Category: Qur’an


Bismillah al rahman al raheem, Allahuma Salli Ala Muhammad Wa Alihi wa Sahbih.

The Shia infallible future knowing Imam has publicly stated that the Quran is corrupt in order save his own skin!

The First truth:

Naskh or the abrogation of text is that some of the verses were being read as part of the Quran then Allah abrogated them so the Muslims abandoned reading them, this is illustrated by the Sahih narration in bukhari:

Ameer al mumineen Umar bin al Khattab RA said: “God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him and from what had been revealed was the verse on stoning(Rajm), we read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession…”

So from what was abrogated was this verse on stoning however the ruling(hukm) had remained the same and was not abrogated.

The Shia scholars however were desperate in their attempts to prove that “Tahreef” or Corruption in the Quran is also found in the books of the other Muslims and not just their own books. So some of them denied the abrogation(Naskh) of verses and claimed that he who believes in abrogation is like he who believes in Tahreef or corruption of the book of Allah.

Grand Ayatullah abu al Qassim al Khoe’i the past leader of the Hawza of Najaf says in his book “Al bayan fi tafseer al Quran” page 201:

– يقول آيتهم العظمى أبو القاسم الخوئي في كتابه ( البيان في تفسير القرآن ) ص 201:
[ أقول : سيظهر لك – بعيد هذا – أن القول بنسخ التلاوة هو بعينه القول بالتحريف ، وعليه فاشتهار القول بوقوع النسخ في التلاوة – عند علماء أهل السنة – يستلزم اشتهار القول بالتحريف …

{and it will be proven to you that the saying of abrogation(Naskh) is in itself the saying of Tahreef and corruption, based upon this the popularity of abrogation amongst the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah is necessarily equal to the popularity of the saying of Tahreef.}

وقال ص 205: وغير خفي أن القول بنسخ التلاوة بعينه القول بالتحريف والإسقاط …

in page 205 he says: { and it is clear that the saying of abrogation is exactly the saying of corruption and deletion }.

وقال ص 202: أقول : وآية الرجم التي ادعى عمر أنها من القرآن ، ولم تقبل منه رويت بوجوه : منها : ; إذا زنى
الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة ، نكالا من الله ، والله عزيز حكيم ومنها ; الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة ، بما قضيا من اللذة ومنها ، إن الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة وكيف كان فليس في القرآن الموجود ما يستفاد منه حكم الرجم . فلو صحت الرواية فقد سقطت آية من القرآن لا محالة.

in page 202 he says: {and the verse of Stoning(Rajm) which Umar had claimed it to be a part of the Quran and it wasn’t accepted from him was narrated in various faces: such as: “Itha Zana al Sheikh wal Sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah, Nikalan min Allah, wa Allah Aziz” and ” Al Sheikh wal Sheikhah farjumouhuma al battah, bima Qadaya min Al-Lathah” and ” Inna al Sheikh wal Sheikhah Itha Zanaya Farjumouhuma al Battah” and regardless of how it is recited we do not find it in the Quran that there is no ruling for Rajm thus if the narration is Sahih then a Verse was no doubt dropped from the Quran”.

يقول علامتهم محمد حسين الطباطبائي في تفسيره ( الميزان في تفسير القرآن ) ( 12 / 125 ):
[ وأما حملهم الرواية وسائر ما ورد في التحريف وقد ذكر الآلوسي في تفسيره أنها فوق حد الإحصاء على منسوخ التلاوة فقد عرفت فساده وتحققت أن إثبات منسوخ التلاوة أشنع من إثبات أصل التحريف ].

The big Shia scholar muhammad Hussein al tabtaba’e in his tafseer “Al Meezan fi tafseer al Quran” 12/125:
{As for them -Sunni Scholars- considering this narration of Tahreef and all others related to it in which the Scholar al Alusi said in His tafseer that they are countless, they consider them Abrogated recitations but this saying is corrupt and I verified that the saying of abrogation is even worse than the sayings of Tahreef.}

يقول علامتهم ومحققهم جعفر السبحاني في كتابه ( مفاهيم القرآن ) ( 10 / 364 ):
[ وقد قسموا النسخ إلى ثلاثة أقسام :
1 – نسخ التلاوة والحكم .
2 – نسخ التلاوة دون الحكم .
3 – نسخ الحكم دون التلاوة .
والأول : بين الفساد لا يقول به إلا القائل بالتحريف في الكتاب العزيز ، والمسلمون براء منه إلا الحشوية من العامة وبعض الأخباريين من الخاصة . ومثل للثاني : بآية الرجم ، وأنه كان في القرآن الكريم ثم نسخ ، والقول به أيضا يلازم القول بالتحريف المصون عنه كتاب الله العزيز ].

The famous Shia scholar and muhaqqiq called Ja’afar al Subhani in his book “Mafaheem al Quran” 10/364 says:

{And they (Sunnies) have divided abrogation to three types:
1- Abrogating the recitation and the ruling(Hukm).
2- Abrogating the recitation without the ruling.
3- Abrogating the ruling without the recitation.
and the first: it is clear that the first saying is corrupt and the only one who says it is he who believes in the corruption of the holy book and the Muslims are innocent of this except for the mainstream muslims (sunnies) and the Akhbari Shia. as for the second: it is the example of the verses of stoning and that it was in the Quran and then abrogated, this saying is also identical to the saying of Tahreef and corruption…}

يقول حجتهم محمد باقر الحكيم في كتابه ( علوم القرآن ) ص 204-205:
[ فقد قسموا النسخ إلى ثلاثة اقسام نوجزها بما يلي : الأول : نسخ التلاوة دون الحكم : ويقصد بهذا النسخ أن تكون هناك آية قرآنية نزلت على الرسول ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) ، ثم نسخت تلاوتها ونصها اللفظي مع الاحتفاظ بما تضمنه من أحكام . وقد مثلوا لهذا القسم بآية الرجم التي روي عن عمر بن الخطاب نصها : إذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة نكالا من الله والله عزيز حكيم حيث قيل إنها كانت آية في القرآن الكريم نسخت تلاوتها مع الاحتفاظ بحكمها . وهذا القسم وإن كاد يعترف به أكثر الباحثين من علماء الجمهور في علوم القرآن ، إلا أنه لا يكاد يعترينا الشك ببطلانه وعدم ثبوته في القرآن الكريم عندما ندرسه بشكل موضوعي ، وذلك لأنه : أولا : نجد أن الاعتراف بهذا اللون من النصوص والروايات التي أوردتها بعض الكتب الصحيحة ( السنية ) يؤدي بنا إلى الالتزام بالتحريف … ].

The renowned Shia scholar Muhammad baqir al hakim says in his book “Uloom al Quran” pages 204-205:
{ They (sunnies) have divided Naskh to three kinds, we mention them briefly: First: Abrogating the recitation without the ruling: what is meant is that there would be a verse which descended on the prophet PBUH then the oral recitation of it would be abrogated but the ruling remains intact, They have given an example regarding this type of abrogation in the verse of Stoning which was narrated from Umar bin al Khattab: “itha Zana al Sheih wal Sheikhah…” It is said that this verse was in the Quran but it was abrogated and the ruling remained… We have no doubt that this saying is corrupt when we study study it from an objective point of view because: first of all: we find that admitting to this kind of saying and its narrations which are found in some of the Sahih Sunni books leads us to confirm the corruption of the Quran…}

The Second truth:

They narrated two narrations from the Imam al Sadiq RA in which he confirms the verse of stoning:

روى الكليني في الكافي ( 7 / 177 ):
[ وبإسناده ، عن يونس ، عن عبد الله سنان قال : قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام :الرجم في القرآن قول الله عزوجل :إذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة ].

Their sheikh Al Kulayni narrated in “al Kafi” 7/177:
With its Isnad from Younes from Abdullah Sinan that he said: Abu Abdullah PBUH said: Al Rajim(Stoning) in the Quran is the saying of Allah swt: “Itha Zana al Sheikh wal sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah”.

روى صدوقهم ابن بابويه القمي في كتابه ( من لا يحضره الفقيه )( 4 / 26 ):
[ وروى هشام بن سالم ، عن سليمان بن خالد قال :قلت لابي عبد الله ( عليه السلام ) : في القرآن رجم ؟ قال : نعم ، قلت : كيف ؟ قال :الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة.

Their Sheikh al Saduq Ibn babaweih al Qummi in his book “Man La Yahduruhu al faqeeh” 4/26:
Hashim bin Salem narrated from Suleiman bin Khaled that he said: I said to Abu Abdullah PBUH: is there stoning in the Quran? the Imam said: Yes, I said: How? He said: “Al Sheikh wal Sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah”.

The Third truth:

Some of their scholars who said these Narrations are authentic and Sahih:

يعلق علامتهم المجلسي على رواية الكافي أعلاه في كتابه ( مرآة العقول ) ( 23 / 267 ) بقوله:
[ صحيح. وعدت هذه الآية مما نسخت تلاوتها دون حكمها ، ورويت بعبارات أخر أيضا ، وعلى أي حال فهي مختصة بالمحصن منهما على طريقة الأصحاب ، ويحتمل التعميم كما هو الظاهر ].

Their famous scholar al Majlisi comments on the narration of “al Kafi” above in his book “Mira’at al Uqool” 23/267:

{This is SAHIH and it is counted amongst the verses whose recitation was abrogated without its ruling, it was narrated in different forms also and either way it is exclusive for those who are married according to the method of our close companions and generalization is possible from what is apparent.}

علَّق شيخهم علي أكبر غفاري محقق كتاب من لا يحضره الفقيه على الرواية الثانية مشيراً إلى صحتها وكذلك صحة رواية الكافي الأولى ، فقال:
[ السند صحيح ، وروى نحوه الكليني والشيخ أيضا في الصحيح عن عبد الله بن سنان عنه ( عليه السلام ) وقيل : انها منسوخة التلاوة ثابتة الحكم ].

The big Sheikh and Muhaqqiq of the main shia book “Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih” Sheikh Ali Akbar Ghafari commented on the second narration pointing to its authenticity and that of the first one in al Kafi:

{ The Sanad is SAHIH, Sheikh al Kulayni also narrated one like it in a SAHIH from Abdullah bin Sinan from the Imam PBUH and it is said that: ” Its recitation is abrogated and its ruling is intact”.}

يعترف آيتهم العظمى الخوئي بصحة إسناد الروايتين في كتابه ( مباني تكملة المنهاج )( 1 / 195 ) حيث قال عن رواية الكافي:
[ وأما ما ورد في صحيحة عبد الله بن سنان عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام ، قال : ( الرجم في القرآن قول الله عز وجل إذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة )]

Their grand ayatullah al kheo’i also admits to the authenticity of both narrations in his book “Mabani takmilat al Minhaj” 1/195:

He said about the narration in al Kafi: {As for what is mentioned in the SAHIH of Abdullah bin Sinan from abu abdullah PBUH he said: Al Rajim(Stoning) in the Quran is the saying of Allah swt: “Itha Zana al Sheikh wal sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah”.}

وقال عن رواية الصدوق في الفقيه:
[ ونحوها صحيحة سليمان بن خالد قال : ( قلت لأبي عبد الله ( ع ) في القرآن رجم ؟ قال : نعم ، قلت كيف ؟ قال : الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة ، فإنهما قضيا الشهوة ) ].

Also regarding the other narration in “al Faqih” he said:
{And one like it in the SAHIH of Suleiman bin Khaled that he said: I said to Abu Abdullah PBUH: is there stoning in the Quran? the Imam said: Yes, I said: How? He said: “Al Sheikh wal Sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah”.}

The Fourth truth:

This shows that the Shia have attributed the saying of Tahreef to the Imam Ja’afar al Sadiq RA especially since they admitted that the narrations are authentic:

بل وصرح بذلك آيتهم العظمى محمد رضا الگلپايگاني في كتابه ( در المنضود )( 1 / 283):
[ وفي رواية عبد الله بن سنان عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال : الرجم في القرآن قول الله عز وجل : إذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة ( 4 ) . وفي رواية سليمان بن خالد قال : قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام : في القرآن رجم ؟ قال : نعم . قلت : كيف ؟ قال : الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة ( 5 ) . فمقتضى الأخيرتين هو وجوب الرجم فقط بخلاف الروايات المتقدمة عليهما فإنها صريحة في الجمع بين الجلد والرجم . ولا يخفى أن روايتي عبد الله بن سنان وسليمان بن خالد ظاهرتان في وقوع التحريف في القرآن الكريم ].

Their Grand Ayatullah Muhammad Reda al kalbaykani says in his book “Durr al Mandoud” 1/283:
{and in the narration of Abdullah bin Sinan from Abu abdullah PBUH that he said: Al Rajim(Stoning) in the Quran is the saying of Allah swt: “Itha Zana al Sheikh wal sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah” (4) and in the narration of Suleiman bin Khaled that he said: I said to Abu Abdullah PBUH: is there stoning in the Quran? the Imam said: Yes, I said: How? He said: “Al Sheikh wal Sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah” (5) What we can conclude from these last two is that stoning is only required as opposed to the previous ones which join between stoning and flogging. It is no secret that the narrations of Abdullah bin Sinan and Suleiman bin Khaled are openly stating that the Quran is corrupt.}

The Fifth truth:

it is also no secret that the Shia Aqeedah is self-conflicting and often contradicts itself so the only excuse or the only Idol that the shia scholars run off to in order to save this rotten sect is… TAQIYYAH!

حيث قال بعد إيراده للروايتين في كتابه ( مباني تكملة المنهاج )( 1 / 196 ):
[ ولا شك في أنهما وردتا مورد التقية ، فإن الأصل في هذا الكلام هو عمر بن الخطاب ، فإنه ادعى أن الرجم مذكور في القرآن ].

