Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Tahrif and the Book Itself

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 anysingle 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.

Tahrif and Sunnah

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 practicalnor 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 theverse 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 authoritylapses, 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.

Note

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.

Permission to Recite the Surah in the Prayers

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.

The Claim that Tahrif was caused by the Caliphs

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 ofIslam. 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 Caliphseffected 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 no substance whatsoever.

Notes

1. Bihar al anwar, Majlisi, v8, p.79

2. Nahj al balaghah

3. Manahilul Irfan p257

Some Doubts by those who believe in Tahrif

There are certain doubts which seem to lend some strength to those who believe in Tahrif. We must study them, and allay them one by one.

First Doubt

It is a fact that interpolation and omissions have occurred in Torah and Injil. According to the continuous traditions recorded by both, Shi’a and Sunni, all that which occurred in the preceding era must recur in this Muslim Ummah as well.as-Saduq , for example, has recorded the following in his al Ikmal from Ghiyas b. Ibrahim who reports from Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) through his forefathers:

"The Prophet (‘s) said: `All that was in the preceding peoples, must happen in this Ummah, in the wake of their footsteps, exactly identical"'1

So, it follows that Tahrif must occur in the Qur’analso, otherwise this tradition would have no meaning.

This can be answered in many ways.

First, the tradition is not continuous or widely acknowledged one, as alleged. In fact, it is from amongst isolate reports. They have not been recorded in the four great books of Hadith, and as such there can be no comparison between the Qur’an and the Testaments on this point.

Secondly, if this argument is to be considered fully, then one has to accept that together with the omission, some addition has also occurred, just as in the Testaments. This, as we know, is evidently untrue.

Thirdly, many events which occurred among the foregoing peoples never occurred among the Muslims. For example, the worshipping of the calf, the stray wandering of Banu Israel for forty years, the drowning of Pharaoh and his people, the kingdom of Sulaiman over men and jinn, the rising of Jesus alive to the heaven, the death of Harun before Musa, though he was the Wasiy, the' great nine signs of Musa, the birth of Isa without father, the curse of transmutation from men to apes and pigs, and many such occurences which we cannot all enumerate, have not occurred in this Ummah. The meaning of the tradition, therefore, has got to be construed differently from what it apparently conveys. What it actually means is that certain incidents occuring in this Ummah will have its corresponding counterpart in the ancient history. It does not mean that all of them must recur.

In the case of Qur’an, suffice it to say that the Muslims failed to adhere to the behests of the Qur’an, the same way as the preceding people failed to follow their scriptures, although the text of the Qur’an was preserved. We have already mentioned this sort of Tahrif earlier when we quoted a report. It is further stressed by a report by Abu-Waqid Al-Laysi who says: "When the Prophet (‘s) advanced towards Khaybar, he passed by a tree which was revered by the idolaters. It was called Dhatu Anwat, upon which they suspended their weapons.

The companions urged the Prophet (‘s): `O Messenger of Allah, let us have a tree like the one they have'. The Prophet (‘s) said:

"Glorybe to Allah! This is like what they had asked Musa when they said: `Let us have a god like the one they have'. By God, you are going to follow in the wake of the people before you"'.2

This tradition clarifies that certain events in this Ummah will bear resemblance of what transpired in the preceding Ummah, in some way.

Lastly, if we were to accept that the tradition is authentic and also continuous, it does not in any way prove that Tahrif would occur in the past, or in the early days of Isalm. There is nothing to indicate that the occurrence is confined to those days. The Qur’an is for ever, and as evidenced by al-Bukhari, it will remain till the Day of Judgement. So they should expect Tahrif to occur at any time, even in the future. Why should they speak of Tahrif in the prime of Islam or at the time of the Caliphs only?

Second Doubt

Imam Ali (‘a) had a codex of his own, other than the existing one. He brought it to the people, but they did not accept it from him. His codex contained certain sections which are not to be found in the Qur’an we have, and so it proves that the present Qur’an is lesser than the one Imam Ali (‘a) had collected. This then is the Tahrif which is said to have occurred. It is supported by many traditions, like a tradition where Ali (‘a) is reported to have argued with a group of Muhajirin and Ansar:

"O Talha, every ayah that was revealed to the Prophet (‘s) by Allah is with me, dictated by the Prophet (‘s) and in my handwriting. And an explanation to every ayah in respect of that which is permissible, forbidden, penal code, laws or things of which this ummah may stand in need till the dawn of qiyamah. They are with me dictated by the Prophet (‘s) and written in my own hand, even the blood money required to compensate a scratch".3

Again, there is another tradition in which Ali (‘a) is reported to have told an atheist while arguing with him that his codex

"…… was a complete Book containing all the revelation and all the interpretations, all clear, canonical verses and those requiring elucidations, the abrogants and thoseabrogated. In short, every letter from Alif to Lam was there. But they did not accept it".4

