Rafed English

The Collection and Preservation of the Qur'an

The Collection and Preservation of the Qur'an by : Ayatullah Sayyid Abulqasim al-Khui


 
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله الذي انزل على عبدة الكتاب ولم يجعل لة عوجا
وافضل صلوات الله واكمل تسليماته على رسوله الذي ارسلة بالهدى
وعلى آله المصطفين الاخيار الذين آمنوا به وعزروه ونصروه واتبعوا النور الذي معه
"In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah Who has sent to His servant The Book and has allowed no deviation therein. And the best of Allah's blessings and His most complete peace upon His Apostle whom he sent with His Guidance. And upon his chosen, virtuous progeny who believed in him, honoured him, helped him and followed the Light Which was sent down to him".
Amid all the diversity of thoughts, leanings and inter­pretations, Muslims are united by a single cohesive force, an eternal and abiding miracle of Muhammad (‘s); Holy Qur'an. A prince among the revealed Books, Qur'an has remained pristine and unsullied by the profane hands.

The external forces working restlessly to wreck the Mus­lim unity and consensus have now resorted to a new ploy. From among the Muslims themselves, they have succeeded to instigate sectarian differences based on Qur'an. We now see scholars of one sect accusing the followers of another sect of disbelieving in Qur'an, or believing in a Book which has disappeared or been interpolated.

From Saudi Arabia, South Africa and particularly Pakistan, recent publications against the Shi’a sect harp on one and the same note. They go to wearisome and tedious lengths, just to prove that the Shi’as are not Muslims because they do not believe in the existing Qur'an. It is surprising to find a man of Abul Hasan Nadawis' calibre joining the notorious band and entering inextricably into the quagmire. The forces of kufr have thus successfully created a wider chasm between the two main sects of Islam, the Shi’a and the Sunni; and some scholars have played into their hands.

The fact is neither Sunni nor Shi’a Muslims believe in any Our'an other than the existing one, nor do they sub­scribe to the views supporting interpolations, distortions, omissions, additions or any sort of tampering in the Holy Book.

In our selection of two chapters from Ayatullah Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i's famous work al Bayan fi Tafsiril Qur'an we have deliberately given a prime choice to the subjects of Tahrif and collection of the Qur'an. Later, we hope to translate and publish further chapters so that, eventually, whole book is placed in the hands of the Mus­lim as well as non-Muslim readers.

Ayatullah al-Khu’i completed this work decades ago. He is one of the great Shi’a mujtahids of this era, internationally known for his erudition. The book was acclaimed as a masterpiece by Shi’a as well as Sunni scholars, leaving no doubt in the minds of its readers that Qur'an as a great force binding all the Muslims together has come to stay for ever.

The line of argument pursued by Ayatullah al-Khu’i is unique. While he enumerates and discusses all the reports from Shi’a as well as Sunni sources, he very ably conclu­des that according to the reliable and authentic traditions, Qur'an has remained pure, pristine and unprofaned. His arguments proving that the belief in Tahrif goes against al-Kitab (i.e. Qur'an), as-Sunnah, al-Aql and al-Ijma', are compelling and persuasive. His analysis of all those reports which indicate desultory, unmethodical and haphazard later day collection of Qur'an leaves no shred of doubt that they are false and fabricated.

In his preface to the first edition of al-Bayan fi Tafsir il Qur'an, al Khui writes:-

"I was enamoured by Qur'an from the childhood, always keen to unravel its secrets and to discover its meaning. It behoves every true Muslim, and even non-Muslim thinkers to ponder over Qur'an, to unfold its hidden meaning and to benefit from its light. For it is a Book which has a message for human welfare and guides it to success and salvation. Qur'an is a reference for the linguist, a guide to the grammarian, an authority for the jurist, an example for the refined, a lost treasure for the wise. It even guides those who admonish and shows the goal in life. It is a source of social as well as political sciences, and upon it rest the sciences of Islam. It will reveal to you the fascinating secrets. of Nature, and introduce you to the laws of crea­tion. Qur'an is the abiding miracle of this ever lasting religion, and a code of conduct based on the high and esteemed Shari’ah".

It is our earnest hope that this publication will serve to bridge the gap between Muslims, created by the subtle forces of kufr. Further, it will Inshallah enable them, both Shi’a and Sunni, to realize that Qur'an is their only hope of deliverance from the unscrupulous manipulations of un­-Islamic and anti-Islamic propagandists. Let no Muslim be deceived into believing that he or his brother, despite the sectarian differences, believes in any authority other than that of the existing Qur'an. It is complete, pure, pristine and unaltered.

Secretariat
The World Federation of K.S.I. Muslim Communities
London
To things immortal, time can do no wrong,
And that which never is to die, for ever must be young.

With the passage of time, many great messages have been lost, and those which have survived must be subjec­ted to close scrutiny. How often do we hear and learn a corrupt version of a statement or an event, even if the lapse of time in between was short? It was perhaps for this reason that even Emerson, the famous and comparatively cheerful sage, declared: "The surest poison is time.". His­tory has always been haunted by this ravaging and devour­ing aspect of time.

Ever since man was created, the principle message to him has been that of absolute unity of God, and that all men and women are his slaves. Today, the defaced form of this message is visible in the form of numerous deities, some openly polytheistic, others under the guise of mon­otheism. The great books revealed to the early Prophets have been victims of profane hands which succeeded even to convert some parts of the sacred texts into the most tasteless and immoral anecdotes and parables. The subst­ance of the original message was deliberately allowed to disappear with a growing number of interpolations.

Humanity today would have had no chance whatsoever to know about the message in its pristine form, had it not been redeemed by the great Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny). Among the hostile people of various shades of faith, some engaged in poly­theism while others in dualism and trinity of godhead, his famous simple dictum was: "Say: There is no God but Allah, and you will be saved". All gods, made of metal wood or other materials, and those comprising of pious prophets and virtuous men and women, were asked to succumb before one God, Allah, and His Will. He told humanity then, and continues to do so even today, that the eternal message from Allah is that of His absolute unity, and that none be worshipped; not even human desire which lies like a venomous viper in the bosoms.

