore, it shouldn't be that strange for Shias to accept this strange narration from Amr bin Maymoun, since they believe that monkeys used to be people.

Aansoogas posted: it is not a prophetic narration.

The narration is mauquf. It was Amr's own experience and he does not claim to have listened to the monkeys but what he understood from the situation.

In Fath al-Bârî, Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî gives a more detailed narration of this event from `Amr b. Maymûn:

I was in Yemen tending the sheep of my people up upon an elevation. A male monkey came with a female and laid his head on her hand. Then a smaller monkey came and beckoned towards her, so she gently slipped her hand out from under the cheek of the first monkey and followed him. He mated with her while I looked on. Then she returned and gently tried to slip her hand back under the cheek of the first monkey, but he woke up suddenly, smelled her, and cried out.

Then the monkeys gathered round and he began screaming while pointing towards her with his hand. The monkeys went all about and came back with that monkey that I recognized. They dug a pit for the two of them and stoned them both. So I had witnessed stoning being carried out by other than Adam’s descendants.

Ibn Hajar writes inFath al-Bârî :
It is not necessary that an event that looks like adultery and stoning was really a case of adultery and capital punishment. He merely described it that way because it looked like these things. It does not mean that legal accountability was being applied to animals.

I marvel at how you and your people jump on hadiths, overlook what great scholars of hadiths had explained, overlook principles of Islam, what Islam represents and teaches, to forming your own opinions and understandings, as long as it is derogatory and against the sunnis, or it supports your beliefs (even by twisting), then it is the right understanding, authentic and true. And you want to claim intellectualism and being academic?! SMH

AlBaqir:
# Imam al-Nasa'i documents:

Ibn Abbas narrated: I heard Umar saying, "By Allah! I forbid you from Mut'ah, and while it is in the book of Allah and the Messenger of Allah did it too". He meant the performance of ‘Umrah during Ḥajj."

Allamah al-Albani comments: Sahih

Ref: Sahih Sunan al-Nasai (al-Riyadh Edition)[annotator: Nasir din al-Albani], vol. 2, p.268

# Imam Ibn Kathir also documents:

From Umar who said: By Allah! I forbid you from Mut'ah while it is revealed in the Book of Allah and the Messenger of Allah did it too.

Al-Hafiz ibn Kathir comments: The chain of narrator is good.

Ref: Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya (Aalam al-Kutub Institutions)[annotator: Dr. Al-Turkiy], vol. 7, p. 460.

# Allamah al-Wadi'i, a renowned Yemeni Salafi scholar also documents the hadith under the headings:

"Desirability that opposes the Quran and Sunnah"

Chapter: "Umar's forbidding of Mut'ah was desirability from him (his own view)"

Ref: al-Jaamia al-Sahih mima laysa fi Sahihain (Dar al-Athar), vol. 2, p. 390.

Bros, as said earlier, you would only be going in circles.

But if you are adamant, I’ll request that you provide the chapter in which the above narration can be found in Sunan An-Nasai, as well as the chapter in which it can be found in Al-Bidayah wa-n-niayah…While waiting for your response, and please consider the Arabic text too, I would like you to explain the following narrations from your books, it seems you are scared of approaching them, or they don’t teach you guys your books except that of your opponents?!

Ahmad bin Muhammad bin ‘Eesaa reported in his Nawaadir and Ibn Idrees in his Saraa’ir from ibn Abee ‘Umayr from Hishaam bin al-Hakamm from Abee Abdillaah (this is Ja’far as Saadiq) ( about Mut’ah) and he said: It’s not done with us except by the Fujjaar (transgressors and criminals).

You can see this hadith on-line in volume 100, p 318 of “Bihar al anwar”.

Shia sheikh al-Majad said:
سندها في النوادر معتبر , و قد رواها صاحب الوسائل عن النوادر و سنده الى كتاب النوادر معتبر

“It’s chain in “Nawadir” is reliable (motabar), and it was reported by author of Wasail from “Nawadir”, and his chain till book “Nawadir” is reliable”.

What does the classical Shia scholar al-Tusi think of Mutah?

He narrated in his “Tahzeeb al-Ahkam” (7/253):
(1089) 14 – واما ما رواه أحمد بن محمد عن ابى الحسن عن بعض اصحابنا يرفعه إلى ابي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: لا تتمتع بالمؤمنة فتذلها.
فهذا حديث مقطوع الاسناد شاذ، ويحتمل ان يكون المراد به إذا كانت المرأة من اهل بيت الشرف فانه لايجوز التمتع بهالما يلحق اهلها من العار ويلحقها هي من الذل ويكون ذلك مكروها دون ان يكون محظورا.

As for what is narrated from Ahmad bin Muhammad from Abu al-Hassan from some of our companions which is Marfu’u to Abu Abdullah -alaihi salam- that he said: “Do not humiliate the believing woman by having Mutah with her.” and this Hadith has a Maqtu’u Isnad and has Shuzouz in the Matn.

It is possible that what is meant in this narration is that if a believing woman was from a noble household then it is not allowed to have Mutah with her as it will dishonour her parents and disgrace her and this would be Makruh (Disliked) without it being forbidden.”

