Suggestions Of Alterations In The Qur’an Is Meant To Divide The Ummah

There were several issues in Islam that had been made into a battleground for the people, by the lack of sincerity and scholarship of few individuals, and some irresponsible groups flared it up to tarnish the image of other Muslims, which allowed bigoted mullahs to exploit it for their own benefits. This created a situation in which the reality had been disfigured to that extent that it was not easy to find true facts, even with greatest care.

However, God had promised in Surah Al-Ankaboot:

وَالَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا

“And (as for) those who strive hard for Us, We will most certainly guide them in Our ways” (29:69).

Nevertheless, such people were few and far between. Among these debating points was the issue of alterations in the Qur’an, which was a reason for discord among the Ummah. Shi’as were baselessly targeted to defame them, although they have repeatedly cleared their position regarding such groundless allegations. Despite this, there was no response from the brothers of Joseph (metaphorically speaking) and they kept on singing the same tune that Shi’as had no faith in the Qur’an. We have tried to remove such veils of lies and despondency with logical and intellectual tools for the benefit of our readers.

True Meanings Of Transposition

Before we presented our findings on this topic, it was important that meaning of the word (Tahrif) must be established first. Tahrif had its origin based on the gateway of Tafeel, whose root was ‘Harf’, which meant side or embankment. Therefore, the literal meaning of Tahrif was to grip a thing from its side or edge, but never to collect it completely.

However, in its literary sense it meant to change a phrase by displacing or by adding or subtracting words. There was no binding in it that the transposition was done in words alone, or in its meaning, or both. Among its various varieties, all scholars agreed on the application of some or neglect of the others, while there was great dispute on some of its other postures. We could explain this statement.

Academics agreed that transposition of contents in Qur’an had definitely happened because we could see that the present arrangement of Suras was not according to its schedule of revelation (i.e. Makki Suras were at the end of the Qur’an, while those revealed in Medina were promoted first). This was not confined to the chapters, but it had happened in various Verses of Qur’an too.

These Verses were mixed with the contents of another chapter, as suggested by Allama Jalaluddin Suyuti. This was accepted in Durr al-Manthur and by various other authors. He said: “This division (reasons for separating Makki and Madani Suras) was general, but it was not certain that if it was under the direction of the Prophet that the two kinds of Verses were mixed or it was under the influence of some outside source. However, there was no doubt that the Prophet was the best judge to decide the true place of the Verses? Therefore, to decide with certainty, the precise placement of Makki or Madani Verses in a Surah was very difficult.

The traditions that we have received were not to the level of certainty, those were at best a good approximation. At this moment, deciding whether if these Verses were mixed up under the instructions of the Prophet or by the decree of the third Caliph, was not important. Nonetheless, we wanted to establish that mixing of the two kinds of Verses in Makki and Madani Suras was a well-known fact.”

Similarly, Tahrif in terms of addition to the Qur’an was unanimously rejected by all sects. Allama Tabari and Allama At-Tusi expressed their categorical affirmation of this view, in the forewords of Tafsir Majma al-Bayan and Tafsir ul Tibyan, but in terms of deleting the contents there was a kind of division.

Members of the Sunni sect always tried to defame Shi’as by saying that they believed in erasure of some of its content and therefore, they did not have faith in this Qur’an. This was despite knowing that we recited, taught and wrote commentaries on the same Qur’an as they did.

Our Imams gave us the same standard to distinguish between right and wrong. This was to say that the standard was the present-day Qur’an. Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) said: “Everything must be returned to the Qur’an for evaluation, and every Hadith that contradicted Qur’an must be considered to be a false tradition.”

Authentication Of The Present Qur’an By The Imams Of Ahl Al-Bayt

Imams of Ahl al-Bayt have authenticated the same Qur’an. Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) said: “This is the book of God which is between the two ordinary bindings”. Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) said: “Learn and read Qur’an the way as the other Muslims do”. It was reported by Imam Ali An-Naqi (‘a), who said: “Entire Muslim Ummah agreed that Qur’an is that book, wherein there is no doubt and there is no difference on its revelation and confirmation”.

