Before we dwell upon this subject at length, we feel it is necessary to discuss certain connected issues which cannot be overlooked.

1. The Meaning Of Tahrif

1. The Meaning Of Tahrif, Interpolation Or Tampering

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

First, the meaning is to transfer an object from its place to another.

Allah says:

مِّنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُواْ يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ

"Some of those who are Jews change the words from their places..." (Surah An-Nisa, 4:46).

Muslims are agreed upon the fact that such an interference has occurred in the Qur’an, because whenever someone interprets the Qur’an without understanding its true meaning and transforms its real meaning to something irrelevant, he tampers with it.

Many have introduced innovations and unfounded beliefs into Islam by basing their arguments on interpretation of the Qur’an according to their own whims and opinions.

There are several traditions which forbid this type of interpretations, and condemn its perpetrators.

In al-Kafi, a tradition by Imam Muhammad al‑Baqir (‘a) says that he wrote to Sa’ad al‑Khayr:

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, some of the scholars have recorded those differences, like Abdullah b. Abi Dawud as‑Sajistani who wrote a book titled: Kitab al-Masahif (The book of Choices). It could be inferred that some interpolation had occurred, either on the part of Uthman or on the part of the scribes who prepared their copies. But we will soon establish that the copy of Uthman was actually the one already known to the Muslims. It was the one which was handed over from the Prophet (S) and widely used.

The Tahrif by way of addition or omission had occurred in those copies which ceased to exist after the era of Uthman. As for the existing Qur’an, it is totally free from any omission or addition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is over this implication that the dispute arose, with certain people rejecting it altogether, and certain group conceding it.

2. Muslim View On Tahrif

The accepted view of Muslims about the Qur’an is that it is free from all profanities and tampering. They firmly believe that the Book existing among them has the complete text of what was revealed to the great Prophet (S). Many scholars of repute have supported this view, among them is Muhammad ibn Babawayh, popularly known as Sheikh Saduq, who has included this view in the principal tenets of Shi’a Ithna‑’Ashari sect.

Sheikhut Taifah Abu Ja‘far Muhammad b. al‑Hasan al‑Tusi has dwelt on this subject in his commentary al-Tibyan and in support of this view, has quoted his master Alam al-Huda Sayyid Murtadha, relating his extensive arguments. The great commentator, al-Tabrasi, has lent credence to this view in the preface to his famous work Majma‑ul‑Bayan, and so has Shaikh Ja‘far in his chapter on the Qur’an, from his book Kashf al-Ghita, wherein he claims a consensus on this view.

Allamah Shahshahani in his book Al-Urwat al-Wuthqa says that the majority of mujtahids concur that there has been no interpolation in the Qur’an; and Mulla Muhsin Kashani in his two works, al‑Wafi and Ilm‑ul‑Yaqeen reiterates the same view. We find this repeated by the great scholar Sheikh Muhammad Jawad al‑Balaghi in the foreword to his Tafsir Alaa‑ur‑Rahman.

Besides, many great scholars like Sheikh Mufid, Shaikh Bahai and Muhaqqiq Qadhi Nurullah are known to have been partisans of the view that there has been no tampering in the Qur’an. Even those great Shi’a scholars who wrote on the subject of Imamat, criticizing the factions which arose to usurp the rights of Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a), have not ascribed Tahrif to them.

This is a very pertinent point, because had they subscribed to the view that the Qur’an had been profaned, they would have mentioned it with more candour than merely grieving about the burning up of the copies of the Qur’an or other similar matters.

To sum up, the general belief of Shi’a Ulama has been that the Qur’an is intact and pristine. Of course, there has been a small group of traditionalists, both among Shi’as and Sunnis, who held that the Qur’an has been tampered with.

Al‑Rafei says: “A group of theologians used to hypothetical presumptions have subscribed to the view of Tahrif; those who have a habit of resorting to various methods of disputations in every word and in every law, have found it probable that something from the Qur’an may have been lost because of the way its collection has been described.”2

In Majma-ul-Bayan, Tabrasi has ascribed this view to the group of Hashawiyyah among Sunnis.

It will soon be evident from what follows that to confirm that the recitation of certain parts of the Qur’an had been abrogated is tantamount to believing in Tahrif. Those Ulama of Ahl us-Sunnah who declare such an abrogation, are in reality declaring that some tampering has occurred in the Qur’an.

