I am no Rijali expert, I would like to comment on brother cake's refutation of our article, He starts his refutation with this:
Yes, Kulayni may not have made a mistake. However Kulayni is not infallible. Even thiqat make mistakes. They are thiqat because their mistakes are few, both in number and in proportion to their total number of hadiths. And the mistake is not necessarily from Kulayni. It may even have been from Attar here. If one returns to the books and usool, then one will notice that at least some authors have the habit of giving the isnad for the initial hadith(s) and then abbreviating it or the names for later hadiths. It is thus possible that Muhammad bin Yahya wrote "Ahmad bin Muhammad" without specifying as-Sayyari and that Kulayni took this, making a rare mistake, in not noticing that the isnad returns to Sayyari. Or it is possible that Muhammad bin Yahya made the mistake in that he forgot to specify which Ahmad bin Muhammad this was. Or perhaps Kulayni forgot to specify which Ahmad bin Muhammad this was. Perhaps Kulayni copied the hadith straight out of kitab al-Qira’at which Muhammad bin Yahya seems to have had (acc to Najashi) and then later when organising the ahadith forgot that this was actually from Sayyari (al-Kafi did take years to compile afterall). Etc. In short, a mistake is not in the realms of impossibility. So, just because Kulayni was correct and “careful” (to quote their article) in writing the chains for many hundreds of ahadith, it does not mean that Kulayni could not have a mistake.
This argument is unacceptable, to suggest that this is a "rare" mistake is not an acceptable argument, as both cake and Nader agree, what is apparent from the chain is its clear authenticity, thus rejecting its authenticity based on the possibility that Kulayni might rarely make mistakes, and that this rare mistake happens to be this one narration about Tahreef, is not convincing at all. Besides why don't they say that the ones who copied al-Sayyari's book were the ones who made the mistake? Also assuming al-Sayyari is a liar he might have stole the Hadith of ibn `Isa because he liked its contents.
The brother's second argument is:
As for “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.”
Then, we know that Muhammad bin Yahya reported from Sayyari, such as is seen in Misbah at-Tusi, and we know from Fihrist Tusi and Najashi that Muhammad bin Yahya had the books of Sayyari. So, it’s quite possible that Kulayni took the hadith of Sayyari from Muhammad bin Yahya’s book or from Sayyari’s book. And, the hadith is in bab an-nawadir of a book in al-Kafi about the Quran, and Sayyari’s books were mostly about the Quran.
But this is not a refutation, you have not refuted the fact that Kulayni never narrated once a Hadith where ibn Yahya narrates from al-Sayyari throughout the 16,000 texts in his book! Yet you're assuming that ONLY HERE he went and did this and that it's a rare mistake? This isn't convincing not the least bit.
If you go and weaken this, the you must also cast doubt on every single narration in al-Kafi where ibn Yahya narrates from ibn `Isa, as it could be a mistake as well, even if the full name is present he could have also added "ibn `Isa" to the name "Ahmad bin Muhammad" as a mistake. Since al-Kulayni was apparently confused when it came to this, then we can't trust any Hadith with the above mentioned chains.
The brother says:
Additionally, the hadith is found in Sayyari’s book with an absolutely identical chain. Al-Kafi says “Ali bin al-Hakam from…” and Sayyari’s book also says “Ali bin al-Hakam from…”. which is quite coincidental!
I do not see an issue with it being narrated with a similar chain, can't two narrators who are famous for narrating a LOT coincidentally narrate from the same popular Shaykh? This is not called "coincidental" rather it is called COMMON, as it happens loads of times in the books of Hadith.
It can be seen indirectly that Shaykh as-Saduq does not consider the hadith to be reliable. He says:
بل نقول : إنه قد نزل الوحي الذي ليس بقرآن ، ما لو جمع إلى القرآن لكان مبلغه مقدار سبعة عشر ألف آية .
Rough translation: Rather we say: that indeed revelation came down that was not Quran, which if it were to be collected into the Quran, its quantity (of verses) would amount to 17,000 verses.
The hadith under discussion makes it clear that the _Quran_ was sent down with 17,000 verses. That means it’s unlikely that Saduq intended that sentence as an interpretation of the hadith. Rather, it contradicts the hadith, showing that Saduq holds a different opinion to the hadith.
Saduq, who had al-Kafi (as is stated in Mashaykhat al-Faqih), would not have held an opinion contrary to this hadith if he considered it reliable.
YES HE COULD HAVE. Tusi and Saduq always weaken and reject narrations, they either give strange interpretations or use Taqiyyah as an excuse or whatever other reason to reject an authentic Hadith which does not suite them. Actually al-Saduq does not reject the narration, as opposed to what the brother said he only gives it an odd interpretation, he says basically that the Tafseer and other information which was revealed next to the Qur'an, if combined with it, it would have been a much bigger book almost equal to 17,000 verses. THIS IS A WEAK EXCUSE! The Hadith clearly does not say that.
In any case, this hadith which - whether narrated by Sayyari or Ash`ari or both - lacks corroboration (the corroboration of a weak ghali doesn’t really count) and whose matn is contrary to the Quran and history, and implicitly rejected by Saduq cannot be considered to be sahih.
The Qur'an written by Sunnies or the history written by sunnies?
Big Shia Muhadditheen like al-Noori al-Tabrasi, abu Mansour al-Tabrasi and al-Majlisi, all believed in Tahreef and they easily reconciled their beliefs with the Shia version of history. Also al-Saduq does not reject it, it is incorrect to say so, rather he accepts it and goes out of his way to give an odd interpretation.