Therefore, if Qur’an testified the authenticity of a Hadith, and a group among the Muslims decided to oppose its validity then it was improper for them to deny its authority, because Ma’sumin Imams had insisted on the infidelity of those who opposed Qur’an. Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) said that anyone who chose to oppose the Sunnah of God and His Prophet was an infidel.

Although, after the clarifications from the Imams, there was no room left for the opinion of Ulamas (religious scholars). However, for the sake of satisfaction, in order to clarify about this topic, we have quoted some confirmations of leading Shi’a scholars as well.

Shaykh Al-Mufid wrote in his research paper, “Shi’as say that there is no addition or subtraction of a single word in the Qur’an except the elaborations, which Imam Ali (‘a) has made, under the guidance of the Prophet, were removed. In my opinion, this statement is better than the other view which suggests that there are some phrases that are missing from it, and my inclination is also with the earlier view. I am fully confident of the futility of this allegation that there was ever any addition to the Qur’an.

Even when the book of Sayyid Murtaza ‘Ilm al-Huda was not in hand, it can be said that his views were authenticated by his student Shaykh At-Tusi. He said that we were as sure of the authenticity of this book as we were certain of the great episodes that took place in the distant lands and the famous books that contained couplets of Arab poets.”

Shaykh At-Tusi wrote in his commentary of the Qur’an that the topic of additions or subtractions in the Qur’an was not our subject (because his book was a commentary on the Qur’an), but Muslims as a whole agreed that it was totally false to suggest that additions had been made to the Qur’an.

So far as reduction in contents of the Qur’an was concerned, we would say that our view like other Muslims was also the same that its contents had never been reduced. Sayyid Murtaza also sided with this view.

Clarification Of A Doubt

The slyness and guile of our opponents was also worth mentioning. When we show them the elucidations of great Shi’a scholars, instead of them being ashamed and abandon their mischief they immediately start singing the old tune that all these affirmations of Shi’a scholars were based on Taqiyya, and they affirmed the distortions in the Qur’an.

How far this statement was away from the facts could be judged by those who had their sights set on our Ulama’s books that openly displayed the illegitimacy of the first three caliphs and showed no sign of Taqiyya. So, what was the reason for them to exhibit Taqiyya on this subject? These were the reasons that some of the honest minded Sunni scholars agreed that Shi’as were not the authenticators of distortions in the Qur’an.

Muhammad Aslam Jaipuri wrote in his book Tarikh ul Islam, under the title - ‘Shi’a and the Qur’an’ that these were the statements of Shi’a scholars, which were vivid and authentic and had no room for conjectures or surmise, and nor could we say that they might have employed Taqiyya, because some of them had written books against Sunni doctrine.

Moreover, Abu Ja’far Al-Qummi’s book - Al-I’tiqad and Mullah Mohsin’s - Tafsir’e Saafi were included in Shi’a theological courses. So, it could not be imagined for a moment that they were teaching their own students against their own doctrine.

Similarly, Shaykh Rehmatullah Sarhindi wrote in his book Izhar al-Haq, “It has been proved after these facts that according to Shi’a scholars the book that God the Almighty has revealed to His Messenger is the same, which is in the hands of people today, and that the Qur’an was collected in the life time of the Prophet and that it was remembered and copied by thousands of companions. Some weak traditions that are available in their literature cannot be used as an excuse to abandon the established facts.”

We have been aware of the real reasons of this blame game against us, but their apparent reasons was the presence of some (weak) traditions that were found in our books, which outwardly support Tahrif.

Our Reply To The Blame Game

Although, lot was written on this issue by us, but what we wanted to say was that if some of our traditions pointed out towards Tahrif and we were blamed for the negation of the Qur’an, then our brothers in Islam could not save themselves from the same allegation and nor could they be called as the believers in the present Qur’an, because several of such traditions were also available in their own literature.