Other shia scholar al-Hurr al-Amili in his “Wasailu shia” (21/26) narrated:
[ 26432 ] 4 ـ وعنه ، عن ( الحسن بن علي ) ، عن بعض أصحابنا يرفعه إلى أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : لا تتمتع بالمؤمنة فتذلها .
قال الشيخ : هذا شاذ ، ويحتمل أن يكون المراد به إذا كانت المرأة من أهل بيت الشرف يلحق أهلها العار ويلحقها الذل ويكون ذلك مكروها .
أقول : وتقدم ما يدل على الجواز ، ويأتي ما يدل عليه .

4 – And from him from al-Hasan b. `Ali [Abu ‘l-Hasan – in at-Tahdheeb, Abu ‘l-Hasan `Ali – in al-Istibsar] from one of our companions going up to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: Do not do mut`a with the mu’mina as you would humiliate her.

The Shaykh said: This is shaadh (odd), and it is possible that his intent by it is when the woman is from a noble family which scandal would be attached to and humiliation attached to her, and that would be disliked.

I say: And there has preceded what indicates upon permission and there is coming what indicates upon it.

Then from your shi’a book Wasail ush-shia

And from him from Ahmad b. Ishaq from Sa`dan b. Muslim from `Ubayd b. Zurara from his father from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: I mentioned mut`a to him, is she from the four? So he said: Marry a thousand of them, for they are rented women. (Wasail ush-shia 2[ 26407 ]

And from him from Ahmad from al-Husayn b. Sa`id and Muhammad b. Khalid from al-Qasim b. `Urwa from `Abd al-Hamid from Muhammad b. Muslim[b] from Abu Ja`far عليه السلام regarding mut`a: She is not from the four since she is not divorced nor does she inherit. And she is only a rented woman. [/b][ 26409 ] 4

al-`Ayyashi in his Tafsir from `Abd as-Salam from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: I said to him: What do you say regarding mut`a? He said: The saying of Allah “So those of them with whom you have done mut`a” to a named duration “then give them their wages as a duty.” He said: I said: May I be made your ransom, is she from the four? He said: She is not from the four, she is only a renting – (al-hadith) [26419 ] 14

Muhammad b. Ya`qub from `Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi `Umayr from one of our companions from Zurara from Abu Ja`farعليه السلام. He said: I said to him: The man who marries in mut`a and her (or, its) stipulation (i.e. duration) expires then another man marries her until she separates from him then the first one marries her until she separates from him, thrice, and she married three husbands. It is allowed for the first one to marry her? He said: Yes, as much as he wants, this is not like the freewoman, this is a rented (or, hired) woman and she is of the status of the slave-girl.

And the Shaykh narrated it by his isnad from Muhammad b. Ya`qub likewise. [ 26530 ] 1

And from `Ali from his father from Ibn Abi `Umayr from `Umar b. Udhayna from Isma`il b. al-Fadl al-Hashimi. He said: I asked Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام about mut`a. So he said: Go meet `Abd al-Malik b. Jurayj and ask him about it, for verily he has knowledge about it. So I met him and he dictated many things to me in regards to its being deemed lawful, and in what Ibn Jurayj narrated to me regarding it was that there is no time and number in it, she is only with the status of the slave women, one marries from them however many one wants. And the one who has four wives marries from them what he wants without a guardian or witnesses. So when the term is expired, she is separated (?) from him without divorce. And he gives her the simple thing. And her `idda is two menstruations. And that if she does not menstruate, then it is forty-five days. He said: So I brought the writing to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام [and I presented it to him – in al-Kafi] and he said: He has spoken the truth and confirmed it. Ibn Udhayna said: And Zurara would say this and swear that it was the truth, except that he would say: If she menstruates, then a (single) menstruation, and if she does not menstruate, then a month and a half. [ 26413 ] 8

^^^Chairman, the audio of the sheikh has been tampered with; two different audios were merged, I can’t comment on such distortion, for I don’t know what the Sheikh was responding to or what he was trying to explain. Now I would like to get clarification, is this about Sheikh Al-Bani or about the narration? If it is about the narration, then it has been completely clarified. If you want to discuss Sheikh Al-Bani, then bring a clear proof of his audio to prove your allegations. By the way, I did not see any difference of Sheikh Al-Huwayni’s statement; he also made it clear that there are 2 views in regards to the narration in question, one being specific for Salim, and the other view stating that it is general.

On your question, I do not know, there is no verse of the Qur’an that states it is haram, nor any narration, to the best of my knowledge that states so. The Scholars of Fiqh would be the best people to direct your question to.

Jazakumullah Khayran akanke79, this reminds me of a Sheikh who is late (may Allah have mercy on him), it was as if I was listening to him as I read through...

The world truly deceives, and death is so close, yet we indulge in our vain desires...May Allah make our feet firm on His path Ameen.

AlBaqir:
^@ Sino, from your (another) submission above although its a repetition of the former, following are rebuttal:

# To say the word (أَرْضِعِيهِ )does not literally mean "to suckle directly from the breast, to breastfeed" is a deception to hide the truth. One then wonder why the sahabiyah, Sahla was shocked and said to the Prophet, "but he's a grown man", when Prophet asked her to "breastfed" the man.