3. Abrogation Of Recitation: A Fact Or A Myth?

Most of the Sunni Ulama have mentioned that the recitation of some parts of the Qur’an was abrogated, confirming at the same time, through the reports, that those abrogated parts were in the Qur’an during the days of the Prophet (S). We will quote some of those reports here to prove that such a belief makes it necessary to also believe that an interpolation took place.

1. Ibn Abbas reports that Umar said while on the pulpit:

“God sent Muhammad (S) with Truth, and sent down unto him the Book. And among that which was revealed was an ayah about rajm which we read, understood and heeded. And based on that, the Prophet (S) stoned, and after him, we stoned. I fear that with the lapse of time, people may say: ‘we do not find the ayah of rajm in the book of God’, and thus go astray by abandoning that which God has ordained. The ordinance of stoning was indeed prescribed for the adulterers in the book of God... And then, among verses we read, there was a verse which said:

ان لا ترغبوا عن آبائكم فانه كفر بكم أن ترغبوا عن آبائكم

Do not awaken an aversion towards your fathers, because it is disbelief for you if you awaken aversion towards your fathers

or it was

ان كفرا بكم أن ترغبوا عن آبائكم

Indeed, it is disbelief for you if you awaken aversion towards your fathers.”3

And Suyuti has mentioned: Ibn Ashtah has reported from Layth b. Sa’ad, who said:

“The first person to collect the Qur’an was Abu Bakr and Zaid wrote it down... And Umar came up with the ayah of rajm, but he did not record it because Umar was the sole reporter.”4

This verse of rajm which Umar claimed to have been in the Qur’an, and was rejected, has been reported in several forms; among them are:

اذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة نكالا من الله والله عزيز حكيم

If a (married) man and a woman commit adultery, then certainly stone them - a warning from God. God is Mighty and Wise

الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة بما قضيا من اللذة

A (married) man and a woman - certainly stone them because of what they have done to (fulfill) the lust

ان الشيخ والشيخة اذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة

If a (married) man and a woman commit adultery, then stone them without any hesitation

Whatever be the case, there is nothing in the Qur’an today which indicates the law of stoning the adulterers. And if the reports are to be considered true, then it follows that an ayah has definitely disappeared from the Qur’an.

2. Tabrani has reported with reliable chain of narration from Umar b. al‑Khattab:

“The Qur’an had one million and twenty-seven thousand letters.”5

While the existing Qur’an does not have even one third of the number. So, one is led to believe that more than two‑third of the Qur’an has been lost.

3. Ibn Abbas reports from Umar:

“God sent Muhammad (S) with Truth and sent down unto him the Book. And among things revealed was an ayah of rajm. So, the Prophet (S) stoned and after him we stoned too.” Then Umar added: “We used to recite

ولا ترغبوا عن آبائكم فانه كفر بكم

Do not awaken an aversion towards your fathers, because it is disbelief.

Or

ان كفرا بكم ان ترغبوا عن آبائكم

Indeed, it is disbelief for you if you awaken aversion towards your fathers.6

4. Nafe’ reports that Ibn Umar said:

“One of you might claim that he has taken the complete Qur’an, but what does he know of the Complete Qur’an? Much from the Qur’an has disappeared, so he should say: I have taken what has been traced.”7

5. Urwah b. Zubair reports from Aisha:

“The Surah of al‑Ahzab as read during the times of the Prophet (S) comprised of two hundred verses. When Uthman prepared the codex, we did not get except what it has remained to be.”8

6. Hamidah binti Anas says:

“It was read before my father who was 80, from the codex of Aisha:

ان الله وملئكته يصلون على النبي يا ايها الذين آمنوا صلوا عليه وسلموا تسليما وعلى الذين يصلون الصفوف الاولى

Indeed, God and His angels bless the Prophet. O you who believe! Bless him and salute him with worthy salutation, and those who pray in the front ranks

She says: This was before Uthman changed the texts.”