The Past leader of the Hawzah of Najaf and the Grand Ayatullah al Khoe’i mentions the two narrations in his book “Mabani Takmilat al minhaj” 1/196 and then he comments by saying:
{And there is no doubt that both of these narrations are done as Taqqiyah by the Imam, because the origin of this saying is Umar bin al Khattab who claimed that stoning was part of the Quran.}

What al Khoe’i was trying to say here is that Imam al Sadiq RA did taqqiyah and claimed twice that the Quran is corrupted only so he can avoid being in harm’s way and save his own skin.

The Sixth truth:

Making Taqqiyah and saying that the Quran is corrupt in order to avoid harm is supposedly against the purpose of Having al infallible Imam in the first place:

يروي محدثهم محمد بن الحسن الصفار في كتابه ( بصائر الدرجات ) ص 351:
[ حدثنا محمد بن عبد الجبار عن عبد الله بن الحجال عن ثعلبة عن إسحاق بن عمار قال، قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: إن الأرض لا تخلو من أن يكون فيها من يعلم الزيادة والنقصان، فإذا جاء المسلمون بزيادة طرحها وإذا جاؤوا بالنقصان أكمله لهم ولولا ذلك لاختلط على المسلمين أمرهم ].

Their Muhaddith Muhammad bin al Hassan al Saffar writes in his book “Basa’er al darajat” 351:
{Muhamad bin abdul Jabbar told us from Abdullah bin al Hajjal from tha’alabah bin Ishaq bin Ammar that he said: Abu Abdullah PBUH said:The earth will never be without an Imam who knows the additions and deletions, So if the Muslims bring forth an Addition he will erase it and if they make a deletion then he will remind them of what they missed, if it weren’t for this the Muslims would lose their path.}

يروي رئيس محدثيهم ابن بابويه القمي في كتابه ( الإمامة والتبصرة ) ص 29-30:
[ سعد ، عن محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد ، عن محمد بن سنان وصفوان بن يحيى وعبد الله بن المغيرة وعلي بن النعمان ، كلهم : عن عبد الله بن مسكان ، عن أبي بصير : عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام ، قال : إن الله لم يدع الأرض إلا وفيها عالم يعلم الزيادة والنقصان، فإذا زاد المؤمنون ردهم ، وإن نقصوا أكمله لهم ، فقال : خذوه كاملا ، ولولا ذلك لالتبس على المؤمنين أمرهم ، ولم يفرق بين الحق والباطل ].

The leader of their Muhadetheen Ibn babaweih al Qummi in his book “Al Imamah wal tabsirah” 29-30:
{Sa’ad from Muhammad bin isa bin ubeid frommuhammad bin sinan and safwan bin yahya and abdulah bin al mugheerah and ali bin al nu’uman all of them from abdullah bin maskan from abu baseer from Abu Abdullah PBUH that he said: Allah will not leave the earth without an Imam who knows the additions and deletions, if the believers add then he will correct them and if they missed out on something then he will remind them, he said: … And if it weren’t for that then there’d be confusion amongst the Muslims and they wouldn’t be able to distinguish right from wrong.}

روى ثقتهم الكليني في كتابه ( الكافي )( 1 / 178 ):
[ علي بن إبراهيم ، عن أبيه ، عن محمد بن أبي عمير ، عن منصور بن يونس وسعدان ابن مسلم ، عن إسحاق بن عمار ، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال : سمعته يقول : إن الأرض لا تخلو إلا وفيها إمام ، كيما إن زاد المؤمنون شيئا ردهم ، وإن نقصوا شيئا أتمه لهم ].

Their Thiqah al Kulayni writes in his book “Al Kafi” 1/178:
{Ali bin ibrahim from his father from Muhammad bin Abu Umayr from Mansour bin younes and sa’adan ibn muslim from ishaq bin ammar from Abu abdullah PBUH he said: I heard him say: The earth shall not perish unless there is an Imam on it who corrects the Muslims if they add something and if they miss something he completes it for them.}

اعترف شيخهم هادي النجفي في صحة سند رواية الكافي هذه في كتابه ( موسوعة أحاديث أهل البيت )( 3 / 58 ) حيث قال:
[ الرواية صحيحة الإسناد].

The Shia sheikh Hadi al Najafi even admits that the narration in al Kafi above is SAHIH in his book “Mawsou’at Ahadith Ahlulbayt” 3/58:
{The Narration has a SAHIH Isnad.}

اعترف محققهم الميرزا القمي بتواتر تلك الأخبار حيث قال في كتابه ( قوانين الأصول ) ص 350:
[ وهي أنه اعتمد في ذلك على ما رواه أصحابنا من الأخبار المتواترة من أن الزمان لا يخلو من حجة كي إن زاد المؤمنون شيئا ردهم وإن نقصوا أتمه لهم ولولا ذلك لاختلط على الناس أمورهم ].

Not only that but their scholar and Muhaqqiq al Mirza al Qummi even says that these narrations are Mutawatir(absolutely Authentic) in his book “Qawanin al Usool” page 350:
{and that we have relied upon what our close companions have narrated from the MUTAWATIR(authentic) news that the times will never be without an Imam Hujjah so he can correct the believers if they added something and remind them if they mistakenly deleted something and if it weren’t for this the people would be confused in their affairs.}

اعترف شيخهم محمد الريشهري بتلك الغاية من الإمام المعصوم في كتابه ( القيادة في الإسلام ) ص 47 حيث قال:
[ قال الإمام الصادق ( عليه السلام ) مبينا الحكمة من وجود الإمام : إن الأرض لا تخلو إلا وفيها إمام ، كي ما إن زاد المؤمنون شيئا ردهم ، وإن نقصوا شيئا أتمه لهم . وهذه الرواية أيضا – كذيل الرواية الواردة في علل الشرائع – ترى أن فلسفة الإمامة حراسة الإسلام القويم وصيانته من التحريف ].قوانين الأصول – الميرزا القمي – ص 3506-

Their sheikh Muhamad al Raishehri confirmed this purpose in his book “Al Qiyadah fil islam” 47:
{Al Imam al Sadiq PBUH said while proving the wisdom behind having an Imam: The earth shall never be left without an Imam that if the believers add something he will correct them and if they missed something he will correct them. and this narration also proves that the purpose of an Imam is to protect the religion and safeguard it from Tahreef and corruption. [Qawanin al Usool – al mirza al Qummi – page 3506.}

وأيضا أثبت شيخهم المنتظري تلك الغاية من وجود الإمام المعصوم في كتابه ( دراسات في ولاية الفقيه وفقه الدولة الإسلامية )( 1 / 200 ) فقال:
[ أقول : الأخبار المتواترة الصادرة عن الأئمة المعصومين والاحتجاجات المروية عن أصحابهم ( عليهم السلام ) كهشام وغيره الدالة على لزوم الإمام والهادي والحجة والعالم الحافظ للدين عن التحريف والتغيير ].

Also their sheikh al Muntaziri proved this purpose of having an infallible Imam in his book “Dirasat Fi Wilayat al faqih wa Fiqah al Dawlah al islamiyah” 1/200:
{I say: The MUTAWATIR news which comes from the infallible Imams and the proofs which were narrated from their companions like Hisham and others all point to the necessity of having an Imam and guide and Hujjah and the scholar who protects this religion from Tahreef and corruption.}

صرح بتلك الغاية من المعصوم علامتهم محسن الأمين في كتابه ( أعيان الشيعة )( 2 / 49 ) حيث قال:
[ وكما يجب إرسال الرسل من قبل الله تعالى يجب نصب أوصياء لهم يقومون مقامهم في حفظ الشريعة وتأديتها إلى الناس ونفي التحريف والتبديل عنها ].

Shia scholar Muhsin al Ameen says in “A’ayan al Shia” 2/49:
{and like it was necessary to send messengers from Allah swt it is also obligatory to place Awsiyah for those messengers so they can replace them in protecting Shariah and to reject Tahreef and corruption.}

So we see here that they decided that the purpose of the Imam is to safeguard the Shariah from corruption and additions and deletions Then they automitically shift their position when their Imam clearly and publicly states that the Quran is corrupted and changed. aren’t the infallible future knowing imams supposed to protect the Quran and the religion even if their lives had to become sacrifice for it? instead we find the exact opposite where the Imam himself corrupts the Quran in order save his skin and avoid hardships.
Did the Imam ja’afar al Sadiq RA corrupt the most important thing in the world because he was too attached to life?

The Seventh truth:

يقول علامتهم ومحققهم جعفر السبحاني في كتابه ( أضواء على عقائد الإمامية ) ص 423 تحت عنوان ( التقية المحرمة ):
[ إن التقية تنقسم حسب الأحكام الخمسة ، فكما أنها تجب لحفظ النفوس والأعراض والأموال ، فإنها تحرم إذا ترتب عليها مفسدة أعظم ، كهدم الدين وخفاء الحقيقة على الأجيال الآتية ، وتسلط الأعداء على شؤون المسلمين وحرماتهم ومقدساتهم ، ولأجل ذلك ترى أن كثيرا من أكابر الشيعة رفضوا التقية في بعض الأحيان وقدموا أنفسهم وأرواحهم أضاحي من أجل الدين ].

Their Scholar Ja’afar al Subhani says in his book “Adwa’a ala Aqaed al Imamiyah” p423 under title “Al Taqqiyah al Muharramah” or “The Forbidden Taqqiyah”:
{Taqqiyah is divided according to the Ahkam to five parts, just like it is permitted in case you need to protect the self and family and the wealth, it is also forbidden if it causes a great corruption like destroying the religion and concealing the truth from the coming generations and giving dominance to the enemies of the Muslims over them, because of this you will see a lot of the Akabir of the Shia refusing to make Taqqiyah in some curcumstances and they sacrificed themselves and souls for the sake of the religion.}

يقول آيتهم العظمى محمد صادق الروحاني في كتابه ( فقه الصادق )( 11/ 407-408 ):
[ إذا كانت التقية بحيث تجلب إلى المؤمن ذلة وحقارة وحطة عن شرافته ومقامه إذا كتم الحق ولم يظهره ، فإنه تحرم عليه التقية حينئذ ، ويجب عليه أن يعرج على قول الحق حتى لو استلزم أن يعرض نفسه وأمواله للنهب والهلاك ، ويستبدل الحياة الفانية الحقيرة في ولاية الظالمين بالحياة الباقية عند الله تعالى ]

Grand Ayatulah Muhammad Sadiq al Roohani says in his book “Fiqh al Sadiq” 11/407-408:
{If Taqqiyah brings upon the believer disgrace and degradation and lowers his honour and rank if he concealed the truth then in that situation Taqqiyah is HARAM for him and he has to speak the truth even if he has to face hardships which place his self and his wealth in peril, he exchanges the ephemeral pathetic life in the Wilayah of the oppressors with eternal everlasting life with Allah swt.}

يقول شيخهم فارس الحسون في تقديمه لكتاب ( إرشاد الأذهان ) لعلامتهم الحلي ( 1 / 9-10 ):
[ الفقه يؤكد على تحمل غصص القتل مع العزة دفاعاً عن العرض والدين أهون من البقاء مع الذلة ، وذلك بذكره أحكام الجهاد مع المعتدين ، وتأكيده أن المقتول في سبيل الله حي والباقي مع الذلة هو الميت ].

Their Sheikh Faris al hassoun says while introducing the book “Irshad al Azhan” for their famous scholar al Helli 1/9-10:
{The Fiqh confirms that one must go through hardships and even death with honour while defending the family and religion, that is less easier than remaining alive with disgrace and this is by mentioning the Ahkam of Jihad against the enemies, it confirms that he who dies for Allah is alive with dignity and the one that accepts disgrace so he can live is dead.}

The Eighth truth:

Even though they claim that their Imam openly said that the Quran is corrupt in order to realize his purpose which was remaining alive YET we see that this purpose was NEVER realised according to the Shia anyway because they say that all of their Imams died either by the sword or by poison.

يذكر شيخهم الصدوق في كتابه ( عيون أخبار الرضا ) ( 2 / 193 ):
[ وجميع الأئمة الأحد عشر بعد النبي ( ص ) قتلوا منهم بالسيف وهو أمير المؤمنين والحسين عليهما السلام والباقون قتلوا بالسم قتل كل واحد منهم طاغية زمانه وجرى ذلك عليهم على الحقيقة والصحة ].

Their Sheikh al Saduq mentions in the book “Uyoun Akhbar al Reda” 2/193:
{And all of the eleven Imams after the prophet PBUH have been murdered with a sword such as Ameer Ali and Hussein PBUT while the others died with poison each by a tyrant of his time and this was actual true death.}

– end –

So in conclusion the Shia claim that Ja’afar bin Muhammad never protected the book of Allah and couldn’t protect his own life as he died in poison THUS he never fulfilled the purpose of an infallible future knowing Imam.

He started telling the people even his own shia that the Quran is corrupted thinking that by doing so he will escape with his life but he thought wrong and he was murdered by the tyrant of his time anyway.

Al Salamu Aleykum,

by: Tripolysunni (may Allah reward him)

Advertisements

This article investigates the usage of the word “Imam” in the Qur’an to see whether the Qur’an provides any support to the Shi‘i concept of Imamah. In it a description is first given of Imamah as conceived of by the Shi‘ah, and that is followed by a detailed scrutiny of every place in the Qur’an where the word “Imam” or its plural “A’immah” has been used by Allah Ta‘ala.
There is no gainsaying that of all differences that exist between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah, the issue of Imamah is by far the most serious. It is in fact quite within the limits of reason and logic to say that the question of Imamah is the root of all Sunni-Shi‘i differences; all other differences will upon closer scrutiny be found to result from the difference that exists on that central point.
Therefore, no person or organisation who is serious about bringing Shi‘is and Sunnis closer to one another can afford to ignore the doctrine of Imamah. All endeavours aimed at removing the barriers that separate the Ahl as-Sunnah from the Shi‘ah must start from this point. Starting from anywhere else would be similar to treating the symptoms, and not the cause, of a disease. For a while the symptoms might disappear, only to be reactivated at a later stage by the dormant cause. Likewise, attempting to solve Sunni-Shi‘i differences from any perspective other than that of its root, Imamah, might for the immediate moment create the impression of removing obstacles to Muslim unity. In reality those very same obstacles will return as soon as the euphoria at the creation of that unity subsides.