This great message is enshrined in the Qur'an, the only book of God, which has remained unsullied, untainted, pure and unprofaned. The sure greedy hands of time could not destroy the sacrosanct quality of Qur'an, not because it was not tried, - but because Qur'an is inherently incorruptible. It has a style and form which is inimitable, rendering any change or alteration creeping stealthily into it easily detect­ible. The transmission of every verse of this great Book has been continuous ever since it left the lips of the Prophet as a revelation from Allah. And then there is the content of the Book, destined to remain an illuminating, ever shining light for those who grope in darkness. Qur'an is irreplaceable.

Our sixth Imam, Ja’far as-Sadiq (‘a) has said:

"Qur'an is living, its message never died. It turns like the turn of day and night, it is in motion like the sun and the moon. It will embrace the last of us, the way it embraced the first of us"1

Sadly enough, Muslims have recently initiated a mud slinging match amongst themselves, accusing each other of disbelief in the Qur'an or interpolation. Such an attack from non-Muslims is understandable, because Qur'an stands in a sharp contrast to the corrupted divine texts they hold in their hands. But why the Muslims?

Ayatullah Sayyid Abul Qasim al Khui, the great Mujtahid of our era, examines here the subject with an insight singular­ly his own.
________________________
1. Al-Ayyashi
Before we dwell upon this subject at length, we feel it is necessary to discuss certain connected issues which cannot be overlooked, that are the following:

• The Meaning of Tahrif (interpolation or tampering);

• Muslim view on Tahrif;

• Abrogation of Recitation a Fact or a Myth;

• Tahrif and the Book Itself;

• Tahrif and Sunnah;

• Permission to Recite the Surah in the Prayers;

• The Claim that Tahrif was caused by the Caliphs;

• Some Doubts by those who believe in Tahrif;

• The Traditions about Tahrif;

• True Meaning of the Traditions.
The Meaning of Tahrif (interpolation or tampering)

This word is used with common denotations, some of which are acceptably applicable to the Qur’an; and the others are either inapplicable or disputed. The details are as below.

First, the meaning is to transfer an object from its place to another. Allah says:
مِنْ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِم عَنْ مَوَاضِعه
Muslims are agreed upon the fact that such an interference has occurred in the Qur’an, because whenever someone interprets the Qur’an without understanding its true meaning and transforms its real meaning to something irrelevant, he tampers with it.
Many have introduced innovations and unfounded beliefs into Islam by basing their arguments on interpretation of the Qur’an according to their own whims and opinions.

There are several traditions which forbid this type of inter­pretations, and condemn its perpetrators. In al-Kafi, a tradition by Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (‘a) says that he wrote to Sa'ad al-Khayr:

"One of the examples of their repudiation of the Book has been that they stood by its letters and distorted its injunctions; they narrate it, but do not have deference to its teachings. The ignorant are impressed by their narrations and recitations, while the learned are grieved to see their disregard for its protec­tion..."1

Secondly, the meaning of Tahrif is an omission or an addition of a letter or a change in grammatical in­flections, without effecting any change in the content of the Qur’an. This change may sometimes not be discernible from the rest of the Qur’an.

This type of change has definitely occurred in the Qur’an. We have already pointed out earlier that the so called various readings of the Qur’an were not based on tawattur, which means that the Qur’an was really based on only one authentic system of reading, and the rest were either additions or omissions.

The third meaning of Tahrif is an omission or an addition of a word or two, at the same time leaving the essence of the Qur’an untouched.

It is the type of interpolation which surely occurred in the first century of Islam, and in the days of the companions of the Prophet (‘s). The fact that Uthman burnt up all other copies of the Qur’an, and ordered his emissaries to do away with all the copies other than the codex prepared by himself, is an ample proof that there existed some difference between his copy and the others, else he would not have asked for their destruc­tion.

In fact, some of the scholars have recorded those differences, like Abdullah b. Abi Dawud as-Sajistani who wrote a book titled: Kitabul Masahif. It could be inferred that some interpolation had occurred, either on the part of Uthman or on the part of the scribes who prepared their copies. But we will soon establish that the copy of Uthman was actually the one already known to the Muslims. It was the one which was handed over from the Prophet (‘s) and widely used. The Tahrif by way of addition or omission had occurred in those copies which ceased to exist after the era of Uthman. As for the existing Qur’an, it is totally free from any omission or addition.

In short, those who rightly believe that those extra codices of the Qur’an were not authenticated by tawattur, that is to say that their authenticity was not established by wide currency and acceptance among Muslims, for them it is also right to believe that this sort of tampering had occurred in the beginning, but it ceased to exist after the time of Uthman. This leads us to believe that only that Qur’an remained authentic which was supported by a continuous chain joined with the Prophet (‘s).

Those who hold that all the codices, despite their variations, were based on tawattur, will have to subscribe to the disputed view that Tahrif has occurred in the Qur’an, and that some parts of it is lost. Tabari has classified, as you have noticed earlier, that Uthman dismissed the six variations of reading, and allo­wed only one to sustain.

The fourth meaning of Tahrif is addition or suppression of an ayah or a Surah, at the same time preserving the revealed Qur’an intact, and accepting the fact that the Prophet (‘s) recited it as a part of the Qur’an.

And this has definitely occurred in the Qur’an. The "basmalah" for example, is an ayah for which Muslims unanimously hold that the Prophet (‘s) recited it before every Surah except the Surah of al-Tawbah. Yet, among the Ulama’ of Ahlus ­Sunnah, it is a subject of dispute. Some of them suggest that it is not a part of the Qur’an, and the Malikites have gone to the extent as to consider it Makruh to recite it before the Surah of Fatihah in the daily prayers, except when one intends to thereby digress from another Surah. And then there is a group among them who say that it is a part of the Qur’an.

The Shi’as are unanimous that basmalah is a part of every Surah except al-Tawbah, and this has been accepted by some Sunni scholars as well. When we start our commentary of the Surah al-Fatihah, we will enlarge upon this subject. So we see that Tahrif in the form of exclusion or suppression has certainly taken place.