7. Abu Harb b. Abil Aswad reports from his father:

“Abu Musa Al‑Asha’ri sent for the Qura’ (the reciters) of Basrah, and three hundred men called upon him, who had all read the Qur’an. Then he said: ‘You are the best of the people of Basrah, and their reciters. Read the Qur’an constantly, otherwise, before too long, your heart may harden the way the hearts of your predecessors had hardened. We used to read a Surah which we compared, in length and severity, with the Surah of Bara’ah, but I have now forgotten it, except a verse which says:

لو كان لا بن آدم واديان من مال لا بتغى واديا ثالثا ولا يملأ جوف ابن آدم الا التراب

If the son of Adam had two valleys of wealth, he would have wished for a third one. Nothing fills the belly of the son of Adam except soil

And we used to read a Surah which we compared with one of the musabbihat (Surahs which begin with sabbaha or yusabbihu) but I have forgotten it except a verse I remember:

یا ايها الذين آمنوا لم تقولون ما لا تفعلون، فتكتب شهادة في اعناقكم فتسألون عنها يوم القيامة

O you who believe, why do you say that which you do not do. This would be written as a testimony on your necks and you would be asked to account for it on the Day of Resurrection.”9

8. Dharr says: Ubayy b. Ka’ab told me,

“O Dharr, How much of Surah of al-Ahzab do you read?”

I said: “Seventy-three verses”.

He said: “though it was equal to the Surah of al-Baqarah, or it was longer than that.”10

9. Ibn Abi Dawud and Ibn Ambari report from Ibn Shihabi:

“We have been informed that much more of the Qur’an had been revealed ‑ but those who knew it were killed at Yamamah. They had preserved it, and it was never known or written after them...”11

10. Umrah reports from Aisha:

“Among that which was revealed in the Qur’an, is the following verse:

عشر رضعات معلومات يحرمن

Ten ascertained sucklings make unlawful

then it was abrogated to read

خمس معلومات

Five ascertained sucklings

and they remained in the Qur’an till the Prophet (S) died.”12

(k) Miswar b. Makhramah reports:

“Umar inquired from Abdul Rahman b. Awf if he had found the following ayah in the Qur’an:

أن جاهدوا كما جاهدتم اول مرة

Fight as you fought them the first.

Abdul Rahman answered that the ayah had disappeared along with the lost parts of the Qur’an.”13

(l) Abu Sufyan al‑Kala’i says that Muslimah b. Mukhallad al‑Ansari told them one day:

“Inform me about those two verses of the Qur’an which were never recorded.

None would answer, not even Abul Kanood, Sa’ad b. Malik who was there. Then Ibn Muslimah recited:

ان اذلين آمنوا وهاجروا و جاهدوا يف سبيل اهلل بامواهلم وانفسهم اال أبرشوا انتم املفلحون واذلين آووهم ونرصوهم وجادلوا عنهم قوم اذلين غضب اهلل عليهم اوئلك ال تعلم نفس ما اخيف هلم من قرة اعني جزاء بما اكنوا يعلمون

Those who believed and migrated and fought in the way of God with their wealth and their lives: Be of good cheer, you are indeed the prosperous ones. And those who sheltered them, supported them, and defended them against those with whom God is wrathful: About those, not a soul knows what is in store for them (in the hereafter) that would please their eyes, a reward for what they have performed.”14

And it has been narrated in various ways that the copies of Ibn Abbas and Ubayy b. Ka’ab contained two extra Surahs: Al‑Khala' and Al‑Hafd. It reads:

اللهم انا نستعينك ونستغفرك ونثني عليك ولا نكفرك ونخلع ونترك من يفجرك اللهم اياك نعبد ولك نصلي ونسجد واليك نسعى ونحفد نرجو رحمتك ونخشى عذابك ان عذابك بالكافرين ملحق

O God, we seek Your help and ask for Your forgiveness; we praise and never deny You; we shun and desert those who act wickedly towards You. O God, You alone do we worship and to You we offer our prayers and prostrate ourselves. To You is our endeavor and in You we seek refuge (or we are quick to obey You? Serve You?). We hope for Your Mercy, and fear Your Punishment. Indeed, Your punishment to the unbelievers is affixed.15

It is now evident that to say that certain parts of the Qur’an have been excluded from recitation means to confirm interpolation and omission in the Qur’an.

This can be further explained this way. The abrogation of those recitations was either recommended by the Prophet (S) himself, or it was done by those who came to power after the Prophet’s death. If one says that the Prophet (S) himself recommended it, then it is a claim which calls for substantiation.

All Ulama are agreed upon the principle that the Qur’an cannot be superseded or abrogated by an isolate report ‑ i.e. a tradition which has been reported singly. The jurists have made this abundantly clear in their works on the principles of jurisprudence. In fact, Shafei and many other scholars go further to say that the Book of God, (i.e. the Qur’an) cannot be superseded or abrogated by even those traditions which have reached continuity and acquired wide spread currency.