 

As Muslims we are obliged to refer the differences that exist amongst us to Allah and His Rasul. In this series of articles we refer the doctrine of Imamah to the Qur’an, with the purpose of ascertaining whether this doctrine as conceived of and believed in by the Ithna ‘Ashari (or Ja‘fari) Shi‘ah is justified by Divine Revelation or not.

The Doctrine of Imamah

Before going any further it would be well-advised, for the benefit of those who may not be fully aware of what the Imamah of the Shi‘ah means, to expand somewhat upon the detail of the issue. Once the reader has a proper focus of what Imamah means to the Shi‘ah, and what its position in the belief structure of the Shi‘ah is, we will continue with our discussion of that doctrine in the light of the Qur’an.
Essentially, Imamah is about leadership of the Ummah after the demise of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. The Shi‘ah believe that just as Allah chose Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam as His Messenger to mankind, he chose and appointed a line of twelve men to succeed him as the leaders of the Ummah in all matters, spiritual as well as temporal. The first of these leaders, or Imams as they are called, was ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu. He was succeeded by his eldest son Hasan, and he by his brother Husayn. After Husayn the Imamah continued in his progeny until the year 260AH, when the twelfth Imam, a child of five, disappeared upon the death of his father. He is believed to be the Awaited Mahdi who will return from occultation to establish justice upon the earth. To these twelve men from amongst the family of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam alone belongs the right to assume leadership of the Ummah. There are two aspects to Imamah that need to be looked at with attention. The first is the nature of the appointment of the Imams, and the second is the nature of their office.

The nature of the appointment
of the Twelve Imams

As far as the nature of their appointment is concerned, it is a matter of consensus amongst the Shi‘ah that the right of their twelve Imams to lead the Ummah was bestowed by Allah Ta‘ala Himself. No distinction is made between the appointment of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam as the Messenger of Allah and the appointment of the twelve Imams as his successors. Underscoring this vital aspect of Imamah, ‘Allamah Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita, who was the most prominent Shi‘i ‘alim of Najaf in Iraq during the seventies, writes in his book Asl ash-Shi‘ah wa-Usuluha:
Imamah is a divine station, just like Nubuwwah. Just as Allah chooses whomsoever He wants to for Nubuwwah and Risalah … similarly, for Imamah too, He selects whomsoever He wishes.1
It is interesting to note that the book from which this statement is drawn was written for the express purpose of correcting contemporary misconceptions about the Shi‘ah. Since Imamah is then for all practical purposes on exactly the same plane as Nubuwwah and Risalah, consistency would dictate that the rejection of Imamah be censured with the same severity as the rejection of Nubuwwah and Risalah. If rejection of the Nubuwwah of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam cast the likes of Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab outside the fold of Islam, then it is only logical to expect that rejection of the Imamah of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu should cast the likes of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and the rest of the
Sahabah radiyallahu ‘anhum out of the fold of Islam. For one who views the problem from this perspective it thus comes as no surprise to find the Shi‘ah narrating from their Imams that “all the people became murtadd after the death of Rasulullah, except three,”2 since it is consistent with the principle that equates Imamah with Nubuwwah in the sense that each of them is a position appointed by Allah.
What is surprising is the opinion the Shi‘ah of today express about the Ahl as-Sunnah in general. One would expect them to say about the Ahl as-Sunnah as they have said about the Sahabah: that they are unbelievers, out of the fold of Islam. After all, there are many non-Muslims who believe in the oneness of Allah, but do not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, and for that reason we all regard them as unbelievers. If Imamah is then a “divine station, like Nubuwwah,” Sunnis who do not believe in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams must also be unbelievers. There have been many ‘ulama of the Shi‘ah in the past who have displayed consistency in this regard and declared all those who deny the Imamah of the Twelve Imams—like the Ahl as-Sunnah—unbelievers. For example, Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (died 381AH), the author of one of the four canonical hadith collections of the Shi‘ah, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, states in the treatise in which he expounds the creed of the Shi‘ah:
It is our belief about one who rejects the Imamah of Amir al-Mu’minin (Sayyiduna ‘Ali) and the Imams after him that he is the same as one who rejects the Nubuwwah of the Ambiya’.
It is our belief concerning a person who accepts (the Imamah of) Amir al-Mu’minin but rejects any one of the Imams after him, that he is similar to one who believes in all the Ambiya’ but rejects the Nubuwwah of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. The Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam said: “The Imams after me are twelve. The first is Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the last is the Qa’im (the Mahdi). Obedience to them is obedience to me, and disobedience to them is disobedience to me. Thus, whoever rejects one of them has rejected me.”
Whoever wrongfully claims the Imamah is an accursed oppressor. Whoever places the Imamah in anyone besides its rightful repositories is an accursed oppressor. The Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam said: “Whoever shall deny ‘Ali his Imamah after me has denied my Nubuwwah, and whoever denies me my Nubuwwah has denied Allah His divinity.” Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq said: “Whoever doubts the kufr of our enemies is himself a kafir.”3
His student Shaykh Mufid (died 413AH) writes:
There is consensus amongst the Imamiyyah (the Ithna ‘Ashari or Ja‘fari Shi‘ah) that whoever denies the Imamah of anyone of the Imams, and denies the duty of obedience to them that Allah has decreed, that such a person is a kafir, misguided, and that he deserves everlasting torment in Hell.4
The prolific Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi, called Shaykh at-Ta’ifah, (died 460AH), who is the author of two of the four canonical hadith collections, has the following to say:
Rejection of Imamah is kufr, just as rejection of Nubuwwah is kufr.5
The mujaddid of Shi‘ism in the eighth century after the Hijrah, Ibn Mutahhar al-Hilli (died 726AH) expresses similar sentiments in the following terms:
Imamah is a universal grace (lutf ‘amm) while Nubuwwah is a special grace (lutf khass), because it is possible that a specific period in time can be void of a living Nabi, while the same is not true for the Imam. To reject the universal grace is worse than to reject the special grace.6
This is the opinion held by four of the most eminent classical scholars of the Shi‘ah, and if seen from the angle of consistency, it is a commendable position indeed. Yet, if one has to ask the Shi‘ah of today (especially recent converts to Shi‘ism) whether they believe Sunnis are Muslims are not, they will respond with surprise, and might even appear grieved at such a question. As far as recent converts to Shi‘ism are concerned, this is to be expected, since it is in the interest of any propaganda scheme that certain facts be kept secret from neophytes. However those who are more knowledgeable about the technicalities of Shi‘ism will know that in the eyes of the Shi‘ah a distinction is made between a Muslim and a Mu’min. All those who profess Islam outwardly are Muslims: Sunnis, Zaydis, Mu‘tazilis, and all other sects. A Mu’min, however, is only he who believes in the Twelve Imams. By this clever ruse the fuqaha of the Shi‘ah kill several birds with one stone. By accepting all other sects as Muslims they protect themselves against the ridiculousness of casting out of the fold of Islam over 90% of its adherents, and the same men who carried the banner of Islam to all corners of the world. At the same time they avoid the antagonism of Sunnis and others, which facilitates proselytisation for them. On the other hand, by the subtle measure of distinguishing Muslim from Mu’min they effectively excommunicate their opponents. Muslims are those to whom the laws of Islam apply in this world. It is therefore permissible to intermarry with them, to pray behind them, to eat what they slaughter, etc., while Mu’mins are those to whom salvation in the hereafter belongs exclusively, and that depends upon belief in the Twelve Imams. This distinction between Muslim and Mu’min can be found throughout classical Shi‘i literature. The seventh century faqih, Yahya ibn Sa‘id al-Hilli (died 690AH), for example writes in his manual on fiqh, al-Jami‘ lish-Shara’i‘:
It is correct for a Muslim to make an endowment (waqf) upon Muslims. Muslims are those who utter the two shahadahs, and their children. But if a person makes something waqf upon the Mu’minin, it will be exclusively for the Imamiyyah who believe in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams.7
Eight centuries later, exactly the same view is propounded by Ayatullah Khomeini. In his own manual of fiqh, Tahrir al-Wasilah, he states:
If a person makes a waqf upon the Muslims it will be for all those who confess the two shahadahs … If an Imami makes a waqf upon the
Mu’minin it will be restricted to the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah.8
Some amongst the contemporary spokesmen for Shi‘ism, like Kashif al-Ghita, have realised that even this ruse is not sufficiently subtle. He thus devised another terminology. He speaks of being a Mu’min in the special sense, and of being a Mu‘min in the general sense. Whoever believes in Imamah is regarded as a Mu’min in the special sense, while those who do not believe in it are regarded as being Mu’min in the general sense, as a result of which all the temporal laws of Islam are applicable to him. The result of this difference, he says, will become apparent on the Day of Judgement, in the degrees of Divine proximity and honour that will be bestowed upon the believers in Imamah.9
To us this reveals much more than what the author intended. It reveals to us that when the Shi‘ah say they regard Sunnis as Muslims, it is in strict reference to worldly matters. In eschatological matters, matters of the hereafter, Sunnis who do not believe in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams are just like Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or any other rejectors of the Nubuwwah of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. The only reason for saying that Sunnis are Muslims is expedience and convenience. Without professing such an opinion the Shi‘ah would have had to retreat into seclusion and bear ostracism from the rest of the Muslim world. This reason is given by Sayyid ‘Abdullah Shubbar (died 1232AH) in his commentary of az-Ziyarat al-Jami‘ah, the comprehensive du‘a read at the graves of the Imams. At the point where the ziyarah reads:
Whoever denies you is a kafir,
he comments upon it, saying:
There are many narrations that indicate that the opponents are kafir. To document all of them would require a separate book. Reconciling such narrations with that which is known about the Imams, viz. that they used to live, eat and socialise with them, leads to the conclusion that they (the opponents) are kafir, and that they will dwell in Hell forever, but that in this world the laws of Islam are applied to them as a gesture of mercy and beneficence to the True Denomination (the Shi‘ah), since it is impossible to avoid them.10

The nature of the office of the Imams

On this point it would be sufficient to say that the Shi‘ah bestow upon their Imams all the perfections and accomplishments of the Ambiya’, and even more. It would be impossible to document here all the narrations that deal with the status of the Imams, but it might be just as informative to quote the chapters under which they have been documented in a source that is described as a “veritable encyclopaedia of the knowledge of the Imams”: Bihar al-Anwar of ‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi (died 1111AH), widely reputed to be the greatest and most influential Shi‘i scholar of the
Safawid era. During his lifetime he occupied the office of Shaykh al-Islam in Isfahan, capital of the Safawids, and even to this day his works are indispensable to the Shi‘i clergy as well as their lay public. We quote here the name of the chapter, as well as the number of narrations he documents in each chapter:
1. The Imams possess more knowledge than the Ambiya’ (13 narrations)11
2. The Imams are superior to the Ambiya’ and the entire creation. The Covenant of the Imams was taken from them (the Ambiya’), the Mala’ikah and the entire creation. The (major prophets called) ulul-‘Azm (Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa and ‘Isa ) attained the status of ulul-‘Azm on account of loving the Imams. (88 narrations)12
3. The du‘as of the Ambiya’ were answered because they invoked the wasilah of the Imams. (16 narrations)13
4. The Imams can bring the dead back to life. They can cure blindness and leprosy. They possess all the miracles of the Ambiya’ (4 narrations)14
5. Nothing of the knowledge of Heaven, Earth, Jannah and Jahannam is hidden from them. The Kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth was shown to them. They know all that happened and that will happen upto the Day of Resurrection. (22 narrations)15
6. The Imams know the truth of a person’s faith or hypocrisy. They possess a book that contains the names of the inmates of Jannah, the names of their supporters and their enemies. (40 narrations)16
The titles of these chapters create quite a vivid impression of the narrated material upon which the Shi‘ah base their faith. The office of Imamah can thus be seen to incorporate more than just the political leadership of the Ummah. The Imams are more than just heads of state with a divine right to rule. They are the repositories of every branch of knowledge and perfection possessed by the Ambiya’. The existence of the world depends upon their presence. They are the intermediaries upon whose intercession acceptance of the prayers of even the Ambiya’ depends. Their office is one that combines political, religious, scientific, cosmological and metaphysical supremacy over the entire creation. From this one can understand the reason for al-Khomeini’s statement in the book al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, upon which rests the entire philosophy of his revolution:
It is of the undeniable tenets of our faith that our Imams possess a status with Allah that neither Angel nor Messenger
can aspire to.17
After this introduction to the concept of Imamah, the nature of the appointment of the Imams, and the nature of their office, we pose the question: Is belief in such a concept justified and upheld by the Qur’an? Surely a belief of such momentousness, an article of faith with such far reaching consequences, that supercedes even belief in the Ambiya’, must be rooted in the Qur’an, the book which was revealed by Allah
as an explanation of all things, a guide, a mercy,
and glad tidings to the Muslims. (an-Nahl:89)
It is with the purpose of answering this question that this article is written.