Another tradition is in al-Kafi where the author narrates it with the chain of reporters ending up with Jabir who reports from Imam Mohammad Baqir (‘a):

“No one can claim that he has a complete Qur’an with him, its exterior and its interior, except the successors of the Prophet (‘s) (i.e. al-awsiya).”5

And further, a report from Jabir says:

"I heard Abu-Ja'far (‘a) (i.e. Imam Mohammad Baqir (‘a), say that whoever claims to have collected the total Qur’an as it was revealed is indeed a liar. None has collected and preserved it in the way it was revealed by Allah except Ali b. Abi Talib (‘a) and the Imams (‘a) after him".6

The answer to all this is very simple. The codex prepared by Ali (‘a) differed from the existing Qur’an in the arrangement and order of the Surahs. This is beyond any doubt, and has been accepted by the great scholars to an extent that we do not have to go to any length to prove it. Similarly, if we were to accept that the contents of his copy were more than the contents of this Qur’an, there is no evidence to prove that the addition found in his copy belonged to the text of the Qur’an. The truth is that those additions were by way of interpretation, explaining the original intention of the revelation. Or, even if they formed a part of what was revealed by Allah, they came as interpretation, indicating the true meaning.

In fact, this doubt originates from the meaning given to the two words: tanzil and tawil by the later scholars, in that they construe tanzil as that which was sent down as the Qur’an, and 'tawil' as that which is supposed to be the true meaning or interpretation of the word, a meaning which may differ from the immediate sense of the word.But these interpretations. have been fabricated, because they are not in any way supported by the language nor are they in any way indicated by the authentic traditions of Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a).

In Grammar, `tawil' is an infinitive deriving from al-awl which means "to refer to" or "to return to". It is also used to mean "the end result" or "the consequence" and also "that to which the matter eventually resorts". Based on these, we find them used in the following ayahs.

ويعلمك من تأويل الاحاديث

"And teach you the interpretation of the stories". (Qur’an, 12:6)

نبئنا بتأويله

"Tell us the meaning thereof”. (Qur’an, 12:36)

هذا تأويل رؤياي

"This is the meaning of my vision". (Qur’an, 12:100)

ذلك تأويل مالم تستطع عليه صبرا

"That is the meaning of things over which you were unable to hold patience'". (Qur’an, 18:72)

And it has been similarly used at several other places in the Qur’an, where tawil means an event or a fact to which the speech is related, or its consequence, regardless of whether it is clearly understood by those who know Arabic, or whether it has a hidden meaning not known by anyone except those endowed with profound knowledge.

Similarly, tanzil is an infinitive deriving from an-nuzul, mean­ing that which was sent down. In the Qur’an, we find this use in many verses:

انه لقرآن كريم في كتاب مكنون لا يمسه الا المطهرون تنزيل من رب العالمين

"This is indeed A Qur’an, most honourable, In a Book well-guarded, which none shall touch but those who are clean, Sent down from the Lord of the Worlds". (Qur’an, 56:77-80)

As stated earlier, it is not correct to presume that every revelation was a part of the Qur’an. The tradition which states that Ali's (‘a) codex had some additions of tanzil andtawil, does not have any indication that those additions were parts of the Qur’an. This is why we find in certain reports that his codex had clear mention of the names of the hypocrites. This evidently was in the form of elucidation; because we have proved beyond doubt that no omission or addition ever took place in the Qur’an. Moreover the Prophet (‘s) in his bid to win over the hearts of the hypocrites, always treated his knowledge about their hypocrisy secretly. It is known to every student of history that the Prophet (‘s) displayed utmost patience when deal­ing with them; therefore it is inconceivable that their names would appear in the Qur'an. If it did, it would mean that the Prophet (‘s) was indirectly forcing the hypocrites to curse themselves through the Qur'an openly, and also the Muslims to do the same against the named hypocrites. Could this be possibly accepted without looking into the credibility of the report, or by simply accepting those traditions which mention that the names were there in the codex prepared by Ali (‘a)? Of course, there can be no comparison with Abu Lahab who was openly cursed in the Qur'an because of his defiance and because the Prophet (‘s) knew that he would die an unbeli­ever. It is quite possible though, that the Prophet (‘s) revealed the names of the hypocrites to his confidante like Ali (‘a) in the exclusive sittings.

To summarise, even if it were accepted as true that Ali's (‘a) codex contained those additions, they were not the part of the text of the Qur’an, nor were they intended for the Prophet (‘s) to reveal to his people. The argument of those who conclude otherwise is incompatible with all the aforement­ioned proofs advanced against Tahrif:

Third Doubt

It is said that there are some widely reported and continuous reports from the Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) which indicate the tampering having occurred.