QURAN USES THE WORD
What does that word mean in the following Qur'anic verses:

"Mothers should breastfeed (يُرْضِعْنَ ) their children two full years, provided they want to complete the nursing" (2:233)

"We inspired Moses' mother saying, "Breastfeed (أَرْضِعِيهِ ) your son. When you become afraid for his life, throw him into the sea. Do not be afraid or grieved for We shall return him to you and make him a Messenger." (28:7)

SUNNI FATAWA ON THE WORD
Shaykh al-Jaziri, the well-known Sunni jurist who wrote "Islamic Jurisprudence According to the Four Sunni Schools"[https://archive.org/download/IslamicJurisprudenceAccordingToTheFourSunniSchoolsAlFiqhalaAlMadhahibAlArbaah/IslamicJurisprudenceAccordingToTheFourSunniSchoolsAlFiqhalaAlMadhahibAlArbaah.pdf], in the same book, also defines the literal meaning of the word as "to suck the breast":

الرضاع - بفتح الراء وكسرها - ويقال : رضاعة - بفتح الراء وكسرها - أيضا معناه في اللغة أنه اسم لمص الثدي .

This Salafi fatwa [http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=101279] has used "both words" together, and they refer to breastfeeding in its literal sense, as explained above:

للزوج أن يستمتع بزوجته بما يشاء ، ولم يحرم عليه إلا الإيلاج في الدبر ، والجماع في الحيض والنفاس ، وما عدا ذلك فله أن يستمتع بزوجته بما يشاء كالتقبيل والمس والنظر وغير ذلك .
وحتى لو رضع من ثديها ، فهو داخل في الاستمتاع المباح ، ولا يقال بتأثير اللبن عليه ؛ لأن رضاع الكبير غير مؤثر في التحريم ، وإنما الرضاع المؤثر هو ما كان في الحولين .

Also, this is another fatwa [http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=312] cited on the same Salafi forum:

Yet this is was Allamah Al-Albani says:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=115gFzpaVx0

beginning form min: 3:40

1. He says the Hukm was not PARTICULLARY for Salim it is for every Muslim. There is no DALIL he says to restrict it to Salim r.a. This is also the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah r.h. I thought this was only Aishas r.a. opinion?!

2. He says his personal opinion is that an adult can be brestfeed by a nonmahram woman.

3. He even says that there is no objection [size=27pt]to suckle DIRECTLY from the nipples of the breast[/size] for this isn't shahwati (sexual)

How it isn't sexual besides how can a grown man suck DIRECTLY from the nipples of a non mahram?

ABOUT AL-WAQIDI
# In short, even from your post, there is no unanimous decision about al-Waqidi. Those few who seem to embrace him only does in his reports on wars. Obviously you can NEVER use this kind of personality in a Sanad to fill in the gap of a Sahih hadith. Try again later. Its a buried case.

You know if this was coming from non Muslims, I would understand their deficiency…

I do not understand what you are trying to proof, your arguments are very weak, and the two articles I posted had already clarified issues any sincere Muslim may have with this narration.

Quoting Sheikh Al-Bany does not help your case whatsoever, we do not have "infallibles", we accord respect and work with facts and the truth not assumptions and negative suspicions.

First and foremost, it is quite unfortunate, that due to wanting to proof a perverse opinion, you forgot all about what Islam teaches, this kind of attitude is common with you and your ilk, especially when you try to defame/denigrate the companions of the Prophet (SAW) (well you claim some not all). I had advised you in regards to this, but it seems such teachings are not an important aspect in shi’ism

Why am I writing all the above? Well it is simple, when you read a narration that is authentic, attributed to the Prophet (SAW), and can have a negative interpretation, as a sincere Muslim, what are you supposed to do?! What a sincere Muslim would do or say is to deny the negative interpretation, as such can never be attributed to him (SAW). So there is a problem with whomever holds on to such negative interpretation, either the person is mistaken, ignorant, deficient in Iman or a hypocrite.

On the meaning of the word rad’ah, perhaps I should try to explain to you what the author was driving at. For example, in Yoruba language, when you tell a nursing mother “fun omo yi ni oyan” meaning (literally) “give this child breast” but would rather be translated as “breastfeed this child” The intended meaning of the sentence in Yoruba is basically feeding, i.e feed this child with breast milk. The child has no use of the breast except for its content, thus the content can be transferred into a container and given to the child. Mothers of today do so, they put their breast milk in bottles and feed their babies, if you ask them, are you breastfeeding your child, they would answer you with in the affirmative.

As I had hinted earlier, even without the narration of Waqidi, one would have to think of the best case scenario, which can only be that there was no contact between Salim and his adopted mother. Why should we do this? Since we know that Islam states that all part of a woman is awrah (unclothedness), except for what is obvious, and the issue being discussed in this narration has to do with awrah of Sahlah and status of Salim (may Allah have mercy on them), then it would make no sense to believe that Salim was suckled by Sahlah (ra) directly, for that would negate the established prohibition in regards her awrah. This was why scholars like An-Nawawi would suggest that it wasn’t a case of direct contact (see the article).

Again it is well established that this case is a special one, and thus cannot be generalized, so any scholar who brings contrary opinion, based on his ijtihad might be mistaken, it is as simple as that. So you cannot quote one or two scholars, when we have on reliable authority, that the wives of the Prophet (SAW) (may Allah have mercy on them all), the Sahabahs, the scholars within the Salafs and the Khalafs, the four school of thoughts, the majority of scholars of our time, hold on to the fact that fosterage can only be established when the breastfeeding is done within 2 years of birth.

And your point on Waqidi holds no water, it is not only maghazi, but the lifes of the sahabas too, he is deemed reliable with conditions, the narration in question do not negate these conditions, thus the narration can be used to further explain the hadith of Salim and his foster mother.

