Do those who Reject this Kufr (from the Shi`ah) do so on Account of Taqiyyah?

The Crux of the Discussion
April 14, 2016
The Amount of Narrations Pertaining to this Fabrication in the Books of the Shi`ah, and the Weight that it Holds According to Them
April 14, 2016

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Do those who Reject this Kufr (from the Shia) do so on Account of Taqiyyah?

 

Although we explained that the Imamiyyah were not unanimous upon this kufr, and that senior research scholars among them, such as al Sharif al Murtada, Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, al Tusi, al Tabarsi and others who follow them from the latter day scholars have rejected it, a cry was made by the scholars of the Safavid dynasty that any rejection of this view that took place, was done out of Taqiyyah. Their scholar, Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri (who belonged to the Akhbaris[1]), regarding whom al Khowansari said:

 

كان من أعاظم علمائنا المتأخرين وأفاخم فضلائنا المتبحرين..

He was from the greatest of our latter day scholars and from the most outstanding of our accomplished well-read ones.[2]

 

He (al Jaza’iri) says:

 

والظاهر أن هذا القول إنما صدر منهم لأجل مصالح كثيرة، منها سد باب الطعن عليهم بأنه إذا جاز هذا في القرآن فكيف جاز العمل بقواعده وأحكامه مع جواز لحوق التحريف لها

It seems as if this was only said by them on account of the many benefits thereof. Among the benefits was that they closed the door to the objection that if this was possible regarding the Qur’an, then how can it be correct to practise upon its laws and regulations, as it is possible that they were changed?[3]

 

Thereafter, he presents proof for his statement saying:

 

كيف وهؤلاء الأعلام رووا في مؤلفاتهم أخباراً تشتمل على وقوع تلك الأمور في القرآن، وأن الآية هكذا أنزلت ثم غيرت إلى هذا

How is it possible (to reject the view) when these luminaries reported in their books such narrations which include (accounts) of those matters taking place in the Qur’an, and that a verse was revealed in this manner but then it was changed to that.[4]

 

The author of Fasl al Khitab holds the same view. He quotes the above-quoted speech of al Jaza’iri in support of his view, just as he quotes the view of their scholar, Ibn Tawus, who says that the book al Tibyan was written with extreme caution and it is the pinnacle of compromising for the sake of the opposition.[5] We have quoted his statement previously. Is the reality as stated by these people?

I say, there is no doubt that al Jaza’iri, the author of Fasl al Khitab and others are among those who openly state this kufr. Whoever does so, is quite clearly out of the fold of Islam. If we were instructed to ascertain the truth of the statements of sinners, then what can be said about the statements of these people? They are desperate to have every Shia proclaiming this kufr. Thus, it is not at all surprising that they interpret the statements of their opposition as Taqiyyah. I believe that those who accept the word of this al Jaza’iri and those who followed his footsteps, without any hesitation, and have pasted this kufr upon every member of this sect without ascertaining and studying the reality, have erred.

If we do not accept the speech of these liars, this does not mean that we will gullibly accept and take at face value (without questioning) the statements of the opposition. This is especially since we know that Taqiyyah is one of their principles, it makes up nine tenths of their religion and (according to them) there is no religion for the one who does not practise Taqiyyah, as will be proven.

Hence, it is absolutely necessary to do a careful, objective and composed study of this matter. thus, I say, just as al Mufid reports that his sect were unanimous regarding this kufr (as explained), many of their senior latter day scholars reported that the Usuli Shia unanimously rejected this kufr.[6] The author of Fasl al Khitab admitted that the view of rejecting that any alterations took place had spread and become famous among his companions. He says:

 

“.. شاع هذا المذهب بين الأصوليين من أصحابنا واشتهر بينهم حتى قال المحقق الكاظمي في شرح الوافية: إنه حكي عليه الإجماع

This view spread (rejection of the view that alterations took place) among our companions from the Usulis and it became famous amongst them to the extent that al Muhaqqiq al Kazimi stated in Sharh al Wafiyah, “ijma’ has been reported regarding this.”[7]

 

The author of Fasl al Khitab was angered by this. This is because, like I explained, he wishes to portray his view as the most famous one and the view of the majority. He says:

 

إن دعواه – يعني دعوى الإجماع – جرأة عظيمة (!) وكيف يمكن دعوى الإجماع بل الشهرة المطلقة على مسألة خالفها جمهور القدماء وجل المحدثين وأساطين المتأخرين، بل رأينا كثيراً من كتب الأصول خالية عن ذكر هذه المسألة، ولعل المتتبع يجد صدق ما قلناه، ومع ذلك كله فالمتبع هو الدليل، وإن لم يذهب إليه إلا قليل كما قال السيد المرتضى – رحمه الله – في بعض مسائله: لا يجب أن يوحش من المذهب قلة الذاهب إليه والعاثر عليه، بل ينبغي ألا يوحش منه إلا ما لا دلالة له تعضده ولا حجة تعمده، وقال المفيد في موضع من المقالات: ولم يوحشني من خالف فيه؛ إذ بالحجة له أتم أنس ولا وحشة من حق

 

His claim (of ijma’) is extremely bold! How can ijma’ be claimed regarding something that was opposed by the majority of the former (scholars), most of the hadith scholars and the luminaries of the historians? This cannot even be classified as famous! Rather, we have seen that most of the books of usul (principles) do not mention anything on the subject. The one who studies will perhaps see the truth of our speech. Nonetheless, that which should be followed is proof, even if it is only followed by a few, as al Sayed al Murtada, in some of his matters, stated, “a viewpoint should not be feared on account of the fact that only a few uphold it and are aware of it. Rather, only that should be feared, which is not backed by any proof and is not based on any evidence.” Al Mufid stated in one place of al Maqalat, “it does bother me who opposes this view. Complete serenity is found where there is proof, and there can be no fear of the truth.”[8]

 

In the above, we see the snippets of an argument that raged between the two groups, with each claiming that his view is the correct and popular one. Then we see this man, cladding himself in the attire of an advisor (just as the devil does at times) and advising his people to the fire of Hell, which is indeed an abhorred abode! He also claims that his view is the one which is supported by proofs from their books. Claiming that the opposite view was famous or that there was unanimity regarding it, is according to him, great boldness.

Thus, there is no doubt that a group from among the Shia, who had many followers, did not subscribe to this kufr. It was in response to them, as it seems, that the author of Fasl al Khitab compiled his book, i.e. to refute the view upheld by them. He wished to lift from them the blindness that he believes enveloped them. This is why he says that proof should be followed, even if no one else followed it.

Perhaps, he felt lonely due to his view. Kufr has always been a lonely and frightening cave. He probably feared that his followers and supporters were about to diminish, due to which he began advising them not to feel lonely or be fearful on account of them being few. This, according to him was a sign of the truth regarding this matter. It is amazing that he supports his stance using the words of al Sharif al Murtada, who distanced himself from this kufr and declared those who subscribed to it kafir. He uses the word of this very individual to invite his people towards heresy.