The brother then claims we did double standards here:
Ironically, it seems that Farid was unable to weaken a hadith with a fine chain that Ibn `Abbas read a verse differently and that the standard text had an error, and had to resort to saying that that hadith was maybe a mistake from a thiqa and suggested that a narrator had become confused. http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=20447&#entry139272 So, there should be no double-standards. If that is possible then it is possible that the 17000 hadith of al-Kafi was actually narrated by Sayyari, and in any case, it is shadh, and not acted upon by Saduq.
You said the two cases are similar? I say not, as the explanation Farid gave was that the cause of the confusion is that ibn `Abbas had narrated that the MEANING of the word "Yay'as" is "Yatabayyan" or "Ya`lam", a narrator confused it and said "This is how ibn `Abbas used to recite it".
Let's present the proofs from Tafseer al-Tabari:
حدثنا الـحسن بن مـحمد، قال: ثنا عبد الوهاب، عن هارون، عن حنظلة، عن شهر بن حوشب، عن ابن عبـاس: { أفَلَـمْ يَـيْأَسِ } يقول: أفلم يتبين
Shahr said: Ibn `Abbas regarding {Afalam Yay'as}, he says: "Did they not realize."
And
حدثنـي مـحمد بن سعد، قال: ثنـي أبـي، قال: ثنـي عمي، قال: ثنـي أبـي، عن أبـيه، عن ابن عبـاس: { أفَلَمْ يَيْأَسِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا } يقول: ألـم يتبـين
From his father, from ibn `Abbas: {Afalam Yay'as alladheena Aamanoo} he says: "Didn't they realize."
And
حدثنـي الـمثنى، قال: ثنا عبد الله بن صالـح، قال: ثنـي معاوية بن صالـح، عن علـيّ، عن ابن عبـاس قوله: { أفَلَـمْ يَـيْأَسِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا } يقول: يعلـم
`Ali from ibn `Abbas regarding His saying: {Afalam Yay'as alladheena Aamanoo} he says: "Know."
As the reader can see, this is typical interpretation, even the students of ibn `Abbas interpret it similarly, either-way the explanation Farid gave was solid and convincing as to why this is a mistake:
[Al-Qurtubi says that the known narration from Ibn Abbas that was narrated by Sa'eed bin Jubair and Mujahid is the same that can be found in the Qur'an. So, this narration is to be rejected upon that. It is possible that this is a mistake from a narrator. Plus, you will find tafseer from others from Ibn Abbas on the meaning of the verse, in which he says that the meaning of it is yatabayan. It seems that this is the cause for the confusion, and that someone took the tafseer and thought it was the actual verse.]
The brother then says:
They do qiyas by showing another "tahreef" hadith reported by Ahmad bin Muhammad. However, this other hadith does not prove tahreef. There are various hadiths in which sahaba in Sunni books are reported to have recited verses with additional words. This feature is also found attributed to our Aimmah in our books. This does not mean that they considered this part of the very text of the Quran. Rather, it is ta`wil, or tafsir, etc.
First of all, you cannot compare a companion of Rasul-Allah (saw), who heard the Qur'an directly from his mouth and depended on memory in order to guard it in his breast, you cannot compare him to someone who lived 200 years later when the Qur'an as we know it was already popular and established and so were its popular recitations that the entire generation of Sahabah had agreed on.
A Shi`ee leader can't come after 200 years and tell us: "This is how we read it and this is how Allah revealed it."
So this comparison fails! This is not a "interpretation" nor is it a "recitation", this is a sect who believed in Tahreef and were popular for this belief, do you see the difference?
Brother says:
Saduq is the one who said that our belief is that the Quran in our hands is the same as the Quran of Muhammad . When he says "we", speaking on behalf of the entire ta`ifa
No he isn't speaking on behalf of the "entire Ta'ifah", this Ta'ifah you speak of was the most unorganized and chaotic group with the randomest of beliefs, reading the Shia narrations alone show us their sects were full of exaggerators, extremists, liars and hypocrites, let alone the various teams and their various Imams.
every deviant claimed he was on the correct path and each claimed he represented true Tashayyu`.
He also said:
this must surely include Ibn al-Walid and his father, who were his two most important teachers and through whom he inherited much knowledge and many books. And who were the teachers of these two major shaykhayn of our ta`ifa? They were people like Muhammad bin Yahya, Saffar, Sa`d bin `Abdullah, Himyari etc.I.e. some the biggest shuyukh of the ta`ifa were taught by some the biggest shuyukh. And who is the teacher of those shuyukh (Saffar, Sa`d, etc.)? None other than Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa, leader of the Qummis. Had tahreef been a belief of the Qummis, and of Ahmad bin Muhammad, then how can Saduq say "our belief"?
So all the students of al-Majlisi to this day believe in Tahreef then? He was the head of the scholars of Iran, can we assume all his followers today still believe in Tahreef?
Also claiming that a student needs to hold the same beliefs as his teacher is not necessarily true, we've seen otherwise countless times. Nor does everyone in the same town and village need to hold the same beliefs, and we still have to this day Shia who believe in Tahreef openly.
They have forgotten that it can be argued from manuscripts that the hadith originally read as 7000, not 17,000.
great, this means the Imam is not infallible because he got the number wrong, unless he has a different Qur'an.
Finally,
Also, they point out that this verse 9:40 is also found in Sayyari's book, but it is different. One could argue that when Ahmad b. Muhammad in al-Kafi reported a narration about 9:40 it differed to what Sayyari reported and is absent from Sayyari’s book, as they are two different narrators. Whereas when it comes to 17,000 hadith, it is found in an identical form in Sayyari's book, so the possibility remains that the Ahmad bin Muhammad of the 17000 hadith in al-Kafi is Sayyari.
I do not have time to review the Shi`ee books, this one i'll leave it for Farid.
9 Replies
5177 Views
July 16, 2016, 03:02:46 PM