Al-Waqidi’s reliability in Maghazi and Siyar

Early scholars of Islam themselves have maintained a difference between the literature of hadith and history. For instance, those who collected materials concerning the person of the Prophet (siyar) in relation to the legal obligations (al-Ahkam al-Shari’yah) were called “MUhaddithin” (Traditionalists); those who concerned themselves only with the life of the Prophet were known as “Ashab al-Sirah”; those who wrote about the character and habits of the Prophet were called “Ashab al-Shama’il”. And those who concerned themselves with the campaigns of the Prophet were known as the Ashab al-Maghazi.

On the basis of above categorization the same “Ashab al-Rijal” who, have rejected al-Waqidi in Hadith and in discussions on important religious obligations, have at the same time acknowledged his knowledge of the Maghazi and have specified his fact in their criticisms. For instance, the same al-Dhahbi who, at the end of his criticism on al-Waqidi in his Mizan has concluded: “Consensus has taken place on the weakness of al-Waqidi,” has specified in his “Tadhkirat al-Huffaz” that:

He is one of the vessels of knowledge but he is not well-versed in Hadith. But he is an expert (on the top) in Maghazi and Siyar.

Ahmad al-Khazarji writes:
He was a scholar of Maghazi, Siyar, conquests and of difference among the people.

Ibn Hajr himself who, has severely criticized al-Waqidi in his “Tahdhib al-Tahdhib” and “Taqrib al-Tahdhib”, has quoted him extensively in explaining the various events of the battles (ghazawat) and other historical events in his Fath al-Bari, the commentary to Sahih al-Bukhari.

al-Shafi’i has called al-Waqidi a “liar” (kadhab) but at the same time in his monumental work, Kitab al-‘Umm, he has based his inferences on the strength of al-Waqidi’s reports on the Ghazawat.

Source: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/01/muhammad-ibn-umar-waqidi-narrator.html#more

The above was my initial response to your last post when I didn’t listen to the youtube video of the recording of Sheikh Albany, Alhamdulilah I just finished listening to it hence this reply. I put it to you that you didn’t listen to the Sheikh, or you don’t understand Arabic.

First, the Sheikh stated clearly that the majority of the scholars of Fiqh (Jum’ur) were of the opinion that the issue of Salim is a special one, only few (Including Sheikh Ibn Taymiyah) had the opinion that it wasn’t a special case but rather general, following the Ijtihad of Aisha (RA) as well as applying principles of Shari’ah.

Secondly, maybe you didn’t post where you got the allegation that the Sheikh said “He even says that there is no objection to suckle DIRECTLY from the Tips of the breast for this isn't shahwati (sexual)” please tell me the time let me listen again, or bring another proof for the bold. What I heard was stating that the milk getting into the stomach, no mention of suckling from the tips, or sexuality.

Thirdly, from the beginning, the Sheikh clearly stated the unanimous position in regards relation through fostering, quoting hadith of the year being 2 years. Now go and listen well, He said, when he was about to raise the issue of Salim (RA), that it is a long standing issue, “is it a special case or can be allowed for SIMILAR cases?” in which he later stated that the wives of the Peophet (SAW) had differences….One needs to understand the background of Salim case to know the usefulness of using SIMILAR by Sheikh Al-Bany (go and read the two articles again).

Reading the forgoing, I can’t help but wonder how you arrived at what you posted…it baffles me such mindset you guys operate, it is just grotesque!

AlBaqir:
That narration from al-Tabaqat is a fabrication, or at least very weak. There is al-Waqidi in its sanad, and he is da'if, in fact matruk (rejected) according to Imam Muslim and others. There are those who have accused him of telling lies, also. You cannot possibly use a narration like that to interpret a "sahih" report. Besides, the Arabic term used in the hadith (translated as "breastfeed" above) literally means to suck breast-milk directly from the breast. The Salafi cleric, Shaykh Muhammad 'Awdah al-Salman confirms this:

الرضاع : لغة : بفتح الراء وكسرهًا وإثبات التاء اسم لمص الثدي وشرب لبنه .

If you are going to give a secondary meaning to that word, you surely need more than the da'if - perhaps fabricated - report of al-Waqidi.

Meanwhile, it seems that you are not bothered at all by the possibility of a "stranger" drinking the breast-milk of another man's wife. That looks strange, if you asked me.

There is no adult breastfeeding in Islam

Many Christian missionaries use a report from Sahih Muslim to argue that Islam allows adult breastfeeding. They try to seek for different arguments that kill their contentions. Let me respond to each of their arguments.

The Hadith:

There are quite a few narrations on this in Sahih Muslim and other collections. I quote one of them here;
'A'isha -Allah be pleased with her-reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. 'Amr came to Allah's Messenger –may Allah bless him- and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Feed him (i.e. make him drink your milk) so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2636)

Another narration says the Prophet –may Allah bless him- said: “Feed him, and it would remove what is there (expression of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa. She said: (I did that) and, by Allah, I did not see (any sign of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2638)

Same is reported in other Hadith works too including Muwatta of Malik, Hadith 1113.

There was no physical contact:

The first thing that must be clarified is that there was no physical contact between Sahla bin Suhail and Salim –may Allah be pleased with them both.

Meaning of the Arabic word أَرْضِعِيهِ:

The Hadith actually uses the word أَرْضِعِيهِ to show what the Prophet –may Allah bless him- asked Sahla to do. The word is a derivative of رضاع (Radhha) and it does not basically meaning suckling i.e. drinking from the breasts.