Along the course of my study of the book Fasl al Khitab, it became clear to me that a sect from the Shia were not ready to accept this nonsense. The author of Fasl al Khitab attacked them on various occasions. He comments on the speech of one of them saying:

 

ليس لداء قلة التتبع دواء إلا تعب المراجعة

There is no cure to the illness of insufficient research except tiring oneself in referring (to sources).[9]

 

He was similarly irritated with by the matter of al Saduq, the author of Man La Yahdurhu al Faqih — one of their canonical works — due to him rejecting this lie. He says that the matter of al Saduq is confusing. He accuses him of distorting some narrations to support his view in rejecting this nonsense. He also states that he changed some of the narrations in a manner that creates suspicions regarding him.[10] The exact texts regarding this will appear shortly. It should be kept in mind that his book, Man La Yahdurhu al Faqih is one of their most relied upon compilations.

At times, he presents excuses on behalf of his brethren who rejected this view, which he insists is proven and mutawatir (through their false narrations). He says:

 

إن أخبار التحريف متفرقة فلهذا لم يعرفوها

The narrations of tahrif (interpolation) are spread out. Thus, they were not aware of them.[11]

 

One may say, “they were unaware of them, as they did not exist. They were only invented later and they multiplied and increased. People like yourself then began accepting them, either on account of being fooled or because you wished to fool others. This is the only possibility, as it cannot be accepted that the likes of Ibn Babawayh and others, who were the pioneers of your religion and the compliers of your most relied upon books were ignorant of this.” He presents a similar excuse on behalf of al Tusi (as will appear). Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri, who claimed that they rejected the view on account of Taqiyyah, was not convinced regarding this. Hence, we see him, in al Sahifah al Sajjadiyyah expressing his surprise at their actions. He tries to refute their proofs saying:

 

وأخبارنا متواترة بوقوع التحريف والسقط منه بحيث لا يسعنا إنكاره، والعجب العجيب من الصدوق وأمين الإسلام الطبرسي، والمرتضى في بعض كتبه كيف أنكروه وزعموا أن ما أنزله الله تعالى هو هذا المكتوب مع أن فيه رد متواتر الأخبار

 

Our narrations regarding the occurrence of alterations and deletions are mutawatir. Thus, we cannot deny it. It is quite strange that al Saduq, Amin al Islam al Tabarsi and al Murtada (in some of his books) rejected this and claimed that whatever Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala revealed is this written (book), even though that would demand rejection of the mutawatir narrations (i.e. their tales).

 

Thereafter, he wishes to answer the objection raised by the intelligent ones from his sect, i.e. saying that the Qur’an was altered demands that it should not be practised upon as it is unreliable, and this is against the view of the Shia and the Imams. His reply is:

 

وما قيل من طرفهم أنه يلزم عليه ارتفاع الموثوق بالآيات الأحكامية، وينتفي جواز الاستدلال بها لمكان جواز التحريف عليها. فجوابه: أنهم عليهم السلام أمرونا في هذه الأعصار بتلاوة هذا القرآن والعمل بما تضمنته آياته لأنه زمن هدنة، فإذا قامت دولتهم وظهر القرآن كما أنزل الذي ألفه أمير المؤمنين بعد وفاة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وشده في ردائه وأتى إلى أبي بكر وعمر وهما في المسجد في جماعة من الناس فعرضه عليهم فقالوا: لا حاجة لنا في قرآنك ولا فيك عندنا من القرآن ما يكفينا. فقال: لن تروه بعد هذا اليوم حتى يقوم قائمنا. فعند ذلك يكون ذلك القرآن هو المتداول بين الناس مع أن ما وقع من التحريف في الآيات الأحكامية أظهروه عليهم السلام، فيقوم الظن بأن ما لم يعرفونا تحريفه لم يكن فيه تحريف

 

The argument presented by them is that it (the belief that alterations took place) removes reliance upon the verses containing commandments. Thus it will no longer be permissible to use them as proofs, as they were possibly changed. The answer to that is, they (the Imams) instructed us in these times to recite and practise upon this Qur’an and that which its verses imply, as this is the era of compromise. When their state will be established the Qur’an, as it was revealed, will appear. (This is the Qur’an) which Amir al Mu’minin compiled after the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, wrapped it in his cloth and presented it to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (who were sitting amongst a group in the masjid), whereupon they said, “we have no need for you or your Qur’an. That which is with us, of the Qur’an, is sufficient for us.” He replied, “you will not see it after this day, until our qa’im appears.” This is when that Qur’an will become common among the people. Besides that, all the changes that took place in the verses of laws have been pointed out by the Imams. Thus, we assume that whatever they did not point out, has not been changed.[12]

 

After this, is it correct for anyone to claim with certainty that the rejection of these people was done purely on account of Taqiyyah? Undoubtedly, the difference of opinion that exists between them and the others from their sect is of a very severe kind. It is quite clear from that which the author of Fasl al Khitab as well as others have written that there is definitely a great dispute.

However, we still need to study the proof presented by Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri in support of his claim that it was done out of Taqiyyah. His proof is:

 

رووا في مؤلفاتهم أخباراً تشتمل على وقوع تلك الأمور في القرآن، وأن الآية هكذا أنزلت ثم غيرت إلى هذا

How is it possible (to reject the view) when these luminaries reported in their books such narrations which include (accounts) of those matters taking place in the Qur’an, and that a verse was revealed in this manner but then it was changed to that.[13]

 

Is this the truth regarding those who rejected the view?

We will begin with Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, known as al Saduq (d. 381 A.H), regarding him to be the first one who criticised the extremists, and claimed that their view does not represent the Shia creed. This, he stated in his book al I’tiqadat.

 

Ibn Babawayh and His Rejection of that which is Attributed to His Sect

 

He says:

 

اعتقادنا أن القرآن الذي أنزل الله تعالى على نبيه محمد وهو ما بين الدفتين وهو ما في أيدي الناس، وليس بأكثر من ذلك، ومبلغ سوره عند الناس مائة وأربعة عشر وعندنا أن الضحى وألم نشرح سورة واحدة، ومن نسب إلينا أنا نقول أنه أكثر من ذلك فهو كاذب

 

Our belief is that the Qur’an that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala revealed upon his Nabi, Muhammad, is that which is between the two covers, and it is in the possession of the people. It is nothing more than that. The amount of surahs that it contains, according to the people, is one hundred and fourteen. According to us, al Duha and Alam Nashrah (the names of two surahs) are one surah. Whoever attributes to us that we say there is more to it, then he is a liar.

 

Thereafter, he proves his point by quoting the narrations regarding the rewards of reciting a surah from the Qur’an and the rewards of completing the Qur’an. He explains that this refutes the false claims. He states further:

 

بل نقول: إنه قد نزل من الوحي الذي ليس بقرآن ما لو جمع إلى القرآن لكان مبلغه مقدراً سبع عشرة ألف آية

Rather, we say, “revelation that was not part of the Qur’an was revealed, and (its amount was so much that) if it had to be added to the Qur’an, its total would be seventeen thousand verses.”