Imamah and Prophethood in the Qur’an

In this article we investigate the Qur’anic foundations of the Shi‘ite concept of Imamah. By analysis of the usage of the word imam and its plural form a’immah in the Qur’an we will investigate whether the Qur’an provides any basis for the doctrine of Imamah as formulated in Shi‘ite theology.
In limiting our investigation to the Qur’an, it is not our contention that the Sunnah is inconsequential in issues of doctrine. Instead, it is out of the conviction that a doctrinal issue like Imamah, which Shi‘ite theology places above Nubuwwah, must find textual support from the Qur’an. After all, the “secondary” issue of Nubuwwah finds more than ample support in the pages of the Qur’an. No one, after reading the clear and unambiguous Qur’anic texts wherein Allah makes mention of His Messengers and Prophets, their status,
And each (of them) we favoured above all the worlds. (al-An‘am : 86)
their stories,
And has there come to you the story of Musa? (Taha : 9)
And recite to them the story of Ibrahim. (ash-Shu‘ara : 69)
We relate unto you you the most beatiful of stories. (Yusuf : 4)
the explicit mention of their names,
Such was the argument we gave Ibrahim against his people. We raise in degree whomsoever We will, and your Lord is Wise, All-Knowing. We gave him Ishaq and Ya‘qub; each of them We guided. And before that, We guided Nuh, and among his (Ibrahim’s) progeny (We guided) Dawud, and Sulayman, and Ayyub, and Yusuf, and Musa, and Harun; thus do We reward those who good. And (We guided) Zakariyya, and Yahya, and ‘Isa, and Ilyas; all of them of the Righteous. And Isma‘il, and Alyasa‘, and Yunus, and Lut; each of them We favoured above all the worlds. (al-An‘am : 83-86)
and the importance of belief in them as an integral part of faith in Islam,
And whoever denies Allah, His Messengers, His Books and the Last Day has clearly gone astray. (an-Nisa’ : 136)
can reasonably doubt that the Qur’an supports, or rather enjoins, belief in Nubuwwah. The question now is: Does the same hold true for Imamah? If Imamah is superior to Nubuwwah, as the theology of the Ithna ‘Ashari Shi‘ah teaches, it would be only reasonable to expect that the Qur’an would deal in equally explicit terms with Imamah; and if not, that at least a clear, unambiguous picture what Imamah is and who the Imams are, would be drawn by the Qur’an.

Usage of the word Imam in the Qur‘an

In what follows we will investigate how the word Imam and its plural A’immah have been used in the Qur’an. From the way Allah has used the word in the Qur’an it will then be seen whether the Shi‘i concept of Imamah that has been explained above, finds any sort of Qur’anic support.
A book
The word imam recurs 7 times in the Qur’an, while its plural form, a’immah, appears 5 times. In 3 of these cases it refers explicitly to a book:
And before it was the Book of Musa, a guide and a mercy. (Hud : 17)
And before it was the Book of Musa, a guide and a mercy. (al-Ahqaf : 12)
Verily, we will restore the dead to life, and we write that which they sent forth, and that which they left behind; and of everything we have taken account in a Clear Book. (Yasin : 12)
The champions of kufr
In another 2 cases it refers to the champions of kufr:
Fight the leaders of kufr. (at-Tawbah : 12)
And We made them leaders who call towards the Fire. (al-Qasas : 41)
A road
One reference is to a clearly discernible road:
And verily, the two (cities) lie next to a clear road. (alHijr : 79)

Leadership of the Israelites

In the remaining six places where the word is used, it is used in terms of its literal meaning, i.e. leadership. In Surah al-Ambiya’ it is stated:
We said: O fire, be cool and (a means of ) safety unto Ibrahim. And they planned against him; but We made them the greater losers. And We delivered him and Lut to the land which We blessed for the nations. And We gave him Ishaq, and Ya‘qub as an additional gift; and all of them We made righteous men. And We made them leaders who guide by Our command; and We revealed to them the doing of good, the establishment of prayer and the giving of alms. And they were men who served Us. (al-Ambiya’ : 69-73)
In this extract, which had to be extended somewhat in order that the reader may see the full context in which the word a’immah is used, one clearly sees its association with the function of the Ambiya’ as the leaders of men, who guide them towards Allah. This unequivocal identification of a’immah as Ambiya’ leads us to conclude that the reference in Surah as-Sajdah too, is to the Ambiya’, and not to any other category of men:
Indeed, We gave Musa the Book, so be not in doubt about meeting him; and We made it a (source of) guidance for the Children of Isra’il. And We made from amongst them leaders who guided by Our command, when they persevered. And they had full certainty in Our signs. (as-Sajdah : 23-24)
Even if the scope of a’immah in this verse were to be extended to include people other than the Ambiya’, there is nothing to justify its identification with the elaborate doctrine of Imamah as conceived of by the Shi‘ah.
In a third verse Allah speaks of His plans for the oppressed Israelites in Egypt:
And We wished to be gracious to those who were oppressed in the land, and to make them leaders, and to make them heirs. (al-Qasas : 5)
In order to see who the word a’immah refers to in this verse one only has to look at the persons in whom this divine wish came to fulfilment. It was primarily in Nabi Musa and the other prophet-kings of Bani Isra’il like Nabi Dawud and Nabi Sulayman ‘alayhimus salam that the leadership referred to in this verse, came to be vested. If at times they were ruled by men other than the Ambiya’, the status of those leaders was never seen to be superior to the rank of the Ambiya’. Verses like the above three, apart from dealing specifically with the Ambiya’ of Bani Isra’il, are not in the least indicative of the existence of a rank like that of Imamah as conceived of by the Shi‘ah.

Leadership of the pious

There remain three places where the word imam is mentioned in the Qur’an. In one of these three places Allah speaks of the prayer of His exemplary worshippers:
(They are) those who say: Our Lord, grant us the coolness of (our) eyes in our wives and children, and make us leaders of the pious. (al-Furqan : 74)
This verse speaks of normal people who do not belong to a special class like the Ambiya’, asking Allah to make them imams, in the sense of paragons of virtue, whose example others would strive to emulate. It is very obvious that it cannot refer to a group of “divinely appointed Imams”, for the reason that the Imams’ elevation to the rank of Imamah is not on account of their prayers. Since their appointment, like that of the Ambiya’, is supposedly divine in origin, it not attainable by any amount of exertion or devotion.
It is interesting to note that this verse proved to be so unpalatable to certain of the early Shi‘ah that they declared it to have been corrupted. The following narration appears in the tafsir of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi, the teacher of Abu Ja‘far al-Kulayni:
It was read to Abu ‘Abdillah (i.e. Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq):
And make us leaders of the pious.
He said: “It would be an enormous thing for them to ask Allah to make them Imams of the pious.” [The Shi‘i concept of an Imam is intended, of course, since the Imams are appointed, and no one can become an Imam by praying for it.]
Someone enquired: “How was it then revealed, O son of Rasulullah?”
He replied: ‘It was revealed:
…and make for us leaders from amongst the pious.18
This narration, documented in a tafsir of great repute amongst the early tafsirs of the Shi‘ah, (a tafsir, in fact, that is described by its twentieth century editor as being “in reality the commentary of the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq,”19 and each one of whose narrators is regarded as reliable and credible by Shi‘i hadith experts,20 which vouches for its authenticity by Shi‘i standards) obviates the need for further discussion around the meaning of the word Imam as it appears in this ayah.

On the Day of Judgement

There remains one place in the Qur’an where the word Imam is used. It is in Surah al-Isra’ where Allah Ta‘ala says:
The day when we will call all people by their leaders. (al-Isra’ : 71)
The Imam spoken of in this ayah is recognised by the mufassirun of the Ahl as-Sunnah as either the book of deeds or the prophet to whose Ummah the person belonged. The first meaning is preferred by Ibn Kathir,21 who mentions in support of his preference the ayat where the word Imam was used in the sense of a book (see above). This meaning is further supported by the rest of the ayah:
So those who are given their book in their right hand will read their books.
The second meaning also finds ample support in the Qur’an. In another ayah Allah says:
How will it be when We bring forth from every Ummah a witness, and bring you (O Muhammad) as a witness over these? (an-Nisa’:41)
From the way in which the position of the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam is compared to the position of the “witnesses” of the other Ummahs we can only conclude that the reference is to the Ambiya. It therefore follows that those Ummahs will be called by the names of their Ambiya. Calling the Ummahs of the past by the names of the Ambiya who were sent to them is further a common thing in both the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The ‘Ad, for example, are commonly referred to as “the people of Hud”, just like Banu Isra’il are called “the people of Musa”. Identifying the Imam mentioned in the ayah under discussion with the Ambiya is therefore warranted by both the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
As for the claim of the Shi‘ah that it refers to the Twelve Imams,22 this claim not only lacks Qur’anic support, it also curtails the general scope of the ayah. The lack of Qur’anic support is evident from the above discussion on the usage of the word Imam in the Qur’an. The restriction of the general scope of the ayah arises from the chronological disparity between the times when the Twelve Imams lived, and the periods during which previous Ummahs flourished. If we say that all Ummahs will be called by the names of the Twelve Imams, then what about the Ummahs that existed before them? By whose name will they be called? After all, the ayah says that all people will be called by their leaders.
In addition, when for argument’s sake we do assume that the reference is to the the Twelve Imams, we are left with a somewhat incongruous situation. Sayyiduna ‘Ali, the first of the Twelve Imams, died in the year 40. His son Sayyiduna Hasan died nine years later, in 49. If Sayyiduna ‘Ali is the Imam for the people of his time, Sayyiduna Hasan is left with only those people who were born during his nine years. All the other people of his time who were alive during his father’s time will form part of his father’s group, and not his. The tenure of the 3rd Imam lasted for 22 years; the 4th for 34 years; the 5th for 19 years; the 6th for 34 years; the 7th for 35 years; the 8th for 20 years; the 9th for 17 years; the 10th for 34 years; and the 11th for only 6 years. Suddenly, with the 12th Imam, the Awaited Mahdi, we have a tenure of Imamah that has been running for over 1200 years. The group that will supposedly be called by the name of the 11th Imam, for example, will only include people that were born during his Imamah that ran from 254 up to 260, while the numbers of those who will be called by the name of the 12th Imam will be practically incalculable.
Compare this incongruous scenario with the much more orderly and Qur’anic system of having the various Ummahs called by the names of their Ambiya on the Day of Qiyamah, and the absurdity of using the 71st ayah of Surah al-Isra’ to substantiate the doctrine of Imamah as conceived of by the Shi‘ah will be fully exposed. There can be no question that the word Imam in this ayah does not refer to the Twelve Imams.

SUMMARY

We have discussed here each and every place in the Qur’an where the word Imam and its plural A’immah were used in the Qur’an. It was demonstrated how Allah Ta‘ala used this word to refer variously to
a book (thrice)
the Champions of Kufr (twice)
a road (once)
the leaders of the Israelites
the leaders of the Pious
the Prophets or the Book
Any attempt by the Shi‘ah to identify their idiosyncratic notion of Imamah with the Imamah of the Qur’an is totally incongruous. The closest they could come to it would be to draw a similarity between their own Imamah and the leadership of the Israelites. However, such a similarity is immediately rejected when one considers that this leadership of the Israelites is clearly identified in the Qur’an with the Ambiya of Bani Isra’il. The Qur’an provides no grounds whatsoever to identify this leadership of the Israelites with anyone but the Ambiya. It is not uncommon to find the Shi‘ah quoting verses such as the 5th verse of Surah al-Qasas to substantiate their belief of Imamah. If they only took the trouble of reading the verse in its proper context, without adding to it the excrescences of their own theology, they
will see just how far fetched their identification of Qur’anic Imamah with Shi‘i Imamah really is. In al-Qasas:5 for example, the reference is clearly to Musa and his people. Just how, one wonders, is that verse extended to Ali ibn Abi Talib and eleven persons from his progeny?
The attempt to draw a comparison between the Qur’anic Leadership of the Pious and the Imamah of the Shi‘ah is similarly fraught with problems. It has been seen above how this form of leadership is a favour sought from Allah by His ideal servants. The Imamah of the Shi‘ah of the Shi‘ah, on the other hand, is like Nubuwwah, divinely granted, and cannot be aspired to by any person. The utter lack of harmony between this form of leadership and Shi‘i Imamah is nowhere more clearly brought to light than in the authentically narrated saying of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq which points at the corruption of the text of the Qur’an at the hands of the Sahabah radiyallahu ‘anhum as the reason for the disparity.
The only other Qur’anic meaning of the word Imam left to the Shi‘ah is the one which refers to the Day of Qiyamah, when nations will be called by their “Imams”. Is it possible that the word “Imam” here could be referring to the Shi‘i concept of Imamah? Unfortunately for the Shi‘ah, once again that is not possible. It is not possible for two reasons:
Firstly, because a holistic reading of the immediately following verses, as well as of other verses of the Qur’an point unmistakably to the fact that the Imamah spoken of here refers either to the Ambiya, by whose names nations are called not only in the Hereafter, but in the Qur’an and Sunnah too, or to their books of deeds by which they will be called to account.
Secondly, because identifying the verse with the Shi‘i concept of Imamah leads to a very problematic distribution of nations for the various Imams.
In conclusion, in the usage of the word “Imam” in the Qur’an there is nothing whatsoever to support the belief of Imamah as conceived of by the Shi‘ah.
___________________________
REFERENCES
1. Asl ash-Shi‘ah wa-Usuluha p. 58 (Mu’ssasat al-A‘lami, Beirut)
2. al-Kafi vol. 8 (Rawdat al-Kafi) p. 167 (Dar al-Adwa’, Beirut, 1992)
3. Risalat al-I‘tiqad pp. 111-114, quoted by al-Majlisi: Bihar al-Anwar vol. 27 p. 62 (Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah, Tehran, 1387)
4. al-Masa’il, quoted in Bihar al-Anwar vol. 8 p. 366
5. Talkhis ash-Shafi vol. 4 p. 131 (Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah, Qum, 3rd ed. 1394)
6. al-Alfayn p. 3 (al-Maktabah al-Haydariyyah, Najaf, 3rd ed. 1388)
7. al-Jami‘ lish-Shara’i‘ p. 371 (Mu’assasat Sayyid ash-Shuhada’ al-‘Ilmiyyah, Qum, 1405)
8. Tahrir al-Wasilah vol. 2 p. 72 (Mu’assasat Isma‘iliyan, Qum 1408)
9. Asl ash-Shi‘ah wa-Usuluha pp. 58-59
10. al-Anwar al-Lami‘ah Sharh az-Ziyarat al-Jami‘ah p. 176 (Mu‘assasat al-Bi‘thah, Mashhad, 1st ed. 1457)
11. Bihar al-Anwar vol. 26 pp. 194-200
12. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 267-318
13. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 319-332
14. ibid. vol. 27 pp. 29-31
15. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 109-107
16. ibid. vol. 26 pp. 117-132
17. al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah p. 52 (Ministry of Guidance, Iran. )
18.Tafsir (‘Ali ibn Ibrahim) al-Qummi vol.1 p. 10 (ed. Sayyid Tayyib al-Musawi, 2nd edition, Kitabfarosh ‘Allameh, Qum 1968)
19.ibid., editor’s introduction.
20.Abu Talib at-Tajlil at-Tabrizi: Mu‘jam ath-Thiqat p. 224 (Mu’assasat an-Nashr al-Islami, Qum 1404AH). In this book the author has compiled a list of all reliable hadith narrators of the Shi‘ah. One of his sources is the tafsir of al-Qummi. In the third chapter of this book he gives a list of the narrators upon whom al-Qummi has relied in narrating the material contained in his tafsir, quoting al-Qummi’s statement in the introduction to his book, that “we will mention and inform about that which reached us, which our mentors and reliable narrators have narrated”. He then quotes the author of Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah who states that “‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi has testified that his tafsir is narrated from the Imams by reliable narrators.” (Wasa’il vol. 3 p. 524)
21.Tafsir Ibn Kathir vol. 3 p. 52 (Maktabah Dar at-Turath, Cairo n.d.)
22.In the first volume of al-Kafi this ayah is used thrice in relation to the Imams.

