One of their contemporary scholars has embarked on denying this blasphemy overtly and defending the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. You will, however, discern evil in the slips of his tongue and you will see falsehood discreetly inserted into his speech here and there. The worst of those who have treaded this path is their scholar al Khu’i in his Tafsir al Bayan. He says the following:
إن المشهور بين علماء الشيعة ومحققيهم بل المتسالم عليه بينهم هو القول بعدم التحريف
What is popular among the Shia clergy and its research scholars, rather what is unanimously agreed upon by them is the view of non-interpolation.
But at the same time he authenticates a fair amount of narrations of interpolation. So he says:
إن كثرة الروايات تورث القطع بصدور بعضها عن المعصومين ولا أقل من الإطمئنان بذلك، وفيها ما روي بطريق معتبر
The abundant narrations necessitate the certainty of some of them emanating from the infallibles. There is no lesser degree than being satisfied with them, for among them there are narrations which are narrated in reliable ways.
He then analyses all their narrations in this regard and considers all those narrations which speak of the Mushaf of ‘Ali, wherein are additions which are not found in the Book of Allah, to be Qur’an. Notwithstanding that in these narrations what appears is the names of their Imams and the fables which speak of interpolation; he considers all these narrations to be reliable according to their standards. However, he considers them to be explanatory narrations which have descended from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, i.e. these additions are exegetical notes in light of which the speech can be interpreted, or they were revealed by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala in order to clarify the purport of the verses.
As for their fables which are indicative of interpolation, based on his particular understanding, they are twenty narrations, as acknowledged by him. And what he means by them is all those narrations which speak of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum interpolating the Qur’an and distorting it. He presents the following narration as evidence for his claim:
ما عن الكافي والصدوق بإسنادهما عن علي بن سويد قال: كتبت إلي أبي الحسن كتابا-إلي أن ذكر جوابه بتمامه وفيه قوله- عليه السلام-: اؤتمنوا علي كتاب الله فحرفوه وبدلوه
Al Kafi and al Saduq narrate the following with their chain of transmission from ‘Ali ibn Suwaid, “I wrote a letter to Abu al Hassan” (he cites the answer of Abu al Hassan in its entirety and part of his answer was the following) “They were entrusted with the Book of Allah but they interpolated it and distorted it.”
Hence his stance regarding such narrations is that of acceptance. But he avers that they do not suggest the interpolation of the words of the Qur’an, rather:
فهي ظاهرة الدلالة علي أن المراد بالتحريف حمل الآيات علي غير معانيها… ولولا هذا التحريف لم تزل حقوق العترة محفوظة وحرمة النبي منهم مرعية، ولما انتهى الأمر إلي ما انتهي إليه من اهتضام حقوقهم وأيذاء النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فيهم.
The obvious meaning of these narrations is that interpolation occurred in meaning, i.e. by taking the verses to mean what they did not. Had this type of interpolation not occurred the rights of the Ahlul Bayt would still be secure and the sanctity of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam still regarded. And the matter would not have reached where it has reached in terms of violating their rights and harassing Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam because of them.
So he claims that the Ummah, at the forefront of whom are the Sahabah, interpreted verses with meanings other than their actual meanings. But he considers the distortions of al Kulayni, al Qummi, and al ‘Ayyashi of the Qur’anic verses to be the actual exegesis of the Book of Allah. If this is the state of the greatest Shia reference of our time and this is his best defence of the Book of Allah, then the condition of the Shia is really worrying. Whilst adding this poison here and there he does not forget to pacify the anger of his reader, especially when he knows that his particular interpretation seems very far-fetched to those who know their texts and their narrations. He thus says:
وإذا لم يتم هذا الحمل فلا بد من طرح هذه الروايات
If this interpretation is not viable than these narrations have to necessarily be discarded.
Furthermore, he says the following regarding the fables of omission occurring in the Qur’an:
أكثر هذه الروايات بل كثيرها ضعيفة السند
Most of these narrations, rather many of them have weak chains of transmission.
He then quotes the following from one of their scholars:
إن نقصان الكتاب مما لا أصل له، وإلا لاشتهر وتواتر نظرا إلى العادة في الحوادث العظيمة وهذا منها بل أعظمها
Omission occurring in the Qur’an has no basis whatsoever. Otherwise it would have been well known and diffusely transmitted considering the norm in great events. This is indeed one of them, instead the greatest of them all.
He says the following regarding their fables which speak of interpolation occurring in the Qur’an by way of addition and omission and which suggest that the Ummah changed some words after the demise of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and substituted them with others after presenting a few examples, one of which is:
ما عن العياشي عن هشام بن سالم: قال سألت أبا عبد الله رضي الله عنه عن قوله تعالى: إِنَّ اللهَ اصْطَفى ءَادَمَ وَنُوْحًا وَءَالَ إِبْرهِيمَ وَءَالَ عِمْرَانَ. قال: هو آل إبراهيم وآل محمد على العالمين، فوضعوا اسما مكان اسم، اي أنهم غيرو فجعلوا مكان آل محمد آل عمران.
Al ‘Ayyashi narrates the following from Hisham ibn Salim, “I asked Abu ‘Abdullah radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding the verse: “Certainly Allah chose Adam, the family of Nuh, the family of Ibrahim and the family of ‘Imran upon the worlds.” He said, “It is actually ‘the family of Ibrahim and the family of Muhammad upon the worlds’. But they substituted one name with another, i.e. they changed the verse and place ‘the family of ‘Imran’ in place of ‘the family of Muhammad’.
He avers that they are against the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the unanimity of the Muslims regarding not even a letter being added to the Qur’an, to the extent that even the proponents of interpolation concur.