 

As proof for this, he cited some of the al Ahadith al Qudsiyyah (according to them). Thereafter, he says:

 

ومثل هذا كثير كله وحي ليس بقرآن، ولو كان قرآناً لكان مقروناً به وموصولاً إليه غير مفصول عنه كما قال أمير المؤمنين لما جمعه، فلما جاء به فقال لهم: هذا كتاب الله ربكم كما أنزل على نبيكم لم يزد فيه حرف ولم ينقص منه حرف، فقالوا: لا حاجة لنا فيه، عندنا مثل الذي عندك. فانصرف وهو يقول: فنبذوه وراء ظهورهم واشتروا به ثمناً قليلاً فبئس ما يشترون

 

There are many others like this. All of it is revelation, but it is not the Qur’an. If it was part of the Qur’an, it would have been joined to it and it would not have been separated from it, as Amir al Mu’minin said when he compiled it. After he complied it and presented it to them saying, “this is the Book of Allah, your Rabb. Neither has an alphabet been added to it, nor erased from it.” They replied, “we have no need for it. We have the same as that which you have.” Thereupon, he turned around saying, “they hurled it behind their backs, and bought in exchange of it a petty sum. How evil is that which they bought!”[14]

 

This is what was stated by Ibn Babawayh. I have quoted it in its entirety, as the source from which it was quoted is scarce. Also, most of those who quote from him, Shia or non-Shia, only quote the beginning of his speech, which does not give a clear picture of the man’s beliefs. Reflect upon the following regarding his statement:

Firstly, he believed that this was the view of all the Imamiyyah Shia. This is why the author of Fasl al Khitab commented, after quoting this text:

وظاهر قوله: اعتقادنا، وقوله: نسب إلينا، اعتقاد الإمامية

The apparent meaning of his words, “our belief” and “attributed to us” is the belief of the Imamiyyah.[15]

Thereafter, he takes him to task for this saying:

وقد ذكر في هذا الكتاب ما لم يقل به غيره أو قال به قليل

He mentioned in this book, that which was not the view of others or it was the view of a handful.[16]

I have already stated that the author of Fasl al Khitab was quite zealous in bringing all the Shia into his camp.

Secondly, he declares al Kulayni, the author of al Kafi, his teacher, al Qummi (the author of the Tafsir), al No’mani (the author of al Ghaybah) and others who openly state this belief and count it among Shia beliefs to be liars in his statement, “whoever attributes to us that we say there is more to it, then he is a liar.” In fact, it is as if he does not even count them among the Shia.

Thirdly, we do not find any indication from him towards a second view regarding the matter amongst them, contrary to that which is stated by al Ash’ari and others. It is as if he believes that those who hold any other view are not part of the Shia, unless there is some Taqiyyah that is taking place.

Fourthly, his statement, “if it had to be added to the Qur’an, its total would be seventeen thousand verses” seems to be an explanation of the narration of al Kulayni in which it is mentioned, “the Qur’an which was brought to Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam by Jibril ‘alayh al Salam was seventeen thousand verses, and the Qur’an, as it is famously known, is a little more than six thousand verses.” However, al Kulayni explicitly mentions, as you have seen, that they are from the Qur’an, whilst Ibn Babawayh clearly states that they are not from the Qur’an, and he interpreted them to be from the al Ahadith al Qudsiyyah.

Fifthly, he was not completely emancipated, as you have seen, from the effects of the tale-like narrations regarding this topic, which remained in his brains. Thus, you see him almost contradicting that which he established by mentioning the last narration regarding ‘Ali’s presentation of the Qur’an to the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and their rejection thereof. His acceptance of this fairy tale does create room for suspicions that his rejection was done on the basis of Taqiyyah (as stated by some Shia scholars as well as scholars from the Ahlus Sunnah).

Nonetheless, he did not dare to say anything explicit regarding the Book of Allah. He intended to clear the reputation of his people from the shame that was attached to them. He also did not have the courage to counter his people by rejecting their narrations completely. We cannot say whether he could not cleanse himself completely from their poison, or whether he rejected their view on the basis of Taqiyyah, leaving signs of this in his speech. Allah alone knows the secrets of men.

Among the Shia, there are those who assert that his rejection was purely on the basis of Taqiyyah, such as Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri. However, no reliable proof is presented to support this assertion. They suffice upon the fact that he reported in his book narrations which say that a verse was revealed in a certain manner and then it was changed to something else. After going through some of the books of Ibn Babawayh, who is referred to as al Saduq by them, to find narrations regarding this fabrication, we find that from the narrations regarding this, he reports the incident of the irreligious one who posed questions to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu (as they allege), which we quoted earlier on.

This is the very same narration which is reported by their scholar, al Tabarsi (of the sixth century) in his book al Ihtijaj.[17] In his version of the narration, there are nine places which indicate towards this kufr, as pointed out by al Nuri al Tabarsi.[18] We find that this tale, when reported by their Saduq in his al Towhid, becomes free of all those statements which indicate towards the kufr of Tahrif.[19] The question arises; was this tale built upon in the two centuries after Ibn Babawayh, so that it could include this kufr, or did Ibn Babawayh himself delete this portion? Whatever the case may be, it is clear that he was free from the filth of the narration which was carried in the narration of al Tabarsi.

The author of Fasl al Khitab could not decide as to what was the reason behind this taking place. He says:

 

وساق (يعني صدوقهم) الخبر مع نقصان كثير عما في الاحتجاج، منه ما يتعلق بنقصان القرآن وتغييره، إما لعدم الحاجة إليه كما يفعل ذلك كثيراً، أو لعدم موافقته لمذهبه

 

He (al Saduq) reports the narration, leaving out a lot of that which is in al Ihtijaj. From it, is that which relates to the shortening and changing of the Qur’an. This was either because there was no need for it, (as he does this quite often) or because it did not correspond to his beliefs.[20]

 

Why did he not consider the possibility that the narration of al Towhid was the original narration, and the lies related to Tahrif were added later by the author of al Ihtijaj and others? This is a very likely possibility, especially since al Saduq did not indicate that he deleted anything from the narration. The author of Fasl al Khitab was really angered by al Saduq — as it seems — on account of this. He says, quoting from another scholar of theirs:

 

وبالجملة فأمر الصدوق مضطرب جداً، ولا يحصل من فتواه علم ولا ظن لا يحصل من فتاوى وأساطين المتأخرين وكذلك الحال في تصحيحه وترجيحه

In a nutshell, the matter of al Saduq is highly inconsistent. Neither can knowledge, nor any idea be attained from his verdict, which can be attained from the verdicts of the latter day luminaries. The same is the condition of his authentications and preferences.[21]

 

Thereafter, he says:

 

وقد ذكر صاحب البحار حديثاً عنه في كتاب التوحيد.. ثم قال: هذا الخبر مأخوذ من الكافي وفيه تغييرات عجيبة تورث سوء الظن بالصدوق

The author of al Bihar mentioned a narration from him, which appeared in Kitab al Towhid… this narration is taken from al Kafi, and it has such strange changes to it that they raise suspicions regarding al Saduq.[22]

 

All of this criticism simply because al Saduq did not report the kufr that was reported by the author of al Kafi. The author of Fasl al Khitab quoted these ‘criticisms’ due to the fact that Ibn Babawayh did not adopt the same view as him. However, all the books of al Saduq were not free of this profanity. In his book, Thawab al A’mal, he quotes regarding the reward of reciting Surah al Ahzab:

 

من كان كثير القراءة لسورة الأحزاب كان يوم القيامة في جوار رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وأزواجه – إلى أن قال: – إن سورة الأحزاب فضحت نساء قريش من العرب وكانت أطول من سورة البقرة ولكن نقصوها وحرفوها