The fifth meaning of Tahrif is that an addition of such a nature has taken place which rendered certain parts un­authentic. This indeed is totally inapplicable to the Holy Qur’an. Such a change has not occurred in the Qur’an, and this must be believed in as cardinal part of the faith.

The sixth meaning is Tahrif by omission. This would imply that the Qur’an we have today is incomplete and that people are deprived of some parts of Qur’an.

It is over this implication that the dispute arose, with certain people rejecting it altogether, and certain group conceding it.
________________________
1. al-Wafi, p.274
The accepted view of Muslims about the Qur’an is that it is free from all profanities and tampering. They firmly believe that the Book existing among them has the complete text of what was revealed to the great Prophet (‘s). Many scholars of repute have supported this view, among them is Muhammad ibn Babawayh, popularly known as Sheikh Saduq, who has included this view in the principle tenets of Shia Ithna-Asheri sect. Sheikh al Taifah Abu Ja'far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Tusi has dwelt on this subject in his commentary al Tibyan and in support of this view, has quoted his master Alamul Huda Sayyid Murtadha, relating his extensive arguments. The great com­mentator, aI Tabrasi, has lent credence to this view in the preface to his famous work Majma-ul-Bayan, and so has Shaikh Ja’far in his chapter on the Qur’an, from his book Kashful Ghita; wherein he claims a consensus on this view. Allamah Shahshahani in his book Al Urwatul Wuthqa says that the majority of mujtahids concur that there has been no Interpola­tion in the Qur’an; and Mulla Muhsin Kashani in his two worlds, al-Wafi and llm-ul-Yaqin reiterates the same view. We find this repeated by the great scholar Sheikh Muhammad Jawad al-Balaghi in the foreword to his Tafsir Ala-ur-Rahman.

Besides, many great scholars like Sheikh Mufid, Shaikh Bahai and Muhaqqiq Qadhi Nurullah are known to have been partisans of the view that there has been no tampering in the Qur’an. Even those great Shi’a scholars who wrote on the subject of Imamat, criticizing the factions which arose to usurp the rights of Ahl ul-Bayt ( ‘a), have not ascribed Tahrif to them. This is a very pertinent point, because had they subscribed to the view that the Qur’an had been profaned, they would have mentioned it with more candour than merely grieving about the burning up of the copies of the Qur’an or other similar matters.

To sum up, the general belief of Shi’a Ulama’ has been that the Qur’an is intact and pristine. Of course, there has been a small group of traditionalists, both among Shi’as and Sunnis, who held that the Qur’an has been tampered with. al-Rafai says: "A group of theologians used to hypothetical presumptions have subscribed to the view of Tahrif; those who have a habit of resorting to various methods of disputations in every word and in every law, have found it probable that something from the Qur’an may have been lost because of the way its collection has been described"1. In Majma ul Bayan, Tabrasi has ascribed this view to the group of Hashaw­iyyah among Sunnis.

It will soon be evident from what follows that to confirm that the recitation of certain parts of the Qur’an had been abrogated is tantamount to believing in Tahrif. Those Ulama’ of Ahlu-s­Sunnah who declare such an abrogation are in reality declaring that some tampering has occurred in the Qur’an.
________________________
1. Ijazul Qur’an, p.41
Most of the Sunni Ulama’ have mentioned that the recitation of some parts of the Qur’an was abrogated, confirming at the same time, through the reports, that those abrogated parts were in the Qur’an during the days of the Prophet (‘s). We will quote some of those reports here to prove that such a belief makes it necessary to also believe that an interpolation took place.
Tradition n. 1
(a) Ibn Abbas reports that Umar said while on the pulpit:

"God sent Muhammad (‘s) with Truth, and sent down unto him the Book. And among that which was revealed was an ayah about rajm which we read, understood and heeded. And based on that, the Prophet (‘s) stoned, and after him, we stoned. I fear that with the lapse of time, people may say: `we do not find the ayah of rajm in the book of God', and thus go astray by abandoning that which God has ordained. The ordi­nance of stoning was indeed prescribed for the adulterers in the book of God ….. And then, among verses we read, there was a verse which said1
ان لا ترغبوا عن ابائكم فانه كفر بكم أن ترغبوا عن آبائكم
or it was
ان كفرا بكم أن ترغبوا عن آبائكم
And Suyuti has mentioned: Ibn Ashtah has reported from Layth b. Sa'ad, who said:
"The first person to collect the Qur’an was Abu Bakr and Zaid wrote it down … And Umar came up with the ayah of rajm, but he did not record it because Umar was the sole reporter".2
This verse of rajm which Umar claimed to have been in the Qur’an, and was rejected, has been reported in several forms; among them are:
(i)
اذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة . نكالا من الله والله عزيز حكيم
and (ii)
الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة بما قضيا من اللذة
and (iii)
ان الشيخ والشيخة اذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة
Whatever be the case, there is nothing in the Qur’an today which indicates the law of stoning the adulterers. And if the reports are to be considered true, then it follows that an ayah has definitely disappeared from the Qur’an.
 
Tradition n. 2
(b) Tabrani has reported with reliable chain of narration from Umar b. al-Khattab:

"The Qur’an had one million and twenty seven thousand letters".3

While the existing Qur’an does not have even one third of the number. So, one is led to believe that more than two-third of the Qur’an has been lost.
Tradition n. 3
(c) Ibn Abbas reports from Umar:

"God sent Muhammad (‘s) with Truth and sent down unto him the Book. And among things revealed was an ayah of rajm. So the Prophet (‘s) stoned and after him we stoned too". Then Umar added: "We used to recite4
ولا ترغبوا عن آبائكم فانه كفربكم
or
ان كفرا بكم ان ترغبوا عن آبائكم
 
Tradition n. 4
(d) Nafe' reports that Ibn Umar said:

"One of you might claim that he has taken the complete Qur’an, but what does he know of the Complete Qur’an? Much from the Qur’an has disappeared, so he should say: I have taken what has been traced"5.
Tradition n. 5
(e) Urwah b. Zubair reports from Aisha:

"The Surah of al-Ahzab as read during the times of the Prophet (‘s) comprised of two hundred verses. When Uth­man prepared the codex, we did not get except what it has remained to be"6.
Tradition n. 6
(f) Hamidah binti Anas says:

It was read before my father who was 80, from the codex of Aisha:
ان لله وملئكته يصلون على النبي يا ايها الذين آمنوا صلو عليه وسلموا تسليما وعلى الذين يصلون الصفوف الاولى
She says: `This was before Uthman changed the texts'.
 