This has been confirmed by Ahmad b. Hanbal in one of the two traditions reported by him. Even those who proposed that a continuous and widespread Sunnah may potentially supersede the Qur’an, have confirmed that such a situation has in reality never occurred. In view of the foregoing, it is incorrect to ascribe the abrogation to the Prophet (S). Even those reports which mention the omissions clearly say that it occurred after the Prophet (S).

But if it is proposed that the abrogation was perpetrated by those who assumed leadership after the Prophet (S), then that indeed is tampering with the Qur’an. It can safely be asserted that the occurrence of Tahrif in the Qur’an is supported by the majority of Sunni Ulama, because they believe that certain ayahs of the Qur’an were abrogated, in as far as their recitation was concerned, irrespective of whether the law contained in that ayah remained in force or not.

Interestingly enough, we find certain scholars among them disputing whether a person in the state of janabah can recite those verses whose reading have been reportedly abrogated, or whether a person without wudhu would be permitted to touch the script of such a verse. Some of them have adopted a view that this would not be permissible. Yes, among the Mutazilites, there is a group which believes that an abrogation of recitation never occurred.16

Is it not surprising to find Sunni Ulama disputing the fact that some of them are supporters of Tahrif. Alusi has censured Al‑Tabrasi of having falsely accused Hashawiyyah. He wrote: “Not a single scholar among the Sunnis has ever supported that view”. Then he proceeds to presume that al‑Tabrasi has been insisting on the absence of Tahrif to alleviate the harm done by some Shi’a scholars who believed to the contrary. All this makes a pathetic reading especially when it is well known that the Shi’a scholars do not subscribe to Tahrif in the Qur’an, while Al‑Tabrasi himself has extensively quoted Sayyid Murtadha, enumerating all his arguments in support of the Qur’an’s purity.

4. 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

“Verily We have sent Text and We are its guardian and to its agent the Prophet” (Surah Al-Hijr, 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 verses:

قَدْ أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكُمْ ذِكْرًا...

“...Allah has indeed sent down to you a Reminder”. (Surah Al-Talaq, 65:10).

... رَّسُولًا يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ

“[The Reminder is] the Messenger reciting to you the elucidating Verses of Allah...” (Surah Al-Talaq, 65:11)

But this interpretation has many faults. The word ذكرا has been used in the context of تنزيل - انزال which means “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 out or sending away) or something synonymous.

And if we were to accept that ذكرا 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:

وَقَالُوا يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِي نُزِّلَ عَلَيْهِ الذِّكْرُ إِنَّكَ لَمَجْنُونٌ

“And infidels said to him who claims to have revelation of the Qur’an, verily they are mad”. (Surah Al-Hijr, 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, orالذكر 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

“...And indeed, it is an honorable [well-fortified respected] Book.”. (Surah Fussilat, 41:41).

لا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنْزِيلٌ مِنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ

“Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or behind it; [it is] sent down by the All-Wise, Worthy of all praise”. (Surah Fussilat, 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 any way confine the meaning of the word ‘falsehood’ to any single interpretation, nor do they forbid us from accepting its general connotation. In the foregoing chapter on “The excellence of the Qur’an”, I have cited many reports which indicate that the meanings of the Qur’an are not restricted. This ayah exempts the Qur’an from all falsehood at all times, and since interpolations and tampering are a type of falsehood, they are also precluded.

The ayah itself provides further evidence 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 العزة.

5. 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 Islam.17

This tradition helps us establish the purity of the Qur’an from Tahrif in two ways. First, the adherence would not be practical nor conceivable if parts of the Qur’an were lost by way of interpolation or change. But as the tradition clearly sets out, the adherence is required of the Ummah forever, 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 (‘a) in concealment 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 “The excellence of the Qur’an”, we have explained how even those verses which apparently deal with the past history have morale and admonition in them. The basic issue of controversy has been the claim by some who say that the verse of wilayah and related subjects have been omitted. The answer is that if those had been proved to be parts of the Qur’an, then it would have been obligatory upon the Ummah to adhere to them as well.

The benefit of this tradition is that if interpolation, distortions, deformations, alteration or omissions are allowed in the Qur’an, then its authority lapses, and it would not be incumbent to follow the outward or literal texts of the Qur’an. In such circumstances, the believers in 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 Masumeen (‘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.

6. 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 Rakaats of every obligatory prayer, after the Surah of al-Fatihah. And they allowed to divide a Surah or more in the case of Salat al-Ayaat (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‑Fatiha 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 have 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.