 

Whoever recites Surah al Ahzab abundantly, he will be in the companionship of the Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his wives on the Day of Qiyamah… Surah al Ahzab disgraced Arab women from the Quraysh and it was longer than Surah al Baqarah, but they shortened it and changed it.[23]

 

In the book al Khisal, he quotes the following:

يجيء يوم القيامة ثلاثة يشكون إلى الله عز وجل: المصحف، والمسجد، والعترة. يقول المصحف يا رب حرقوني ومزقوني

On the Day of Qiyamah, three things will come and complain to Allah; the mushaf (copy of the Qur’an, the Masjid and the household (of Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). The mushaf will say, “O my Rabb, they burnt me and tore me.”[24]

 

The word “حرفونى” (they changed me) appears in Bihar al Anwar[25] and in the book of one of those[26] who quoted this narration. Undoubtedly, it is a stronger indication of this kufr. However, it is contrary to that which is in the original book. A similar narration appears in Kitab al Amali of his. Al Saduq reports a narration with his isnad from Jafar al Sadiq — from his father — from his fore-fathers radiya Llahu ‘anhum — from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

اذكروا وقوفكم بين يدي الله.. فإنه لابد سائلكم عما عملتم بالثقلين من بعدي: كتاب الله، وعترتي، فانظروا أن لا تقولوا: أما الكتاب فغيرنا وحرفنا

Remember your standing before Allah… He will most definitely ask you about that which you done to al Thaqalayn, after me; the Book of Allah and my household. Thus, be careful that you should not end up saying, “as for the Book, we changed and altered it.”[27]

This narration does not indicate towards any person’s actions, it is only a warning. However, if it is joined to that which precedes it, that they did do it (as these people claim), then it will be kufr. There are other similar narrations which were reported by the author of Fasl al Khitab from secondary sources. I will not quote them, as I did not come across them in the books of al Saduq.[28] Also, there were some narrations regarding authentic recitals[29] that were quoted by the author of Fasl al Khitab from the books of al Saduq — the words of this man cannot be taken without double checking, it is not surprising that he did something like this — which are not in the original books. However, some writers from the Ahlus Sunnah were fooled by this act of his and they followed suit, without thinking twice.[30]

This brings us to the conclusion that some of the books of al Saduq contain narrations regarding this fabrication. Despite that, we cannot be certain that he upheld this belief, and his rejection was merely Taqiyyah, as stated by some of them. This is because his books were not safe from additions and forgeries. We are not speaking on the basis of our imagination. Rather, additions and forgeries are considered trivial by these people, as is apparent from the book Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais. As stated previously, many of their scholars have admitted that it contained fabrications and it was changed. Similarly, more than half of the book Man la Yahdurhu al Faqih of Ibn Babawayh al Qummi is made up of their additions, as will appear under the chapter, “their beliefs regarding the Sunnah”.

 

Al Tusi and His Rejection of Tahrif

 

As for their scholar, al Tusi (d. 450 A.H.), he says:

 

وأما الكلام في زيادته ونقصانه مما لا يليق به أيضاً؛ لأن الزيادة فيه مجمع على بطلانها، والنقصان منه فالظاهر أيضاً من مذهب المسلمين خلافه وهو الأليق بالصحيح من مذهبنا، ورويت روايات كثيرة من جهة العامة والخاصة بنقصان كثير من آي القرآن ونقل شيء منه من موضع إلى موضع، لكن طريقها الآحاد التي لا توجب علماً، فالأولى الإعراض عنها، وترك التشاغل بها، لأنه يمكن تأويلها، ولو صحت لما كان ذلك طعناً على ما هو موجود بين الدفتين، فإن ذلك معلوم صحته لا يعترضه أحد من الأئمة ولا يدفعه، ورواياتنا متناصرة بالحث على قراءته والتمسك بما فيه ورد ما يرد من اختلاف الأخبار في الفروع إليه وعرضها عليه، فما وافقه عمل عليه، وما يخالفه يجتنب ولم يتلفت إليه، وقد وردت عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله رواية لا يدفعها أحد أنه قال: إني مخلف فيكم الثقلين: كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي، وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض، وهذا يدل على أنه موجود في كل عصر، لأنه لا يجوز أن يأمر الأمة بالتمسك بما لا تقدر على التمسك به، كما أن أهل البيت ومن يجب اتباع قوله حاصل في كل وقت، وإذا كان الموجود بيننا مجمعاً على صحته فينبغي أن نتشاغل بتفسيره وبيان معانيه وترك ما سواه

As for the discussion concerning whether addition or deletions took place in it, this is inappropriate. It is agreed upon that there are no additions to it. As for deletions, the known view of the Muslims is that it did not happen, and this is closest to the correct view of our school. Many narrations of the Ahlus Sunnah as well as the Shia indicate that a number of verses were deleted or transferred from place to place. However these narrations are ahad and thus they are not definite. It is more appropriate to turn away from it (the narrations), and to abstain from being occupied with it, as it is possible to interpret it.

If they are authentic, they do not criticise that which is between the two covers, as the authenticity thereof is well-known. None of the Imams objected to it or rejected it. Our narrations encourage recitation of it and holding on to that which is in it. We are also instructed to compare the narrations to it when they contradict in secondary issues and thereafter to practise upon that which conforms to it and discard that which does not conform to it.

A narration is reported from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, which no one rejects. He said, “I am leaving amongst you al Thaqalayn; the Book of Allah, and my household. They will not separate until they meet me at the pond.” This establishes that it will be found in every era, as it is not possible that he commands his ummah to hold onto that which they cannot hold on to. The Ahlul Bayt and those whose obedience is compulsory are likewise found in every era. Since the authenticity of that which is found amongst us is agreed upon by all, it is necessary for us to concern ourselves with its tafsir, and explaining its meanings, leaving out all else.[31]

This is the speech of their scholar al Tusi, who authored two of their seminal works in hadith and two of their relied upon books on narrators. Did he say this out of Taqiyyah?

I say, among the signs of Taqiyyah is that there will be contradictions and differences. However, contradictions have become a norm in their narrations. In fact, it is even found in what they refer to as consensus. Thus, it is no surprise that the speech of their scholars have a fair share of it too. It has become exceptionally difficult to realise the actual stance of their school. Even their scholars are baffled, as they find no proof by which they can differentiate between that which was said out of Taqiyyah and that which was actually meant. Their only way out is to rely on a principle laid by an ultra-profane individual amongst them:

 

إذا ورد عليكم حديثان مختلفان فخذوا بما خالف القوم

If two contradictory ahadith are presented to you, take that which opposes the people (Ahlus Sunnah).[32]

 

This principle leads them, in most cases, to leaving the din completely.[33] It is natural for any religion which is not from Allah to have many contradictions. “If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.”[34] Thus, if he is quoting narrations from their books, it is inevitable that there would be contradictions. Therefore, we cannot take him to task completely, since he rejected the view. Added to that, his view is judged by that which he said, not by that he narrated.