Tradition n. 7
(g) Abu Harb b. Abil Aswad reports from his father:

"Abu Musa Al-Asha'ri sent for the Qura' (the reciters of Basrah), and three hundred men called upon him, who had all read the Qur’an. Then he said : `You are the best of the people of Basrah, and their reciters. Read the Qur’an constantly, otherwise. before too long, your heart may harden the way the hearts of your predecessors had hardened. We used to read a Surah which we compared, in length and severity, with the Surah of Bara’ah, but I have now forgotten it, except a verse which says:
لو كان لابن آدم واديان من مال لا بتغى واديا ثالثا ولا يملأ جوف ابن آدم الا التراب
And we used to read a Surah which we compared with one of the musabbihat (Surahs which begin with sabbaha or yusab­bihu) but I have forgotten it except a verse I remember7:
يا ايها الذين آمنوا لم تقولون ما لا تفعلون, فتكتب شهادة في اعناقكم فتسألون عنها يوم القيامة
 
Tradition n. 8
(h) Zarr says: Ubayy b. Ka'b told me, O Zarr: "How much of Surah of al Ahzab do you read?" I said: "Seventy three verses". He said: "though it was equal to the Surah of al Baqarah, or it was longer than that". 8
Tradition n. 9
(i) Ibn Abi Dawud and Ibn Ambari report from Ibn Shihabi: "We have been informed that much more of the Qur’an had been revealed - but those who knew it were killed at Yamamah. They had preserved it, and it was never known or written after them..."9
Tradition n. 10
(j) Umrah reports from Aisha: "Among that which was revealed in the Qur’an, is the follow­ing verse:
عشر رضعات معلومات يحرمن
then it was abrogated to read
خمس معلومات
and they remained in the Qur’an till the Prophet (‘s) died.10
 
Tradition n. 11
(k) Miswar b. Makhramah reports: "Umar inquired from Abdul Rahman b. Awf if he had found the following ayah in the Qur’an:
............أن جاهدوا كما جاهدتم اول مرة
Abdul Rahman answered that the ayah had disappeared along with the lost parts of the Qur’an.11
 
Tradition n. 12
(l) Abu Sufyan al-Kala'i says that Muslimah b. Mukhallad al-Ansari told them one day: "Inform me about those two verses of the Qur’an which were never recorded". None would answer, not even Abul Kanood, Sa'ad b. Malik who was there. Then Ibn Muslimah recited12:
ان الذين آمنوا وهاجروا و جاهدوا في سبيل الله باموالهم وانفسهم الا أبشروا انتم المفلحون والذين آووهم ونصروهم وجادلوا عنهم قوم الذين غضب الله عليهم اولئك لا تعلم نفس ما اخفي لهم من قرة اعين جزاء بما كانوا يعلمون
And it has been narrated in various ways that the copies of Ibn Abbas and Ubayy b. Ka'ab contained two extra Surahs: Al‑Khala' and Al‑Hafd.It reads13:
اللهم انا نستعينك ونستغفرك ونثني عليك ولا نكفرك ونخلع ونترك من يفجرك اللهم اياك نعبد ولك نصلى ونسجد واليك نسعى ونحفد نرجو رحمتك ونخشي عذابك ان عذابك بالكافرين ملحق
It is now evident that to say that certain parts of the Qur’an have been excluded from recitation means to confirm interpola­tion and omission in the Qur’an.
This can be further explained this way. The abrogation of those recitations was either recommended by the Prophet (‘s) himself, or it was done by those who came to power after the Prophet's death. If one says that the Prophet (‘s) himself recommended it, then it is a claim which calls for substantiation.

All Ulama’ are agreed upon the principle that the Qur’an cannot be superseded or abrogated by an isolate report - i.e. a tradition which has been reported singly. The jurists have made this abundantly clear in their works on the principles of jurispru­dence. In fact, Shafi’i and many other scholars go further to say that the Book of God, (i.e. the Qur’an) cannot be superseded or abrogated by even those traditions which have reached con­tinuity and acquired wide spread currency. This has been con­firmed by Ahmed b. Hanbal in one of the two traditions reported by him. Even those who proposed that a continuous and widespread Sunnah may potentially supersede the Qur’an, have confirmed that such a situation has in reality never occurred. In view of the foregoing, it is incorrect to ascribe the abrogation to the Prophet (‘s). Even those reports which mention the omissions clearly say that it occurred after the Prophet (‘s).

But if it is proposed that the abrogation was perpetrated by those who assumed leadership after the Prophet (‘s), then that indeed is tampering with the Qur’an. It can safely be asserted that the occurence of Tahrif in the Qur’an is supported by the majority of Sunni Ulama’, because they believe that certain ayahs of the Qur’an were abrogated, in as far as their recitation was concerned, irrespective of whether the law con­tained in that ayah remained in force or not. Interestingly enough, we find certain scholars among them disputing whether a person in the state of janabah can recite those verses whose reading have been reportedly abrogated, or whether a person without wudhu would be permitted to touch the script of such a verse. Some of them have adopted a view that this would not be permissible. Yes, among the Mutazilites, there is a group which believes that an abrogation of recitation never occurred14.

Is it not surprising to find Sunni Ulama’ disputing the fact that some of them are supporters of Tahrif. Alusi has censured Al-Tabrasi of having falsely accused Hashawiyyah. He wrote: "Not a single scholar among the Sunnis has ever supported that view". Then he proceeds to presume that al-Tabrasi has been insisting on the absence of Tahrif to alleviate the harm done by some Shia scholars who believed to the contrary. All this makes a pathetic reading especially when it is well known that the Shi’a scholars do not subscribe to Tahrif in the Qur’an, while Al-Tabrasi himself has extensively quoted Sayyid Murtadha, enumerating all his arguments in support of the Qur’an's purity.
________________________
1. Sahih, Bukhari v8, p.26.; Sahih, Muslim v5, p.116, without the last sentence "And then, among verses .... "

2. Al-Itqan, v1, p.101

3. Al-Itqan, v1, p.121

4. Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, v1, p.48

5. Al-Itqan, V. 2, p. 40-41

6. Al-Itqan, V. 2, p. 40-41

7. Sahih, Muslim v3, p.100

8. Muntakhab Kanzul Ummal, on the margin of Musnad, Ahmad Hanbal v2, p.43

9. Muntakhab Kanzul Ummal, on the margin of Musnad, Ahmad Hanbal v2, p.50

10. Muslim, Sahih, v4, p.168

11. al Itqan, v2, p.42

12. al Itqan, v2, p.42

13. al-Itqan, v1, p.122, 213

14. Al-Ahkam fi Usul il Ahkam, Amedi v3 p.217
Considering the foregoing, the fact is that Tahrif, in the sense which has been a subject of disputation and contradictory opinions, has never occurred in the Qur’an. Here we give proofs from the Qur’an itself:

First, Allah says in the Qur’an:
 
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
"Surely, We have sent down the reminder, and We will most surely be its guardian". (Qur’an, 15:9)
This ayah adequately proves that the Qur’an has been guar­ded from all tampering, and that the profane hands shall have no wily access to it.
Some have tried to interpret this ayah differently, stating that (reminder) represents the Prophet (‘s) as mentioned in the following verse:
اللَّهُ إِلَيْكُمْ ذِكْرًا رَّسُولًا يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ
"Allah has indeed revealed to you a reminder: An Apostle who recites to you the clear communications.” (Qur’an, 65:10-11)
But this interpretation has many faults. The word “ذِكْرًا” has been used in the context of ((تنزيل-انزال))sending down", and therefore, it befittingly applies to the Qur’an. Had it been for the Prophet, the appropriate word would have been ((الارسال)) (sending our or sending away) or something synonymous. And if we were to accept that represents the Prophet (‘s) in the second ayah, it certainly does not in the first ayah wherein Allah guarantees the protec­tion, because it preceded by the following ayah:
وَقَالُواْ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِي نُزِّلَ عَلَيْهِ الذِّكْرُ إِنَّكَ لَمَجْنُونٌ
"And they say: O you to whom the reminder has been sent down! You are most surely insane". (Qur’an, 15:6)
This ayah undoubtedly refers to the Qur’an as الذكر and it becomes easy to deduce that الذكر occurring in the subsequent ayah has the same meaning.
Other interpreters have said that the preservation and protec­tion promised by Allah refers to guarding the Qur’an against vilifications and protecting it from any repudiation of its tea­chings. This interpretation is also far-fetched, because if it was meant to be protected from vilification by the disbelievers, then the Qur’an has had enough of it from the enemies of Islam. And if it is held to mean that the teachings of the Qur’an are above any vilifications because of their majesty, sublimity and the inherent strength in the arguments, then this is true, but this kind of protection does not become necessary after the revelation. The inspiring quality of the Qur’an is self-protecting, needing no further protection. The ayah, as you will observe, tells about protection after the revelation.

There is a third interpretation advanced by some which maintains that the guardianship promised in the ayah is related to the whole of the Qur’an as an entity, and does not apply to its individual verses and chapters. According to them, the Qur’an in its complete form is safe with the Twelfth Imam (‘a) who is in concealment, and thus the promise has been fulfilled.

This interpretation is the most defective, because the Qur’an has to remain guarded for the benefit of the people, for whom it was revealed. To say that it is safe in the possession of the twelfth Imam (‘a), the way it was fully entrenched in lawhe mahfuz or in the possession of an angel, is just like someone saying: "I am sending you a gift and I shall keep it in safe custody, or in the custody of my chosen one".

The suggestion that the guardianship is related to the Qur’an as a whole emanates from the presumption that the Qur’an is what exists among us in a book form, or what is on our tongues as a spoken word. This is not so, because a book or a word may not exist for ever. Actually, the Qur’an, or الذكر mentioned in the ayah, is that which was revealed to the Prophet (‘s), and guarding it means warding off all possibilities of distortions, interpolations and tampering, and protecting it from being lost so as to ensure that people have access to it in full. When we say that a particular eulogy or poem is guarded, we mean the original has been preserved, and protected from being lost.
Yes, there is another doubt which could creep into the minds of those who insist on Tahrif. They would say that it is unfair to base an argument against Tahrif on this ayah because it is quite possible that the ayah itself might have been tampered with. So, in order to be able to rely on this ayah as a basis of our argument, we have to revert to proving that there has been no Tahrif in the Qur’an. Thus a vicious circle is formed.

This doubt is the result of alienating the Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) from divine authority. Those who do not consider them an authority should find this argument irrefutable. As for those who believe that they are the authority divinely appointed, and that they are the rightful companions of the Book with whom we must acquiesce, for them there is no room for such a doubt. The fact that Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) based all their deductions and conclusions on the Qur’an, and instructed their companions implicitly as well as explicitly to accept it, amply demonstrates that this Qur’an is an authority, even if it is claimed that Tahrif had occurred. Ulti­mately, the evidence from the Qur’an, against any interpolation having occurred,. is based on their attestation.

The second proof from the Qur’an is:
وَإِنَّهُ لَكِتَابٌ عَزِيزٌ لَا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنزِيلٌ مِّنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ
" .... and most surely, it is a mighty book. Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the praised One". (Qur’an, 41:41-42)
This verse clearly indicates that the Book is free from all sorts of falsehood, and when this type of general negation occurs, it denotes totality. No doubt, Tahrif is a kind of falsehood and therefore it cannot find its way to the holy Book.

This submission has been opposed by some who maintain that the prevention of falsehood means the absence of any contradic­tion in its laws, and that its message is far from being untrue. They seek support from Ali b. Ibrahim al-Qummi who has quoted this tradition in his Tafsir from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (‘a):

"No falsehood can be imputed to it from Torah, nor from injil or zabur; and nor from behind it, which means no book will ever come to render it false".

And they also quote another tradition from both Imam Muhammad al-Baqir and Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (‘a), recorded in Majma ul Bayan, which says:

"There is no falsehood in what it has reported of the past, nor in what it has conveyed of the future".

In reply I submit that these traditions do not in anyway confine the meaning of the word `falsehood' to any single interpretation, nor do they forbid us from accepting its general connotation. In the foregoing chapter on "The excellence of the Qur’an", I have cited many reports which indicate that the meanings of the Qur’an are not restricted. This ayah exempts the Qur’an from all falsehood at all times, and since inter­polations and tampering are a type of falsehood, they are also precluded. A further evidence is provided by the ayah itself when it describes the Qur’an as a Mighty Book. The `might' is contained in its ability to fortify itself against all loss or changes. To restrict the meaning of falsehood to contradictions or false­hood within the book would not fully justify the use of the word al-‘izza.
The third proof is from the traditions of thaqalayn, two invaluable things left behind by the Prophet (‘s), wherein he said that they would hold together till they arrive near him at the Hawdh (the pool of Kawthar) and he asked his fol­lowers to remain adhered and attached to them. These two things are the Qur’an and the Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) (his true progeny). These traditions have been overwhelmingly reported by the accepted chains of narration from both the sects of Islam1.

This tradition helps us establish the purity of the Qur’an from Tahrif in two ways. First, the adherence would not be practical nor conceivable if parts of the Qur’an were lost by way of interpolation or change. But as the tradition clearly sets out, the adherence is required of the ummah for ever, till the Day of Judgement. Therefore, Tahrif cannot be accepted to have occurred.

Further, these traditions show that the Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) and the Qur’an will remain together, present among men till the Day of Judgement. It is therefore absolutely imperative that a person should exist whom Qur’an accompanies, and also, the Qur’an must exist to be in company with the Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a), till they reach the Prophet together at the Hawdh. And as the Prophet (‘s) has said in this tradition, adherence to both of them would guard the Ummah from going astray.

Obviously, the adherence to Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) is brought about by affinity to them, by following what they enjoin and refraining from what they forbid, and by walking on their guided path. It does not at all need a direct contact with the Imam or talking to him personally. In fact, such a contact is not possible for all Muslims even when an Imam is visibly present, to say nothing of the days of concealment. Those who insist on a contact of this nature do so without any reasonable argument. The Shi’as, for example, are adherents of their Imam in concealment (‘a) by way of love for him, and by following his behests, which include following the Ulama’ who carry their traditions, to guide in matters which are contingent or incidental.

As for adherence to the Qur’an, it is not possible without direct access to it, and therefore it is absolutely essential for it to be present among the Ummah for guidance and prevention from going astray. This explains why it is unnecessary to discuss about the guarded Qur’an being in possession of the Imam (‘a) in concealment, because mere existence of the Qur’an is not enough for Ummah to be able to follow; it has got to be available.

It may be argued that the traditions of Thaqalayn indicate that only those verses of the Qur’an have remained unaltered which deal with the divine rules and laws, for they are the ones to be followed. They do not necessarily cover other parts which do not enunciate any laws.

They forget that the Qur’an is a book of guidance to men, as a whole, with all its verses, conducive to perfection in all aspects of life. Thus there is no difference between the parts which contain the laws and the others. In the foregoing chapter on excellence of the Qur’an, we have explained how even those verses which apparently deal with the past history have morale and admonition in them. The basic issue of controversy has been the claim by some who say that the verse of wilayah and related subjects have been omitted. The answer is that if those had been proved to be parts of the Qur’an, then it would have been obligatory upon the Ummah to adhere to them as well.

The benefit of this tradition is that if interpolation, dis­tortions, deformations, alteration or omissions are allowed in the Qur’an, then its authority lapses, and it would not be incumbent to follow the outward or literal texts of the Qur’an. In such circumstances, the believers Tahrif have no choice but to refer to Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) for getting the Qur’an certified as an aut­hentic book, worthy of reference by the people, in spite of the tampering having occurred.

This means that the authority of the Qur’an primarily depends upon the sanction by Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a), or upon any one having two authorities for which the Prophet (‘s) ordered adherence. But of these two, the Qur’an is greater and therefore its authority cannot be subservient to the ratification of a lesser authority, i.e. Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a). The reason why we say that the authority of the Qur’an would lapse if Tahrif is allowed is that because of such changes, there is every possibility that the postulations of the Qur’an had some contextual link with other qualifying parts which are lost.

An argument running counter to this maintains that it is not rational to anticipate a contradictory or qualifying part if it does not readily exist. One has to rely upon the literal text which is manifest and existing. We have ourselves explained in our discussions of the principles of jurisprudence that it is not rational to anticipate any context which is not syntactic or which does not appear immediately in the construction of a sentence. In fact, even those contexts, which are in the syntax, can be ignored if they have been caused by the carelessness of the speaker or negligence of the listeners.

But in this case, we maintain that this principle does not apply. Here, there are the believers in Tahrif, who say that something is lost, and therefore, reason will guide us to restrain from relying solely upon the existing literal text of the Qur’an. Let us say, for example, a scripture is found which instructs its followers to buy a house. Now if a follower found out that certain parts of the scripture have been ruined or missing, suspecting that those missing parts may have further specifica­tions with regard to the size of a house to be bought, or its value or location, it would be quite rational for him to refrain from purchasing a house. He cannot take the existing text as complete, and if he bought a house he would not be sure that he has carried out the intended instruction of his Lord.

The reader may think that with this analogy, the whole foundation of fiqh, together with the system of deductions and inferences of the divine laws would collapse; because they depend chiefly on the traditions reported from the masumin (‘a) (the Prophet (‘s) and his pure progeny). And in these, there is a possibility that their saying may not have been reported with the qualifying contexts. But with little extra effort, this doubt can be allayed. In the case of the traditions, what is to be followed is the report of a narrator in its complete form. If there was any contextual evidence, he would include it in the narration. The absence of any contextual qualifications or contradictions in the tradition would simply mean that they did not exist.

It is now an established fact that belief in Tahrif necessarily means that the text of the Qur’an cannot be taken as an authority. Some people say that, before accepting this conclu­sion, one must at least have a comprehensive knowledge about those ayahs in which any deficiency may have occurred. I maintain that this does not apply in the case of Tahrif, because comprehensive knowledge becomes credible only when its effect is seen in practice. Most of the verses of the Qur’an in which Tahrif is believed to have occurred do not deal with any laws, and therefore they would not be requiring this consideration.

There might be a claim that since the Imams of Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) have based their guidance on the text of the Qur’an, and since their followers and companions have acquiesced to their directive, therefore the authority of the text of the Qur’an has been reinstated, even though it may have lapsed before due to Tahrif. This claim has no substance because the Imams of Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) did not initiate the authority of the Qur’an. What they did was to confirm the authority of the Qur’an by instruct­ing their followers to adhere to the scriptural text, giving full recognition to the Qur’an as an independent, autonomous auth­ority.
________________________
1. Musnad, Hanbal, v3, p14,17,26,59 reported from Abu Saeed al-Khudri;v4, p.366,371 from Zaid b. Arqam.; v5, p.182, 189from Zaid b. Thabit.) Jalal-ud-din Suyuti in his Jama’us Saghir reported from Tabrani by Zaid b. Thabit, declaring it as authentic. Allamah al-Manawi in his commentary: v3, p15 wherein he reports al-Haythami having said: `All the narrators are trustworthy'. Abu Ya'la reported it with an unblemished chain of reporters, and Hafiz Abdul Aziz b. al-Akhdhar quoted this with an addition: This was said by the Prophet (‘s) at the time of the last Hajj. He also castigated those like Ibn Jawzi who have classified this tradition as false. As-Samhudi says: This is among those chapters wherein more than twenty companions of the Prophet (‘s) have reported. al-Hakim has reported in al-Mustadrak v3, p.109 from Zaid b. Arqam and has authenticated it. al-Dhahabi has not criticized it. The words in the actual traditions vary, but the meaning conveyed is constant.
The fourth proof is contained in the directive of the Imams of Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) to read a complete Surah in the first two raka’ats of every obligatory prayer, after the Surah of al­ Fatihah. And they allowed to divide a Surah or more in the case of Salat ul ayat (prayers which become incumbent due to natural phenomena like eclipses or earthquakes etc.), the details of which can be found in its place in Fiqh.

Obviously, these laws are established parts of Shari’ah ever since the prayers became obligatory, and they were not prompted by taqiyyah or dissimulation. For those who hold that Tahrif or interpolation has taken place in the Qur’an, it is important that they do not recite those Surahs which they consider to have been tampered with, because restraint is the only sure alternative in the case of doubt. Their excuse that since a complete, unvaried Surah is not available, therefore they have to accept whatever is available, cannot be accepted because that would apply only if they believe that all the Surahs have been interpolated. Since there is a Surah, like Surah of Ikhlas, which has remained intact, they would have to resort to its recitation excluding the others.

The directive by the Imams of Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) would not be of any help to them as any authority, because the very fact that the Imams have permitted and directed to read a complete Surah from the existing Qur’an indicates satisfactorily that there has been no Tahrif whatsoever. Otherwise, a Muslim unable to fulfil the, required condition of reciting a complete Surah after al-Fatihah would have to be exempted from the obligatory prayers. We find that the Imams have directed us to read the Surahs of Ikhlas and Qadr, recommended for every prayer. Since the question of taqiyyah was never relevant here, the recommendation and directive to read these two complete Surahs extends to all other Surahs of the Qur’an.

A pretext that the obligation to recite a complete Surah has been abrogated in the favour of reading whatever is currently available in the present Qur’an is unacceptable, and I do not think the believers in interpolation would seek refuge under it. The fact is that no abrogation of this type could lave occurred after the Prophet (‘s). Some scholars have hypothetically discussed the possibility or otherwise of such an abrogation, but we are not concerned with those hypotheses here.

In short, there is no doubt that the Imams of Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) have directed to recite the Surahs from the Qur’an we have among us in the prayers. This ordinance has no room for taqiyyah either. One has to believe that this was also the established directive given by the Prophet (‘s) himself. It could not be a later development because that would imply an abrogation - and no abrogation ever occurred after the Prophet (‘s), in spite of the hypothetical possibility. When it is established beyond doubt that the ordinance of reciting complete Surahs existed in the days of the Prophet (‘s), it follows that there has been no Tahrif. This is evidenced in every law of Shari’ah, and it has been successfully applied by the Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) to their directive to recite a complete Surah or a complete ayah.
Some hold that the interpolation, alteration, omission may have occurred after the death of the Prophet (‘s), perpetra­ted by the first two Caliphs or by Uthman when he came to power, or by someone of the later period. All these claims are invalid. If abu Bakr or Umar did it, then there can be two assumptions. They either did it unintentionally, because, as it is believed, the Qur’an was not available in its entirety as it had not yet been compiled. Or they did it intentionally. In any case, the verses in which they interfered by way of Tahrif would be those concerning their leadership or even others. In all, there are three considerations:

First, to say that they had no access to the whole of the Qur’an is totally out of question. The Prophet (‘s) had taken great pains to see that it was committed to memory, and was constantly recited, slowly and elegantly, and the companions had compiled during the Prophet's time and after his passing away. This makes us certain that the Qur’an was with them, well guarded, all in one place or at various places, in the hearts of people or noted down on the papers. They were the people who had proudly preserved the poems and speeches of the pre-­Islamic era. How could they be expected to ignore the great Book whose laws they proclaimed, for which they had staked their lives, left their homes, spent their wealth, abandoned their families and children, and had taken a firm stand in the brilliant history of Islam. Can a reasonable person believe that they would be so indifferent so as to cause any loss of the Qur’an? A loss which could not be retrieved without the evidence of two witnesses? Is it not tantamount to believing that there has been an addition or an omission in the Qur’an which was revealed to the Prophet (‘s)?

Then there is the famous and widely acknowledged tradition of thaqalayn which invalidates all presumption, about Tahrif. The Prophet (‘s) said:

'I leave behind me two invaluable things: the Book of Allah and my Ahl ul-Bayt'.

This statement becomes meaningless if it is believed that the Qur’an had been lost during his time, because that which was lost would definitely be parts of the Book. In fact, this tradition points to the collection of the Qur’an during the Prophet's era; because scattered or memorised literature cannot be termed a book. We will deal with the subject of the collection of the Qur’an later. The question is that if the Muslims did not care to collect the Qur’an while the Prophet (‘s) lived, why did the Prophet (‘s) himself neglect it, in spite of his vehement emphasis on its importance? Did he not foresee the result of such carelessness? Or was it impossible for him to do so? Obviously, these are all invalid excuses.

If we were to propose that the first two Caliphs effected Tahrif in those verses which did not deal with their leadership, and the leadership of their friends, then this seems to be unlikely because it serves no purpose. Definitely, this did not occur. The Caliphate was a political matter, ostensibly based on their concern for the religion, and as such there was no need for touching the Qur’an. Even those like Sa’ad b. Ubadah and his companions who objected to the rule of Abu Bakr, and those who refused to swear oath of allegience to both of them, never accused the Caliphs of having tampered with the Qur’an. Did Ali b. Abi Talib (‘a), in his famous discourse of Shaqsha­qiyyah or elsewhere where he objected to Abu Bakr taking precedence over him, mention anything about the Caliphs ef­fecting any changes in the Qur’an? It is not conceivable that the Muslims cited any such instance without us knowing about it. Therefore, this proposition cannot be true.

Finally, it is an indisputable fact that the two Caliphs did not cause any purposeful interpolation or omission of those verses which may have dealt adversely with their leadership. Ali b. Abi Talib (‘a) along with his wife Fatimah Zahra (‘a) and certain friends from the companions of the Prophet (‘s) protested against the two Caliphs on matter of Caliphate, basing their objection on what they had heard from the Prophet (‘s), presenting witnesses from among the Muhajirin and Ansar, and also on the famous tradition of Al Ghadir and others. In the book of Al-Ihtijaj, it is reported that twelve men protested against the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, quoting the text of what they said. Allamah Majlisi has set out a complete chapter on the subject of the objections by Ali b. Abi Talib in the matter of Caliphate1.

Had there been anything in the Qur’an disparaging their leadership, they would have definitely quoted them in their protests, and so would all the Muslims. The Caliphate is a matter which came to transpire well before the so-called collection of the Qur’an. The silence of the companions on this subject, from the beginning till the end when Ali b. Abi Talib (‘a) became the Caliph, is an indisputable evidence that such an interpolation or omission never occurred.

It is all the more difficult to accept that Tahrif was caused by Uthman, for the following reasons:

(a) Islam had gained a strong foothold by the time of Uthman, and was widely spread. It was not possible for Uthman to tamper with the Qur’an, nor for anyone else more influential and higher in status than him.

(b) If it were presumed that he tampered with the verses which had no bearing on the question of wilayah or the Caliphate of his predecessors, then it would be a futile exercise. And if he tampered with those verses which had such connections, then the Caliphate, in the first instance, would not have come to him, because the Qur’an would have guided the Muslims against him.

(c) His tampering with the Qur’an would have become a major and prominent reason for his assassination. There would have been no need to ascribe to Uthman other reasons like squander­ing the Baitul Mal of the Muslims unlike his predecessors, or other such reasons.

(d) It would have become incumbent upon Ali (‘a) to restore to the Qur’an what had been interpolated or omitted, and to bring it up to date with the original as it existed during the time of the Prophet (‘s) and the first two Caliphs. In so doing he could not have been censured. In fact, Ali (‘a) could have advanced a convincing reason against those who accused him of having condoned the killing of Uthman, and sought revenge from him.

It is known that Ali (‘a) returned all the lands to their rightful owners which had been wrongfully granted to others by Uthman. In his sermon, he said:

"By God, if I were to find that some women were married by that wealth or some maidservants were owned by it, I would return it to their rightful owners. Whoever finds justice stifling, must find injustice and tyranny all the more so".2

This is what Ali (‘a) said in respect of the wealth. One can easily imagine what his stand would be if he found out that the Qur’an was interpolated or tampered with. The fact that he accepted the Qur’an as it existed in his time is a convincing proof against any Tahrif.

No attempt at the interpolation of the Qur’an are known to have occurred after the era of the four Caliphs, except a report that Hajjaj omitted many verses from the Qur’an, which dealt disparagingly with the rule of the Umayyids, and also added to it some which were not there originally. Then he is alleged to have prepared a new codex for distribution in Egypt, Syria, Mecca, Medina, Basrah and Kufah. Thus, it is presumed that the present Qur’an is the one prepared by Hajjaj, who meth­odically destroyed all the previous copies, allowing not a single one to remain3.

Obviously, this is a claim based on conjecture and it smacks of delirium. For Hajjaj was merely one of the generals in the Umayyid regime, with little influence and almost no ability to do the Qur’an any harm. In fact, he was incapable of effecting any change in the most elementary laws of Islam, not to speak of the Qur’an which is the foundation of our faith, and pillar of Islamic Laws. One wonders how he could influence any change in the Qur’an after it had gained currency in so many Muslim countries. Not a single historian or commentator has chronicled this change which because of its importance should not have escaped their notice. No contemporary Muslim ever objected to this, and even after his rule, the Muslims seem to have con­doned this abominable act.

If at all it is believed that he managed to withdraw all the previous copies of the Qur’an, replacing it with his new codex, how could he eradicate it from the hearts of the Muslims who had committed it to memory, and whose great number is known by none but Allah? Had there been anything in the Qur’an which was uncomplimentary to the Umayyids, Muawiyah would have been the first to see it omitted because, compared to Hajjaj, he was more influential and powerful. Of course, if Muawiyah had done this, the companions of Ali (‘a) would have argued with him, the way they did on many occasions, as recorded in the books of History, Hadith and Theology. As we said earlier, the pretence that the Qur’an has been tampered with has n

Share this article

Comments 0

Your comment

Comment description

Latest Post

Most Reviews

MOST READ