We have presented here some examples for the interest of our readers.

Allama Jalaluddin Suyuti wrote in Tafsir al-Itteqaq, “It is reported from Aisha that two hundred Verses of Surah Ahzab were recited during the time of the Prophet, but when Othman collected Qur’an, we found as much as we see today, which are only seventy-three Verses and the remaining one hundred twenty-seven were permanently lost.”

Zar Ibn Jaish reported on the authority of Ibn Kaab that he had asked him if it were the same number of Verses of Surah Ahzab that were counted today? Zar Ibn Jaish replied that the present Verses were not more than seventy-two or seventy-three, but in fact these had been equivalent to Surah Al-Baqara in the Prophet’s time, and we used to recite the Verse of Rajam.

He was asked what that Verse was. He replied: “If an old man commits adultery with an old woman then they should be stoned (to death). This was the punishment of their crime, so that it became a lesson for the others. Surely, God is all Wise and powerful.”

It was reported in Tafsir Durr al-Manthur on the authority of Hozaifa that Surah Tauba was the Surah of Adhab. It was said, “By God it had not left any aspect untouched and spoke something about each of us. What you read today in this Surah was not more than a quarter of the original contents that we used to recite in the time of the Prophet”.

There were several reports in the Sunni books (Tafsir and Hadith) that pointed out towards the transposition of the Qur’anic Verses. We have presented a few more examples here.

In the present-day Qur’an, there was a Verse that read like this:

حَافِظُوا عَلَى الصَّلَوَاتِ وَالصَّلَاةِ الْوُسْطَىٰ وَقُومُوا لِلَّهِ قَانِتِينَ

“Guard your prayers and particularly the middle prayer and stand in front of Allah in submission” (2:238).

Sunni literature suggested that some deletion had taken place in this Verse of Surah Al-Baqara. Allama Suyuti wrote in Durr al-Manthur on the authority of Omru Ibn Na’feh who said, “I was the pen man for Hafsa, the wife of the Prophet, who said to me that when I reach the place where the Verse reads: “Haafizu ‘alas salati”, then I should refer to her. So, I did and she made me write the Verse like this: “Haafizu ala salati was salatil wusta was salatil asr”.

She, then said that she bore witness to the fact that she heard the Verse in the manner as she has reported, from the Prophet.” However, in the present Qur’an, “Salatul Asr” was missing.

In the present Qur’an, this following Verse was written like this:

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ

“O Messenger! proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief)”. (5:67)

but if we went through Tafsir Durr al-Manthur, we would find Abdullah Ibn Masud saying:

“We used to read this Verse like this - “Ya aiyyu har rasulu ballihg ma unzila alaika min rabbik inna ali un Maulal Mu’minin, fa in lam taf ’al fama ballaghtal risala, wallahu yasimuka minun naas”, but in the present text – “inna Ali un Maulal Mu’minin” was missing”. It appeared that it had been (purposely) omitted.

In Tafsir Iteqan and Durr al-Manthur there were several narrations that suggested that Aayat al-Rajam had been removed from the Qur’an. Ibn Ka’ab (as reported earlier) said that they used to recite this Verse in the Prophet’s time.

In the present text of the Qur’an the following Verse was given like this:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا

“Surely Allah and His angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe! call for (Divine) blessings on him and salute him with a (becoming) salutation” (33:56).

Yet, it was suggested in Tafsir Durr al-Manthur that in the copies of the Qur’an, which were in the possession of Aisha and Hafsa, the same Verse ended with the words – wa allazeena yusalluna soufal awwal, but this text was missing in the present-day Qur’an.