It has been noted that al Tusi, in his re-arrangement of Rijal al Kashshi quotes some narrations regarding this tale. Among them are:

 

لا تأخذن معالم دينك من غير شيعتنا، فإنك إن تعديتهم أخذت دينك عن الخائنين الذين خانوا الله ورسوله، وخانوا أماناتهم، إنهم اؤتمنوا على كتاب الله جل وعلا فحرّفوا وبدّلوه

Do not take the guidelines of your religion from anyone other than our sect. if you go beyond them, you will be taking your religion from traitors, who were treacherous toward Allah, His Rasul and their trusts. They were trusted with the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala but they changed it and altered it…[35]

 

He also reports some narrations regarding this tale, in his Tafsir al Tibyan, portraying them to be different qira’at.[36] However, he believes that all of these narrations are Ahad, which cannot be relied upon, and they cannot cancel out all their narrations which instruct that the Qur’an should be practised upon and referred to at the time of disputes, as stated by him whilst explaining his rejection of the view.

As for the author of Fasl al Khitab, his explanations of this rejection (which caused him pain, as it is against his view) have differed. At times, he says that this is only the view of al Tusi and a small group of Shia. His exact words are:

 

إنه ليس فيه حكاية إجماع عليه، بل قوله: نصره المرتضى صريح في عدمه، بل في قلة الذاهبين إليه

There is no claim of ijma’ regarding it. Instead, his statement, “al Murtada supported it,” explicitly defies it, or rather, highlights that only a few people held the view.[37]

 

Later, he retracts saying that this was only said by him on account of Taqiyyah, as his rejection is recorded in Tafsir al Tibyan. He says:

 

لا يخفى على المتأمل في كتاب التبيان أن طريقته فيه على نهاية المدارة والمماشاة مع المخالفين

It is quite clear to the one who ponders that the style of al Tibyan was one of extreme compromise and adopting the views of the opposition.[38]

 

He backs this argument by the fact that the author quoted many of the tafsirs of the Ahlus Sunnah.[39] However, he cannot say this with certainty. He says:

 

وهو – أي نقل الطوسي لأقوال أئمة السنة – بمكان من الغرابة لو لم يكن على وجه المماشاة، فمن المحتمل أن يكون هذا القول – يعني إنكار التحريف – منه (من الطوسي) فيه (في تفسير البيان) على نحو ذلك (أي من المدارة والتقية)

It (al Tusi’s quoting from the Ahlus Sunnah) is quite strange, if it was not done with the intention of compromising. It is possible that this view (rejecting Tahrif) of his (al Tusi) in it (Tafsir al Bayan) was also due to this (i.e. Taqiyyah and compromise).

 

Thereafter, a third idea comes to his mind. He says that the speech of al Tusi contains such contradictions which indicate towards them being Taqiyyah. He says:

 

إن إخباره بأن ما دل على النقصان روايات كثيرة يناقض قوله: لكن طريقه الآحاد، إلا أن يحمل ما ذكرنا

His narrations which indicate that changes took place are many. They contradict his statement, “they are ahad.”. Unless it is interpreted in the manner that we explained (i.e. Taqiyyah).[40]

 

Lastly, he forgets all of the above and chooses to excuse al Tusi. He says:

 

معذور (في إنكاره) لقلة تتبعه من قلة تلك الكتب عنده

He is excused in his rejection thereof, as he did not do sufficient research, due to him not possessing many of those books.[41]

 

This is one angle of the bafflement of al Tabarsi regarding the matter of al Tusi and others who rejected this fabrication. If this is the condition of their scholars, that they cannot agree as to what is the stance of their Imams and classical scholars on account of Taqiyyah, then we are more deserving of being excused for not being able to arrive at a definite conclusion regarding the stance of their scholars.

Al Tusi, as seen from his rejection, added vinegar to the honey, and he contradicted himself whilst stating the stance of his school, as is apparent.[42]

 

Al Sharif al Murtada and His Rejection Tahrif

 

He says:

 

إن العلم بصحة نقل القرآن كالعلم بالبلدان والحوادث الكبار والوقائع العظام والكتب المشهورة وأشعار العرب المسطورة، فإن العناية اشتدت والدواعي توفرت على نقله وحراسته، وبلغت إلى حد لم يبلغه فيما [لعلها “ما ذكرناه”.] ذكرناه، لأن القرآن معجزة النبوة، ومأخذ العلوم الشرعية، والأحكام الدينية، وعلماء المسلمين قد بلغوا في حفظه وحمايته الغاية حتى عرفوا كل شيء اختلف فيه من إعرابه وقراءته وحروفه وآياته، فكيف يجوز أن يكون مغيراً ومنقوصاً مع العناية الصادقة والضبط الشديد

 

Knowledge regarding the authenticity of the Qur’an is like knowledge of the cities, major events, significant occurrences, the famous books and the recorded poems of the Arabs. Great effort was made and there was every reason for its protection and propagation. It reached a standard that none of the other things we had mentioned reached. This is because the Qur’an was the miraculous challenge supporting nubuwwah, the source of Islamic knowledge and religious verdicts. The scholars of the Muslims reached the pinnacle in their efforts to protect and safeguard it, to the extent that they learnt every variation of it, whether it pertained to the diacritics, the recitals, letters or verses. How is it then possible that it could have been changed or shortened, when such a genuine effort was made and it was learnt this well?

 

Thereafter, he mentions that if anyone intended to add on or delete from the famous books such as the book of Sibwayh or al Muzani it would have been known and reported, as the people of the science are acquainted with the fine details just as they are acquainted with the major aspects. If anyone wished to add on a chapter of nahw (grammar) to the book of Sibwayh or al Muzani, which was not part of the original book, it would have immediately been known that this is not part of the original book.

 

ومعلوم أن العناية بالقرآن وضبطه أصدق من العناية بنقل كتاب سيبويه ودواوين الشعراء..

وإن من خالف ذلك من الإمامية والحشوية لا يعتد بخلافهم، فإن الخلاف في ذلك مضاف إلى قوم من أصحاب الحديث نقلوا أخباراً ضعيفة ظنوا صحتها لا يرجع بمثلها عن المعلوم المقطوع على صحته

 

It is an undisputed fact that the effort behind the protection and learning of the Qur’an was far greater than the effort made in preserving the book of Sibwayh and the poetry of the poets. Those who dispute this, from the Imamiyyah and the Hashawiyyah, do not deserve any attention. There is some difference of opinion, which is attributed to the people of hadith. They narrate some unauthentic narrations, which they regard as authentic. The likes of those cannot be used to reject that, the authenticity of which is known without any doubt.[43]

 

Perhaps his last sentence is a reference to the view of the Akhbari Shia, who accept this deviation.[44]

These are the words of their scholar, al Sharif al Murtada (who Ibn Hazm excluded from those who believe in the kufr regarding the subject, as explained). The author of Majma’ al Bayan, after quoting this stated:

 

إن المرتضى قد استوفى في الكلام في نصرة هذا المذهب الحق في جواب المسائل الطرابلسيات

Al Murtada done justice in supporting this correct view in Jawab al Masa’il al Tarabulusiyyat.[45]

 

We could not find this book, and the latter day Shia do not quote from it (al Kashani in Tafsir al Safi, al Bahrani in al Burhan, al Majlisi in al Bihar, etc.). I could not find anything from it (in all that I searched in) besides this text, which was transmitted by al Tabarsi in Majma’ al Bayan. However, it has been said that this rejection was done out of Taqiyyah, this is because, as stated by the author of Fasl al Khitab:

 

قد عدّ هو في الشافي من مطاعن عثمان ومن عظيم ما أقدم عليه جمع الناس على قراءة زيد وإحراقه وإبطاله ما شك أنه من القرآن

He counted, in al Shafi, among the faults and serious crimes of ‘Uthman that he united the people upon the recitation of Zaid and he burnt and destroyed that regarding which he had doubts as to whether it is part of the Qur’an.[46]

 

This undoubtedly negates his rejection of Tahrif as well as the historic and intellectual proofs that he presented to disprove it. Either this text was added to his book, like in the other cases. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that if this was his belief, he would have spoken about it on many occasions, but the author of Fasl al Khitab could only reproduce one statement.

