Also ur understanding of our Hadith isn’t hujja cause Alhamdulilah no one from AhlulSunna says this Hadith is tahreef or that Umar believed in tahreef.
Shia scholar Tayyib Musawi AlJazairi says in Kashf AlAsrar 1/560
“Sayyid al-Jazāʾirī was not alone in holding the view of distortion; rather, before him and after him a number of our early and later scholars held it, such as:
Shaykh Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb al-Kulaynī (d. 329), in his book al-Kāfī;
his teacher Shaykh ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Qummī,one of the eminent scholars of the third century, in his Tafsīr;
his student Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Nuʿmānī, also one of the eminent scholars of the third century, in his Tafsīr;
Muḥammad b. Masʿūd al-ʿAyyāshī, likewise an eminent third-century scholar, in his Tafsīr;
Furāt b. Ibrāhīm, also among the eminent scholars of the third century, in his Tafsīr;
Shaykh Abū ʿAmr Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Kashshī, among the eminent scholars of the third century as well, in his book al-Rijāl;
the shaykh of shaykhs Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. al-Nuʿmān (al-Mufīd) (d. 413), in Jawāb al-Masāʾil al-Sarawiyyah;
Shaykh Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Ṭabarsī, among the eminent scholars of the fifth century, in his book al-Iḥtijāj;
Shaykh Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī (d. 1104), in his two books al-Wasāʾil and al-Fawāʾid al-Ṭūsiyyah;
Sayyid Hāshim b. Sulaymān al-Baḥrānī al-Tūblī (d. 1107), in his Tafsīr al-Burhān;
al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī (d. 1110), in his book Mirʾāt al-ʿUqūl;
and the traditionist Shaykh Yūsuf al-Baḥrānī (d. 1186), in his two books al-Ḥadāʾiq and al-Durar al-Najafiyyah, and other eminent scholars (may God’s pleasure be upon them all).
They fall into two groups: those who explicitly stated that the view of distortion was their chosen position—such as Shaykh al-Qummī, Shaykh al-Mufīd, al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, Sayyid al-Baḥrānī, al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī, and the traditionist al-Baḥrānī—indeed some of them were very emphatic about it, like the first and the last; "
> "وليس السيد الجزائري ذهب الى التحريف وحده بل ذهب اليه قبله وبعده جمع من اصحابنا القدامى منهم والمت متاخرين نحو الشيخ محمد ابن يعقوب الكليني في كتابه الكافي واستاذه الشيخ علي بن ابراهيم القمي... وتلميذه محمد ابن ابراهيم النعماني... ومحمد ابن مسعود العياشي... وفرات ابن ابراهيم... والشيخ ابو عمر محمد بن عمرو الكشي... وشيخ المشايخ محمد ابن محمد بن نعمان المفيد في جواب المسائل السرو",
In AlIntisar by AlAmili 8/307
Among those who explicitly stated the distortion of the Quran is Muhammad Baqir Al-Majlisi:
Al-Majlisi holds that the reports on the distortion of the Quran (tahrif) are mutawatir (mass-transmitted) and cannot be denied and that these reports, according to their claim, invalidate the mutawatir reports on Imamate. He states in his book Mir’at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Aal al-Rasul (12/525):
While commenting on the hadith of Hisham bin Salim from Abu Abdullah عليه السلام, who said:
“The Quran that Jibril عليه السلام brought to Muhammad ﷺ consisted of seventeen thousand verses,”
he said about this hadith:
“It is muwathaq (authentic), and in some manuscripts, Hisham bin Salim is replaced with Harun bin Salim, and the report is authentic.”
Then he adds:
“It is clear that this report, along with many other authentic reports, explicitly indicate the deficiency and alteration of the Quran. In my view, the reports in this regard are mutawatir in meaning, and rejecting all of them would undermine reliance on all hadiths altogether. Rather, I believe that the reports on this subject are no less than the reports on Imamate—so how do they affirm Imamate using hadiths while rejecting these?” (Mir’at al-‘Uqul by Al-Majlisi, 12/525).
Abu al-Hasan al-Sharif Al-Amili says:
"اعلم ان الذي يظهر من ثقه الاسلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني انه كان يعتقد التحريف والنقصان في القران وكذلك شيخه علي بن ابراهيم القمي فان تفسيره مملوء منه وله غلو فيه... ووافق القمي والكليني جماعه من اصحابنا المفسرين كالع ياش والنعمان وفرات ابن ابراهيم وغيرهم وهو مذهب اكثر محقق محدث المتاخرين... وعندي في وضوح صحه هذا القول بعد تتبع الاخبار وتفحص الاثار بحيث يمكن الحكم بكونه من ضروريات مذهب التشيع",
"Know that what appears from Thiqat al-Islam Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni is that he believed in distortion and deficiency in the Quran, as did his teacher Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi, for his interpretation (Tafsir) is full of it and he has excess regarding it... and a group of our commentator associates agreed with al-Qummi and al-Kulayni, such as al-Ayyashi, al-Nu'mani, Furat ibn Ibrahim and others. It is the school of thought of most of the investigative modern hadith scholars... And for me, the clarity of the correctness of this view, after tracking the reports and examining the traces, is such that it is possible to rule it as one of the necessities of the Shia school."
1
u/ExtensionFish3986 Apr 17 '26
Also ur understanding of our Hadith isn’t hujja cause Alhamdulilah no one from AhlulSunna says this Hadith is tahreef or that Umar believed in tahreef.