Part A: The Quraan is not a proof without a ‘qayim’ (one of their imams)

Allah Ta’ala: To those who requested a sign, Surah Ankabut(29:61), “It is not sufficient that we have sent down to you verses which

“The qur’an is not a proof without an imam, and Ali was the hujja (proof) on mankind after the messenger Muhammed (SAW)..”

Usul Al-Kafi:Vol.1, pg. 188

Ar-rijaal,Al kashi : pg.120

Wa 3alal Ar-risha’I As-suduq : pg. 192

This means that the saying of the imam is more eloquent than the saying of Allah. Imam Ali is claimed to have said : “This is the book of Allah the silent one, I am the book of Allah the spoken One.”

Al fusul Al Humimah, Al Hur Al amily: pg.235

“Ali is the tafseer of Kitaab Allah”

Al bihar: Vol.37 pg. 209

Al Tabrisi, Al hijaj: pg.31, 33

“And follow the light which has been sent to him..” Quran.

They understand it as the light being Ali and the imams.

Al kafi: Vol.1, pg.191

Qur’an 10:15 “And when our clear verses are recited

When it says a Qur’an other than this, they refer to Ali…

Tafseer al ‘Ayashi: Vol.2, page 120

Usul Al Kafi: Vol.1 Pg. 119

Tafseer al burhan: Vol. 2 page 180

Tafseer Nur Thaqalayn: Vol.2 page 296

Tafseer Al-Qummi: Vol.1 Page 310

Bihaar Al-Anwar: Vol.36, page. 80

 

Surah Tur 52:33,34

“Or do they say he has forged it, Nay they believe not…”

They say “has He forged it”, they say it means amir ul mu’minoon, and when it says let them bring something like unto it, they say it means someone from Allah, aka Imam ali RA.

And they say Ali is the only one who understood the qur’an properly.

Usul Al kafi: vol.1, pg.25

PART B: The Imams are special in their knowledge of the Qur’an, and no one knows its secrets except them.

Usul al-kafi “The messenger interpreted the Qur’an to Ali only” Vol.1 pg. 25

Wasa’l ul Shia: vol18, pg.131

“Allah sent down the Qur’an upon me, and whoever opposes it goes astray, and whoever searches for knowledge of the qur’an from other than Ali is destroyed.”

Wasail ul shia: Vol.18, pg.138

Bihaar al-Anwar, vol.7, pg.312 – Vol.19, pg.23

At-Tabari, Bishaar Al-Mustafa: pg.16

Al-Amaly As-sudooq: pg.40

 

Usul Al kafi Vol.1, pg.192, Is entitled : The imams are the guardians of Allah’s command, and they are the stores of His knowledge.

No Knowledge is hidden from them: Bihaar al anwar: vol.26, pg. 109

Wasa’il Ul Shia, (Al hur Al Amily): “Permissiblity to deduct rulings from apparent qur’an except from meanings from imams.”

“No-one knows the meaning of the Qur’an except the imams”  Al Fusul Al mu’imah: pg.173

SURAH NAHL (16:44): “We have sent down the qur’an.”

 

Muhammed Rida an-Najafi, Ash-Shia wa raja’a: pg.19 “All the tafaasir, that comes from other than the ahlul bayt, are worthless and unreliable.”

“Imam is the ref. and trustworthy, who knows all the qur’an and that the qur’an cannot be proof without the imam.”

“The saying of the imam is the saying of Allah, and there is not different between what they say”

Al Mazambrani, sharhu jami’: Ali Al Kafi, chapter 2, page 272

There are chapters for this : “The designation to the messenger and the designation of the imams, for the matters of the deen.” Vol.1 Page 265

 

The deen has been perfected and completed, 5:3, 3:187

 

Usul Al kafi: Vol.1 pg.374: Reg. The saying of Allah (SWT):  Surah A’raf:33, interpretation of this verse, “the qur’an has an outward and an inward, all Allah has declared unlawful in the Qur’an is the outward, and the inward which is forbidden, is the ‘tyrant imams’, and that everything which Allah has made lawful in the qur’an is the outward, and the inward from what Allah has made lawful, are the imams of the truth.”

The Qur’an is apparent and hidden:  Al bihaar, vol.92, pg.78 – 106

Abu’l Hasan Ash-Shareef, ‘Mir’ayatul Anwar’, pg.3: ‘Every verse in the Qur’an, has a hidden and apparent meaning.’

“Most of the verses of the Qur’an was revealed in them, and regarding their enemies” ‘them’ is their imams, and ‘enemies’ are sahabah.

Tafsir as-safi, vol.1, pg.24

Usul Al-Kafi, vol.2, pg.627

Al-Burhaan, vol.1, pg.21

Al-Lawamih-nawraniyyah, pg.6

‘Most of the Qur’an, (1/3rd, ½) the latter ones say MOST of the qur’an, was revealed concerning their 12 imams, and their enemies.”

Abu’l Hasan Ash-Shareef, ‘Mir’atul Anwar’, Muqqadimatul burhaan, pg.4,

Al-Lawamih-nawraniyyah, pg.548

“In principle the revelation of the Qur’anic verses, is to direct and guide to the wilayah ul Nabi wa A’immah (12 imams), such that there is no good, except that it is informs that it is them and their followers, and that there is no evil except that it is applicable to their enemies.”

Al Majlisi in his book Al-Bihaar al-anwar, vol.23, pg. 354 and 390.

Chapter: ‘Interpretation of Al-mu’mineen (surah in the Qur’an), and that imaan and muslims and islam, is in them, meaning the imams, and in their leadership, and that the kuffar,  and the mushriks, and kufr and shirk, and jibt and taghut, and laat and ‘uzza, and idols, in their enemies and their opponents.’

“The imams are the salaah and zakah and the hajj, and the rest of obedience, and their enemies are the fawahisha and dhunoob and rest of the evil things.”

Al Bihaar, vol.24, pg. 286

Chapter: “They are the verses of Allah and His signs and His books”

Ibis.Vol.24, pg.114 – 118: “They are 7 oft repeated verses” “they” are imams.

Surah Al-Furqan:55, “helper of shaytan” – Umar (second one), “against his ‘Lord’” – ‘Lord’ is Ali

Tafseer Al-Qummi – Vol.2 pg.115

Az-Zumar: 69, “The light is Ali” and it is enough for everyone.

Tafsir Al-Qummi, Vol.2, pg.253

Al Burhaan: Vol.4, pg.87

Tafsir As-Safi: Vol.4, pg.331

“Wajh Allah” Face of Allah is Imams.

Bihaar al anwar: vol.24, pg.191

And they attribute to Ja’far As-Sadiq, “Nahnu Wajhullah” ‘We are the face of Allah.’ Tafsir al Qummi

Usul Al kafi: Vol.1 Page 258, ‘The imams know their time of death and they choose to die.’

“Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 2, means the ‘Book wherein there is no doubt’ is Ali, and there is no doubt in this.”

Tafsir Al-Qummi vol.1, Page 30

Tafsir ‘Ayashi, vol.1, pg.26

Tafsir As-Safi, vol.1, pg.91, 92

Luqman:27 “This ayah means that the virtues of the imams would not be able to be enumerated.” – Abu’l Hasan Ali Muhammed

Bihaar Al Anwar: vol.24, pg. 174

Tahtal Uqool: pg.365

Ibn Shahra Shoob, manat ul Alee Ibn Abi Talib: Vol.3, page.508

‘Atijaaj: pg.552

Surah Al Fatiha: ‘Ihthini siraatul mustaqim’ ‘guide us to the straight path’ the straight path is Ali.

Surah Ash-Shams: verse 1

‘The shams is Alee’ – attributed to As-Sadiq falsely.

Vol.9 page.286

 

“Ummah” came 49 times in the Qur’an, and shia tafasir say it means imams: Mir’ayatul Anwar, pg.81

’22:45’: ‘Deserted well’ refers to Ali.

‘Sea’ came 33 times in the qur’an, and it means Imams and their enemies.

‘22:77’: the good means ‘al-wilayah.’

Surah An-Nahl:16, ‘And Landmarks by the day and stars by the night’, the stars refer to the prophet and the landmarks mean the imams.

The Year refers to the messenger SAW, and the 12 months refer to 12 imaams.

At-Tusi, Al-Ghayba, page 96

Ibn Shahra shoob, Manaqa ul Alee Ibn Abi Talib: vol1. Page 244

Bihaar Al-Anwar, vol.24, page 240

Al Burhaan, vol.2 page 122

Surah Al baqarah, verse 26: ‘Mosquito’ refers to Ali.

Al-Qummi, vol.1 page 35

Al-burhaan, vol.1 page 70

Surah Hajj: 73 ‘fly’ refers to Ali.

Surah Al Qasas: verse 30, ‘blessed place’ is karbala.

Surah Al-A’raf, verse 156, ‘mercy’ refers to Shia.

39:65 ‘associate with Allah’ here means if you associate with the wilayah of Ali all your deeds will be in vain.

Al Qummi: Vol.2 Page 251

Tafsir Furaat: pg.133

Al Burhaan: Vol.4 page 83

Tafsir As-Safi: Vol.4 page. 328

Abu’l Hasan Ash-Shareef, mir’ayatul Anwar: ‘The narrations are all replete and are all in support with each other that the meaning of Shirk in Allah’s Lordship and Shirk in worship, means shirk in wilayah and imamah (Rulership and allegiance).‘  Page 202

And this is how they concluded that they (sahabah) apostate.

Surah Muhammed-47:25 ‘this refers to so and so (Abu bakr and Umar and Uthmaan).’

Surah Al Fatiha:7 “‘Adh-dhaleen’ means those who don’t know their imam”

Tafsir Al-Qummi, vol.1, page.29

Al Kafi Vol.1 page 401 -402 ‘This style helped in spreading the acceptance, amongst the masses of the followers and the absence of intellect so the followers are called to believe in the sayings of the imams, even if they are in sharp contradiction to the qur’an.”

Tahreef in the QURAN

First book in which this claim of tahreef was recorded was in the book of Sulaym bin Qais, died year 90AH. It’s contents was praised, ‘Abjadh’ alphabets of the shia, secret of the secrets of ahlul bayt: Agha Bazrik At-Tahrani, Adhari’aa:vol.2 page 152, and Hamish was’ail al shia, vol.2, page 42, number 4.

An-nu’mani ‘there is no disagreement amongst all the shia, amongst those who carry the knowledge and transmitted it from the imams, there is no dispute that his book is one of the foundations amongst the greatest of foundations of the shia usool, and the oldest. Whatever is in that book is a reference to the shia.’ Al ghaybiya page 61.

Al majlisi ‘one of the foundations amongst the greatest of foundations.’ He then narrated 4 narrations from Ali Ibn Hussain, that he said, ‘sadaqa, sulaym’ sulaym spoke the truth.’ Bihaar al Anwar: vol.1, page 156-158.

Ali was named in that book, “‘Al awaal, Al akhar, Adh-dhahir…’ This description came from the sun to Ali, and this was heard by Abu bakr and Umar and the rest of the muhajirun, and they all fell unconscious.” The book of sulaym, Al-hilaali, page 38 print of Al-‘A’lami, and page 31, 32, print of An-Najaf.

Allah described Himself with these names, in surah 57, ayah 3.

Some books of the narrators of the shia, considered the one who narrated this book, from sulaym as weak! Abban Ibn Abi Ayash, yet Abban is considered weak by Ahlul sunnah, some of the shia even claim that the author is unknown, and some say it ‘is problematic, but it does not nullify most of which was narrated by others.’  Al-Khawansari, rawdatul jannaat, vol.4 page 68

Kulayni depended on it. Usul Al kafi, vol.1 page.252, and Dhaa3’imul Kufr, and also Al Qummi who is also known as As-Sudooq, in his book, fi Man la yahdhuruhul faqih. At-Tabrasi and etc. Also in other major books.