The other possibility is that his rejection was on account of Taqiyyah. This possibility is much weaker than the previous one, based on what we have just mentioned. This text, added to the fact that it is an insult directed against the Book of Allah, it also suggests that the entire ummah, including ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, were all upon deviation. This is from a people who claimed to support and love him!

How can a Muslim imagine that this took place in that unique Qur’anic generation, who spent everything and migrated, leaving behind their wives and children; to spread Islam. They left their hometowns purely for the sake of Allah. For whose benefit, and in whose cause would they then sacrifice all of their great sacrifices, struggles and privileges of being the leaders in din? Why would they sell their din and dunya (worldly life), and co-operate with one who wished to distort their din and their book? Indeed, this is a great accusation! Rather, this act of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was among his greatest achievements, and it took place with the consensus of the ummah, as stated by Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

لا تقولوا في عثمان إلا خيراً فوالله ما فعل في المصاحف إلا عن ملأ منها

You should only praise ‘Uthman, for by the oath of Allah, he only acted regarding the copies in conjunction with a group from us.[47]

 

May Allah reward him greatly on behalf of the ummah.

 

Al Tabarsi and his Rejection of Tahrif

 

He says:

 

ومن ذلك الكلام في زيادة القرآن ونقصانه، فإنه لا يليق بالتفسير، فأما الزيادة فيه فمجمع على بطلانها، وأما النقصان منه فقد روى جماعة من أصحابنا وقوم من حشوية العامة أن في القرآن تغييراً ونقصاناً، والصحيح من مذهب أصحابنا خلافه، وهو الذي نصره المرتضى قدس الله وروحه، واستوفى الكلام فيه غاية الاستيفاء في جواب المسائل الطرابلسيات” ثم ساق بعض كلامه في ذلك

 

From that is the speech regarding additions and deletions in the Qur’an. They do not deserve any explanation. As for additions, it is agreed upon that they do not exist. Regarding deletions, a group of our scholars, as well as the Hashawiyyah from the majority have reported that changes and shortening took place in the Qur’an. The correct view of our school is the opposite of that. This is what was supported by al Murtada (may Allah sanctify his soul). He explained this matter fully in Jawab al Masa’il al Tarabulusiyyat. (Thereafter, he quotes a portion of his discussion, which had been quoted above).

 

Here, he indicates that a group from his scholars reported narrations regarding changes and shortening which took place in the Qur’an, and that the view of the research scholars is contrary to this. He tries, as usual, to include the Ahlus Sunnah among the supporters of this kufr by saying, “the Hashawiyyah from the majority”. This is done in an attempt to defend his sect, save their face and carry out a subtle attack upon the Ahlus Sunnah. The reply is as stated by al Alusi, “it is either a lie or a terrible misunderstanding, as they are unanimous that no shortening took place in that which is reported to be Qur’an, with tawatur, as is found between the two covers today.”

Yes, in the era of Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu, that which was not mutawatir, that which was abrogated as far as the recital was concerned (but it was still recited by those who were unaware of its abrogation), and that which was not part of al ‘Urdat al Akhirah (the final recital of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to Jibril ‘alayh al Salam) was excluded. He left no stone unturned in ascertaining the veracity of all that was compiled. However the light of this only spread to the horizons during the era of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[48]

Al Alusi scrutinised the statement of al Tabarsi and explained his mistakes. Al Alusi goes on to say that his explanation as to why he regards this fabrication as false is such that it exposes the lack of substance of the view of the opposition, even to children. All praise is due to Allah. The truth was revealed without the Muslims even having to make any effort.[49] I realised, whilst studying Majma’ al Bayan, that al Tabarsi tried very hard to cover up this mess of theirs.

Regarding some of the narrations of his companions which are related to this tale — which state that the original verse was such and it was then changed to something else — he tries to change the purport of the narration to fool the Ahlus Sunnah, or he tries to change it so that this shameful act of theirs becomes ambiguous. He claims that some of these ‘verses’ were actually different qira’at.

We will present a few examples of their tales regarding Tahrif, followed by the changes thereof by al Tabarsi. Tafsir al Qummi states regarding the verse:

 

اِنَّ اللّٰهَ اصْطَفٰی اٰدَمَ وَنُوْحًا وَّ اٰلَ اِبْرٰهِیْمَ وَ اٰلَ عِمْرٰنَ عَلَی الْعٰلَمِیْنَ

Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the family of Ibrahim and the family of ‘Imran over the worlds…[50]

 

قال العالم رضي الله عنه – نزل: “وآل عمران وآل محمد على العالمين” فأسقطوا آل محمد من الكتاب

The scholar (Imam) said, “It was revealed, ‘and the family of ‘Imran and the family of Muhammad upon the worlds.’. They deleted, “the family of Muhammad,” from the Book.”[51]

 

Tafsir al Furat reports from Humran, who said that he heard Abu Jafar (al Baqir) radiya Llahu ‘anhu reciting:

 

إن اللّٰه اصطفى آدم ونوحاً وآل إبراهيم وآل محمد على العالمين: قلت: ليس يقرأ هكذا، قال أدخل حرف مكان حرف

Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the family of Ibrahim and the family of Muhammad over the worlds.

I said, “This is not how it is recited.” He replied, “one letter (word) was replaced with another.”[52]

Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi reports from Hisham ibn Salim:

 

سألت أبا عبد الله عن قوله تعالى: {إِنَّ اللّٰهَ اصْطَفَى آدَمَ وَنُوحًا وَآلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ} قال: “هو آل إبراهيم وآل محمد على العالمين فوضوا اسماً مكان اسم

I asked Abu ‘Abdullah (al Sadiq) regarding the verse of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, “indeed, Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the family of Ibrahim and the family of ‘Imran over the worlds.” He replied, “it was, ‘the family of Ibrahim and the family of Muhammad over the worlds,’ but they replaced one name with another.”[53]

 

The purpose behind this fabrication was to establish their belief regarding twelve Imams from the Book of Allah. However, they did not realise that the connotations of the expression “family of Muhammad” are quite general. On the contrary, the twelve Imams according to them are ‘Ali, his two sons and some of the progeny of only one son radiya Llahu ‘anhum. The rest of them, as will appear, have been reviled and declared kafir. Thus, the objective behind their lies and interpretations have not been attained.