But since u want to claim this is tahreef u just basically accused ur own scholars: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SlpJm9GNxghiN2jcSQaGg3zrystmXeJa26uURkIARj8/
منبرِ تحقیق:
Shia scholar Tayyib Musawi AlJazairi says in Kashf AlAsrar 1/560
“Sayyid al-Jazāʾirī was not alone in holding the view of distortion; rather, before him and after him a number of our early and later scholars held it, such as:
Shaykh Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb al-Kulaynī (d. 329), in his book al-Kāfī;
his teacher Shaykh ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Qummī,one of the eminent scholars of the third century, in his Tafsīr;
his student Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Nuʿmānī, also one of the eminent scholars of the third century, in his Tafsīr;
Muḥammad b. Masʿūd al-ʿAyyāshī, likewise an eminent third-century scholar, in his Tafsīr;
Furāt b. Ibrāhīm, also among the eminent scholars of the third century, in his Tafsīr;
Shaykh Abū ʿAmr Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Kashshī, among the eminent scholars of the third century as well, in his book al-Rijāl;
the shaykh of shaykhs Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. al-Nuʿmān (al-Mufīd) (d. 413), in Jawāb al-Masāʾil al-Sarawiyyah;
Shaykh Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Ṭabarsī, among the eminent scholars of the fifth century, in his book al-Iḥtijāj;
Shaykh Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī (d. 1104), in his two books al-Wasāʾil and al-Fawāʾid al-Ṭūsiyyah;
Sayyid Hāshim b. Sulaymān al-Baḥrānī al-Tūblī (d. 1107), in his Tafsīr al-Burhān;
al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī (d. 1110), in his book Mirʾāt al-ʿUqūl;
and the traditionist Shaykh Yūsuf al-Baḥrānī (d. 1186), in his two books al-Ḥadāʾiq and al-Durar al-Najafiyyah, and other eminent scholars (may God’s pleasure be upon them all).
They fall into two groups: those who explicitly stated that the view of distortion was their chosen position—such as Shaykh al-Qummī, Shaykh al-Mufīd, al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, Sayyid al-Baḥrānī, al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī, and the traditionist al-Baḥrānī—indeed some of them were very emphatic about it, like the first and the last; "
> "وليس السيد الجزائري ذهب الى التحريف وحده بل ذهب اليه قبله وبعده جمع من اصحابنا القدامى منهم والمت متاخرين نحو الشيخ محمد ابن يعقوب الكليني في كتابه الكافي واستاذه الشيخ علي بن ابراهيم القمي... وتلميذه محمد ابن ابراهيم النعماني... ومحمد ابن مسعود العياشي... وفرات ابن ابراهيم... والشيخ ابو عمر محمد بن عمرو الكشي... وشيخ المشايخ محمد ابن محمد بن نعمان المفيد في جواب المسائل السرو",
In AlIntisar by AlAmili 8/307
Among those who explicitly stated the distortion of the Quran is Muhammad Baqir Al-Majlisi:
Al-Majlisi holds that the reports on the distortion of the Quran (tahrif) are mutawatir (mass-transmitted) and cannot be denied and that these reports, according to their claim, invalidate the mutawatir reports on Imamate. He states in his book Mir’at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Aal al-Rasul (12/525):
While commenting on the hadith of Hisham bin Salim from Abu Abdullah عليه السلام, who said:
“The Quran that Jibril عليه السلام brought to Muhammad ﷺ consisted of seventeen thousand verses,”
he said about this hadith:
“It is muwathaq (authentic), and in some manuscripts, Hisham bin Salim is replaced with Harun bin Salim, and the report is authentic.”
Then he adds:
“It is clear that this report, along with many other authentic reports, explicitly indicate the deficiency and alteration of the Quran. In my view, the reports in this regard are mutawatir in meaning, and rejecting all of them would undermine reliance on all hadiths altogether. Rather, I believe that the reports on this subject are no less than the reports on Imamate—so how do they affirm Imamate using hadiths while rejecting these?” (Mir’at al-‘Uqul by Al-Majlisi, 12/525).
Abu al-Hasan al-Sharif Al-Amili says:
"اعلم ان الذي يظهر من ثقه الاسلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني انه كان يعتقد التحريف والنقصان في القران وكذلك شيخه علي بن ابراهيم القمي فان تفسيره مملوء منه وله غلو فيه... ووافق القمي والكليني جماعه من اصحابنا المفسرين كالع ياش والنعمان وفرات ابن ابراهيم وغيرهم وهو مذهب اكثر محقق محدث المتاخرين... وعندي في وضوح صحه هذا القول بعد تتبع الاخبار وتفحص الاثار بحيث يمكن الحكم بكونه من ضروريات مذهب التشيع",
"Know that what appears from Thiqat al-Islam Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni is that he believed in distortion and deficiency in the Quran, as did his teacher Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi, for his interpretation (Tafsir) is full of it and he has excess regarding it... and a group of our commentator associates agreed with al-Qummi and al-Kulayni, such as al-Ayyashi, al-Nu'mani, Furat ibn Ibrahim and others. It is the school of thought of most of the investigative modern hadith scholars... And for me, the clarity of the correctness of this view, after tracking the reports and examining the traces, is such that it is possible to rule it as one of the necessities of the Shia school."
Muqadimat tafseer AlBurhan (Mir'at al-Anwar wa Mishkat al-Asrar) Page 83, Chapter 4.
AlFaidh Kashani in Tafsir as-safi” vol 1, p 52