In Arabic it is perfectly valid to say, as it appears in classical Arabic lexicographic work Tajul ‘Uroos (1/7848) and is often used otherwise too;
رضع (من) ثدي أمه

“He did Raddha (from the) breasts of his mother.”

So the basic, original meaning of Raddha cannot be “suckling” but it has to be “feeding.” Had it been “suckling” there was no need to add “from the breasts …” The real meaning is “feeding” and the context or explicit information alone can clarify if it means, “suckling” i.e. “feeding from the breasts” or it was some other way.

Categorical Narration:

While the context does not say anything explicitly, we have to look for the answer elsewhere.

Qadhi Ayyaz said: “It is possible that she (Sahla) poured (her milk) and then he (Salim) drank it without having to touch her breast.” al-Nawawi said, “It is a fair possibility.” (Fath al-Bari 14/346)

Infact one narration gives us the explicit answer. We read;

Muhammad bin 'Umar (al-Waqidi) told us: Muhammad bin 'Abdullah, al-Zuhri's nephew, told us on authority of his father that he said, “An amount of a drink milk was collected in a pot or a glass, and Salim used to drink it every day, for five days. After this, he used to enter upon her while her head was uncovered. This was permission from Messenger of Allah to Sahla bint Suhail." (Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat al-Kubra 8/271 Quoted by Ibn Hajr in al-Isabah 4/11)

What they mention as a problem with this report is not a problem even though one of the narrators is al-Waqidi.[1]

It was a special case:

Except ‘Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- all the Wives of the Holy Prophet –may Allah be pleased with them all- maintained that it was a special case and that the same cannot be extended to anyone else.

Umm Salama, the wife of Allah's Messenger -may Allah bless- used to say that all wives of Allah's Messenger -may Allah bless- disclaimed the idea that one with this type of fosterage (having been suckled after the proper period) should come to them. and said to 'A'isha: By Allah, we do not find this but a sort of concession given by Allah's Messenger -may Allah bless- only for Salim, and no one was going to be allowed to enter (our houses) with this type of fosterage and we do not subscribe to this view. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2641)

This is so because the general principle goes as;

“Foster relationship is established only when milk is the only food of the child." (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4712. Narrated ‘Aisha from the Prophet –may Allah bless them both)

Al-Nawawi writes: “And all the scholars from amongst the Companions and the Successors and scholars of all regions to this day have said, ‘Foster relation is not proved if it after two years.’” (Sharah al-Nawawi 5/182)

This is agreed upon opinion. Those who are said to have differed also include Abu Hanifa and Malik –may Allah have mercy on them both- but even they did not hold that someone reaching puberty can be suckled, they only added few months to the period just after the two years.
So among the companions the opinion of ‘Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- is weak as the rest of the Companions, including the other Wives of the Prophet –may Allah be pleased with them all- disagreed with her and held that it was a special relaxation for Salim. The rationale of this special permission is discussed below.

And among the later scholars, it was rare to find one allowing it, while the overwhelming majority of the scholars held the same opinion as the majority of the companions did.

The context, explaining why it must be a special case:

Now let us dig a little more and try to find out what leads us to believe that it was a special case and should not be extended to any other people.

In Malik’s Muwatta, Hadith 1113 we read the background;

“Abu Hudhaifa ibn Utba ibn Rabia, one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah -may Allah bless him and grant him peace- who was present at Badr, adopted Salim -who is called Salim, the mawla of Abu Hudhaifa- as the Messenger of Allah -may Allah bless him and grant him peace- adopted Zayd ibn Haritha. He thought of him as his son, … When Allah the Exalted sent down in His Book what He sent down about Zayd ibn Haritha, 'Call them after their true fathers. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah. If you do not know who their fathers were then they are your brothers in the deen and your mawali,' (Sura 33 Ayah 5) people in this position were traced back to their fathers. When the father was not known, they were traced to their mawla. Sahla bint Suhayl who was the wife of Abu Hudhaifa, and one of the tribe of Amr ibn Luayy, came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, 'Messenger of Allah! We think of Salim as a son and he comes in to see me while I am uncovered. We only have one room, so what do you think about the situation?' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Give him five drinks of your milk and he will be mahram by it.' She then saw him as a foster son.” (Muwatta of Malik, Hadith 1113)

This clarifies the whole thing. Salim was adopted by Hudhaifa and both he and his wife considered Salim as their son. His case was very much
like Zaid bin Harith except that the wife of the Prophet –may Allah bless him, Khadijah –may Allah be pleased with her- in whose presence Zaid was adopted had died long before the revelation of Surah Ahzab (which includes instructions on veil). And further that Zaid’s lineage was known but that of Salim was not (Tabaqat al-Kubra 3/87)

Now when Surah Ahzab was revealed, two issues came up. Verse 5 ordered the adopted sons to be known with reference to their own biological fathers and in case it was unknown they were to be considered brothers in faith and “mawali.” And in verse 59 were revealed the instructions on Hijab for women.

In light of the instruction in verse 5, Salim was referred to as “Mawla Abu Hudhaifa” and that is the reason everywhere we find his mention like this only. And the verse on Hijab brought the other issue of him visiting Sahla, so to say his adoptive mother. Sahla –may Allah be pleased with her- brought the case to the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- and he considering the fact Salim was to Sahla like her own son, he told them a way out of the situation.

However, now that rulings about adoption and Hijab are already in place, such a practice cannot be repeated. If the adopted one is an infant and can be fostered before he reaches his second birthday, then he will become a foster child without involving any controversy. And if he is older, then right from the start Hijab factor must be considered in the light of the general injunctions and etiquettes of Islamic Law and civilization.