These fabrications, which contain accusations against the Book of Allah and the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam (including the Ahlul Bayt) — which are oft quoted in their tafsirs — are re-interpreted by the author of Majma’ al Bayan in these words:

 

وفي قراءة أهل البيت: وآل محمد على العالمين

According to the qira’ah of the Ahlul Bayt (it is), “and the family of Muhammad over the worlds.”[54]

 

Similarly, he re-interpreted many of their lies as qira’at.[55] On some occasions, he creates the impression that those fabrications were explanations of the meanings of verses. Their fabrication says concerning the verse of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala:

 

ذلِكَ بِاَنَّهُمْ کَرِهُوْا مَآ اَنْزَلَ اللّٰهُ فَاَحْبَطَ اَعْمَالَهُمْ

That is because they disliked what Allah revealed, so He rendered worthless their deeds.[56]

 

عن أبي جعفر نزل جبرائيل على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله بهذه الآية هكذا: “ذلك بأنهم كرهوا ما أنزل الله (في علي) فأحبط أعمالهم

Abu Jafar (al Baqir) says that Jibril revealed this verse upon Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in this manner, “that is because they disliked what Allah revealed regarding ‘Ali, so He rendered worthless their deeds.”

 

Pay attention to their addition, “regarding ‘Ali”.[57] You will see that this changes, in the works of al Tabarsi to an explanation of the verse. He says:

 

كرهوا ما أنزل الله في حق علي رضي الله عنه

They disliked that which Allah revealed regarding the rights of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[58]

 

This is only some of that which appears in Majma’ al Bayan, which was authored on account of the objectives like that of al Tibyan of al Tusi. The leading scholar of the Shia of the latter days, al Nuri al Tabarsi, declared that al Tibyan was written on the basis of Taqiyyah and compromising to please the opposition. If this is true, it applies to both books, as the methodology of the two are identical.

Some, who are affiliated with the Ahlus Sunnah, have been duped by this methodology. Thus, they aligned themselves with Dar al Taqrib (which was operational until recently, when its true agenda became apparent) in Cairo. Hence, under the pretext of bridging the gap (between the Muslims and the contemporary mainstream Shia), they published this book. It was researched and authenticated by six scholars who were affiliated with the Ahlus Sunnah.[59] This happens when a person is unaware of their statements. He will not be able to realise their trickery and deception. It seems as if this very Tafsir was the reason why some of the Shia considered al Tabarsi’s rejection of the belief in Tahrif to be Taqiyyah.

These are the four scholars whose views have been reported. Perhaps there were others who held the same view but their statements did not reach us. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that al Mufid, in Awa’il al Maqalat, stated that an entire group from the Imamiyyah rejected Tahrif. We will not assume, as was assumed by the author of Fasl al Khitab (who tried his best to silence the voice of the opposition, and claim that most of the Shia held his view), that a fifth individual could not be found in the early days who held the same view as these four.

Lastly, it is my view that the rejection of these senior Shia figures of the fabrication regarding the Book of Allah should not be brushed of as Taqiyyah (as stated by some of the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia), as we have no definite way to prove that. You have read the arguments presented by both parties, which was quoted from Fasl al Khitab. Added to that, it became clear that the Shia are incessant liars, who do not hesitate to add on to the books of their scholars. Thus, the one who distances himself from this kufr, after believing in Allah and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, we will accept this from him and hand his matter over to Allah, who is aware of the reality.

However, the matter does not end there. Rejection of this view demands that a few more steps should be taken. To start off with, they should take a second look into all those matters in which they have differed with the Muslims. Their scholar, al Majlisi (in rebuttal of those who reject Tahrif) admitted that they will have to tread this path, as rejection of the narrations regarding Tahrif — which, by virtue to their forged and fabricated narrations, have reached the level of tawatur — would necessitate rejection of all their narrations. This is the reality! The fact that their books are replete with these narrations (to the extent that they can say that it is mutawatir), is the greatest proof that their books are compilations and collections of lies and fabrications.

 
 

NEXT⇒ The Crux of the Discussion


[1]  This is why al Khowansari said, “despite him being from the Akhbariyyah, he had a strong relationship with the masters of ijtihad.” Rawdat al Jannat 8/150

[2]Rawdat al Jannat 8/150

[3]  Al Jaza’iri: al Anwar al No’maniyyah 2/358

[4]  Ibid 2/358-359

[5]Fasl al Khitab pg. 38 (of the manuscript)

[6]  Ibid pg. 38 (of the manuscript)

[7]Fasl al Khitab pg. 38

[8]  Ibid pg. 38-39

[9]Fasl la-Khitab page 84 of the manuscript and 169 of the printed version.

[10]  Ibid page 120 of the manuscript and 240 of the printed book.

[11]  Ibid page 176 of the manuscript.

[12]Sharh al Sahifah al Sajjadiyyah pg. 43

[13]  Al Jaza’iri: al Anwar al No’maniyyah 2/358-359

[14]Al I’tiqadat pg. 101-103

[15]Fasl al Khitab pg. 33

[16]  Ibid pg. 33

[17]  Refer to al Ihtijaj pg. 240

[18]  Al Nuri: Fasl al Khitab pg. 240

[19]  Refer to al Towhid pg. 255

[20] Fasl al Khitab pg. 240

[21]  Ibid

[22]Fasl al Khitab pg. 240 Al Majlisi says this regarding al Saduq despite the fact that they consider all of his books, besides four of them, to be “just as famous as the four books which have been the foundation along the course of the centuries.” al Bihar 1/26. He reports from him, in his al Bihar on seventeen occasions (including al Bihar 1/73). Added to that, his book, Man La Yahdurhu al Faqih is one of their four seminal books. What is the secret behind this contradiction?

[23]Thawab al A’mal pg. 139, Bihar al Anwar 92/50

[24]Al Khisal 1/174-175

[25]Bihar al Anwar 92/49

[26]  Ihsan Ilahi Zahir: al Shia wa l-Qur’an pg. 68

[27]Amamli al Saduq pg. 231

[28]  One example is that which he quotes from Basharat al Mustafa of al Saduq, which is taken from Tafsir al Burhan by their hadith scholar, al Tubali. Fasl al Khitab pg. 157-158

[29]  Such as the three narrations quoted by the author of Fasl al Khitab (pg. 259) from Ma’ani al Akhbar (refer to Ma’ani al Akhbar pg. 331) that the copies of Aisha and Hafsah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma stated:

حافظوا على الصلوات والصلاة والوسطى وصلاة العصر

Maintain with care the [obligatory] prayers and [in particular] the middle prayer and the prayer of ‘Asr.

This is a valid manner of recital. Refer, regarding its appearance in the copy of Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha to Tafsir al Tabari 5/173, number 5393, 5394, 5397, 5466, 5467 (with the research of Ahmed and Mahmud Shakir). Refer also to Tafsir Ibn Kathir 1/304. Sheikh Ahmed Shakir says, “the narration was reported by al Hafiz in al Fath 8/146 and al Suyuti 1/304. They did not attribute it to anyone besides al Tabari. Ibn Hazm mentioned it in al Muhalla 4/354 and ‘Abdur Razzaq reported it in al Musannaf 1/128.” Tafsir al Tabari vol. 5 pg. 176 (footnote). Regarding the existence of this qira’ah in the copy of Hafsah radiya Llahu ‘anha, refer to Tafsir al Tabari 5/209, 210, number 5406, 5462, 5463. Tafsir Ibn Kathir 1/304.

