Chapter 3 The Doctrinal Connection between the Early Scholars and the Contemporaries

As long as there remains uniformity in the sources of acquisition, is there any need for us to investigate the doctrinal link between the early scholars and the contemporaries? Especially when those early sources have encapsulated majority of what the books of heresiography have documented of the views of the extremist Shia and what they have not.

The question again is that is there any need for this type of a study?

In reality there is a need. This is because the contemporary Shia have published booklets and opuscules in abundance. They have likewise excessively spread their propagators in the Muslim world. All to establish that the creed of the Shia is no different from the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah, and to propagate that they have been wronged by their opponents who have accused them of beliefs and views with which they have nothing to do whatsoever. Many of their missionaries have actively called toward uniting the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia and have raised the banners of Islamic unity. Many centres have been erected, books have been compiled and missionaries have specialised in this particular area…

It has likewise been claimed that the contemporaries have disavowed the extremism which was infamously known to be the hallmark of their predecessors, and that the time has indeed come for the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia to converge on common grounds due to the plot of the enemy being too grave and in the condition of the Muslim world being too volatile.

Furthermore, when talking to them and telling them that in your books there is a particular narration or that a certain scholar of yours holds a particular view we will very often hear them saying “We do not agree with everything that appears in our books,” or “Whatever a specific scholar says is his responsibility, for there is no binding evidence but in the words of the infallible Imams.” And even, “The Ahlus Sunnah aver the same.” In this regard we will find very often that they fabricate, exceed limits, and plot cunningly in strange ways.

There is thus a pressing need to discuss the views of the contemporary Shia regarding crucial matters of Islam which make them very different from the majority or which are an obstacle between them and Islam.

Similarly, there are many Shia writers who have been assigned the task of providing literature for the Muslim world and rebutting all the contentious issues which are raised around Shi’ism. And the doctrine of Taqiyyah has accorded them freedom of speech and laxity in applying rulings. Notwithstanding that there are special books which are not propagated in the Muslim world.[1] In other words there is an external face of the Shia which is presented to the people through the different Shia media platforms which popularise Shi’ism in the world and propagate it. And there is an internal face which does not come to the fore but in the Shia seminaries and societies and in their fundamental most works like that of al Kafi and Tafsir al Qummi.

Unfortunately there are people who have fallen prey to this two-faced approach and have accepted it. And Shi’ism found its way into the hearts of a large amount of youth in the Muslim world and in the hearts of those who claim to have some sort of affiliation to Islamic movements; into the hearts of such people whom the tragic reality of the Muslim world has overwhelmed and caused to cry. As a result they started looking for solutions and answers. The image of the outright enemy which was vividly clear in front of them with all his might and cunningness obscured the identification of the hidden enemy who camouflaged himself with the disguise of Islam, so they accepted what was being said at face value and were hasty in drawing conclusions. And they assumed that whatever is being promulgated regarding the divide between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia is all made-up, superficial, and not backed by any factual evidence whatsoever.[2]

It is therefore necessary to listen to what some of their contemporary scholars have written regarding their integral beliefs which make them different from the Muslims. From these I will select those beliefs regarding which claims of reform, overhauling or addition brought about by extremism have been made so that the extent of their link with their predecessors becomes clear.

Discussion 1 : The Belief of the Contemporaries Regarding the Book of Allah

We will talk about this from two different perspectives:

First Perspective: Analysing the content of the books of the Shia which claim that interpolation took place in the Qur’an and likewise the views of some of the heretics among them who made such claims, and what do the contemporary Shia say regarding this crucial issue which is an obstacle between them and Islam, whereas they actively call toward uniting with the Ahlus Sunnah and raise the banners of Islamic unity.
Second Perspective: What do the contemporary Shia say regarding those esoteric interpretations the implication whereof is the interpolation of the Qur’an, and which make it a book other than the one which the Muslims are familiar with, as was presented in the discussions that have passed.

The First Perspective

Hereunder we will analyse the views of the contemporaries regarding the accusation of interpolation which is a frequently featuring theme in the books of the Shia.

We will study the following four reactions:

Outright denial of its existence and appearance in their books.
Acknowledging its existence and an attempt to give a plausible explanation.
Defiantly proclaiming it and providing evidence for it.
Pretending to reject it and attempting to establish it in deceitful ways.

NEXT⇒ The First Reaction: Outright denial of its existence in their books

[1] For example the book Fasl al Khitab of Nuri al Tabarsi, some portions of Bihar al Anwar and the book Nubuwwah Abi Talib, i.e. the prophethood of Abu Talib which is written by the Shia scholar Muzzammil Hussain al Maythami al Ghadiri, amongst others.

[2] See: al Sunnah wa al Shia Dajjah Mufta’ilah (The Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia a superficial divide).

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents