Islam and Religious Pluralism

Notes

1. Usd al-Ghāba, under `Uthmān ibn Maz`ūn

2. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Ahqāf (46), Verse 9

3. The objection may come to mind that the purport of this verse is contrary to what is accepted by Muslims as established fact, meaning that the Prophet (S) was informed of his praiseworthy place on the Day of Judgement and of his intercession for various sinners, and is rather contrary to the purport of various verses, like “And verily your Lord will grant you until you are pleased” (Sūratul Duhā (39), Verse 5) and “For God to forgive that which has passed of your mistake and that which is to come.” (Sūratul Fatĥ (49), Verse 2)

The answer is that the purport of the verse, as is also understood from the preceding tradition, is that the end result of a person’s actions are not known with certainty by anyone; only God has certain knowledge of the final result, and if others come to know, it is only by Divine revelation. So the verse that negates knowledge of the final end relates to the Prophet Muhammad (S) or someone else making a forecast relying on his or her own actions; and the verses that indicate that the Prophet Muhammad (S) has knowledge of his own or other people’s final end are through Divine revelation.

4. Bihārul Anwār, Volume 3, Page 165

5. George Jordac’s words about the Prophet Muhmmad (S) indicate he believed in his prophecy and receiving Divine revelation, and he also believed firmly that `Alī Ibn Abī Ťalib was a man of God and regarded him as being like `Īsā , but at the same time he did not abandon Christianity. Gibrān Khalīl Gibrān says of `Alī Ibn Abī Ťalib (as)

وَ في عقيدتـي أن علي بن أبـي طالب أول عربي جاو وَ الروح الكلية وَ سمارها

“In my view, `Alī was the first Arab to have contact with and converse with the universal soul [of the world].”

He expresses greater love for `Alī Ibn Abī Tālib as than even the Prophet Muhammad (S). He has unusual statements about `Alī; for example, he says:

مٌاتَ وَ الصَّلاٌةَ بَيْنَ شَفَتَيهِ

“He died while prayer was between his two lips.”

And he also says of `Alī Ibn Abī Tālib as, “`Alī was before his time, and I don’t know the secret of why destiny sometimes brings people to the world before their time.”

Incidentally, this point is the meaning of one of `Alī Ibn Abī Tālib’s as own statements; he says:

غَداً تَرَوْنَ أَيٌّامِي وَ يَكْشِفُ لَكُمْ عَنْ سَرٌائِرِي وَ تَعْرِفُونَنِـي بَعْدَ خُلُوٍّ مَكٌانِـي وَ قِيٌامِ غَيْرِي مَقٌامِي

“Tomorrow you will see my days and my secrets will be exposed to you, and you will know me after my space has become empty and others take my place.”

6. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Baqarah (2), Verse 256

7. Al-Qur'ān, Sūrat Āli Imrān (3), Verse 85

Good Deeds Without Faith

It has become clear that, first of all, our discussion has a general aspect, and we don’t want to pass decisions about individuals.

Second, our discussion is not about whether the true religion is one or several; rather, we have accepted that the true religion is one and that all are obligated to accept it.

Third, our discussion is this: if a person, without accepting the true religion, performs a deed which the true religion considers good, does that person receive a reward for that good deed or not?

For example, the true religion has emphasized doing good to others. This includes cultural services like establishing schools, places of learning, writing, and teaching; health services like medicine, nursing, establishing sanitary establishments, and so forth social services such as mediating disputes, helping the poor and disabled, supporting the rights of the exploited, fighting the exploiters and oppressors, assisting the deprived, establishing justice which is the aim and goal of the Prophets’ mission, providing the means of satisfaction for the broken-hearted and misfortunate, and such like. Every religion and every Prophet has enjoined these things. In addition, the reasoning and conscience of each individual rules that these things are good and worthy.

Now, we ask whether a non-Muslim is rewarded if he or she performs such services. The true religion says to be trustworthy and not lie; if a non-Muslim acts in accordance with this principle, will he or she be rewarded or not?

In other words, is it equal with respect to a non-Muslim to be trustworthy or treacherous? Are adultery and prayers equal with respect to him or her? This is the issue that we wish to discuss.

Two Ways of Thinking

Normally, those with an intellectual inclination say with certainty that there is no difference between a Muslim and non-Muslim, and even between a monotheist and non-monotheist; whoever performs a good deed, a service like establishing a charitable organization or an invention or something else, deserves recompense from God.

They say that God is Just, and a God who is Just does not discriminate among His servants. What difference does it make for God whether His servant recognizes Him or not or believes in Him or not? Certainly, God will not ignore the good deeds or waste the reward of a person simply because that person doesn’t have a relationship of familiarity and love with Him.

And even more certainly, if a person believes in God and does good deeds, but does not recognize His Messengers and thus does not have a relationship of familiarity and covenant of friendship with them, God will not cancel out and nullify his or her good deeds.

Directly opposite to these people are those who consider almost all people worthy of punishment and believe in a good end and accepted actions with respect to only a few. They have a very simple standard; they say that people are either Muslim or non-Muslim.

Non-Muslims, who are about three-fourths of the world’s population, shall go to Hell because they are non-Muslims. The Muslims in their turn are either Shī`a or non-Shī`a. The non-Shī`as, who are about three-fourths of all Muslims, will go to Hell because they are non-Shī`as.

And of the Shī`as, too, a majority – about three-fourths – are only Shī`a in name, and it is a small minority that is familiar with even the first obligation, which is to perform “taqlīd” of a mujtahid (follow the religious rulings of a particular scholar), let alone their remaining obligations, and the correctness and completeness of those obligations depends on this obligation.

And even those who perform taqlīd are for the most part non-practicing. Thus, there are very few who will achieve salvation.This is the logic of the two sides: the logic of those who, it can almost be said, are absolute conciliation, and the logic of those who we can say are a manifestation of Divine anger, giving anger precedence over mercy.

The Third Logic

Here there is a third logic, which is the logic of the Qur’ān. In this issue, the Qur’ān gives us a concept that is different from the previous two ideas and that is peculiar to it. The Qur’ān’s view accords with neither the nonsensical idea of our so-called intellectuals, nor with the narrow-mindedness of our holier-than-thou pious people.

The Qur’ān’s view is rooted in a special logic that everyone, after learning of it, will admit is the correct position in this matter. And this fact increases our faith in this astonishing and remarkable Book and shows that its lofty teachings are independent of the worldly thoughts of human beings and have a celestial source.

Here we present the proofs of both disputing groups (the so-called intellectuals and the so-called pious) and investigate them so that by critiquing them we can slowly arrive at the third logic in regard to this issue, that is, the logic and particular philosophy of the Qur’ān.

The So-Called Intellectuals

This group brings two types of proofs for their view: rational and narrational.

1. Rational proof. The rational demonstration that says that good deeds entail their reward no matter who performs them is based on two premises:

The first premise: God has an equal relation to all existent beings. His relation to all times and places is the same; just as God is in the East, He is in the West, and just as He is above, He is below.

God is in the present, past and future; the past, present, and future have no difference for God, just as above and below and East and West are the same for Him. Similarly His servants and creation are also the same for Him; He has neither family ties nor a special relationship with anyone.

Thus, God’s showing grace or showing anger towards people is also the same, except when there are differences in the people themselves.1

As a result, no one is dear to God without reason, and no one is lowly or outcast without justification. God has neither ties of kinship nor of nationality with anyone; and no one is the beloved or chosen one of God.

Since God’s relation to all beings is the same, there remains no reason for a good deed to be accepted from one person and not from another. If the actions are the same, their reward will also be the same, since the assumption is that God’s relation to all people is the same. So justice demands that God reward all those who do good whether Muslims or non-Muslims in the same way.

The second premise: The goodness or badness of actions is not based on convention, but on actual reality. In the terminology of scholars of theology and the science of principles of jurisprudence, the “goodness” or “badness” of actions is innate.

That is, good and bad deeds are differentiated by their essence; good deeds are good by their essence, and bad deeds are bad by their essence. Honesty, virtue, doing good, helping others, and so forth are good by their essence and lying, stealing, and oppression are bad by their essence.

The goodness of “honesty” or badness of “lying” is not because God has mandated the former and forbidden the latter. To the contrary, it is because “honesty” is good that God has obligated it and because “lying” is bad that God has forbidden it. In short, God’s commanding or forbidding is based on the goodness or badness of actions in their essence, and not the other way around.

From these two premises, we conclude that since God does not discriminate, and since good deeds are good from all people, whoever does a good deed will definitely and necessarily be rewarded by God.

It is exactly the same way with regard to evil deeds since there is no difference between those who commit them.

2. Narrational proof. The Qur’ān affirms in many verses the principle of non-discrimination among people in rewarding good deeds and punishing evil deeds – which was mentioned in the above rational proof.

The Qur’ān strongly opposed the Jews, who believed in such discrimination. The Jews believed and still believe that the Jewish race is chosen by God; they would say, “We are the sons and friends of God. Supposing God sends us to Hell, it will not be for more than a limited time.”

a) The Qur’ān calls such ideas wishes and untrue thoughts and has strongly combated them.The Qur’ān also points out the error of Muslims who have fallen prey to such deception. Here are some of the verses in this regard:

وَقَالُوا لَنْ تَمَسَّنَا النَّارُ إِلاَّ أَيَّاماً مَّعْدُودَةً قُلْ أَتَّخَذْتُمْ عِنْدَ اللٌّهِ عَهْدًا فَلَنْ يُخْلِفَ اللٌّهُ عَهْدَهُ أَمْ تَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللٌّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ بَلَى مَنْ كَسَبَ سَيِّئَةً وَأَحَاطَتْ بِهِ خَطِيـئَتُهُ فَأُوْلٌـئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُون وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ أُولٌـئِكَ أَصْحَابُ الْجَنَّةِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَ

“And they said, the Fire shall not touch us except for (a few) numbered days. Say: have you taken a covenant with God, for God shall not violate His covenant, or do you attribute to God that which you don’t know? Nay, those who earn evil and whose mistakes have enveloped them are the inhabitants of the Fire; they shall abide therein forever. And those who believe and do good are the inhabitants of Paradise; they shall abide therein forever.”2

b) In another place, the Qur’ān says in answer to the conjecture of the Jews:

وَغَرَّهُمْ فِي دِينِهِمْ مَّا كَانُوا يَفْتَرُونَ فَــكَيْفَ إِذَا جَمَعْنَاهُمْ لِيَوْمٍ لاَّ رَيْبَ فِيهِ وَوُفِّيَتْ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ مَّا كَسَبَتْ وَهُمْ لاَ يُظْلَمُونَ

“And their forgeries deceived them in their religion. So how will they be when We gather them for a day in which there is no doubt and every soul shall be given in full what it has earned; and they shall not be wronged.”3

c) In another place, the Christians have been added to the Jews, and together they have been opposed by the Qur’ān:

وَقَـالُوا لَنْ يَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ إِلاَّ مَنْ كَـانَ هُوداً أَوْ نَصَارَى تِلْكَ أَمَانِيُّـهُمْ قُلْ هَـاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُم إِنْ كُنْــتُمْ صَادِقِينَ بَلَى مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلٌّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَلَهُ أَجْرُهُ عِنْدَ رَبِّـهِ وَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَـيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُـمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

“And they said, None shall enter Paradise except those who are Jews or Christians; this is their fancy. Say: bring your proof, if you are truthful. Rather, those who submit themselves to God and do good shall have their reward with their Lord; and they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve.”4

d) In Sūratul Nisā, the Muslims too, have been added to the Jews and Christians. The Qur’ān demolishes discriminatory thinking no matter who it is from. It is as though the Muslims had come under the effect of the thinking of the People of the Book, and in the face of they who without reason considered themselves superior, adopted such an opinion about themselves. The Qur’ān says, refuting these immature fancies:

لَّيْسَ بِأَمَانِيِّكُمْ وَلاَ أَمَانِيِّ أَهْلِ الْكِـتَابِ مَنْ يَعْمَلْ سُوءًا يُجْزَ بِهِ وَلاَ يَجِدْ لَهُ مِـنْ دُونِ اللٌّهِ وَلِيًّا وَلاَ نَصِيرًا وَمَنْ يَعْمَلْ مِنَ الصَّالِحَاتِ مِنْ ذَكَرٍ أَوْ أُنثَى وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ فَأُوْلٌـئِكَ يَدْخُلُونَ الْجَنَّةَ وَلاَ يُظْلَمُونَ نَقِيـرًا

“(This) shall not be in accordance with your vain desires nor in accordance with the vain desires of the followers of the Book. Whoever does evil, he shall be requited with it. He will find for himself neither a guardian nor a helper other than God. And whoever does good deeds whether male or female and he (or she) is a believer, it is these who shall enter paradise and they will not be wronged (so much as) the speck on a date stone.”5

e) Leaving aside the verses that condemn baseless suppositions of honour and nearness to God, there are other verses that say that God does not waste the reward of any good deed.

These verses have also been taken as proof of the acceptance of the good deeds of all people, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. In Sūratul Zilzāl, we read:

فَـمَنْ يَّعْمَلْ مِثْقٌالَ ذَرَّةٍ خَيْراً يَرَهُ وَ مَنْ يَّعْمَلْ مِثْقٌالَ ذَرَّةٍ شَرّاً يَرَهُ

“So whoever does an atom’s weight of good shall see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil shall see it.”6

Elsewhere, God says:

إِنَّ اللٌّهَ لاٌ يُضِيعُ أَجْرَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ

“Verily God does not waste the reward of those who do good.”7

And in another place, He says:

إِنٌّا لاٌ نُضِيعُ أَجْرَ مَنْ أَحْسَنَ عَمَلاً

“Verily We do not waste the reward of those who do good.”8

The wording of these verses makes them universal statements that are not given to exceptions.

The scholars of the discipline of the principles of jurisprudence (Uŝūlul Fiqh) say that certain universal statements do not accept exceptions; that is, the wording and tone of the universal statement is such that it resists any exceptions.

When it is said, “We don’t waste the reward of the doer of good,” it means that God’s divinity demands that He preserve good deeds; thus it is impossible for God to disregard His divinity in one instance and waste a good deed.

f) There is another verse which is frequently referred to in this discussion, and it is said that it clearly points to the assertion of this group:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هٌادُوا وَالصٌّابِؤُونَ وَالنَّصٌارَى مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللٌّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وعَمِلَ صٌالِحًا فَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاٌ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

“Indeed the faithful, the Jews, the Sabaeans, and the Christians—those who have faith in God and the Last Day and act righteously—they will have no fear, nor will they grieve.”9

In this verse, three conditions have been mentioned for salvation and safety from God’s punishment: belief in God, belief in the Day of Judgement, and good deeds; no other condition is mentioned.

Some who are apparently intellectuals have gone one step further and said that the aim of the Prophets was to call towards justice and goodness, and in accordance with the rule “Comply with the spirit and not the letter of the law” we should say that justice and goodness are accepted even from those who don’t believe in God and the Day of Judgement.

Thus, those who don’t believe in God and the Day of Judgement but have made great cultural, medical, economical, or political contributions to humanity shall have a great reward.Of course, these people can argue on the basis of verses like:

إِنٌّا لاٌ نُضِيعُ أَجْرَ مَنْ أَحْسَنَ عَمَلاً

“We don’t waste the reward of one who does good,” and:

فَمَنْ يَّعْمَلْ مِثْقٌالَ ذَرَّةٍ خَيْراً يَرَهُ

“So whoever does an atom’s weight of good shall see it,”

but verses like the one above contradict their assertion. Below we take a look at the proofs of the other group.

The Rigid Group

In opposition to the supposed intellectuals who claim that good deeds are accepted by God from all people in all situations are the “rigid pious ones”; their position is directly opposite to the former group.

They say that it is impossible for a non-Muslim’s actions to be accepted. The actions of unbelievers and similarly those of non-Shī`a Muslims have absolutely no value. The non-Muslim and non-Shī`a Muslim himself is rejected and rebuffed; his actions are even more worthy of being rejected. This group also brings two proofs: rational and narrated.

Rational proof: The rational proof of this group is that if it is supposed that the actions of non-Muslims and non-Shī`a Muslims are to be accepted by God, what is the difference between Muslims and non-Muslims?

The difference between them should be either for the good deeds of Muslims and Shī`as to be accepted to the exclusion of non-Muslims and non-Shī`a Muslims, or for the evil deeds of Muslims and Shī`as not to be punished, again to the exclusion of non-Muslims and non-Shī`a Muslims.

But if we suppose that the good deeds of both groups entail reward and the evil deeds of both groups lead to punishment, what difference will there be between them?

And what is the effect of being Muslim or Shī`a in such a case? The equality of Muslims and non-Muslims, and similarly Shī`as and non-Shī`as, in accounting for their actions means that in essence practicing Islām or Shī`aism is unnecessary and without effect.

Narrated proof: In addition to the above reasoning, this group also argues from two Qur’ānic verses and several traditions.

In a few verses of the Qur’ān, it has been clearly stated that the actions of unbelievers are not accepted; similarly, in many traditions it has been said that the actions of non-Shī`as – that is, those who do not have the wilāyah (Divinely-ordained guardianship) of the Ahlul Bait (as) – are not accepted.

In Sūrat Ibrāhīm, God compares the actions of unbelievers to ashes which are scattered by a strong wind and lost:

مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِرَبِّهِمْ أَعْمٌالُهُمْ كَرَمٌادٍ اشْتَدَّتْ بِهِ الرِّيحُ فِي يَوْمٍ عٌاصِفٍ لاَّ يَقْدِرُونَ مِمٌّا كَسَبُوا عَلَى شَيْءٍ ذٌلِكَ هُوَ الضَّلاَلُ الْبَعِيدُ

“A parable of those who defy their Lord: their deeds are like ashes over which the wind blows hard on a tempestuous day: they have no power over anything they have earned. That is extreme error.”10

In a verse of Sūratul Nūr, the actions of unbelievers have been likened to a mirage which appears to be water but upon being approached, turns out to be nothing.

This verse says that great deeds that give people pause and, in the view of some simpleminded people, are greater than the services of even the Prophets are all null and void if they are not coupled with belief in God. Their greatness is nothing but a fancy, like a mirage. The words of the verse are as below:

وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَعْمٌالُهُمْ كَسَرٌابٍ بَقِيعَةٍ يَحْسَبُهُ الظَّمْآنُ مٌاءٍ حَتَّى إِذٌا جٌاءَهُ لَمْ يَجِدْهُ شَيْئًا وَوَجَدَ اللٌّهَ عِندَهُ فَوَفٌّاهُ حِسٌابَهُ وَاللٌّهُ سَرِيعُ الْحِسٌابِ

“As for the faithless, their works are like a mirage in a plain, which the thirsty man supposes to be water. When he comes to it, he finds it to be nothing; but there he finds God, who will pay him his full account, and God is swift at reckoning.”11

This is the parable of the good deeds of unbelievers, which appear outwardly to be good. So woe upon their evil deeds! We read their parable in the following verse in these words:

أَوْ كَظُلُمٌاتٍ فِي بَحْرٍ لُّجِّيٍّ يَغْشٌاهُ مَوْجٌ مِّنْ فَوْقِهِ مَوْجٌ مِّنْ فَوْقِهِ سَحٌابٌ ظُلُمٌاتٌ بَعْضُهٌا فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ إِذٌا أَخْرَجَ يَدَهُ لَمْ يَكَدْ يَرٌاهَا وَمَنْ لَّمْ يَجْعَلِ اللٌّهُ لَهُ نُوراً فَمٌا لَهُ مِنْ نُّورٍ

“Or like the manifold darkness in a deep sea, covered by billow upon billow, overcast by clouds, manifold [layers of] darkness, one on the top of another: when he brings out his hand, he can hardly see it, and one whom God has not granted any light has no light.”12

By adding this verse to the previous verse, we deduce that the good deeds of unbelievers, with all their deceptive appearances, are a mirage that lacks reality. And as for their evil deeds, alas! They are evil above evil, darkness upon darkness!

The above verses clarify the status of the deeds of unbelievers.

As for non-Shī`a Muslims, from the point of view of us Shī`as, the traditions that have reached us from the Ahlul Baīt (as) clarify their position.

Many traditions have reached us on this topic. Those interested can refer to al-Kāfī, Volume 1, “Kitāb al-Ĥujjah,” and Volume 2, “Kitāb al-Īmān wa ‘l-Kufr”; Wasā’ilush Shī`a, Volume 1, “Abwāb Muqaddamāt al-`Ibādāt”; Mustadrakul Wasā’il, Volume 1, “Abwāb Muqaddamāt al-`Ibādāt”; Bihārul Anwār, “Discussions about Resurrection,” Chapter 17 (Chapter on the Promise, Threat, Invalidation of Actions, and Atonement), and Volume 7 of the old print, Chapter 227, and Volume 15 of the old print, section on ethics, Page 187. As an example, we relate one tradition from Wasā’ilush Shī`a:

Muhammad Ibn Muslim said, “I heard Imām Muhammad al-Bāqir (as) say, “Whoever worships God and tires himself in worship but doesn’t recognize the Imām (leader) God has appointed for him, his deeds are not accepted, and he himself is astray and lost, and God abhors his actions… and if he dies in this state, he dies not in the state of Islām, but in a state of unbelief and hypocrisy. O Muhammad Ibn Muslim, know that the leaders of oppression and their followers are outside the religion of God. They themselves went astray, and they led others astray. Their actions are like ashes which are caught in a strong wind on a stormy day, and they cannot reach anything out of what they have earned. That is the distant deviation.”13

These are the proofs of those who say that the basis of salvation is faith and belief.

Occasionally, some from this group go to extremes and consider simply the claim of having faith, or in reality a simple affiliation, to be the criterion of Judgement. For example, the Murjī`ī sect in the era of BanīūUmayyah propagated this idea, and fortunately, with the decline of Banī Umayyah, they also ceased to exist.

In that age, the Shī`a position, inspired by the Imāms from the Ahlul Baīt (as), was opposite to the Murjī` one, but unfortunately the Murjī`īs’ view has lately taken hold in new clothing among some of the common Shī`as.

Some simpleminded Shī`as consider mere apparent affiliation with Amīrul Mo’minīn `Alī Ibn Abī Ťalib (as) to be sufficient for salvation, and this idea is the basic factor behind the Shī`as’ poor state in the modern era.

The dervishes and Sufis of the recent era malign good deeds in a different way and under a different pretext; they have made the issue of goodness of heart a pretext, even though true goodness of heart encourages and affirms deeds rather than conflicting with them.

As opposed to these groups, there are others who have raised the value of deeds to such a point that they say that one who commits a major sin is an unbeliever. Such a belief was held by the Khārijites. Some theologians considered the committer of major sins to be neither a believer nor unbeliever, and held that there is a “state between the two states (of belief and unbelief).”

Our task is to see which of these positions is correct. Should we believe in the primacy of belief or the primacy of action? Or is there a third path?

To begin, let us discuss the value of belief and faith.

Notes

1. Of course, this does not mean that all things have the same relation to God and deserve the same treatment. The relation of things to God is not the same, but the relation of God to things is the same. God is equally close to all things, but things are different in their closeness and distance from God. There is an interesting sentence in Du`ā al-Iftitāh in this regard:

أَلَّذِي بَعُدَ فَلاٌ يُرى، وَقَرُبَ فَشَهِدَ النَّجْوى

In this sentence, God has been described thus: “Who is distant and thus cannot be seen, and Who is near and thus witnesses all conversations.”

In fact, it is we who are far from Him, while He is close to us. This is an enigma; how is it possible for two things to have a different relation with each other in terms of closeness and distance? But yes, such is the case here; God is close to things, but things are not close to God – that is, they have varying states of closeness and distance.

The interesting point in this sentence is that when it describes God as being “far,” it mentions an attribute of His creations as evidence, which is the attribute of sight: “None can see Him.” And when it describes God as being “near,” it mentions an attribute of God as evidence, which is the attribute of Divine presence and awareness. When speaking of our state, we use the attribute of “distance” for God, and when speaking of His state, we use the attribute of “closeness.” Sa`dī says:

يار نزدیکتر از من به من استو این عجبتر که من از وی دورمچه کنم با که توان گفت که دوستدر کنار من و من مهجورم “

He is a Friend closer to me than myself, and amazing it is that I am far from Him. What to do; who can I tell that the Friend is by my side, and I am forsaken!”

2. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Baqarah (2), Verses 80-82

3. Al-Qur'ān, Sūrat Āli Imrān (3), Verses 24-25

4. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Baqarah (2), Verses 111-112

5. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Nisā (4), Verses 123-124

6. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Zilzāl (99), Verses 7-8

7. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Tawbah (9), Verse 120

8. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Kahf (18), Verse 30

9. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Mā'idah (5), Verse 69

10. Al-Qur'ān, Sūrat Ibrāhīm (14), Verse 18

11. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Nūr (24), Verse 30

12. Al-Qur'ān Sūratul Nūr (24), Verse 40

13. Wasā'ilush Shī`a, Volume 1, Part 1, Page 90

The Dissagreements Between Quran and Hadith

a nice discussion about it can be found in Sayyid al Khoi's (ra) alBayaan under the topic Hujjiyah Zawaahir al Qur'aan. (the authoritiveness of the apparent (outer) meaning of the Qur'an) just a jist of why it is complex the question comes:

1/There are hadeeth that say that if you want to know whether what is attributed to us of narrations is correct compare it to the Qur'an; if it contradicts the Qur'an reject it because we never contradict the Qur'an.

2/If you want to know the real meaning of the Qur'an then consider what the Prophet and his Aal said.

So which one is the right course? Do we understand the Qur'an through hadeeth or do we understand the hadeeth through Qur'an?

Well, this reminds me of the dilemma of egg and chicken! Which of them was first? The fact is that Allah has not commanded us to a vicious cycle.

There are different types of disagreements between Quran and Hadith. The first type of disagreement is the explicit contradiction face on face in such a way that the Hadith cannot even be justified as implicit meaning of the verse. For instance, if Quran explicitly states that something is unconditionally Haraam and a Hadith explicitly states that the very same thing is unconditionally Halaal. The traditions that say 'leave whatever disagrees with Quran' point only to such type of Hadiths. However, such traditions are extremely rare in our collections of the traditions.

The second type of disagreement is that if the appearance of a verse of Quran states something, and the Hadith states that the appearance of the verse is not meant and then Hadith gives an explanation for the verse that contradicts the appearance of the verse but is justifiable as the implicit or hidden meaning of the verse. We cannot reject such traditions just based on the saying that 'leave whatever disagrees with Quran'. Let me give you some clear examples in this regard that is undeniable for any Shia be it scholar or otherwise:

Let me start with a living example in this discussion group. He recently played the role of a Sunni on this net and challenged all of you about who Ahlul-Bayt (AS) are. No one amongst you could answer him by Quran alone. Even you gather all the fallible scholars throughout the history to face him, he will remain unchallengeable and victorious. The reason is that the appearance of the text of Quran (verse 33:33) shows that the wives of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) are included in Ahlul-Bayt. Based on the appearance of the verse, the change of feminine gender to masculine gender at the end of the verse is because the Prophet (PBUH&HF) is included in "The People of the House" (This is, BTW, agreed upon by all Muslims that the Prophet (PBUH&HF) is one of the members of the House, and is the head of the members).

Now, my question to you, my respected brother is that, based on what you stated below, we should stick to the appearance of the text of Quran and deny ALL the Hadiths that are super authentic, super Mutawatir, and agreed upon by all Muslims!!! Just because Imam (AS) somewhere said 'leave whatever disagrees with Quran' with the explanation that you implied below:

The conclusion is that one must rely upon the Zawaahir al Ma'aani min al Quraan (the outer apparent meanings) first. If a hadeeth contradicts the obvious outer apparent meaning of the Qur'an that hadeeth must be rejected.

I am certain that you did not knew the consequence of your statemement since you believe that only the fourteen infallibles are the members of the house. Right?

If you say that we can see from that historical reports that Aisha was not pure, then you have preferred historical narrations over what appears in the text of Quran which far worse than preferring Hadith over the text of Quran! This is because the scholars agree that historical narrations are less reliable than the traditions as the source of Hadith was supposedly Wahy and was handled with much more care.

If we are to take the appearance of Quran, we will find many contradictions between its verses. This, by itself, proves that such a method is wrong and we have to refer to Ahlul-Bayt (AS) first to receive the correct meaning of the verses. To give another example, in contrary to the purification verse 33:33 of Quran, in some verses Quran apparently implies that the Prophet (PBUH&HF) commits sins. This is while the explanation of Ahlul-Bayt (AS) is different from what the verse apparently implies. For instance: When Allah states to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) "in order to forgive the past and future sins of you," it actually means (or its divine interpretation is) "in order to forgive the past and future sins of your followers, i.e., the Shia of Ali (AS)". According to some Hadiths, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) took all the sins of the Shia of Ali (AS) as his and Allah forgave them all. (Of course, not anybody can claim to be the Shia of Ali. A true Shia does not insist on sin, and tries his best to follow the footsteps of the Imams, and for such person Allah forgives for his sudden slips. This fact is clear in our traditions too.) An alternative interpretation was also given by Ahlul-Bayt (AS) in other traditions for this specific verse.

Another example is the story of Musa (AS) killing a man. When he (AS) killed that man, he said (Sunni's translation):

He said: This is of a work of Satan, for he is an enemy that manifestly misleads! He (also) said: My Lord! Lo! I have wronged my soul (dhalamtu nafsi), so forgive me (Ighfir li). Then He forgave him. Lo! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful (28:15-16).

Now according to Imam Ridha's (AS) interpretation, Prophet Musa (AS) refers to the fight between those two men as the work of Satan. Therefore, Musa's interference and action was not the work of Satan. In addition, "Dhulm" is the opposite of "Adl" which linguistically means to put anything in its own place. As Imam Ridha (AS) explained, the "Dhulm" of Musa (AS) means putting himself in a city that was not a secure place for him. So here his "Dhulm" had nothing to do with wrongdoing. Killing that stupid man was not Dhulm; it was rather absolute "Adl". Moreover, when Musa (AS) said "Ighfir li", the world "ghafara" linguistically means to cover. Thus, Musa (AS) asked Allah to cover him in the city of his enemies, and according to the verse Allah covered/protected him! Other verses pertaining the rest of this story were also explained nicely by Imam Ridha (AS), which I skip for the sake of brevity. (For details, see Hadith in al-Bihar v11, p78, #8 and also v11, p72, #1. In these two long traditions, Imam al-Ridha (AS) explains almost all the controversial verses of Quran that seemingly defy the infallibility of the Prophets, peace be upon them). You can see from the above example how the hidden meaning of the verse is quite opposite to its surface meaning that is usually implied in the first glance. This is how Allah protected His religion from being understood by those who are not worthy of it. Only people who come to Ahlul-Bayt (AS) who are the possessors of the Knowledge of the Book will find the correct meaning of the words of Allah.

If I want to list and explain for you the number of verses in Quran that we do not accept its apparent meaning and we only refer to commentary of Ahlul-Bayt (AS) and accept the explanation of the Hadith over what appears in the verse of Quran, this article exceeds hundreds of Kilobytes...

I just give you one more example, and you can find for yourself a lot more on this line. Allah said in Quran:

"The Most Gracious is established on the Throne (20:5)"

The Salafis said that based on the appearance of the verse Allah has sited on his throne. Other Sunnis confirm the same thing but they say "we do not know how." Some Sunnis further say He has a body but we do not know how, and it is not like the body that we know at least. So it does not apparently contradict the verse "Nothing is like him" (although such argument is full of contradiction, rest assured).

On the other hand, our traditions state that the appearance of the verse is not intended, the verse rather means the Plan/Command of the Most Gracious is established on the Throne.

In fact, some verses in Quran have some words left with presumption (Ala Taqdir). Only the teacher of Quran knows it and, in fact, it was the will of Allah to provide us Quran this way so that without teacher it would be misguiding. Only people who prove their piety by coming to the city of knowledge from its door are blessed with intended meaning of the Book of Allah. In a long discourse Imam Ali (AS) said:

"... And certainly some Dhann of Kafir means certainty and such is the saying of Allah: 'And the guilty shall see the fire and thus shall become certain (Dhannu) that they have to fall therein (18:53).' However, His saying about the hypocrites: 'and you cast so much doubts about Allah (33:10)' here Dhann does not mean certainty, and it rather means doubt. Thus, the words are the same in appearance but they are in disagreement in hidden reality. In addition, the saying of Allah: 'The Most Gracious is established on the Throne (20:5)' means His Plan (Tadbir) is established and His Command (Amr) ascended...

- al-Ihtijaj, v1, p250

- Bihar al-Anwar, v90/93, p115

It is noteworthy that there are traditions that extend the criteria from Quran to "Quran and/or established traditions". In other words, if a Hadith does not contradict either Quran or established traditions then it should be acted upon. This removes the dilemma of egg and chicken altogether, because a Hadith may seem to be contradictory with Quran, but has harmony with an established tradition, and thus it cannot be left out. Ibn Abi Ya'fur narrated:

I asked Imam al-Sadiq (AS) about the conflicting traditions related by those whom we trust and also by those whom we don't." Hearing this, the Imam (AS) replied: "Whenever you receive a tradition which is borne out by any verse from the book of Allah or by a saying of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), then accept it. Otherwise, the tradition is meant for the one who has brought it to you."

- al-Kafi, v1, p69, Hadith #2

- Wasa'il al-Shia, v27, p110, Hadith #33344

- For a similar Hadith see Tafsir Ayyashi, v1, p9, Hadith #6&7 *** TRANSLATE THEM ***

Also, we usually do not reject a Hadith, as in many traditions the Imams (AS) state "farudduhu Ilayna" means leave its meaning to us, or ask clarification from us (at this time clarification by other Hadiths). In the case that we cannot handle a Hadith anyway properly, we have no obligation to act upon that Hadith while we do not reject it either.

Except the above-mentioned types of disagreements between Quran and Hadith, there are some more. The third type of disagreement is that Quran states something without specifying condition (Mutlaq) and Hadith makes it conditional (Muqayyad) and thus in the absence of those conditions there would be disagreements between the commands of Quran and Hadith.

The fourth type is that Quran states a general (Aam) command (like saying prayers and its general time) and Hadith states a specific (Khass) command (the specific time of prayer, number of Rak'a, etc.), or vice versa.

The fifth type of disagreement is that Quran states something and Hadith states that this verse or a part of it is abrogated by another verse (which may, in appearance, have no relation with the former verse, but the Imam (AS) uses the implicit meaning of the verse).

We have a huge number of traditions that have these types (third~fifth) of disagreement with Quran and all our scholars agree that these traditions can not be rejected for such type of disagreements and the sayings of the Imam (AS) that 'leave whatever disagrees with Quran' does not refer to these disagreements. (See the discussion Shaikh al-Ansari in this regard)

Now, my Question to is: How do we know the verse that we are trying to interpret is abrogated, or has conditions that are not mentioned in Quran, or has exceptions? Certainly, we cannot find answer to any of these questions unless we first refer to the commentaries of Ahlul-Bayt (AS).

It would also be beneficial to point out the background of the first type of disagreement between Quran and Hadith for which the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and the Imams (AS) said 'we do not say anything against Quran'. The fact is that there have been some liars who used to fabricate traditions, and the Imams wanted to ring the bells for the Shia narrators, so that they do not transmit any Hadith that has clear contradiction with Quran. Fortunately, the Shia traditionists were smart enough to filter out these traditions and did not transmit them. In addition, the well-known liars such as Mughaira Ibn Sa'id, Abul Khattab (not to be confused with Ibn Abi al-Khattab who was a trustworthy narrator and was chronologically long after Abul Khattab), and some others were abandoned by our traditionists, as per the saying of the Imams (AS). The Shia traditionists never transmitted a Hadith from a person who is proven a liar unless his narration is also reported by the trusted Shia narrators. Therefore, if, for instance, they report a Hadith from Abu Huraira, it is because that specific Hadith is also mentioned by the trustworthy Shia narrators and they quoted these liars just to provide more documentation to support the Hadith even from the camp of enemies (e.g., narration of Ghadir Khum by Abu Huraira).

The traditions saying 'leave whatever disagrees with Quran' does not mean we should slaughter a couple of Hadiths every day to fulfill this command of Imam (AS)! It is really rare to find traditions in reliable Shia sources that have explicit contradiction with established concepts in Quran. It becomes much harder to find when we see other traditions extend the criteria to 'Quran or established traditions'. It is clear that the traditions stating 'leave whatever disagrees with Quran' do not mean that we should not use Hadith to understand Quran (see the above arguments) nor does it license us to interpret a verse of Quran by another verse or by opinion.

If you look at Tababatabi's Mizaan, you will see that the main method of Tafseer which he uses is interpreting the Qur'an by the Qur'an. Some verses explain what other verses mean. "alQur'an yufassiru Ba'Duhu Ba'Dan" (see his introduction) also is a hadeeth of Imam 'Ali (as).

Well my dear brother, the action of a Mufassir does not legalize it for us as a Sunna while he is responsible for his deeds. Only the action of the infallibles constitutes the Sunna. Never Quran alone interprets its own verses for us fallible people. If it were so, we would not have any need to the divinely appointed teachers of Quran. Quran is just a piece of paper that can be interpreted in so many ways. Also, the Arabic term you quoted is not accurate. It should be "Yantiqu Ba'dhuhu bi Baidhin". I do not dispute this fact, but I say according to so many traditions, only Imam (AS) knows which part of Quran speaks for another part. Then he (AS) informs us of this fact and we should get it from him.

There are other traditions that relate to the meaning of the Qur'an which are related to Batin, according to some, and basically give "Al Misdaaq al Kamil" best example of the meaning of a verse, to others. To the later these are not really tafseer but simply give the most perfect application of the meaning of a verse. See Tabatabai's Mizaan for examples.

Great! Now the explanation of Imam (AS) on the verse is not Tafsir, but what came to the mind of a fallible person at the middle of the night is the divine commentary! May Allah save us from the footsteps of Satan.

This is the method that the Ahlul-bayt (as) taught us and this is the method they employ themselves in so many traditions we have.

As Ahlul-Bayt (AS) have all the knowledge every part of Quran, they did relate any part of Quran to another as they wanted. At the same time, they prohibited us to do the same and have explained to us the reason for this prohibition. They said that they are the only people who know what are the abrogated, abrogating, general, specific, unconditional, conditional parts of Quran. They are the only people who know all the hidden meanings of Quran as well as the reltions between each part of Quran. They cursed any one who claim this knowledge and imitate their job independently. I guess you need to recall the traditions I provided in my recent posting beside the traditions quoted in this article. After all these, I am very surprised to see your comments above. Where did the Imams say we could learn this skill and do it independently?! This technique is only reserved for them. Our job is to obtain the information they have provided and analyze it within that context.

Now, my last question to you my very respected brother is, suppose we have two people down here who claim the following:

A fallible scholar: "I can interpret a part of Quran by another part."

Imam Ali (AS): "I can interpret a part of Quran by another part."

For the sake of argument, suppose both of them are Islamically allowed to make such a claim. My sincere question to you is that which interpreter you would choose. I am sure you are smart enough to choose Imam Ali (AS).

Surprise... Surprise... We have reached to the same conclusion. Next time we refer to the commentary of Imam Ali (AS) given in our Hadith-Based Tafasir. Because they are the places where you can find the commentary of Imam Ali (AS) instead of a man-made commentary.

Introducing Some of the Hadith-Based Exegeses

I should say that there are many Shia Tafasir whose authors have not indulged into opinion. They understood this issue perfectly and they did not produce any independent Tafsir by themselves. What they did was to just collect all the reliable traditions in which the Imam (AS) used a specific verse and then put all of those traditions beside that verse. This way they have made a Tafsir book that reflects purely the commentaries of Ahlul-Bayt (AS). Some authors went a good step further and explained the traditions of Ahlul-Bayt (AS) under each verse and also provided a final conclusion from all the traditions under that verse. Unlike the verses of Quran, we are allowed to deeply comment over the traditions and relate them to each other without need to any auxiliary teacher. Of course, our comments on the traditions still should not be mixed with our opinion, and should not contradicts Quran and other Hadith and should only be a direct conclusion from what the majority of the traditions convey on a specific subject.

Here I would like to introduce some of the nice and highly regarded Hadith-Based Tafasir of the Shia that I have personally examined and learnt about their styles and and found them very rich and informative.

Amongst the early Shia Tafasir are:

Tafsir Imam Hasan al-Askari (AS) (d. 260 AH) which is the collection of the writings of Imam Hasan al-Askari (AS) for two of his students on the interpretation of some of the verses of Quran.

Tafsir Ali Ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi (d. 307) (one of the students of Imam Hasan al-Askari (AS) and the teacher of al-Kulaini)

Tafsir al-Ayyashi, Muhammad Ibn Mas'ud Ayyashi (d. 320)

Tafsir Furat, by Ibrahim Furat al-Kufi (lived during the minor occultation)

As for the later Shia Tafasir, I can name:

Ta'wil al-Ayat al-Dhahira, Sayyid Sharaf al-Din Ali Husaini Astarabadi, (d. 940 AH) It is only the commentary of the verses revealed on the virtues of Ahlul-Bayt (AS)

Tafsir al-Safi, Mulla Muhsin Faidh al-Kashani (d. 1091 AH)

Tafsir al-Burhan, Sayyid Hashim al-Bahrani (d. 1107 AH)

Tafsir Nur al-Thaqalain, Shaikh al-Arusi al-Huwayzi (d. 1112)

Also, note that the last three (#6,7,8) are the most extensive ones that cover the first four early Tafasir as well as a large number of traditions from our reliable Hadith books. Furthermore, as far as I could observe, Tafsir al-Burhan is the most comprehensive of all. They are all available on CD. Moreover Tafsir al-Qummi, al-Ayyashi, Nur al-Thaqalain, and some others are available on Internet. (Check out www.al-kawthar.com/maktaba/) Nonetheless there are more good Tafasir which I cannot specify all of them here. Unfortunately all of these Tafasir are in Arabic.

Side Comments

You admit that "we realize that as we do not know a specific verse belongs to which category..."

When you say "we" do you really put yourself in the same category as our great scholars?

Well maybe that which is confusing to you is not confusion to them. Maybe that which is ambiguous to you of the Qur'an, about which verse belongs in which of the three categories, is not ambiguous at all to them.

I have nothing personal against any respected scholar. However, I am sure we agree at least that they did not have direct communications with Allah and thus, to realize which verse belongs to which of the three categories, there is no difference between any of us in the first place. We all have to refer to the Ahlul-Bayt (AS) to figure this out, and to get their commentaries. This is what is referred as submission to them, which is mentioned by Imam Ali (AS) on the second category:

2."He made another part such that none knows it but he who cleanse his mind and soften his senses and correct his discernment from amongst those whom Allah have opened their breast for submission"

When we submit to their explanations, then Allah opens the door for us to get insight to the verses that belong to the second category by the guidance that Ahlul-Bayt (AS) will provide. Thus, even for the second category of verses we are not left on our own and we need Ahlul-Bayt (AS) to first tell us which verses belong to which category and what is their explanation, and then by Allah's help we get some insight to those verses based on our capacity. I agree that the capacities of the believers are different, but in submitting to the words and commentaries of Ahlul-Bayt (AS) non is exempted. This is all I wanted to say. To explain the verses of Quran without first referring to Ahlul-Bayt (AS) and submitting to their words is wrong. This is because, Allah has not opened any other door to learn about his religion except through them, no matter how much one has studied human sciences.

When someone claims that he can relate a part of Quran with another no matter if Ahlul-Bayt (AS) related those specific parts or not, it shows he has not submitted to the words of Ahlul-Bayt (AS) (check the traditions I have quoted already), and thus he does not belong to people that Imam Ali (AS) described in the second category. Imam Ali (AS) said they are "from amongst those whom Allah have opened their breast for submission". Rest assured, what comes out of such person is just innovation, and he has gone astray and causes others to go astray as the traditions clearly expressed.

As for the first category of verses whose understanding is shared by all people independently, they are the verses that refer us to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and his Ahlul-Bayt (AS). In the very same Hadith that Imam Ali (AS) mentioned those three categories, he (AS) mentioned what the first category of verses refer to and also provided examples of it in the rest of the Hadith:

Imam Ali (AS) said: "... As for what the ignorant and the learned understand are those verses that gives preference to the Apostle of Allah in the Book of Allah, such as His saying: 'Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeyed Allah (4:80)' and His saying: ' Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O you who believe! Send blessings on him, and salute/submit (Sallimu) to him in all respect(33:56).' And for this (latter) verse, there is an apparent and a hidden meaning. The apparent meaning is sending blessings/salutation on him while the internal meaning on His saying 'Sallimu Tasliman (i.e., submit to him a complete submission)' is to submit to whoever he chooses as his executor and his successor whom he gave preference over you and charged him with authority. This (hidden) meaning is what I informed you that none knows it but he who cleanse his mind and soften his senses and correct his discernment..."

- al-Ihtijaj, v1, p253

- Bihar al-Anwar, v90/93, p119

Thus, what all people share its correct understanding from Quran are those verses that urge us to submit to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and his Ahlul-Bayt (AS) in all matters. A person who does not refer to them and does not submit to their commentary of the verses of Quran, did not even comply with the order of Allah in the verses of the first category!!

Therefore it is clear that before making any comment on the verses of Quran (other than those verses that clearly direct us to Prophet and his family, peace be upon them) we need to see what Ahlul-Bayt (AS) said in this regard, and to submit to the context that Ahlul-Bayt (AS) provided us, otherwise we will not be blessed with the understanding of the second category. Submission to the commentary of Ahlul-Bayt (AS) is the first and foremost requirement to understand the second category.

Also just a sincere and brotherly reminder: I quoted so many traditions on this subject and was disappointed to see that you hanged on just to one them that, in the first glance, appeared to be in conformity with your opinion. Is this the way of submission to Ahlul-Bayt (AS)? Actually, before I post that article I was predicting that someone would pick up this one against all others and I was thinking to whether keep that in the article or not. Then I said to myself if I remove it, I have not provided a fair presentation of the traditions of Ahlul-Bayt (AS) in this regard. I now think, however, the message of this Hadith is fully compatible with all others as I just explained above.

If you look carefully, you can find many people who have put human thoughts (such as philosophy whose root is from the ancient Greece) as the base of their belief system, and then they search within our traditions to find out something to somehow justify their belief system. They accept those traditions and ignore the rest. Such people have not really submitted to the words of Ahlul-Bayt (AS), even though they may highly regard Ahlul-Bayt (AS) and truly love them. Even if they really accept some of the Hadiths, they have not followed Ahlul-Bayt (AS), in reality, even in those Hadiths. They rather followed their own opinion that happened to be consistent with those Hadiths. The only way to stay away from such danger is to prefer the words of Ahlul-Bayt (as is) to ours and other human thoughts and to be much more doubtful about our own opinion.

We must always try to harmonize our opinion to the meaning of the Hadith and should avoid transforming the meaning of the Hadith to harmonize it with our opinion. This is the only way we could progress and could truly benefit from the teachings of Ahlul-Bayt (AS). Of course, when the straightforward meaning of a Hadith contradicts the message conveyed by other established traditions, it should be interpreted in such a way that becomes compatible to other traditions, but not to our personal feelings, tendencies, and opinion. As you see, submission to Ahlul-Bayt (AS) is not as easy as it looks like. Even going to theological schools and studying many years and earning titles do not necessarily create this attitude.

You also commented my article to sister Issaf, which I integrate here: Truly so. The fact is that Quran without its teacher is not beneficial.

I'm sorry brother but I strongly disagree. You yourself produced a tradition from Imam 'Ali (as) that proves this. Would you consider understanding the Qur'an based one the first two categories as useless?

What I meant was that if one rejects the teacher of Quran, Quran will no longer be beneficial for him. I mentioned in that article that Umar and his followers accepted the Quran but rejected the teachers that Allah assigned for it. Since they did not really believe in the first category of verses that urges people to submit the Prophet (PBUH&HF), Quran alone does not benefit them at all, and they will face Fire forever.

Of course, if you put any verse of Quran in front of a Sunni, he understands something out it. However, the point is that: is his understanding necessarily correct? Since they do not submit the words of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and his Ahlul-Bayt (AS), Quran turns to a useless piece of paper for them.

Once they submit to the words of Ahlul-Bayt (AS), they have to submit to their commentaries too. This comes with that as one package...

It may be that they are much more critical then you regarding submitting to the authenticity of a hadeeth in terms of narrators and conformity with the Qur'an.

I am preparing an article that addresses this issue In-Shaa-Allah. However, to give a short description, many notable Usuli scholars act upon many weak traditions that are narrated in our generally trusted collections of the traditions regardless of their weak documentations. If they find a couple of weak traditions that imply the same meaning and if the meaning does not contradict well- established traditions and does not explicitly contradict the well-established concepts in Quran, they rate those traditions as conclusive and issue Fatwa based on them (In-Shaa- Allah, I will quote instances that great Usuli scholars who issued Fatwa based on such traditions.) The reliability of a Hadith is not necessarily based on the authenticity of its documentation. It can be also based on a confidence that the meaning of the Hadith has been originated from Ma'sum and its compatibility with other teachings of Ahlul-Bayt (AS).

Testing the documentation of a Shi'i-reported-Hadith becomes important only when the conflict between the traditions arise. When a conflict between two sets of traditions on a subject cannot be rectified anyhow, then Ahlul-Bayt (AS) have provided us some criteria to prefer one set of Hadiths over another. These criteria include, but are not limited to: checking the degree of compatibility with Quran and the established traditions, the quantity of similar narrations in terms of text or meaning (Tawatur in text or in meaning), the quality of narrators (Ilm al-Rijal), etc. If, in a special case, non of these criteria could give us determinant answer and both sets of Hadiths would end up with equal credit, then Ahlul-Bayt (AS) have allowed us to choose and act upon one of the two sets of Hadith as a way submission to Allah without denying the other set, and they (AS) said this would be excusable before Allah. In-Shaa-Allah, I will quote the traditions of Ahlul- Bayt (AS) in this regard too.

Now, on the issue that we were discussing, I have provided tens of traditions that compel us to get the commentary of Quran only from Ahlul-Bayt (AS). They well pass the level of Tawatur in meaning, beside the fact that some of those traditions have been individually reported in parallel. If some scholars chose to neglect them, this I consider a double standard on their part, as they do act upon similar cases in Fiqh with much less number of traditions.

Let me try giving a short example without getting to complicated:

And We did not send before you any but men to whom We sent revelation-- so ask the followers of the REMINDER if you do not know-- With clear arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the REMINDER that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect. 16:45

Many of the Shi'ah 'ulama argue, using the argument of the traditions, that if "ahl al dhikr" here meant the Christians and jews, and you asked them if you didn't know they would cause you to sway towards their own religion. Even Tijani used this argument thoroughly in His book "Ask those who know if you don't know".

The second part of the verse uses the word "Reminder" for the Qur'an. It is quite a logical argument that if the second part of the verse uses "Reminder" to mean Qur'an then the word "reminder" in the first part of the verse should also mean Qur'an hence the first part of the verse should mean "ask the people of the Qur'an" if you don't know. It can not be possible that the christians and jews are the ones being referred to because there is no way that they could be "People of the Qur'an". "Ahl al Dhikr" must mean the Ahlul-bayt, at least that is what I thought.

Then I read the commentaries of Tabatabai, Shirazis, FaDlullah's and several others and I got a great shock!

They all said that the "ahl al Dhikr" in the verse does mean the christians and jews and I almost became an Akhbari (excuse the expression).

I said, "how can this be? Are they rejecting the traditions related to this verse?"

Then I read the explanation and here it goes: In its specific context the ones being addressed are the Mushirkeen of Mecca.

Thank you for providing this example. This, in fact, verifies the saying of Imam al-Sadiq (AS) that I quoted previously. Various authorities narrated from both Imam al-Baqir (AS) and Imam al-Sadiq (AS) who said:

"Nothing is farther than the reasons of men from the interpretation of Quran. Certainly, the beginning of a verse can be about something, its middle is about another thing, and its end is (yet) about another thing."

- Tafsir al-Ayyashi, v1, pp 11,12,17 (four traditions)

- Wasa'il al-Shia, v27, p192, Hadith #33572; pp 203-204, Hadith

#33600, #33604, #33605

- Bihar al-Anwar, v89/92, p91, Hadith #37; p94, Hadith #45; p95,

Hadith #48; p110, Hadith #10; p111, Hadith #14

The issue of Ahlul-Bayt (AS) being "Ahl al-Dhikr" is certainly beyond the level of Tawatur in our Hadith literature. It even pops up in many of our Ziyarat including Ziyarat Jami'a al-Kabira, which is a very well documented one.

The above saying of Imam al-Sadiq (AS) can also be verified by examining the Verse 33:33 whose beginning is about the wives while its end is about Ahlul-Bayt (AS). As I discussed earlier, the appearance of the verse does suggest that the wives are included in Ahlul-Bayt (AS).

All these examples show that this way of treatment of Quran (i.e., relating different parts of Quran regardless of the commentaries of Ahlul-Bayt (AS)) is wrong!

If you compare our Hadith-based Tafasir with the man-made commentaries that we have, you find a lot more examples of such controversies.

This explanation of our great 'Ulama literally saved my neck. If I used the ahlul-dhikr are the ahlul-bayt argument and the sunni used the above argument the sunni would win.

If I were you, instead of compromising on my belief just to win over the Sunnis, I would leave the Sunnis alone to go to Hell with their beliefs and would try to save my neck before Imam al-Mahdi (AS) by upholding to their commentaries. Actually, if we accept in front of the Sunnis that "Ahl al-Dhikr" are not Ahlul-Bayt (AS) we have not really won. we have rather submitted to their interpretation, which means total loss in front of the Sunnis and in front of Allah as well!

Self-interpretation of Quran and acting upon opinion are the real polytheism that we all should be afraid of, not seeking help from Ahlul-Bayt which constitutes pure Tawhid. This is because he who seeks from Ahlul-Bayt (AS) will not fall into innovation. May Allah save us from His curse and give us enough wisdom to contend ourselves to the interpretation of the Quranic verses given by Ahlul-Bayt (AS) and keep us away from innovation and falling into polytheism, the unforgivable sin!