Sahih Muslim contains that which indicates that the recital of this was abrogated. Refer to Sahih Muslim 1/438 Kitab al Masajid wa Mawadi’ al Salah, Bab al Dalil liman Qal al Salat al Wusta hiya al Salat al Wusta hiya al Asr.

[30]  Refer to Ihsan Ilahi Zahir: al Shia wa l-Qur’an pg. 96, Muhammad Mal Allah: al Shia wa Tahrif al Qur’an pg. 122

[31]Al Tibyan 1/3

[32]Al Bihar 2/233

[33]  A discussion will appear regarding this under the discussion of consensus, if Allah wills.

[34]  Surah al Nisa’: 82

[35]Rijal al Kashshi pg. 4

[36]  An example of this is his explanation of the verse:

Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the family of Ibrahim and the family of ‘Imran over the worlds… (Surah Al ‘Imran: 33).

He says:

وفي قراءة أهل البيت: {وآل محمد على العالمين}

The qira’ah of the Ahlul Bayt is, “and the family of Muhammad over the worlds.”

This is a very mild way of stating that Tahrif took place, or it is an attempt at changing their narrations which clearly state this this is not one of the qira’at. These narrations claim that it was in fact changed by the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. The exact texts of these narrations will appear shortly when we scrutinise the stance of al Tabarsi. The motive behind the attempt at changing these narrations was either to cover up the shame that this brings upon them, or to pull his people out from the gutters into which they fell on account of those tales. However, at times, the narrations of al Tusi are the original narrations and the additions which explicitly state Tahrif were added by the scholars of the Safavid dynasty. An objection could be raised that these narrations are also found in the books of his contemporaries or scholars who appeared before him such as Tafsir al Qummi, al ‘Ayyashi and al Furat. The answer to this is that the Shia do not hesitate to change the books of their older scholars, as is established from the book Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais.

[37] Fasl al Khitab pg. 38

[38]  Ibid pg. 38

[39]  The complete text regarding this was quoted previously.

[40]Fasl al Khitab pg. 38

[41]  Ibid pg. 351

[42]  Amongst this is his claim that the Ahlus Sunnah also reported this kufr. This is a blatant lie. Their scholar, al Mufid testified that none besides the Shia have narrated this calamity. Refer to Awa’il al Maqalat pg. 13. The Ahlus Sunnah are unanimous, in fact, all Muslims are unanimous that the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala remained protected from any changes, additions and deletions. Allah Himself protected it. Allah says:

اِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَ اِنَّا لَه لَحٰفِظُوْنَ

Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, We will be its guardian. (Surah al Hijr: 9)

Have a look at what the scholars of tafsir from the Ahlus Sunnah had to say regarding this verse. Refer to al Qurtubi: Jami’ Ahkam al Qur’an 10/65, al Nasafi: Madarik al Ta’wil 2/179, Tafsir al Khazin 4/47, Tafsir Ibn Kathir 2/592, Tafsir al Baghawi 3/44, al Baydawi: Anwar al Tanzil 1/538, al Alusi: Ruh al Ma’ani 14/16, Siddiq Khan: Fath al Bayan 5/168, 169, al Sanhqiti: Adwa’ al Bayan 3/120, Sayed Qutb: Fi Zilal al Qur’an 5/194 as well as others. Also refer to the quotations in the books of the Imams of the Ahlus Sunnah which state that there is unanimity that the Book of Allah was protected and safeguarded, and whoever opposes that is a kafir. Refer to al Qadi ‘Iyad: al Shifa 2/304-305, Ibn Qudamah: Lum’at al I’tiqad pg. 20, al Baghdadi: al Farq Bayn al Firaq pg. 327, Ibn Hazm: al Fisal 5/22.

[43]  Refer to Majma’ al Bayan 1/31

[44]  Al Alusi was under the impression that he was referring to the Ahlus Sunnah. Therefore, he commented saying, “it is either a lie or a terrible misunderstanding, as they are unanimous that no shortening took place in that which is reported to be Qur’an, with tawatur, as is found between the two covers today.” Ruh al Ma’ani: 1/24-25

[45]  Refer to Majma’ al Bayan 1/31

[46]Fasl al Khitab pg. 33

[47]  Reported by Ibn Abi Dawood with an authentic chain, as stated by Ibn Hajar in Fath al Bari 13/18.

[48]Ruh al Ma’ani 1/25

[49]Ibid al Ma’ani 1/24

[50]  Surah Al ‘Imran: 33

[51]Tafsir al Qummi 1/100

[52]Tafsir Furat pg. 18, Bihar al Anwar 92/56

[53]Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 1/168, al Burhan 1/278, Fasl al Khitab pg. 244

[54]Majma’ al Bayan 2/62

[55]  Another example is the verse of Allah:

يااَیُّهَا النَّبِیُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنٰفِقِیْنَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَیْهِمْ

O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. (Surah al Towbah: 73)

Tafsir al Qummi says, “the actual revelation was, ‘fight against the disbelievers using the hypocrites,’ as Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not fight the hypocrites using a sword.” Tafsir al Qummi 1/301. This is a fabrication that was concocted to support the view of the Rafidah, who accuse the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum of hypocrisy. He claims that Allah instructed Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to rely upon the hypocrites in his jihad. He portrayed Jihad as an act that is shouldered by the hypocrites. Thus, it is ignorance that brings to shame Islam, the history of the Muslims as well as the commentary of the Qur’an. It is outright profanity. Yet we see al Tabarsi expressing this lie in the words, “a narration of the qira’ah of the Ahlul Bayt is, ‘fight against the kuffar using the hypocrites.’”. He tried to explain his interpretation saying, “he would only be polite towards the hypocrites because they would not openly display kufr. The fact that Allah knew of their kufr did not make it permissible to kill them, as they outwardly displayed iman.” (Majma’ al Bayan 3/100) This explanation is inconsistent with the meaning of the verse. Allah commanded His Nabi to fight against the kuffar and the hypocrites, so how was it possible that he was polite towards the hypocrites in the sense that he relied upon them to fight the kuffar? Furthermore, Jihad in Islam was never shouldered by the hypocrites. Allah says:

لَوْ خَرَجُوْا فِیْكُمْ مَّا زَادُوْكُمْ اِلَّا خَبَالًا

Had they gone forth with you, they would not have increased you except in confusion. (Surah al Towbah: 47)

The pious predecessors have explained the meaning of this verse; fight against the kuffar using the sword and kill them. Similarly, fight against the hypocrites using your tongue and abandon all diplomacy. This was stated by Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu explained, “(fight them by) hand, tongue or the heart, according to your capability. Do not meet them except with a frown.” Hassan and Qatadah said, “carry out the punishment upon them.” All of these explanations have one thing in common; they carry the meaning of the verse — fighting the hypocrites. This is why ‘Ata said, “this verse abrogated all types of forgiveness and overlooking.” Refer to Tafsir al Tabari 12/174-183, and Tafsir al Baghawi 2/311. The great difference between the wording of the verse, which commands that the hypocrites should be fought, and the fabricated qira’ah, which suggests that they should be relied upon, has become quite clear.

[56] Surah Muhammad: 9

[57]  Refer to Fasl al Khitab pg. 330

[58]Majma’ al Bayan 6/32

[59]  Refer to Majma’ al Bayan 10/575, printed by Dar al Taqrib

Back to top