Some discredited this book not due to the content within it, rather because he made the imams 13! In number.

It was referred to by all big scholars, the four major ones. And the latter generations of shia referred to it as ‘the’ reference. As affirmed by Al-Majlisi, Al Bihaar Al anwar, vol.1 page 32, and Al-hur Al-Amily, in his book wasa’il ul shia, vol.20, page 210, and others.

There are only 2 narrations in sulaym’s book which say omission occurred in the Book of Allah, and they were’nt so explicit. These narrations amplified later. In the 3rd century this lie was added to. Al Qummi, the shaykh of Al Kulayni, said, in tafsir al qummi, Vol.1, page 48, 100, 110, 118, 122, 123, 142, 159, vol.2, page 21, 111, 125, and others. He also stated this in the introduction to his tafsir, vol.1, page 10.

And their shaykh Al Kashaani, said himself that Al-Qummi’s tafsir is filled with it. And also shaykh An-nuri At-Tabrasi, ‘Al-Qummi, stated this creed, in the beginning of his tafsir and filled his book with his narration despite his statement, in the beginning that he will not mention narrations but from his shayookh and trustworthy references.’  At-Tabrasi’s, fakhlul khitaab, paper 13, from the manuscript, and paper 26, from the printed one. Despite this fact that it has been filled with this, the authority of the shia nowadays, Al-Kho’i, he authenticated ALL of the narrations in Al-Qummi, in mu’jam rijaal al hadeeth lil kho’i, vol.1 page 63. After Al-Qummi his student Al-Kulayni, Al-kafi, reported much of this falsehood in his book. Vol.1 page 413, and afterwards. Numbers of hadiths are, 8, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 45, 58, 59, 60, 64, in vol.2, many many places. Despite he said he will quote only authentic.

Al-Khashaani, affirmed that Al-Kulayni believed it was true about the tahreef of the qur’an, Tafsir As-Safi, introduction, page 52, and Al-A’lamy, page 40 printed in Tehran.

Al-Kulayni’s book Al-Kafi is recorded to be the highest authentic book for the Shia, due to Al-Kulayni living amongst the 4 greatest scholars of Shia, who claimed to have had meetings with the awaited Mahdi, so what is in the book should have been affirmed by those scholars in Bahgdad.

Al-Majlisi in his book, mir’atul ‘uqool, ruled that some of the narrations of Al-Kafi, were weak but also, he authenticated some of the narrations regarding tahreef also, of them, is, ‘the qur’an which jibreel AS brought to Muhammed SAW, was 17,000 ayah.’

 

An-Nuri At-Tabrasi, died 1320, and was buried in the sacred spot, he inserted his book, ‘this is a matter which is in agreement amongst the shia.’ He presented 1000 plus proofs, of verses which were omitted, and it is agreed upon by most of the books that are authentic within the Shia.

 

THE MUSHAF OF FATIMAH

Al Kafi: Vol.2 page 619 ‘Recite the qur’an until the teacher come.’

Al Kafi: ‘The promise came during the reign of their imam Abil Hasan.’

‘Teacher is mahdi’ – Sharhu Jami’in ‘alal kafi, vol.11, page 47.

Al Mufeed reported that, ‘they are commanded to recite was in the copies of the qur’an we have and do not transgress it, until the mahdi will come. So then people will recite the Qur’an as revealed by Allah and collected by Ameer ul mu’mineen.’ Bihaar Al anwar vol.92, page 74.

Ni’matullahi Jaza’ari, ‘ the imams commanded that their shia recite what is in this qur’an in their salaah and after their salaah until one who will emerge sahibu zamaan, and this qur’an will be lifted from the hands of people. And then will come the qur’an which Amir ul mu’mineen collected and people will judge by it.’  Al anwar An-Nu’maniyyah, vol.2 pages 363, 364

These narrations contradict others, ‘I do not give much attention to the Qur’an we have now, and whoever memorizes it while it is distorted will have difficulty to memorise what will come from the Mahdi.’ As reported in Mufeed, Al-Irshad, page 430. Al mufeed was referred to as the ‘upright brother’ of Imam Mahdi, and mawlana ar-rasheed, in the introduction of Al-ih’tijaaj, page 277.

Similarly reported in An-nu’mani in his book Al-Ghayba. This had a great impact on the Shia society to leave the Qur’an as attested to by Shaykh Musa Jawrallah, who lived amongst the shia for while, he didn’t find shia students nor scholars who memorised the Qur’an and not being able to recite it properly. And he said this could be from the influence of the myth of waiting for the awaited Mahdi’s mushaf.

Even those who denied the tampering of the Qur’an agree that there exists a mushaf of Ali, like Al-Qummi, in his book Al-I’qtiqadaat, Al-kho’i in his bayaan, page 223.

Al-Kulayni in his book Al-Kafi, has a special chapter, ‘chapter: The entire Qur’an was not compiled totally except by the imams.’ And reported six narrations.

If Ali compiled it, what is need for other imams compiling it?

‘Some reports claim that some special people have seen it, others say Ali compiled it, others say Ali and the other imams, and yet some say yes it is with Ali but it is waiting with the awaited imam.’ As Ni’matullah Jaza’iri claimed in his book, Al Anwar An-Nu’maniyyah, vol.2 page 360.

Some of the books attest to this fact, that Ali was free from this claim.

IN sunan Abee dawood, from Ali, ‘Don’t say about Uthmaan except that which is good, because By Allah he didn’t compile the Qur’an into one except that we are all in agreement with him.’ Reported By Suwait Bin Ghaflah, Authentic.

‘When Uthmaan saw the problem of having more than one copy of the Qur’an, he asked Ali, to bring the mushaf of Fatimah, which she kept due to her father’s SAW approval. And that Uthmaan compared with it the other sahabah mushafs.’  In Al-Ma’rashee’s Al-Ma’arifyyah Al jareeyah, page 24.

His all spread from Sulaym’s book. Their Shaykh, Abu’l Hasan Ash-Shareef student of majlisi, said, ‘it is possible to rule that this ‘fabrication’ spread in the convenience of the shia sect.’

Mir’ayatul Anwaar, page 49.

And their trustworthy Mazambrani, who died 1081AH, he stated ‘this is consecutive in their books.’

Sharhu Jaami’ ‘Alal kafi, vol.11, page 76

Similarly by Al Kashaani.

Their ref. in Iraq, Al-kho’i, they say that the narrations are replete, through the household are consecutive and decisive.

Al Mufeed who died 413Ah, said ‘this is consensus amongst the Imamite sect.’

Al Qummi, who died 381AH, and Ash-Shareef Al-Murtadha who died 436AH, and by At-Tusi who died 450AH, and by Ahmed (Not An-nuri) At-Tabrasi who died 548AH or 561AH, An-Nuri At-Tabrasi is of the opinion that it is consensus on that myth.

Al Qummi, in some of his books denounced this myth, and said that the Qur’an that Allah sent down is the true Qur’an.

Other shayookh said he is doing taqiyyah, due to the impact of this myth to the common muslims.

In Ibn Babaweyh, his other books have the narrations regarding the mushaf.

And the same holds true for the other shayookh.

Sayyid Ali al-Shahristaniy in his book “The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith: Causes and Effects ” at page 510:

`Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummiy, the compiler of the famous book of Tafsir that carries his name, has confirmed the authenticity of the Hadiths that he recorded in his book by bearing out that these Hadiths have been reported by trustworthy narrators from the Holy Imams.

Salaamun alaykum w rahma

This article is about the love that the companions had for each other. I am no scholar neither a student of knowledge, so may Allah help me in this work.

When Ahlul-sunnah say ‘as-sahabah’ what we mean is both the household and the companions, as they were the generation of the FIRST Muslims, who accepted Islam within the Prophet’s life.

The linguistic definition of ‘sahabah’ is from the root word ‘sahiba’ which means ‘to accompany’.

A’immah An-nawawi, Bukhari and Ibnu-salih, (RH- may Allah have mercy on them) had and held the definition was: ‘Whoever saw the Prophet (SAW) while believing in him, and died upon that state.’

Ibn Hajr (RH) came after them and challenged this understanding, by saying that there were companions who were blind so what is the case with them? Such as Ibn Umm Makhtum RA. So he formed another and more precise definition.And this is the most correct one according to majority of the scholars, if not all of them.

‘Whoever met the Prophet while believing in him, accompanied him even for a short while, and died upon belief in him.’

One scholar had the opinion that it is accompanying him for a year or two. But this was an unpopular view and even his name is not known.

Scholars then talked about the age someone could be classified a companion. Some scholars said that s/he must be past the age of puberty, but this again is refuted, as scholars considered his (SAW) own son to be a companion, Ibrahim (RA) but not his other son Qaasim (RA), as well as Muhammed Ibn Abi Bakr (RA) and Mahmood bin Rabi’ (RA) who narrated a narration at the age of five, he remmebered an incident with the Prophet (SAW) where the Prophet put water he was making wudhu with into his mouth and blew it out on the boy as a joke, so he is also classified a companion.

So the part ‘whoever met the Prophet (SAW)’ is as follows, it includes any form of companionship, regardless of duration, includes blind people, includes children except infants. However excludes creation of the unseen world (namely; angels and jinn), and excludes mukhadramoon, those who witnessed jahilliyyah and Islam without physically meeting the Prophet (SAW). This last catagory includes Uwais Al Qarni (RA) who couldn’t go to meet the Prophet due to his taking care of his wife.

‘While believing in him…’

Those who met the Prophet (SAW) before his Prophethood such as Zaid ibn ‘Amr ibn Nufayr (RA). And this excludes any kafir who met him and then accepted Islam afterwards and did not see him again. Such as Al-Ash’ath ibn Qays.

“…and died as a muslim.”

Even if there was a period of riddah (apostasy) in between, and this excludes those who apostated and did not return, or died on their apostasy.

The issue of ranking the companions began due to the shi’a. Otherwise this issue would not have been mentioned, as the shi’a were excessive in insulting and reviling the companions, there are many sources for this. Both Shi’a and Sunni, I will only quote a few of the shi’a sources then only a few of the ahlul-sunnah ones.

1. Taken from commentary of shia scholar Ayashi, narration #148:

From Khannan ibn Sadeer from his father from Abu Jafar (alaihi salam): “People became apostates after (death of) prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)”. And I said: Who are these three?”. He said: “al-Miqdad, Abu Dharr and Salman al-Farese”…

2. In “Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays” written:

Ali (alayhi salam) said: “All people apostated after prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) except 4 of them”.

Also this narration which is reported to have more than 80(!) ways of narration:

Shareek Ibn Abdullah (who was a tabi’i, and this further proves the point that this ranking business was started by the shi’a) was asked ‘Who is better Abu Bakr or Ali?’ He answered ‘Abu Bakr,’

The questioner then asked ‘You say this even though you are shi’i?’ He replied, ‘Whoever does’nt say this is not shi’a, by Allah! Ali rose upon this pulpit and addressed the people of Kufah and said, ‘The best after its messenger amongst the ummah is Abu Bakr thumma Umar.’

For the ahlul-sunnah this is narrated by way of Bukhari and many others. And amongst the shi’a this is narrated in ‘Talkheesu shafie’ – Vol.2, page 428.

In the first generation, those who were known as shi’i most exclusively were those who preferred Ali (RA), over Uthmaan (RA) and were in fact known as ‘Shi’i’ &’Uthmaani’, but even these shi’a were from Ahlul sunnah. Due to this being not within the fundamentals. We know about shareek bin Abdullah (RA). It is suprising to know that the major imams of ahlul-sunnah, are sometimes referred to as shi’a, this is carrying the original and clear undistorted meaning of tashayu’.

But anyways, the ranking began by the shi’a. So Ahlul-sunnah agreed on a single principle, and whoever was against this principle, was against the ‘ijma of the ahlulsunnah (being the main body of muslims, are sometimes referred to as the orthodox muslims). This ‘ijma was that the best of this Ummah after it’s Prophet SAW, was Abu Bakr and Umar RA on them both.

Then after this, the majority of the muslims consider Uthmaan over Ali RA,as Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf RA said, ‘I have consulted the people in Madinah and I could not find anyone that favors ‘Ali over Uthmaan’ in Sahih Bukhari

And Ayyub As-Sukhtiyaani (RH) said, ‘whoever favours Ali over Uthmaan has not given the opinions of the muhajirun and the ansar their due respect.’Al bidaaya wan-nihaayah li’Ibn Katheer RH.

Shi’as have this in their books also to quote one, which really shows the message, in Nahjul Balagha.

“Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism.”

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/letters/letter6.htm#letter6

This was stated in Nahjul balagha letter 6.

The authenticity of this book is deemed as mostly or all fabricated and weak, and the author wished to compile sayings and things Ali RA used to say long after his death, and did not add or barely added any chains for this book. So his main aim was showing the eloquence of arabic, so it is a wonder as to how the shi’a scholars took it to be highly authentic. The point of me referring to this book, is to show what our shi’a brothers take and use as a point of reference, for a stronger argument in this topic.

So ijma’ of the companions is established, and as Ali RA said it what is upon the pleasure of Allah.

To quickly finish the topic of ranking, Ahlul sunnah had four opinions, regarding the khulafaau rashideen. We mentioned 2 so far, one being Abu Bakr and Umar were the best, then silence., this was third greatest. Second opinion being, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, then Ali. And this latter one is the greatest amongst ahlulsunnah. And these two do not contradict.

Another opinion which was lesser in popularity was Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan then silence. And lastly, Abu Bakr, Umar, ALI then Uthmaan, this was held by a few from the tabi’un and ahlul-kufa. However It was reported that Abu Hanifa RH had this view and the narration is questioned.And even if this is the case, this view was reported by the scholars to be only in virtue, not in being worthy of the khilafah. Also there are refutations against this view, that I maybe will go into later.