In the present Qur’an, a Verse read like this:

وَكَفَى اللَّهُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ الْقِتَالَ

“..And Allah sufficed the believers in fighting” (33:25).

but the narrations suggested by our Sunni brothers proposed that this Verse was read in the Prophet’s time in the following manner: “Wakafallahul Mu’minin al qital bi Ali ibn Abi Talib”. The ending of this Verse was missing in the present text of the Qur’an.

This was the reason that Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar used to say that no one should claim that he had acquired complete Qur’an. How did he know what the complete Qur’an was when a major part of the Qur’an had been lost?1

It was an old habit of bigoted mullahs that when their baseless allegations were answered with the same coin, and they did not find a logical response, then they reverted to their famous technique of declaring these Verses to be redundant (naskh), in order to save their skin. Their proposition was unacceptable due to certain reasons.

In their narrations, there were so many reports that negated the thesis of naskh, because this procedure was only applicable during the revelation of the Qur’an, at the time of the Prophet. It was therefore written in Tafsir al-Itteqan that naskh was not permissible after the life of the Prophet. These narrations, however, suggested that Aisha and Hafsa had read these Verses in such and such manners and instructed their pen-men to write those Verses in a particular way, and then bore witness that these Verses were read in that same manner as they had directed, during the life of the Prophet.

Similarly, there were some elaborations of the companions of the Prophet that such and such Verses were read in a different way before the intervention of Othman. Fair minded readers must tell us, that in the presence of these elaborations, how could the concept of naskh help them in this predicament?

There were some fundamental rules that justified the concept of naskh. As long as those rulings were not applied, these sordid excuses were of no use. Allama Jalaluddin Suyuti said in Tafsir al-Itteqan: “Regarding naskh we can only rely on a Hadith of the Prophet or the report of a companion, who must state that he has asked the explanation from the Prophet and he pointed out that this Verse is replaced by such and such directive.”

He further said, “Concerning naskh, the statements of commentators or the declarations of academics had no grounds, unless it was supported by an authentic Hadith or a clear-cut Verse of the Qur’an that opposed it, as naskh was the name of a directive in the life time of the Prophet that replaced another ruling, therefore, we could only rely on an exact report or on factual historical evidence.”

God said in the Qur’an:

مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar” (2:106).

This Verse clearly proved that the ratio between nasikh (the one which replaces a Verse) and mansookh (the one that is erased) must be in one-to-one proportion. Our opponents, if they were true in their belief, must prove to us by giving the names of those Verses that had erased the above-mentioned Qur’anic Verses.

Acceptance Of Tahrif By Academics Does Not Mean That It Is Recognised By The Religion

It remained true that some of our academics were in line with those who agreed that transposition of Qur’anic Verses had taken place. However, it was a matter of principle that if views of a few scholars clashed with grand masters on a controversial issue, then it could not be taken as belief of the whole religion. Yes, those who believed in the transposition of Verses had their own arguments. We have presented their findings in the following text.

Their initial points of argument were those narrations that were present in the books of both parties, which proved that some deletion in the contents of Qur’an had taken place at the time of its collection. These narrations were so excessive that the allegation could not be denied. Allama Al-Majlisi, in Miratul Uqul had claimed continuity in chain and thus authenticity of such narrations.

The procedure that was adopted for the collection of Qur’an was described in the books of history. Initially this work was handed over by the first caliph to Zaid Ibn Thabit and he was ordered to sit at the gate of the Prophet’s Mosque and make an announcement to the public that whoever had a portion of the Qur’an in his possession, must bring it to the attention of Zaid, with a condition that he must produce two witnesses who testified that those portions were among the contents of the Qur’an.

Thus, the Qur’an was collected under these conditions. Some material that was scribed on bones, date leaves, cardboard and papyrus were also collected. In this manner, the Qur’an with minor adjustments of contents and recitation was revisited in the lifetime of the third caliph, and published in the colonies.