The fact is that there is no indication in those reports to prove Tahrif in the sense which has been a subject of debate. Again, most of them are weak, reported from the book by Ahmed b. Muhammad As-Sayari who has been acknowledged by all scholars of rijal as one of corrupt beliefs, like that he believed in reincarnation. Some of them are taken from Ali b. Ahmed al-Kufi who has been described by the scholars of rijal as "kadhab" a liar; and that his beliefs were corrupt. Of course, the abundance of certain reports from Masumin (peacebe upon them) gives us enough reason to presume that they have been correctly attributed. Among them are traditions which have been reliably reported, and therefore wedo not see any need to go into the details of their authenticity.

Notes

1. Bihar al anwar, v8, p.4, and there are othersunni sources also.

2. Sunan, Tirmidhi, v9, p.26

3. Muqaddimah, Tafsir al burhan, p.28. This tradition also clarifies that the present Qur’an has no addition.

4. 6th Muqaddimah, Tafsir as Safi, p.2

5. al Wafi, v2, kitab al hujjah, chapter 76, p.130

6. al Wafi, v2, kitab al hujjah, chapter 76, p.130

The Traditions about Tahrif

It is imperative to investigate the correct interpretations of these reports and to clarify that they have different applications. The reports are of various types, and we must explain and comment on each type specifically.

The first type: These are traditions which speak of Tahrif in its literal meaning. They are twenty in all but we would confine ourselves to some, leaving out those which are repetitive.

Tradition n. 1

1. Reported by Ali b. Ibrahim al-Qummi, with his own chain of narrators from Abu Dharr: "When this ayah was revealed:

يوم تبيضّ وجوه وتسودّ وجوة

the Prophet (‘s) said:

"My people will come to me on the Day of Judgment under five banners". Then it mentions that the Prophet (‘s) will ask them about their dealings with thaqalayn (i.e. the Qur’an and Ahl ul-Bayt). The people of the first banner will say: "As for the greater one (i.e. the Qur’an), we tampered with it, and discarded it. And the smaller one, (i.e. Ahl ul-Bayt) we offended it, hated it and dealt with it unjustly". The second group will say: "As for the greater one, we tampered with it, tore it into pieces, and turned hostile to it. And the smaller one, we offended it and fought against it ...."

Tradition n. 2

2. Reported by Ibn Ta'us and Sayyid al-Muhaddith al Jaza’ari with their chains of narrators from Hasan bin al-Hasan As­ Samarri, a lengthy tradition in which the Prophet (‘s) spoke to Hudhaifa about one who would desecrate the haram,

"He will lead people astray from the path of Allah, tamper with His Book and change my Sunnah".

Tradition n. 3

3. Reported by Sa'ad b. Abdillah al-Qummi with his chain of narrators from Jabir al Jufi' who reported from Abu Ja'far (Imam Muhammad Baqir (‘a).

"The Prophet (‘s) called people to assemble at Mina and announced: "O people! I leave behind two invaluable things; you will not go astray as long as you adhere to them: the Book of Allah, and my Ahl ul-Bayt - and Ka'ba, the sacred House of God". Then Abu Ja'far (‘a) said: "As for the Book of Allah, they tampered withit, and Ka'ba, they demolished, and the Ahl ul-Bayt they massacred. They discarded every trust of God deposited with them, and dissociated themselves from it".

Tradition n. 4

4. Reported by as Saduq in "al-Khisaal" with his chain of narrators from Jabir who reported from the Prophet (‘s):

"On the Day of Judgement, three shall rise to complain: the Qur’an, the Mosque and the Ahl ul-Bayt. The Qur’an will say: "O Allah, they tampered with me, and they tore me apart. The Mosque will say: "O Allah, they left me idle, and they ruined me. And the Ahl ul-Bayt will say: "O Allah, they killed us, they discarded us and they drove us away.”

Tradition n. 5

5. Reported in al-Kafi and by as-Saduq with their chains of narrators from Ali b. Suwaid:

"I wrote a letter to Abul Hasan Musa (‘a) (i.e. Imam Musa b. Ja'far al-Kadhim) - when he was in prison". Then he proceeds to quote fully his reply in which he said: "They were entrusted with the Book of Allah, but they tampered with it and changed it"

Tradition n. 6

6. Reported by Ibn Shahr Ashub with his chain of reporters from Abdullah who quoted the sermon of Imam Husayn (‘a) on the day of Ashura. In it, it is mentioned:

"Surely, you are the despots of the Ummah, a strange lot, insubordinate to the Book, inspired by Satan, league of sinners and corrupters of the Book".

Tradition n. 7

7. Reported in Kamiluz Ziyarat by its chain of narrators from Hasan b. Atiyyah who reports from Abu Abdillah (Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (‘a)):

"When you enter al-Haer (in the shrine of Imam Husayn (‘a)) say: "O Allah, curse those who disbelieved in your prophets, desecrated your Ka'bah, and tampered with yourBook ."

Tradition n. 8

8. Reported from al Hajjal who reports from Qatbah b. Maimun who reports from Abdul A'ala:

"Abu Abdillah (‘a) said: The scholars of Arabic language displace the words of Allah, Most High, from their rightful places".