So in rank of strength, it was as follows: first was Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan then Ali. Second was Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan then silence. Third was Abu Bakr then Umar and silence. Lastly was the view that it was Abu Bakr, Umar, then Ali, then Uthmaan. May parents be sacrificed for them and may Allah be pleased with them all.

I felt it necassary to begin in introducing how the companions are seen by ahlul sunnah. Although I have not finished in the next post I will delve further into the proofs of the status of the companions and what we say about them, and inshaallah go into what the other sects say about the companions and what the ruling is according to the scholars using proofs from the Qur’an and Sunnah.

May Allah make it easy for me. And May Allah reward the brothers who I took from in terms of references, and sources.

any evil I have said is from myself and shaytan, any good I have done is from the blessing of Allah.

Wslm

– end of part 1 –

 

Tahreef in the QURAN

First book in which this claim of tahreef was recorded was in the book of Sulaym bin Qais, died year 90AH. It’s contents was praised, ‘Abjadh’ alphabets of the shia, secret of the secrets of ahlul bayt: Agha Bazrik At-Tahrani, Adhari’aa:vol.2 page 152, and Hamish was’ail al shia, vol.2, page 42, number 4.

An-nu’mani ‘there is no disagreement amongst all the shia, amongst those who carry the knowledge and transmitted it from the imams, there is no dispute that his book is one of the foundations amongst the greatest of foundations of the shia usool, and the oldest. Whatever is in that book is a reference to the shia.’ Al ghaybiya page 61.

Al majlisi ‘one of the foundations amongst the greatest of foundations.’ He then narrated 4 narrations from Ali Ibn Hussain, that he said, ‘sadaqa, sulaym’ sulaym spoke the truth.’ Bihaar al Anwar: vol.1, page 156-158.

Ali was named in that book, “‘Al awaal, Al akhar, Adh-dhahir…’ This description came from the sun to Ali, and this was heard by Abu bakr and Umar and the rest of the muhajirun, and they all fell unconscious.” The book of sulaym, Al-hilaali, page 38 print of Al-‘A’lami, and page 31, 32, print of An-Najaf.

Allah described Himself with these names, in surah 57, ayah 3.

Some books of the narrators of the shia, considered the one who narrated this book, from sulaym as weak! Abban Ibn Abi Ayash, yet Abban is considered weak by Ahlul sunnah, some of the shia even claim that the author is unknown, and some say it ‘is problematic, but it does not nullify most of which was narrated by others.’  Al-Khawansari, rawdatul jannaat, vol.4 page 68

Kulayni depended on it. Usul Al kafi, vol.1 page.252, and Dhaa3’imul Kufr, and also Al Qummi who is also known as As-Sudooq, in his book, fi Man la yahdhuruhul faqih. At-Tabrasi and etc. Also in other major books.

Some discredited this book not due to the content within it, rather because he made the imams 13! In number.

It was referred to by all big scholars, the four major ones. And the latter generations of shia referred to it as ‘the’ reference. As affirmed by Al-Majlisi, Al Bihaar Al anwar, vol.1 page 32, and Al-hur Al-Amily, in his book wasa’il ul shia, vol.20, page 210, and others.

There are only 2 narrations in sulaym’s book which say omission occurred in the Book of Allah, and they were’nt so explicit. These narrations amplified later. In the 3rd century this lie was added to. Al Qummi, the shaykh of Al Kulayni, said, in tafsir al qummi, Vol.1, page 48, 100, 110, 118, 122, 123, 142, 159, vol.2, page 21, 111, 125, and others. He also stated this in the introduction to his tafsir, vol.1, page 10.

And their shaykh Al Kashaani, said himself that Al-Qummi’s tafsir is filled with it. And also shaykh An-nuri At-Tabrasi, ‘Al-Qummi, stated this creed, in the beginning of his tafsir and filled his book with his narration despite his statement, in the beginning that he will not mention narrations but from his shayookh and trustworthy references.’  At-Tabrasi’s, fakhlul khitaab, paper 13, from the manuscript, and paper 26, from the printed one. Despite this fact that it has been filled with this, the authority of the shia nowadays, Al-Kho’i, he authenticated ALL of the narrations in Al-Qummi, in mu’jam rijaal al hadeeth lil kho’i, vol.1 page 63. After Al-Qummi his student Al-Kulayni, Al-kafi, reported much of this falsehood in his book. Vol.1 page 413, and afterwards. Numbers of hadiths are, 8, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 45, 58, 59, 60, 64, in vol.2, many many places. Despite he said he will quote only authentic.

Al-Khashaani, affirmed that Al-Kulayni believed it was true about the tahreef of the qur’an, Tafsir As-Safi, introduction, page 52, and Al-A’lamy, page 40 printed in Tehran.

Al-Kulayni’s book Al-Kafi is recorded to be the highest authentic book for the Shia, due to Al-Kulayni living amongst the 4 greatest scholars of Shia, who claimed to have had meetings with the awaited Mahdi, so what is in the book should have been affirmed by those scholars in Bahgdad.

Al-Majlisi in his book, mir’atul ‘uqool, ruled that some of the narrations of Al-Kafi, were weak but also, he authenticated some of the narrations regarding tahreef also, of them, is, ‘the qur’an which jibreel AS brought to Muhammed SAW, was 17,000 ayah.’

 

An-Nuri At-Tabrasi, died 1320, and was buried in the sacred spot, he inserted his book, ‘this is a matter which is in agreement amongst the shia.’ He presented 1000 plus proofs, of verses which were omitted, and it is agreed upon by most of the books that are authentic within the Shia.

 

Shaykh Mufeed in his famous book, Kitab al-Irshad. In Kitab al-Irshad, he writes about how the Imam Mehdi (i.e. Qa’im) will–on his return–teach people the “real” Quran. Shaykh al-Mufid writes:

(Imam al-Baqir) said: When the Qai’m from the family of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and his family, arises, he will set up encampments and he will teach the people the Quran as it was revealed by Allah, the Mighty and the High. The greatest difficulty will be for those who have learnt it as it is today, because it differs from its original composition.

Source
Book Title: Kitab al-Irshad (The Book of Guidance)
Author: ash-Shaykh al-Mufid
Publisher: Balagha Books in conjunction with The Muhammadi Trust [1981]
Translated by: I.K.A. Howard
Page: 553

That’s strike two for Shaykh al-Mufid.

 

One of the most troublesome points for the Shia faith is the fact that its central tenet, the concept of Imamah and the designation of the twelve Infallible Imams, is altogether missing from the Quran. To the Shia, the belief in the twelve Imams is central to one’s faith and the one who denies the Imamah of these twelve men does not die a complete believer. Therefore, it is mysterious that Allah did not include this belief in the Quran, even though much lesser important matters were in fact mentioned therein.

The classical Shia scholars rectified this discrepancy by claiming that the Quran was tampered with by the Sahabah (the Prophet’s Companions) who sought to prevent the rule of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and the line of Imams after him; according to these Shia, the Sahabah removed verses and even entire Surahs from the Quran (including the so-called Surah al-Wilayah) in order to hide Allah’s Commandments to follow the twelve Imams. This belief in Tahreef (corruption or manipulation) of the Quran became a central part of the classical Shia theology. However, when the mainstream Muslims heard of this deviant belief, they reacted by burning to the stake the heretics who claimed such a thing. It was thus that the Shia scholars decided upon using Taqiyyah (lying to save oneself) in order to save the Shia masses from extinction. These classical Shia scholars feared that the welfare of the Shia masses was far too important and it was best to hide this view using Taqiyyah.

In the modern day, the Shia scholars have continued this tradition of Taqiyyah, publically denying–even to their own followers–the belief in Tahreef. The Shia propagandists have taken Taqiyyah one step further by simply denying that this was ever a Shia belief to begin with. Unfortunately, the classical Shia books–written by the founding fathers of Shia theology–are evidence to the contrary: the prevailing view of the men who founded the Shia theology, whose books form the basis for modern day Shia scholarship, was that Tahreef of Quran did in fact happen.

In this article, we will examine the view of ash-Shaykh al-Mufid, one of the most well-respected Imami scholars of theology; he is cited by the Shia as being one of the pivotal thinkers who contributed to the development of Imami doctrine. It would not be an overstatement to say that the Shia hold Shaykh al-Mufid in higher regard than all of the contemporary Ayatollahs combined.

As we all know, it was Caliph Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) who completed the compilation of the Quran into what became known as the Mushaf. Shaykh al-Mufid claimed, like his other Shia colleagues, that Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) did not properly compile the Quran and that parts of the Quran were left out (i.e. omitted) from the Mushaf, in particular those verses in the Quran in which the names of the twelve Imams were mentioned. Shaykh al-Mufid claimed that Amir al-Mu’mineen Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the only one who compiled the entire Quran and that this edition was currently being held by Al-Qaem (i.e. Imam Mehdi) who would reveal this complete version when he would return from his occultation.

And yet, in the typical tradition of Taqiyyah, the Shia propagandists provide a half-quote to make it appear as if Shaykh al-Mufid did not believe in Tahreef. This is the half-quote that is commonly propagated by the Shia:

All of what is between the two covers of the Quran is the Speech of Allah Ta’ala and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beings…Authentic Hadiths have passed from our Imams (A.S.) that they have ordered (us) to read what is between the two covers, and that we do not resort to any other, be it in addition or subtraction…They (A.S.) prevented us from reading the Quran contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers.

Source
Book Title: Masa’il as-Sarawiyya
Author: ash-Shaykh al-Mufid
Publisher: Dar al-Mufid in Lebanon, Beirut [1993]
Editor: Sa’ib `Abd al-Humayd
Page(s): 78-81

And we find this misleading half-quote dutifully reproduced by many Shia propagandists and even by many Shia lay-persons who have never actually opened this book in their lives. It is altogether stunning at how deceptive this half-quoting is. Let us then turn to these same pages from that same book and expose the Shia deception by reading the entire passage in lieu of this cut and spliced version. Shaykh al-Mufid says:

All of what is between the two covers of the Quran is the Speech of Allah Ta’ala and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beings, and it is most of what has been revealed, and the rest of what Allah Ta’ala has revealed as Quran is bestowed with (Al-Qaem) the Preserver of Shariah and Custodian of Rulings with none of it being omitted, even though the one who has compiled what is between the two covers as present today (Uthman) did not include this in the compilation due to reasons such as: his shortcomings in knowing some (of it), what he had doubts about, and some which he included and others he meant to exclude, while Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) compiled the revealed Quran from beginning to end, and collated it as it is supposed to be collated: so he put the Makki (verses) before Madani, and abrogated verses before those abrogating them, and put all of it as it is required to be put, and for this reason (Imam) Jafar ibn Muhammad as-Saddiq said: “By Allah if the Quran was read as it was revealed you would have found our names as those before us were named”

Authentic Hadiths have passed from our Imams (A.S.) that they have ordered (us) to read what is between the two covers, and that we do not resort to any other, be it in addition or subtraction until the Qaem emerges and he would read to people the Quran as Allah Ta’ala revealed it and as collected by Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) and they forbade us from reading what is mentioned in Hadith of words that are in excess of what is established in the Mushaf because it did not come through Mutawatir (narrations), but through individual (narrations), and a person can commit mistakes in conveying it, and whenever a person reads what is contrary to what is in the two covers he will make himself prone to (the attacks) of those who differ with us (i.e. Sunnis), and to the mighty (Sunni rulers) and thus he would expose himself to perishing. Thus, they (A.S.) prevented us from reading the Quran contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers.

Source
Book Title: Masa’il as-Sarawiyya
Author: ash-Shaykh al-Mufid
Publisher: Dar al-Mufid in Lebanon, Beirut [1993]
Editor: Sa’ib `Abd al-Humayd
Page(s): 78-81

How dramatically different is the truth from what the Shia try to portray! The very quote that the Shia use to defend Shaykh al-Mufid is the very proof that we use to damn him. Let us summarize what Shaykh al-Mufid said in the above quote:

1) Yes, everything in the Quran that we have now is from Allah and nothing in it is from humans. So there are no additions to the Quran.

2) However, there are deletions (i.e. omissions) from the Quran! These missing parts of the Quran are with Imam Mehdi (i.e. Al-Qaem). Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) did not include these parts in the Mushaf we have today for a variety of reasons (and he names those reasons).

3) The names of the twelve Imams are actually mentioned in the complete Quran which is with Al-Qaem, and these verses were omitted by Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه). Al-Qaem will reveal the missing verses when he returns from his occultation.

4) Yes, we know for sure that there are missing parts to the Quran, but we cannot be sure what exactly those missing parts are; we don’t know which of those Hadith which tell us the missing verses are correct and which are not. We will have to wait for Al-Qaem to come and inform us which are the true additions to the Quran.

5) Taqiyyah: We should deny that anything is missing from the Quran for fear of the Sunni reaction and backlash against the Shia masses.

May Allah guide us to the Truth!

In one of his latest articles, ‘mis’-guided, may Allah guide him and keep us firm, called it ‘Effendi’s intellectual suicide.’

He quoted the following Ibn Haj’r’s most classical work ‘Fath ul Bari’:

وقد تأول القاضي أبو بكر الباقلاني في كتاب ‏”‏ الانتصار ‏”‏ وتبعه عياض وغيره ما حكي عن ابن مسعود فقال‏:‏ لم ينكر ابن مسعود كونهما من القرآن وإنما أنكر إثباتهما في المصحف، فإنه كان يرى أن لا يكتب في المصحف شيئا إلا إن كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أذن في كتابته فيه، وكأنه لم يبلغه الإذن في ذلك، قال‏:‏ فهذا تأويل منه وليس جحدا لكونهما قرآنا‏.‏

وهو تأويل حسن إلا أن الرواية الصحيحة الصريحة التي ذكرتها تدفع ذلك حيث جاء فيها‏:‏ ويقول إنهما ليستا من كتاب الله‏.‏

 

Qadi Abubakr al-Baqillani has interpreted in his al-Intisar, and Iyad and others have followed him, about what is narrated from Ibn Mas’ud. He (al-Baqillani) said: “Ibn Mas’ud did not deny that both Surahs are from the Qur’an. Rather, he denied their inclusion in the Qur’anic codex. This is because it is narrated that he used not to include anything in his Qur’anic codex except after the Prophet, peace be upon him, had given permission to him to do so. It seems that the permission did not reach him (in the case of the two Surahs). Therefore, his statement is only his tawil (interpretation), and it was not rejection of their being part of the Qur’an.