If we call upon an unbiased person, who had seen this methodology, he would think that some contents might have remained undiscovered due to someone having a portion of the Qur’an, but not being willing to part with it, as was in the case of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud. Similarly, Aisha and Hafsa did not part with their collection. Again, someone might have a portion of the Qur’an but he might not be able to find two witnesses to approve him. This method of research that was adopted suggested that some portions of the Qur’an were not discovered despite passionate efforts.

People could only trust the collection of a person, whose efforts were so sincere that no other motive could be associated with his work, other than the service of Islam. On the other hand, the collectors whose religious strength was not only questionable but their basic belief was doubtful and their critic were not willing to accept their efforts in the service of Islam, but associated corporeal benefits with their efforts, if they believed that some parts of the Qur’an had been deleted, then one could understand their point of view.

They had piles of material to support their thesis, but we would not want to indulge in this scrutiny for the sake of religious harmony. So far as the question concerned was that these thoughts might give way to mistrust in the Qur’an – these were totally unfounded. This is so because the true guardians of the Qur’an had authenticated its contents, and wherever intrusions were made those areas had been identified.

The books revealed for earlier nations had been corrupted. The Prophet (S) had said, “Whatever had happened with those nations would also happen with his Ummah.” It was therefore, possible that some alterations might have happened in the Qur’an as well.

A natural question arose that when the Qur’an was collected by Amir Al-Mu’minin, and the two previous Caliphs were present, what was the reason for Othman to recollect the same text, and why he exaggerated so much in favour of his own collection that he burnt all other specimens (other than Imam Ali’s version)?

This suggested that this collection was done with some ulterior motive, which might be to change some of the legal rules to alter the face of Islam so that it might pave the way for the enemies of Islam to assume political powers on long term basis, without religious opposition. The whole purpose of this discussion was to tell our critics that those who opposed them, also had some arguments to prove their case.

Inappropriate Use Of The Two Qur’anic Verses To Disprove The Theory Of Transposition

To disprove transposition of Qur’anic Verses, two Qur’anic Verses have been wrongly quoted:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

“Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian”. (15:9)

If God had promised protection to the Book, who could then add or subtract anything from it? Ignoring the falseness or truth of the rebuttal of the theory of Tahrif, this Qur’anic Verse was used to prove that their case was not correct due to the following reasons.

In Qur’anic terminology, use of the word Dhikr was as much applicable to the person of the Prophet - Nazzalna alaikum Dhikran Rasula, as it was for the Qur’an,

إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا ذِكْرٌ لِّلْعَالَمِينَ

“…it is nothing but a reminder for all mankind” (12:104).

Therefore, it was possible that in the quoted Verse God might be promising protection of the Prophet from the mischief of his enemies by saying:

وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ

“God will protect you from the evil of the people” (5:67).

That is why in the Qur’anic Verse:

فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

“Ask from the followers of the Reminder (Ahl udh-Dhikr, family of the messenger) if you don’t know” (16:43; 21:7).

The phrase – ‘Ahl udh-Dhikr’ was meant for the family of the Prophet. Therefore, this Verse has nothing to do with our current problem.

If we accepted that in this Verse the word Dhikr stood for the Qur’an, then a question arose - was this a promise for all the individual copies of the Qur’an or was it made for a specific Qur’an?

The first postulate was definitely wrong, because if it were so, Othman would have failed to burn the other collections of the Qur’an, and Walid would have perished when he had put this Qur’an to the arrows.

Also, we have found some printing mistakes in the present-day Qur’an, and some copies of the Qur’an had been burnt during accidental fires. Recently, the American Military would not have been able to disgrace Qur’an in Guantanamo Bay, as it happened when pages of it were flushed through the toilet. We would therefore, be right to assume that if God had made the promise to protect all (physical copies of) Qur’an, then no one could have succeeded in disgracing it. Thus, we have to conclude that this promise was made for the Qur’an as an entity, and this could represent even a single copy of the Qur’an that was free of any changes.