7. 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 pre­Islamic era. How could they be expected to ignore the great Book whose laws they proclaimed, for which they had staked their lives, left their homes, spent their wealth, abandoned their families and children, and had taken a firm stand in the brilliant history of Islam.

Can a reasonable person believe that they would be so indifferent so as to cause any loss of the Qur’an? A loss which could not be retrieved without the evidence of two witnesses? Is it not tantamount to believing that there has been an addition or an omission in the Qur’an which was revealed to the Prophet (S)?

Then there is the famous and widely acknowledged tradition of Thaqalayn, which invalidates all presumption about Tahrif. The Prophet (S) said: “I leave behind me two invaluable things: the Book of Allah and my Ahl ul-Bayt.”

This statement becomes meaningless if it is believed that the Qur’an had been lost during his time, because that which was lost would definitely be parts of the Book. In fact, this tradition points to the collection of the Qur’an during the Prophet’s era; because scattered or memorised literature cannot be termed a book.

We will deal with the subject of the collection of the Qur’an later. The question is that if the Muslims did not care to collect the Qur’an while the Prophet (S) lived, why did the Prophet (S) himself neglect it, in spite of his vehement emphasis on its importance? Did he not foresee the result of such carelessness? Or was it impossible for him to do so? Obviously, these are all invalid excuses.

If we were to propose that the first two Caliphs effected Tahrif in those verses which did not deal with their leadership, and the leadership of their friends, then this seems to be unlikely because it serves no purpose. Definitely, this did not occur. The Caliphate was a political matter, ostensibly based on their concern for the religion, and as such there was no need for touching the Qur’an.

Even those like Sa’ad b. Ubadah and his companions who objected to the rule of Abu Bakr, and those who refused to swear oath of allegiance 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 Muhajireen and Ansar, and also on the famous tradition of Al-Ghadeer 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 Caliphate.18

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 Bait al-Mal of the Muslims unlike his predecessors, or other such reasons.

4. 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.”19

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 is 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 remain.20

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 pretense that the Qur’an has been tampered with has no substance whatsoever.

8. 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’.”21

So, it follows that Tahrif must occur in the Qur’an also, 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 occurrences 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 occurring 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: ‘Glory be 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’.”22

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 Islam. There is nothing to indicate that the occurrence is confined to those days.

The Qur’an is forever, 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 Muhajireen 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.”23

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 those abrogated. In short, every letter from Alif to Lam was there. But they did not accept it.”24

Another tradition is in al-Kafi where the author narrates it with the chain of reporters ending up with Jabir who reports from Imam Muhammad 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).”25

And further, a report from Jabir says:

“I heard Abu Ja‘far (‘a) (i.e. Imam Muhammad 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.”26

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 taw’il by the later scholars, in that they construe tanzil as that which was sent down as the Qur’an, and taw’il 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, taw’il 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:

وَيُعَلّمُكَ مِن تَأْوِيلِ الاَحَادِيثِ

“... And teach you the interpretation of sayings (dreams)....” (Surah Yusuf, 12:6).

نَبّئْنَا بِتَأْوِيلِهِ

“...Tell us its interpretations...” (Surah Yusuf, 12:36).

هَذَا تَأْوِيلُ رُؤْيايَ

“.... This is the interpretation of my dream of aforetime!” (Surah Yusuf, 12:100).

ذَلِكَ تَأْوِيلُ مَا لَمْ تَسْطِع عَّلَيْهِ صَبْراً

“.... This is the interpretation of what you could not bear patiently.” (Surah Al-Kahf, 18:82).

And it has been similarly used at several other places in the Qur’an, where taw’il 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:

إِنَّهُ لَقُرْآنٌ كَرِيمٌ

“That is verily an Honorable Qur’an.” (Surah Al-Waqi’a, 56:77).

فِي كِتَابٍ مَّكْنُونٍ

“Which is in the well-preserved Tablet.” (Surah Al-Waqi’a, 56:78).

لَآ يَمَسُّهُ إِلاّ الْمُطَهَّرُونَ

“Which none can touch but the purified.” (Surah Al-Waqi’a, 56:79).

تَنزِيلٌ مِّن رَّبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

“A Revelation from the Lord of the worlds.” (Surah Al-Waqi’a, 56:80).

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 and taw’il, 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 Ahmad 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. Ahmad 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 Masumeen (peace be 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 we do not see any need to go into the details of their authenticity.

9. 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.