Abu Hudhaifa’s disgust:

The Hadith narrations say, Abu Hudhaifa was disgusted (Muslim, 2638) with Salim visiting Sahla –may Allah be pleased with them all- like before. This happened as Salim reached puberty (Muslim, 2636) and verses of Surah Ahzab were revealed (Muwatta, 1113). But Muwatta’s narration also says they considered him as their son. So apparently the disgust on Abu Hudhaifa’s face was due to something basically unlawful happening and not due to any other concern. And that is why when practically an out of way solution was suggested and put into practice the disgust on his face disappeared. It also hints that there was no physical contact for Abu Hudhaifa who had disliked Salim visiting Sahla would have not been satisfied had there been a direct physical contact during feeding. And of course it is wrong to suggest that Prophet –may Allah bless him- would have allowed physical contact. He prescribed the out of way solution because on the emotional level the relation between Salim and Sahla –may Allah be pleased with them both- was indeed pure and innocent as testified by Sahla (Muwatta, 1113) and because of the adoption to have taken place during the transitionary period they were given a special consideration and an exception.

Summary and Conclusion:

Salim, the freed-slave of Abu Hudhaifa –may Allah be pleased with them both- was an adopted son of Abu Hudhaifa. Both Abu Hudhaifa and his wife, Sahla treated Salim like their son. And Salim used to walk up to his adoptive mother and when instruction on Hijab was revealed Abu Hudhaifa felt bad about Salim coming to Sahla when she was not observing full Hijab at home. So the Prophet –may Allah bless him- gave them a special relaxation considering the details of their case. And when they actually followed the instruction, there was no physical contact. The milk was drawn in a cup and Salim drank it.

And but now when all the instructions on adoption and Hijab are well in place, such a relaxation cannot be sought. This is the well established opinion of all but one of the Companions, the four established schools of Islamic jurisprudence and nearly all of the top scholars from the earliest generations.
Indeed Allah knows the best!
________________________________________
[1] Status of al-Waqidi’s narrations

[b]Muhammad bin ‘Umar al-Waqidi (d. 207 A.H.) is one of the few narrators on whose reliability classical Muslim scholars had much difference of opinion. While he has been criticized by many, there are others who have graded him as reliable. On one hand some have called him a liar; on the other hand some have greatly admired him. Al-Darawurdi even went to extent of calling him “Leader of the Faithful in Hadith” (See Tahzib al-Kamal and Sayr Alam al-Nubala)

This leaves students like us in a very difficult position to decide about him. However some later classical scholars like Ibn Hajr, al-Dhahbi and Ibn Kathir have considered all the earlier opinions carefully and made a reasonable trade-off between the varying opinions without going to either extreme. Here I quote a few sayings from them.

Al-Dhahbi (d. 748 A.H.) writes: “He collected, hoarded and mixed the butter with the fats and pebbles with the pearls, so they have ignored him for this reason but in spite of this, he cannot be ruled out in the narrations on "Maghazi" (i.e. wars) and the lives of the Companions and reports about them.” (Sayr A’lam al-Nubala 9/454-455)

Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) said: “And al-Waqidi, when he does not contradict the authentic reports or the others from the narrators of “maghazi” (i.e. wars), is acceptable in “Maghazi to our fellows. And Allah knows best!” (Talkhis al-Habir 3/324)

And before him Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.) said: “al-Waqidi, he has reliable additions, and well document history. He is from the great leaders of this field. And he is trustworthy in himself, excessively reporting as I have deliberated at length about his reliability and criticism on him in my book titled ‘al-Takmil fi Ma’rifah al-Thiqat wal Dhu’afa wal Majahil.’” (al-Bidayah wal Nihayah 3/288)

Unfortunately the book he mentioned is not readily available, in fact has not been published yet. I have learnt about its manuscript version. In-sha-Allah I’ll try to dig it out and share the details about al-Waqidi from it.

All these quotes put together conveniently lead us to conclude that narrations from al-Waqidi are acceptable if they do not contradict absolutely authentic reports and if they are about the times of Sahaba and especially if they only add small little information to independently known facts. This is well known to those who have studied the works of Hafiz Ibn Hajr.

And as the above stated conditions are all true for the report under consideration, therefore there is no problem in accepting the narration as reliable. And Allah knows the best! [/b]

Source:http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/06/there-is-no-adult-breastfeeding-in.html

<QUESTION>

Please clarify the following hadith.

A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man.
Was he suckled at the breast or form a cup?

<ANSWER>

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

Let us first look at the translation of the Hadith mentioned in the Sahih of Imam Muslim and elsewhere:

Sayyida A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reports that Sahla bint Suhayl came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and said: “O Messenger of Allah! I see on the face of Abu Hudhayfa (signs of dislike) on the entering of Salim, who is an ally, (into our house). The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Suckle him.” She said: “How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) smiled and said: “I already know that he is a young man.” (Sahih Muslim, no: 1453)

Another version of this Hadith is as follows:

Sayyida A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) reports that Salim, the freed-slave of Abu Hudhayfa, lived with him and his family in their house. She (i.e. the daughter of Suhayl and wife of Abu Hudhayfa) came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and said: “Salim has attained (puberty) as men attain, and he has began to understand what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, think that Abu Hudhayfa feels uncomfortable with this. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said to her: “Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the dislike) which Abu Hudhayfa feels in his heart will disappear.” She returned and said: “I have suckled him and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhayfa has disappeared.” (Sahih Muslim)