This thesis would then vindicate the promise of God, and a person of this camp could say that the Qur’an collected by Hazrat Ali was the manifestation of that promise. On the other hand, those who did not believe in the transposition of the Qur’an would say that the only difference between the present specimen of the Qur’an and that of Imam Ali’s version, was that its collection was according to the chronology of revelation and the notes had been dictated by the Prophet. This is why Ibn Saireen said that if the Qur’an collected by Ali (‘a) was available, we would have a treasure of information with us.

Another question worth considering was that what do we understand from the phrase - God’s protection?

It was possible that it meant that no one could defeat Qur’an with any kind of logical arguments. This was such a truth that could not be denied, because many centuries have passed and no one could answer the challenge of the Qur’an. Therefore, with all these possibilities this Verse could not be used to defend the original thesis that no subtraction or reduction could be done with the Qur’an.

This clear-cut reality was accepted by some pragmatic Sunni scholars and therefore, Allama Fakhruddin Razi had criticised Allama Baqalani’s arguments on the basis of the above Verse by saying, “This argument was weak because it was using the claim to defend itself with the same claim, which was wrong.

The second set of Qur’anic Verses wrongly used to rebut transposition is:

…وَإِنَّهُ لَكِتَابٌ عَزِيزٌ

“… and most surely it is a Mighty Book” (41:41).

لَّا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنزِيلٌ مِّنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ

“Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One” (41:42).

These Verse were also not helpful to advance their argument due to following reasons:

The use of these Verses is also subject to the same criticism. Did they include reference to all copies of the Qur’an by various individuals or a specific one? Naturally, all of its copies cannot be included and we had to assume a specific individual, which was proven by the presence of a single Qur’an that of Imam Ali.

What did we understand by the phrase that falsehood cannot penetrate it? Although, transposition was an abominable task, but its meanings could also be that its earlier and later Verses had no contradictions in it, which could be taken as a reason to prove it wrong. It was also possible that the phrase might mean that no previously revealed books denied Qur’an and no new message would come that could contradict it, and make its laws redundant, just as it was mentioned in Tafsir Al-Qummi on the authority of Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir (‘a), who said, “No Verse from the Old and New Testament has opposed Qur’an and nothing would come later to deny it. Therefore, this Verse too cannot help the opponents of Tahrif”.

Clarification Of A Doubt

It was usually thought that by accepting transposition, trust was lost in the entire book. We have already explained this point earlier and can further point out that if transposition was accepted in a manner that the places of transposition were not identified, then certainly it could cause mistrust of the whole Qur’an, but as the exponents of this view claimed that if the material that was erased and the place from where it was erased were identifiable, then the remaining contents were cleared of any doubt.

Narrations regarding Tahrif were of two types – one, were those which simply mentioned that transposition in Qur’an had taken place and the other were those that identified what sentences were removed and from where those are expunged. This made the remaining Qur’an free of any doubt, especially when the present text was verified by the Imams.

Explanation Of The Term Sabas Ahraf

The respectable author quoted a Hadith of Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) that, which stated that the Qur’an was one, and it was sent by one God. This Hadith has invalidated a famous hypothesis, which was very famous among our critics, and some of our own narrations also go along with it. It was mentioned that the Prophet of God had said that the Qur’an was revealed on seven letters, and each of those letters were sufficient and adequate. There is huge gulf between various commentators on the true meanings of these words, but two possible statements were very famous.

- These seven letters meant seven different recitations of the Qur’an.

- This also meant the variation of linguistic trends among the Arabs. It was said that the Qur’an was transmitted on different Arabic literary trends. These were – Quraish, Hazeel, Hawazan and Yemen.

Some of the other Ahadith from our side also gave another interpretation of this Hadith. It was reported that Imam Ali (‘a) had said, “Qur’an is revealed in seven categories, which are – Amr, Zajr, Targeeb, Tarheeb, Amsal, Jadal and Qasas.