1. Reported by Ali b. Ibrahim al‑Qummi, with his own chain of narrators from Abu Dharr: “When this ayah was revealed: The Prophet (S) said: “My people will come to me on the Day of Judgment under five banners.”

يَوْمَ تَبْيَضُّ وُجُوهٌ وَتَسْوَدُّ وُجُوهٌ

"On the Day when some faces will turn white while some faces will turn black!”. (Surah ‘Ali-Imran, 3:106).

Then it mentions that the Prophet (S) will ask them about their dealings with thaqalayn (i.e. the Qur’an and Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a)). 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....”

2. Reported by Ibn Tawus 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.”

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’bah, the sacred House of God.’ Then Abu Ja‘far (‘a) said: ‘As for the Book of Allah, they tampered with it, and Ka’bah, they demolished, and the Ahl ul-Bayt they massacred. They discarded every trust of God deposited with them, and dissociated themselves from it’.”

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’.”

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.”

6. Reported by Ibn Shahr Ashob 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.”

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 your Book’.”

8. Reported from al-Hajjal who reports from Qatbah b. Maymoon 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.”

10. True Meaning Of The Traditions

It is abundantly clear from the last report quoted above that the word Tahrif (displacing the words of Allah from their rightful places) denotes the variations brought about by the Qaris who most of the time based their mode of recitations on their own opinions. We have made it plain from the very outset that such a tampering has definitely occurred, where a particular Qari has read a particular word differently though without effecting any change in the original text or its essence.

Whether we subscribe to the so called seven modes of recitations or not, there is no doubt that such a tampering took place. In fact, there are many renderings, each based on the reader’s guess and conjecture, which have changed the pronunciations and the recitations. In any case, this report does not support the view of Tahrif as the alteration, addition, omission or interpolation in the Qur’an.

The remaining traditions clearly point out that the word Tahrif used in them mean the misinterpretation of the verses. One of the results was that the excellence of Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) was denied, and hostility towards them encouraged. This is further supported by the sermon of Imam Husayn (‘a) quoted above when those who were gathered to kill him are described as perpetrators of Tahrif.

In the tradition reported from al-Kafi, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (‘a) says:

“And one of the examples of their repudiation of the Book is that while they upheld the words they distorted its injunctions.”

Well, we have repeatedly said that Tahrif in this fashion has indisputably occurred in relation to the Qur’an. Had it not been so, the rights of Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) would have remained protected, and the reverence for them by the Prophet (S) would have been honoured. The events would not have taken the tragic turn the way they did, resulting in the usurpation of their rights and in the Prophet’s inconsolable grief.

The Second Type

The second type of traditions are those which state that the names of Aimma (Imams) had originally appeared in certain verses of the Qur’an. These are quite a few. Among them is a report in al-Kafi by its own chain of narrators from Muhammad b. Fudhail that Abul Hasan (Imam Ali b. Musa Ridha (‘a)) said:

“The wilayah of Ali b. Abi Talib found mention in every book of the Prophets. No Prophet was sent without a covenant of Muhammad’s (S) prophethood and his rightful successor’s wilayah, peace be upon them and their progeny.”

And there is a report by al‑Ayyashi with his chain of reporters from as‑Sadiq (‘a):

“If the Qur’an were to be read the way it was revealed, we would be found therein by our names.”

Further reports of this nature are in al-Kafi, tafsir of Al‑Ayyashi, reporting from Abu Ja‘far (‘a) and again in Kanz al-Fawaid with its several chains of reporters from Ibn Abbas, and also in tafsir of Furat b. Ibrahim al-Kafi with its own chain of narrators. It reports from Asbagh b. Nubatah having heard from Amir al-Al-Mu’minin (Ali b. Abi Talib (‘a)):

“The Qur’an was revealed in four quarters: a quarter about us, a quarter about our adversaries, a quarter about traditions and parables, a quarter about the obligations and the laws. Ours was the most vital part of the Qur’an.”

And al-Kafi has also reported with its own chain of reporters from Abu Ja‘far (Imam Muhammad al‑Baqir (‘a)):

“Jibra’ill came with this ayah to Muhammad in this way:

وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَىٰ عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِنْ مِثْلِهِ

“And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it” (Surah Baqarah, 2:23).

In reply to all these, we have clarified earlier that some parts of the revelations to the Prophet did not constitute the Qur’an; they were elucidatory. The reports which say that certain verses contained the names of Aimma (‘a) could be such elucidatory additions.