Before coming to any sort of conclusion, we need to first understand the background and context of this incident. Imam Abu al-Abbas al-Qurtubi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his commentary of Sahih Muslim:

“Salim (in this Hadith) is Salim ibn Ma’qal…Abu Hudhayfa had adopted him in accordance with the customs of the Arabs. He (Salim) had been brought up and raised by Abu Hudhayfa and his wife as their own son. When the verse of the Qur’an “Call them (your adopted children) by (the names of) their (real) fathers….”Surah al-Ahzab, V: 5) was revealed, the ruling of adopting children was abrogated (in that one can no longer consider an adopted son to be one’s own). However, Salim continued to reside and enter the house of Sahla (the wife of Abu Hudhayfa) as he was a minor. When he grew old and came close to puberty, both Abu Hudhayfa and Sahla disliked the idea of him entering freely upon Sahla, but they found it difficult to mention this to him, given the fact that he had lived with them (and was brought up by them), hence they asked the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) regarding this. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said to Sahla: “Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the dislike) which Abu Hudhayfa feels in his heart will disappear” hence she suckled him and it so happened (i.e. the dislike of Abu Hudhayfa disappeared)…” (al-Mufhim lima Ashkal min talkhis Kitab Muslim, 4/186, Dar Ibn Kathir print)

The above clearly illustrates that Salim was adopted by Abu Hudhayfa and his wife Sahla. He had lived with them and was raised and brought up by them since childhood. However, Islam does not recognize legal adoption and a adopted child is not considered a real child, hence after reaching puberty, the rules of Hijab are applicable. It became very difficult for Salim to live with his adoptive mother due to this rule, thus the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) advised Sahla to make Salim drink her breast-milk, whereby the rules of Hijab would be lifted.

It is narrated in the Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d and elsewhere that Sahla would pour her breast-milk into a utensil each day for five continuous days and Salim would drink from it. He did not directly drink from the breast of Sahla, as it is not permitted to expose one’s awra in front of a non-Mahram adult let alone have him suckled. Thus, the objection raised by some non-Muslims that this was an immoral act has no significance, for Sahla did not directly suckle Salim, as he had reached puberty. Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (Allah have mercy on him) has also mentioned this in his al-Isaba fi tamiz al-Sahaba. (See: Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, 8/271 & al-Isaba, 4/337)

This leaves us with the question whether is it allowed for an adult to drink breast-milk, and what implications would that hold?

It is a well-known and recognised fact amongst the majority of the Muslim jurists (fuqaha) that suckling is not permitted after two (or 2 and a half) years, neither does it affect the rules of Hijab and marriage. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) quite clearly mentioned this in one Hadith where he said: “…suckling is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2504 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1455) The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) also said: “Suckling (radha’a) does not prohibit (i.e. marriage) except which penetrates the intestines (m: meaning which serves as a nourishment for the child) from the breasts, and it is prior to weaning.” (Recorded by Imam al-Tirmidhi in his Sunan, no. 1152)

Due to the above narrations, all four Sunni schools of Islamic law are in agreement that suckling and breastfeeding will only be considered (i.e. in effecting the rules of marriage and Hijab) if it takes place in the period designated for it, and it is of no significance after that period.

Thus, scholars mention that the permission given by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) for Sahla to give her milk to Salim was a special dispensation and an isolated case, and it cannot be generalized. Imam Abu al-Abbas al-Qurtubi (Allah have mercy on him) states that all of the Prophet’s wives with the exception of A’isha (Allah be pleased with them all) considered this to be a special dispensation, and this is the view taken by the majority of early (salaf) and late (khalaf) scholars. They considered the Hadith to be specific with Salim and Sahla, and are of the opinion that it is not permitted for an adult to drink breast-milk. If an adult did drink breast-milk, it will be of no consequence with regards to marriage and the rules of Hijab. (See: al-Mufhim, 4/186-187 & I’la al-Sunan, 11/119)

Moreover, Umm Salama, the wife of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) used to say: “All the wives of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) rejected the idea that one can come to them (without observing the rules of Hijab) with this type of breastfeeding (i.e. the suckling of an adult), hence they said to A’isha (Allah be pleased with her): “By Allah, we do not consider this but a dispensation given by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) for Salim. No one is to be allowed to enter (our houses) with this type of fosterage and we do not subscribe to this view.” (Sahih Muslim, no: 1454)

Thus, in conclusion, it is not permitted for an adult to intentionally drink breast-milk; neither will it have any bearing on the rules of Hijab and marriage. The companion Salim (Allah be pleased with him) was given a special dispensation by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) to drink the milk of Sahla, the wife of Abu Hudhayfa, due to the special circumstances of their case. However, Salim did not directly drink the milk from the breast of Sahla, rather, she would pour the milk in a utensil and he would drink from it.
And Allah knows best

[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK

http://www.daruliftaa.com/node/6030?txt_QuestionID

AlBaqir:
^No. 2 That Prophet was the first to have recited the ayah 87 of sura Maidah

Attached are the Arabic text and English (from both Sahih Bukhari and Musnad of Imam Ahmad), then snapshot from www.sunnah.com
.................................. ............................