These meanings were supplemented by other Ahadith as well. Bahiqi narrated from Ibn Masud who had said that the previous heavenly books had been revealed on a single pattern, but Qur’an was revealed on seven kinds - Zajr (reprimand), Amr (commandments), Halal (permissible), Haram (prohibited), Mohkam (Firm), Motashabeh (Resembling) and Amsal.

Another explanation of the seven letters was also rendered by Imams as that there are were levels of Qur’anic understandings. However, very reliable narrations of our faith, which claimed that the Qur’an was revealed on a single letter, were against this view of seven recitations.

Fazeel Ibn Yasaar said in his booklet that he asked Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) that some people had claimed that Qur’an was revealed on seven letters (seven recitations). Imam said that these enemies of God were lying, in fact the Qur’an had been revealed on single letter.

According to Zarara Ibn Aa’een Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir (‘a) had said that Qur’an was one and it was sent by the one God. Its disparity in words was initiated by its reporters and its conveyors (Qari). This theory was commonly accepted by our great masters, such as Shaykh At-Tusi who writes in the foreword of Al-Tibyan, “The famous premises of our scholars on which their major narrations depend are that Qur’an is revealed on a single letter and on one Prophet. However, its categories of seven or more inner levels are authenticated by another narration, which cannot be denied.”

Ali Is The Leader Of The Faithful

So far as the Father of all Imams, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (‘a) was concerned, this title of Amir Al-Mu’minin was specially granted by the Prophet along with another designation – Qaed-ul-Ghur-ul-Muhajejeen, i.e. leader of the people with radiating (with light) foreheads. This was frequently quoted in both Shi’a and Sunni sources.

Marriage Of Ali Took Place Under The Commandment Of God

Similarly, God’s commandment to the Prophet that He had authorised the marriage of Fatimah with Ali in the heavens therefore, he should perform the marriage contract on earth was also contained in abundance in Sunni literature (for reference see Yanabe ul Mowadda and Arjah al-Matalib).

Commandment To Greet People With Pleasant Attitude

If true explanation of religious charter was needed then it would require many volumes, but if its synopsis was required then the spirit of the religion could be summarised in two phrases - submission to the God’s commandments and compassion and concern with the public at large.

This showed that religion had two major departments - one, in the terminology of behavioural sciences as Huququllah (Rights of God on people) and Huququnaas (Rights of people). The second department was more significant than the other as it was discussed earlier in the chapter regarding accounting of deeds on the Day of Judgement. The family of the Prophet greatly insisted to redress the chapter of Huququnaas.

The Prophet of God had said: “Whatever you desire for yourself, aspire it for your brothers in the community, and negate it for him that you negate it for yourself”. Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a) said: “Spend your time among people in a manner that if you go somewhere, their hearts must be attracted towards you (i.e. they might miss your company), and if you had died then the people should be seen crying for you”. Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) said that the quality of humanity could not be judged by the abundance of prayers and fasting, but it could be identified by your treatment and dealings with the people.

Alternative Explanation Is Necessary For Metaphoric Verses

Whenever, a Verse was in contrast to the accepted norms (logic and law), then it must be explained in a manner that the apparent contradiction associated with it must disappear. The respected author pointed to a famous personality (the Prophet) for whom this article was applicable.

As the virtuosity of the Prophet of God was an established fact, therefore, if an allegorical Verse seems to be contradicting with this view, then its alternative explanation was necessary. The justification, which the learned author provided, was correct according to various narrations of Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) and Imam Ar-Ridha (‘a), which explained that such warnings were sometimes necessary to warn people of the gravity and significance of the message. These warnings were delivered by addressing the Prophet instead of the populace.

The author also explained in this chapter that the Prophet was the most elevated among all the Prophets and his true Ummah was the best among all nations. God willing, this subject will be discussed in detail in chapter thirty-five.

• 1. Tafsir Itteqan Vol. 2, p. 25.