A Study of Sunni and Shii Traditions Concerning Tahrif [of Holy Quran] Part 3

Conclusion

Having mentioned the Imami belief in the purity of the Quranic text and absence of any tahrif in it, it is necessary to point out certain issues.

1. Some Sunni writers - mistakenly or willfully - have made confusion between the various Shii sects and have been unable to identify the differences present in their beliefs. They do not differentiate between the Ghulat and the other sects, and this leads them to ascribe the beliefs of one of them to the other. Therefore, Dr. Hafni Dawud says concerning Ahmad Amin, the Egyptian writer, "He has failed to differentiate between the Imamiyyah and the Mu'allihah (those who attribute divinity to the Imams).... Further he has not been able to make an exact differentiation between the moderates among them (the Shiah) and the fanatics who vehemently attack the beliefs of others."57

He also says, "The Imamiyyah and the Zaydiyyah among Shii sects are moderates and differ completely from such extremist sects as the Kaysaniyyah, the Mu'allihah and the Hululiyyah.58

This mix-up may be the result of these authors' lack of knowledge of Shii Imami beliefs, or perhaps they have overlooked these differences because their sole purpose was to attack the Imamiyyah, but it is some­thing which does not befit any healthy mind.

It is not valid to attribute some issues which were a part of the beliefs of the Ghulat to the Imami Shiis, and the issue of tahrif is one of them. The profession of this belief by the Ghulat, such as al-Sayyari, Ahmad ibn Al Kuffi and others, and their narration of some traditions concerning it, bears out that it is a part of Ghali beliefs and its ascription to the Imamiyyah is incorrect?"59

The vast majority of these traditions have been narrated by those who are accused of ghul­uww or forgery in Shii works on rijal.

These days we come across some clerics in some places as in India and Pakistan who are commonly known to belong to the Imamiyyah yet incline towards Ghali, beliefs. They have written some books on doctrine from which their acceptance of tahrif is understood. Similarly, some of their other beliefs also show their inclination towards the Ghurat. This is, however, something to which the most eminent of Shii scholars, whose names have been mentioned, do not subscribe, and the Imamiyyah decline to share the burden of the beliefs of such persons.

These are their own personal views which may not be attributed to the Imamiyyah. The case is similar to the views expressed on certain issues by some Sunni scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah and others, which the Ahl al-Sunnah do not accept, and hence it is not appropriate to attribute these beliefs to them as a whole.

Hence it is not right to ascribe the views of such persons to the Imamiyyah, as justly pointed out by al­ Zarqani, who observes, "Some Shii Ghulat imagine that `Uthman, and before him Abu Bakr and Umar, altered the Qur'an and deleted numer­ous verses and surahs from it."60 He further says, "Surely some Shii 'ulama' dissociate themselves from this nonsense and it cannot be ascribed to them.61

Dr. `Abd al- Sabur Shahin also states, "It is the Ghulat who have associated some false traditions with the Quran."62

If one studies the bibliographies of Shii works, one will find that they have written scores of books in refutation of the Ghulat and have dissociated themselves from them and their beliefs.63

2. One of the things which needs to be pointed out is the presence of some traditionists among Shiis and Sunnis who accept traditions without paying heed to the Qur'an and without examining whether a tradition is in consonance with its teachings or not. They also accept traditions without studying their chains of transmission and make no effort to differentiate scientifically between the traditions with a view to accepting the authentic and rejecting the inauthentic.

Therefore, when they came across some traditions entailing the occurrence of tahrif, they were misled to accepting the presence of tahrif. Even if they themselves did not believe in tahrif they narrated those fabrications in their books because they imagined the likelihood of these traditions being authentic or understood them to signify something that had nothing to do with tahrif. The responsibility of narrating such traditions lies with them.

Anyhow, the Shii `ulama, including their most eminent scholars such as al-Saduq, al-Tusi, al­Murtada, al-Tabarsi and others, do not believe in tahrif and reject its ascription to the Shiah. They have also emphasized the weakness of the traditions pertaining to tahrif. One can refer in this regard to the introduction of Majma' al-bayan, the introduction of Tafsir al-Safi, al­ Bihar, and other works mentioned earlier.

Concluded - wa al-hamdu lillah