But if this interpretation does not seem plausible or probable, then the reports must be totally rejected as false and fabricated, because they would be deemed to be against the Qur’an, the traditions, and the aforementioned evidence which disprove Tahrif. There are acknowledged and continuous authentic reports which direct us to discard and reject all those reports which contradict the Qur’an.

One of the most convincing proofs that the name of Amir al-Al-Mu’minin (‘a) was never openly mentioned in the Qur’an is the tradition of al‑Ghadeer. On that occasion, the Prophet (S), as commanded by Allah appointed Ali after a revelation which placed great emphasis on it, and promised the Prophet (S) that he would be guarded from evil men. If Ali’s name had been openly there in the Qur’an, there would have been no need to declare an appointment, nor would it be necessary to make an elaborate arrangement for Muslims to assemble, or for Allah to assuage his fear that the declaration could cause him any harm.

The authenticity of Ghadeer is enough to prove that these reports about the names of Aimma (‘a) in the Qur’an are untrue; especially so because the event of Ghadeer occurred in the farewell Hajj of the Prophet (S) during his last days. By that time, most of the Qur’an had been revealed and had gained currency among the Muslim populace.

Moreover, the last report from al-Kafi seems to be highly improbable by its very contents. The abrupt mention of Ali where Allah wishes to prove the truth about Muhammad (S) by presenting the challenge of Qur’an an inimitable Book, seems quite irrelevant.

All these reports are rendered useless and invalid by one authentic tradition from Abu Abdillah, Imam Ja‘far as‑Sadiq (‘a) reported by al-Kafi from Abu Basir.

He says: “I asked Abu Abdillah (‘a) about the ayah:

أَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي الأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ

“...Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those charged with authority among you....” (Surah An-Nisa, 4:59).

He said the verse was revealed for Ali b. Abi Talib, Hasan and Husayn (peace be upon them).

I said: ‘People ask why the names of Ali and his family are not mentioned in the Book of Allah’.

He answered: ‘Tell them that the Prophet (S) received the revelation for Salat, but Allah never specified the number of raka’ats as three or four. It was the Prophet (S) who made its meaning manifest for them...’.”

This authentic tradition decides the merit of all those reports and clarifies their possible meaning: the name of Amir al-Al-Mu’minin (‘a) in those revelations could be just an elucidation, not to be imparted as a part of the Qur’an.

Besides, those who refused to swear oath of allegiance for Abu Bakr never substantiated their argument by saying that Ali had been mentioned in the Qur’an. No doubt, had it been so, this would have been their strongest stand. And let us not forget that the collection of the Qur’an, as believed by those who argue against us, saw its completion soon after the question of khilafah was decided. All these are pointers to the fact that the names were never included in the verses.

The Third Type

The third type of reports are those which mention that there have been some additions or omissions in the Qur’an, and that, after the Prophet’s death, people replaced some words in the Qur’an with the others.

Ali b. Ibrahim al‑Qummi has reported with his chain of narrators from Hurayz who says: “Abu Abdillah (‘a) read this ayah (Qur’an, 1:6) as:

صراط من أنعمت عليهم غير المغضوب عليهم وغير الضالين

Al‑Ayyashi reports from Hisham b. Salim:

“I asked Abu Abdillah (‘a) about this ayah:

إِنَّ اللّهَ اصْطَفَى آدَمَ وَنُوحًا وَآلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ

"Verily Allah chose Adam and Noah, and the progeny of Abraham and the progeny of 'Imran above all people." (Surah ‘Ali-Imran, 3:33).

He said: ‘It is آل عمران . They have changed one name for the other. They have substituted آل محمد for آل ابراهیم”.

Besides the weakness and unreliability of the reporters, these reports are all unacceptable and false because they are against the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the consensus of Muslims who hold that there has not been an addition of even one letter in the Qur’an. Even those who advocate Tahrif do not believe that there has been any addition.

A group of Ulama have claimed a consensus on the fact that there has been no addition to the Qur’an and that which exists between the two covers is nothing but the Qur’an. Among them are Sheikh Mufid, Sheikh Tusi, Sheikh Bahai and other great Ulama, may He bless them. And we have quoted earlier from al‑Ihtijaj which also reiterates that there has been no addition.

The Fourth Type

The fourth type of reports claim that there has occurred Tahrif in the Qur’an by way of omission only. To them we say that they have to interpret such reports the same way as those concerning the elucidatory additions in the codex prepared by Amir al-Al-Mu’minin (‘a). And if that sounds improbable, then the reports must be rejected as false because they are against the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

Most of the reports in this vein are weak, while falsehood of some of them is evident from their content. The Ulama have therefore guided us to either subject them to interpretations or reject them altogether.