(al-Asqalani says) This is a good interpretation EXCEPT THAT THERE ARE EXPLICIT SAHIH REPORTS WHICH REFUTES THE ABOVE ON ACCOUNT OF THIS PHRASE IN THEM: “HE (IBN MAS’UD) WAS SAYING: ‘BOTH SURAHS ARE NOT FROM THE BOOK OF ALLAH’”.

And also the following from Imam Nawawi:

 

Imam Nawawi said in “al-Majmoa sharhul al-mahzab” (3/396):

أجمع المسلمون على أن المعوذتين والفاتحة وسائر السور المكتوبة في المصحف قرآن. وأن من جحد شيئا منه كفر. وما نقل عن ابن مسعود في الفاتحة والمعوذتين باطل ليس بصحيح عنه

“Muslims agreed upon muawizaytan and Fatiha and other surahs which written in al-Mushaf of Quran, AND WHOEVER WOULD REJECT THING FROM IT IS KAAFIR.

 

So he felt like he did something amazing by ‘refuting’ us and making it seem as though Ibn Mas’ud RA believed in tahrif.

However the explanation our scholars give which I think he missed or didn’t see yet.

Ibn Mas’ud RA denied those two surah’s due to seeing the Prophet SAW and the companions only using it as ruqyah and he swore that he would never add something into his mushaf, until he found it to be a part of the Qur’an.

He was the one who said, ‘There is not an ayah, that I do not know when it was revealed, where it was revealed, and why it was revealed.’ So this shows he learned the usul of every verse, and it is narrated he said this after the death of the messenger SAW. And did we hear any argument against the mus-haf Zayd Ibn Thabit RA collected?

So the understanding here is that the companions all agreed on the mus-haf of Abu Bakr RA, meaning that the whole Qur’an was collected into this Book we have today. And when we refer to ‘tahrif’ it is this Book we have today, so anyone who after the agreement of the companions believe in tahreef, is surely a kaafir as stated by our fatawaa.

Imam Nawawi said in “al-Majmoa sharhul al-mahzab” (3/396):

أجمع المسلمون على أن المعوذتين والفاتحة وسائر السور المكتوبة في المصحف قرآن. وأن من جحد شيئا منه كفر. وما نقل عن ابن مسعود في الفاتحة والمعوذتين باطل ليس بصحيح عنه

“Muslims agreed upon muawizaytan and Fatiha and other surahs which written in al-Mushaf of Quran, AND WHOEVER WOULD REJECT THING FROM IT IS KAAFIR.

So I hope it is understood now. So ya misguided! Please don’t put your scholars who confused you and played with your emotions to those preserved the Qur’an for us.

And Allah knows best

1. Kulayni Narrated in Al Rawdah:

وروى الكليني في الروضة: عن علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن عمر بن أذينة، عن بريد بن معاوية، قال: تلا أبو جعفر: [أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولي الأمر منكم، فإن خفتم تنازعاً في الأمر فأرجعوه إلى الله وإلى الرسول وإلى أولي الأمر منكم].
ثم قال: كيف يأمر بطاعتهم ويرخص في منازعتهم؟ إنما قال ذلك للمأمورين الذين قيل لهم: [أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول].

Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, from Ibn Abi Umayr, from umar Bin Uthunayh, from buraid Bin Muawiyah, Abu Ja’afar RAA recited: “Obey God, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye fear from a dispute in anything among yourselves, refer it to God His Messenger and those charged with authority among you.” (original verse 004:059) Then he said: How is it that God Orders us to Obey them (12 Imams) then allows us to have a dispute with them!? He only said it to those who were ordered “Obey God, and obey the Messenger”.

2. Ali bin ibrahim al Qummi regarding Tafseer Surat al Nisa’a:

روى علي بن إبراهيم القمي -أيضاً- في تفسير سورة النساء، فقال: حدثني أبي، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن ابن أذينة، عن زرارة، عن أبي جعفر، قال: [ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاءوك يا علي فاستغفروا الله واستغفر لهم الرسول لوجدوا الله تواباً رحيماً] هكذا نزلت!!

narrated from his father from Ibn Abi umayr from umar Bin Uthunayh from Zurarah from Abu Abdullah Ja’afar RAA: “If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee O ALI and asked God’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found God indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” This is how it was revealed! (original verse 004:064)

Comment: Mashallah finally shia found name of Imam Ali in quran.

Ya shia still you claim that: we [shia] believe in present quran!

Introduction

The Shia propagandists often claim that the Hadith about the Quran and Sunnah (i.e. “I am leaving you with the Book of Allah and my Sunnah…”) is weak or even forged. This is a blatant lie; according to the standards of the Hadith scholars, the Hadith about the Quran and Sunnah is Sahih. It is a wonder how the Shia continually attempt to establish the Sunni position themselves. How can they say that this Hadith is considered weak, when in fact it has always been considered authentic by the Ahlus Sunnah? Whether or not the Shia consider it authentic is irrelevant to us because they have no credible science of Hadith to begin with.

The following is a question/answer session with Shaikh Gibril Haddad.

Questioner says:

This Hadeeth about the Quran and Sunnah (i.e. “I am leaving you with the book of Allah and my Sunnah…”) is weak.

Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad:

[A] crass lie…The hadith in question is not weak.

Questioner says:

Ninowi said: Please note, that some people are using an alleged Hadeeth (that I am leaving you with the book of Allah and my Sunnah). Please be advised that this Hadeeth is extremely weak. Moreover, many leading scholars of Hadeeth have declared it as fabricated.

Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad:

What scholar(s) of hadith declared this hadith “extremely weak”? What scholars(s) declared it “fabricated”?

I have listed over two dozen dictionaries of forgeries in an article titled “The ‘famous hadith’ and forgery compilations” available in full at livingislam.org / (pdf-file).

Surely if “many leading scholars of Hadeeth have declared it as fabricated” it should be easy to say where, in any of those books, one of those supposedly “many leading scholars” can be seen declaring such a thing.

Questioner says:

The Hadeeth (i.e. that I am leaving you with the book of Allah and my Sunnah) is present in ONLY ONE book (al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim) and has ONLY ONE narrator.

Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad:

The hadith in question states that the Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace:

“I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His Prophet.”

This is narrated from Anas by:
*Abu al-Shaykh in Tabaqat al-Muhaddithin fi Asbahan (4:67 §549);

also from `Amr ibn `Awf by:
*Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (24:331);

and also from Ibn `Abbâs by:
*Ibn Nasr al-Marwazi (202-294) in al-Sunna (p. 25-26 §68)
*al-Hakim in his Mustadrak (1:93=1990 ed. 1:171 §318) who declared that all its narrators are “agreed upon” meaning in the two books of Sahih
*al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (10:114 §20108)
*al-I`tiqad (p. 228) by Malik in his Muwatta’. Ibn `Abd al-Barr narrated its chain in al-Tamhid (24:331) and describes it as “so famous and widespread as a Prophetic report among the people of knowledge” that it can be treated as mass-transmitted (mahfuz, ma`ruf, mashhur `an al-Nabi salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam thamma ahl al-`ilm shuhratan yakadu yustaghna biha `an al-isnad)
*Ibn Hazm who declared it sahih in al-Ihkam (6:243=6:810) even though he is overly strict in his criterion for soundness as stated by Shaykh Ahmad al-Ghumari in his student `Abd Allah al-Talidi’s biographical notes, Darr al-Ghamam al-Raqiq.

Another version states:

“I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of Allah and my Sunna. And these two shall never part ways until they show up at the Pond.”

Narrated from Abu Hurayra by:
*Ibn Shahin in al-Targhib fil-Dhikr (2:406 §528) as stated by Ahmad al-Ghumari in al-Mudawi (3:482 §3923)
*al-Hakim in the Mustadrak (1:93=1990 ed. 1:172 §319)
*al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (10:114 §20109)
*al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (4:245 §149)
*Abu Bakr al-Shafi`i in the Ghaylaniyyat as stated by al-Suyuti in the Jami` al-Saghir (§3923)
*al-Lalika’i in Sharh Usul I`tiqad Ahl al-Sunna (1:80)
*al-Khatib in al-Jami` li-Akhlaq al-Rawi (1983 ed. 1:111=1991 ed. 2:165-166 §89) and al-Faqih wal-Mutafaqqih (1:94)
*Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (24:331)
*Ibn Hazm in al-Ihkam (6:243=6:810)
*al-Suyuti declared it hasan in al-Jami` al-Saghir (§3923).

Also narrated mursal from `Urwa as cited by:
*al-Suyuti in Miftah al-Janna (p. 29 §35).

Also narrated mursal through Ibn Ishaq from `Abd Allah ibn Abi Najih by:
*al-Tabari in his Tarikh (2:205-206)
*Ibn Hisham in his Sira (6:8-10).

So there are chains through at least four different Companions corresponding to two versions which have in common the wording: “I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of Allah and the Sunna or my Sunna.”

The fact that this wording in the Muwatta’ is enough proof that it is sahih, as further confirmed by Ibn `Abd al-barr’s remarks. Both these sources actually reflect that there is more to Hadith-grading than the mere documentation of chains of transmission.

Questioner says:

The Hadeeth is narrated by Al Hakem in his “Mustadrak” by way of Ibn abi owais by way of his father by way of thawr by way of Zayd through Ikrima, through ibn abbas, however, ibn abi owais and his father are unreliable people and fabricators.

Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad:

Says who exactly? Imam al-Bukhari narrates over 200 hadiths from Ibn Abi Uways. Over 170 of those are hadiths Ibn Abi Uways narrates from his maternal uncle, Imam Malik. As for his father `Abd Allah Abu Uways, he is one of the narrators of the Sunan and Muslim also uses him in his Sahih.

Questioner says:

See “tahtheeb al kamal” 3/127 by Imam Hafez Mizzy, and “Sharhh saheeh Al Bukhari” intro/391 by Imam Hafez Inb Hajr, also Imam Nasaaiy was among other scholars to denounce those narrators describing them as ” weak and unreliable”, similarly did Abu Hatem Arrazy in his book “aljarhh wat ta’deel in Elm Al hadeeth”, others who also mentioned their unreliability are Llakaiy, Assideeq, Ibn Mueen, Ibn Habban,. ….etc.

Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad:

None of the above called these two narrators “unreliable people and fabricators.” On the contrary, Ibn Hajar, Abu Hatim, and Ibn Ma`in all called him truthful (saduq).

Questioner says:

Even Imam Al Hakem himself who mentioned this hadeeth in his book, after he added another weak route to it, declared this Hadeeth immediately as a weak Hadeeth and admitted it’s great weakness.”

Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad:

Actually, al-Hakim followed up with another route because it came through another Companion, which strengthens the hadith. Nowhere does he declare the first hadith weak.

Shaikh Gibril Haddad also said:

Shaykh Abu al-Fadl Ahmad al-Ghumari in his book al-Mudawi li-`Ilal al-Munawi (3:482 §3923) supports the authenticity of this hadith and that his brother, Shaykh `Abd Allah ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari, Allah have mercy on both of them, included this hadith among the sound hadiths in his compilation of the sahih and hasan hadiths of Imam al-Suyuti’s al-Jami` al-Saghir which he titled al-Kanz al-Thamin fi Ahadith al-Nabi al-Amin salla Allahu `alayhi wa Sallam. And Allah knows best.

Questioner says:

We Shia instead follow the Hadeeth in which the Prophet says he left behind the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt. This hadeeth mentioning Ahlul Bayt and Quran as inseparable is very significant and has been narrated by 35 Sahaba (!!!) and is given in the Sahihs of Ahlu Sunnah and the many books of their scholars. It is Mutawattir!

Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad:

This is absolutely false, the hadith is NOT mutawatir nor narrated by anywhere near even 10 Sahaba.

Questioner says:

The Hadeeth about Quran and Sunnah is weak and narrated by only 1 Sahabi, whereas the other Hadeeth (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is mutawattir and narrated by 35 Sahabah.

Answer by Shaikh Gibril Haddad:

The hadith in question (Quran and Sunnah) is not weak…(and it is narrated by) at least four different Companions …the other hadith (Quran and Ahl al-Bayt) is not mutawatir as I already said…the hadith is NOT mutawatir nor narrated by anywhere near even 10 Sahaba. [Therefore, a similar number of Companions narrated BOTH Hadith, with perhaps only a couple more narrating the Hadith of the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt.]

Questioner says:

Why have you abandoned the Mutawattir Hadeeth about the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt, replacing it with the weak Hadeeth about Quran and Sunnah?

Answer by Team Ahlel Bayt:

First of all, the Hadith about the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt is not Mutawattir, nor is the Hadith about Quran and Sunnah considered Dhaeef (weak). Instead, both Hadith are of a very similar calibre. Secondly, we have not abandoned the Hadith about Quran and Ahl al-Bayt nor have we replaced it with the other Hadith. Instead, we believe in both Hadith; the Hadith about Quran and Sunnah was said by the Prophet in front of the larger gathering during his Farewell Sermon, and the Hadith about Quran and Ahl al-Bayt was said by the Prophet in front of the smaller gathering at Ghadir Khumm. This second Hadith was directed towards those of Medinah because it was they who would be tasked with the role of caring for the Prophet’s family after his death.