Observation from the hadith
We are unsure about that exact military expedition which Ibn Mas'ud was making reference to. However, we know that a lot – perhaps the majority - of its Muslim soldiers were youths as stated by him. He himself died during the rule of ‘Uthman in 32 H* and his age was sixty three then*. This means that he was already 31 during the Hijrah and had reached 33 by the time of the Battle of Badr – the first battle in Islam. So, whenever that expedition was, Ibn Mas’ud was, by all indications, already beyond youthfulness. Therefore, when he said “and we were youths”, he was most probably referring only to the dominant composition of the army. It seems that this is also what explains the tone of the ayah. The Verse of al-Mut’ah had been revealed before that expedition. So, when these youthful Sahabah talked of castrating themselves instead of going into mut’ah, it looked as though they had made it haram for themselves. As a result, the Prophet quoted Qur’an 5:87 (which also had been revealed before then) to declare that temporary marriage was one of the good things mentioned in that ayah, that it was made halal by Allah, and that the Muslims must not make it ḥarām for themselves.

*Ref: Shams al-Din Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ‘Uthman al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam wa Wafiyat al-Mashahir wa al-A’lam (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Salam Tadmuri], vol. 3, p. 389

Another issue I have with you is that you lack the proper knowledge of hadith, I also do not claim to be knowledgeable, but when I read your analysis, I read your own projections, not backed up by any scholastic evidences, you try to inject your views to narrations, interpreting to serve your interests.

This narration has a constant narrator, which is Qays (ra), what does that imply? There are variations in the content of a narration attributed to the same person, in most cases when the variations cannot be reconciled, the narration is weakened, it is called mudtarib. While variations in narrations can be reconciled, they can also give us more information about the narrations. As I had stated previously, the narration in sahih Muslim states clearly that it was Ibn Mas’ood that recited the verse, since the same person is the narrator, then there should be no option of saying that it was the Prophet (SAW) that first recited the verse, before Ibn Mas’ood recited it. As stated in An-Nawawi’s sharh, Ibn Mas’ood was the reciter, stating the permissibility of mut’ah, the reason why this narration is the first narration in sahih Muslim, indicating the permissibility of mut’ah in the beginning (mind you, this has nothing to do with when Quran 5:87 was revealed, because Ibn Mas'ud was narrating his experience with the Prophet (saw) to those present, which most likely would be after the death of the Prophet (saw) ).

[b]“Some scholars commented that Ibn Mas’ud’s recitation of the verse suggests that people transgressed by making mutah forbidden.

However, Ibn Al-Qayyim in Zad Al-Ma’aad (p. 405) provides another possible interpretation. He said:
He wanted to use this verse in order to respond to those that say it is completely permissible and that he is a transgressor since the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – only allowed it out of necessity and need, during military expeditions, without there being women, and with extreme need for women. So, whoever legalized it in towns, which have an abundance of women and the ability for one to get married, is a transgressor, and Allah does not like transgressors.

It seems that this explanation is more likely. This is because in the Mustakhraj of Abi Awana of Saheeh Muslim (#3319), there is an addition, at the end of this Hadith where Ibn Mas’ud says: “Then it (mut’ah) was forbidden.” Ibn Hajar, in Al-Fath, when quoting Al-Isma’eeli in the explanation of hadith #4686 in Al-Bukhari adds that similar additions have been narrated from Ibn Uyayna and Ma’mar.”[/b]

Note that this portends a problem for your claims, for naturally, quoting verse 5:87 instead of 4:24, which is attributed to Ibn Abbas as referring to mut’ah, should have been the appropriate verse to support mut’ah, hence, 4:24 was and is never about mut’ah.

Secondly, if we are to say it was the Prophet (SAW) that recited the verse to permit mut’ah, then, according to you, you said the verse was revealed few months to the prophet’s (SAW) death, thus the prophet (saw) and Ibn Mas’ood must have gone on an expedition together before his death, which I demanded that you give me details of the expedition.

Thirdly, the verse said not to forbid good thing that Allah has made permissible, but your infallibles have used derogatory words to describe this practice, so who is saying the truth and who is lying? Why would a good thing only become permissible due to necessity and a case of desperation?! Think! Like my teacher would say back in the days, “if something is good, it has no other name than good, and if something is bad, it has no other name to call it than bad!”

Fourthly, if you say it was the Prophet (saw) that recited this verse to permit mut’ah, then it means that there was never a case of mut’ah before this period (few months to the death of the Prophet), no one knew what mu’ah was until this period, we would have to reject any narration about mut’ah before this period. If you claim that the companions knew about mut’ah and made it forbidden for themselves, then the questions you need to answer is how did they know? How and why did they make it forbidden for themselves? You’ll have to provide ample and authentic evidences for your claims.

Lastly, Scholars of hadith do not look at a narration in isolation, when there are corroborating narrations, they analyze them and make informed conclusion. As I have said previously, all narrations in regards to the permissibility of mut’ah were attributed to the Prophet (saw), and no where did the permission attributed to the Qur’an, except in the tafsir of Qur’an 4:24 which scholars had rejected as not part of the Qur’an. Therefore, the case of mut’ah is simple and straight forward; it was permitted and later on prohibited till the Day of Judgment.

The most rational and logical analysis had already been presented AlBaqir, you would only be going in circles, and arguing blindly if you keep playing this mut’ah card being permitted continuously. I believe you people's problem with the prohibition is stemmed from you people's hatred for Umar (ra), the reason why you would fight tooth and nail to absolve Ali(ra) and falsify authentic narrations, because I see no reason why something in which you would not wish for your daughter, nor yourself be this important to you to accept as being halal in Islam.