Muhaqqiq Al‑Kalbasi has said: “All those reports which speak of Tahrif are against the consensus of Ummah and therefore unreliable - except for those who do not rely upon the consensus.” And then he proceeds to say: “The belief in any omission having occurred in the Qur’an is baseless. Had it been true, it would have become popular and acknowledged, because such an important occurrence could not pass unnoticed.”

The commentator of al‑Wafiyah, Muhaqqiq al‑Baghdadi, has further clarified this by quoting from Muhaqqiq al‑Karaki who had written a complete tract on the subject.

He says: “The reports which speak of omissions must either be interpreted or rejected. Any tradition which is contradictory to the Qur’an, the acknowledged sunnah and the consensus, must be discarded if it has no room for interpretation or other justifications.”

I say: Muhaqqiq al‑Karaki has pointed towards what we have said earlier, about the clear directive from authentic traditions regarding the rejection of all those reports which are in disagreement with the Qur’an.

Among those traditions is the one reported by Sheikh as-Saduq Muhammad b. Ali b. Husayn with his reliable chain of narrators from as‑Sadiq (‘a):

“To exercise restraint when in doubt is better than rushing into a jeopardy. Upon every truth there is divine light. Accept that which conforms with the Book of Allah, and leave aside that which goes against it ....”27

And Sheikh Saeed b. Hibatullah, al-Qutb ar‑Rawandi, has reported with his authentic chain of narrators from as‑Sadiq (‘a),

“When you come across two opposing reports, expose them before the Book of Allah. Accept that which conforms with the Book of Allah and reject that which goes against it.”28

The Fourth Doubt

This emanates from the way the collection of the Qur’an is described, making it possible for one to assume that Tahrif was inevitable. We now proceed to another chapter on this, so that this doubt is also allayed.

• 1. Kitab al-Wafi, p. 274.
• 2. Ijaz al-Qur’an, p. 41.
• 3. Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, p. 26; Sahih Muslim, Vol. 5, p. 116, without the last sentence “And then, among verses ...”
• 4. Al‑Itqan, Vol. 1, p. 101.
• 5. Al‑Itqan, Vol. 1, p. 121.
• 6. Musnad of Ahmad, Vol. 1, p. 48.
• 7. Al‑Itqan, Vol. 2, p. 40-41.
• 8. Al‑Itqan, Vol. 2, p. 40-41.
• 9. Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 100.
• 10. Muntakhab Kanz al-Ummal, on the margin of Musnad of Ahmad, Vol. 2, p. 43.
• 11. Muntakhab Kanz al-Ummal, on the margin of Musnad of Ahmad, Vol. 2, p. 50
• 12. Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 168.
• 13. Al‑Itqan, Vol. 2, p. 42.
• 14. Al‑Itqan, Vol. 2, p. 42.
• 15. Al‑Itqan, Vol. 1, p. 122, 213.
• 16. Al‑Ahkam fi Usool il Ahkam by Aamedi, Vol. 3, p. 217.
• 17. See Ahmad b. Hambal in his Musnad, Vol. 3, p. 14, 17, 26, 59 reported from Abu Saeed al-Khudri; Vol. 4, p. 366, 371 from Zaid b. Arqam; Vol. 5, p. 182, 189 from Zaid b. Thabit.
  Jalal-ud-din Suyuti in his Jameus Saghir reported from Tabrani by Zaid b. Thabit, declaring it as authentic.
  Allamah al-Manawi in his commentary, Vol. 3, p. 15 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, Vol. 3, 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.
• 18. Bihar Al-Anwar, Majlisi, Vol. 8, p. 79.
• 19. Nahj al-Balaghah.
• 20. Manahil al-Irfan, p. 257.
• 21. See Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol. 8, p. 4; and there are other Sunni sources also.
• 22. Sunan, Tirmidhi, Vol. 9, p. 26.
• 23. Muqaddimah of Tafsir al-Burhan, p. 28. This tradition also clarifies that the present Qur’an has no addition.
• 24. Tafsir as-Safi, 6th Muqaddimah, p. 11.
• 25. al-Wafi, Vol. 2, Kitab al-Hujjah, chapter 76, p. 130.
• 26. al-Wafi, Vol. 2.
• 27. Al‑Wasail, Vol. 3.
• 28. Al‑Wasail, Vol. 3.