Notice the extent of deceit in his comment; by making this comment on this last set of narrations he is giving the reader the impression that the falsity of all the other types of their fables which were mentioned before is not unanimously agreed upon by the Muslims. Likewise he is considering the viewpoint of the proponents of interpolation worth consideration in the unanimity of the Muslims.
This is merely a pleasant but deceitful covering intended to accomplish a sinister goal. And that is attacking the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala in deceitful and secretive ways; it is owing to his cunningness that his book did not cause such eruptions as did the book Fasl al Khitab. In fact some have even considered his work to be a defence of the Qur’an. However you have seen that he tries to prove their blasphemy using the methods of the Ahlus Sunnah in very strange and cunning ways. Here is another example, wherein he appears to be defending the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, where he says:
إن القول بنسخ التلاوة هو بعينه القول بالتحريف، وعليه فاشتهار القول بوقوع النسخ في التلاوة عند علماء أهل السنة يستلزم –في زعمه- اشتهار القول بالتحريف
Holding the view of the abrogation of recitation is itself holding the view of interpolation. And the popularity of the view of abrogation of recitation according to the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah necessitates the popularity of the view of interpolation.
He likewise says:
إن الالتزام بصحة هذه الروايات (يعني: روايات نسخ التلاوة) التزام بوقوع التحريف في القرآن
Averring that the narrations of abrogation of recitation are authentic necessitates averring that interpolation has occurred in the Qur’an.
He further says:
فيمكن أن يدعى أن القول بالتحريف هو مذهب أكثر علماء أهل السنة لأنهم يقولون بجواز نسخ التلاوة
It is thus okay to claim that the viewpoint of interpolation is the view of the majority of Sunni scholars due to them holding the view of abrogation of recitation being permissible.
This deceptive argument which is advanced by the most senior Shia scholar of the present day is nothing new. Some heretics had advanced the same argument in the past and the Ahlus Sunnah had rebutted it then already.
The issue is quite clear, and the difference between abrogation and interpolation is stark and can only be obscure to someone who is blinded by his ego, as has already passed; interpolation is from the doings of man and Allah has censured the one who does it, he says:
يُحَرِّفُوْنَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ
Those who distort words from their [proper] places.
And abrogation is directly from Allah, he says:
مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا
We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that we bring forth
This does not in any way entail tempering with the Book of Allah. The early scholars of the Shia who were opponents of this blasphemy approved it, the likes of al Tabarsi in Majma’ al Bayan, al Murtada in al Dhari’ah and others, as has passed.
Furthermore, you will come to realise his deception once more when he asserts that:
إن القول بعدم التحريف هو المشهور بل التسالم عليه بين علماء الشيعة ومحققيهم
The viewpoint of non-interpolation is famous, rather agreed upon with unanimity by the Shia clergy and its research scholars.
And in supporting his claim he cites what al Tabarsi has said in Majma’ al Bayan when denying this blasphemy. Al Tabarsi on the other hand himself, just a few pages later, has approved of abrogation of recitation whilst al Khu’i on the other hand avers that abrogation of recitation is tantamount to interpolation. Is this not a contradiction?
In fact, he says that the view of non-interpolation is the view of the Shia clergy and its research scholars, but some of the central scholars of the Shia dogma, the likes of al Kulayni, al Qummi, al Tabarsi (the author of al Ihtijaj) and others believed in openly proclaiming this heresy. Is this not deception?
It gets even worse. And that is because their scholar Ibrahim al Qummi has narrated abundant narrations regarding this blasphemy in his Tafsir. And, among other scholars of the Shia, that is what he believed. Al Kashani says:
وأما اعتقاد مشايخنا في ذلك فالظاهر من ثقة الإسلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني أنه كان يعتقد التحريف والنقصان في القرآن… وكذلك أستاذه علي بن إبراهيم القمي، فإن تفسيره مملو منه وله غلو فيه.
As to the belief of our scholars regarding it, what is apparent regarding Thiqat al Islam Muhammad ibn Ya’qub al Kulayni is that he believed in the interpolation of the Qur’an and omission occurring therein. Likewise was the view of his teacher ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi, for his Tafsir is filled with those narrations and he holds an extreme view in it.
He further goes on listing all their scholars who treaded the same path.
As you can see, al Kashani admits that the Tafsir of al Qummi is filled with narrations of this blasphemy. In spite of that al Khu’i who overtly appears to be an opponent is of the view that his Tafsir is authentic; he concludes that all the narrations which appear therein are all well established and transmitted from the infallible Imams due to them reaching him (al Qummi) through reliable scholars of the Shia, as he alleges.
It is now evident that al Khu’i the author of al Bayan had the same goal in mind as that of the author of Fasl al Khitab. However, the latter deployed a more straightforward way whilst the former played the card of deceit and trickery.
 Abu al Qasim al Musawi al Khu’i, the present scholar who people treat as their authoritative reference in Iraq and elsewhere.
 Al Bayan p. 226.
 Ibid. p. 222
 Ibid. p. 223, onwards.
 Al Bayan p. 229.
 Ibid. p. 230-231.
 Ibid. p. 233.
 Al Bayan p. 232-233.
 Ibid. p. 201.
 Ibid. p. 206.
 See al Baqillani: Nukat al Intisar p. 103.
 Surah al Nisa’: 46; Surah Ma’idah: 13.
 Surah al Baqarah: 106.
 Al Bayan p. 200
 Tafsir al Safi: the sixth introduction: 1/52.
 Mujam Rijal al Hadith (first publication: Najf, 1398 A.H.) 1/63; or third publication: Beirut, 1403 A.H. p. 49. This entire quotation has passed in the introduction.Back to top