This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
RAINER BRUNNER The Dispute about the Falsification of the Qur’ān between Sunnīs and ShīÝīs in the 20th Century
Originalbeitrag erschienen in: Stefan Leder u.a. (Hrsg.): Studies in Arabic and Islam : proceedings of the 19th Congress, Union Européene des Arabisants et Islamisants, Halle 1998. Leuven [u.a.]: Peeters, 2002, S.  - 446
THE DISPUTE ABOUT THE FALSIFICATION OF THE QUR'AN BETWEEN SUNNIS AND SHI IS IN THE 20TH CENTURY
The question of whether and to what extent the text of the existing Qur'an may have been corrupted and changed (talgrif al-qurCin) constituted one of the major differences between Sunni and Shiei theologians during the first centuries of Islamic thought'. As is well known many Shiei scholars refused to accept the edition of the text of the Qur'an that, according to tradition, had been made on the orders of the third caliph, eUthman. Instead, they maintained that the Sunnis had deliberately forged the text in suppressing all references to 'Ali and the imams. In the eyes of their followers these had been clearly and unambiguously identified as the legitimate leaders of the Muslim community. It was only after the end of the tenth century starting with Ibn Babiiya and later with the famous theologians al-Mufid, al-Murtacla and al-Tfisi that more moderate opinions began to circulate. Gradually, al-Mufid's way of tackling the problem was accepted by most Shris: omissions from the established text — if there had been any — only affected the exegesis written down in 'Ali' s copy of the Qur'an; no part of the revelation itself had been deleted, but only its true explanation 2 Nevertheless, the conviction that the Qur'an had been corrupted continued to exist among a large minority of scholars. The revival of the akhbeirr tradition during the Safavid period was of special importance. As most traditions concerning talp-if are traced back to hadiths of the imams, the akhbeiris, who insisted upon the reliability of far more tiadiths than their ugdi counterparts, found much evidence in favour of talfrif Some of these authors (e.g. Muhammad BR al-Majlisi or Mulld Mubsin Fayci al-Kashani) treated the subject gingerly, because they were aware of the danger of a straightforward tahrif theory. As long as
This paper is part of a research project sponsored by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. For a comprehensive treatment of the topic, cf. BRUNNER, R.: Die Schia und die Koranfillschung, Würzburg 2001. 2 KOHLBERG, E.: "Some Notes on the Imdmite Attitude to the Qur'an". In S. M. STERN et al. (Eds.): Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, Festschrift for Richard Walzer. Oxford 1972, pp. 209 24, at 216; see also Amilz M0Ezzi, M. A.: Le guide divin dans le shrisme originel: aux sources de lYsot&isme en Islam. Lagrasse 1992, pp. 200-27.
nobody knew the exact amount and the passages in which tahrif had occurred, the Qur'an would lose all reliability, for the believer could then never be sure whether a certain verse or siirah was complete or not 3 . Others, like Muhammad Baqir al-Lahiji or Abfi al-Hasan al-Sharif al`Amili, were less cautious and explicitly charged the Sunnis with having altered the text of the Qur'an and even with having left out whole portions of the revelation4 . This current survived well into the 19th century, as is shown by several, sometimes remote hints in this regard that can be found in a number of works. Even illustrious scholars such as Jaefar alNajaf' "Kashif al-Ghita" or Murtacla al-Ansari accepted (at least between the lines) the possibility of tahrif in genera1 5 . But all these scattered sentences or paragraphs were of minor importance compared to the book Fag al khita b fi kite& rabb al arbilb that appeared in lithographed form probably in Tehran in 1881. Its author was the Iranian divine Ijusayn Taqi al-Tabarsi (or Tabrisi; 18391902), who was one of the best known and most prolific scholars in the field of badith in more recent Shiei history 6 . On the very first page, he made it clear that he had written his book "in order to confirm the (occurrence of) distortion of the Qur'an and the disgrace of the oppressors and enemies." 7 The following almost 400 pages, closely-written and without a single break, are divided into three introductions and two main parts of different lengths comprising 13 chapters altogether. Nfiri evidently sought to gather all existing narratives on the different aspects of the topic: the alleged distortion of the Jewish Torah and the Christian Gospel, the collection of the fragments of the revelations after Muhammad's death, the different copies written by 'Ali, eAbdallah b. Maseal and Ubayy b. Kai), the "official" recension by eUthman and finally the questions of abrogation or the different readings. The central chapters of the work are composed of more than 1000 traditions and narratives, all referring to taljrif either in general or with regard to specific verses. In the end, Nüri resumes and refutes anticipated objections by those who deny the existence of taljrif and once again confirms his point
KOHLBERG: " Some Notes", pp. 217-18.
A1-U.10, Muhammad Bägir: Tadhkirat al-a'immah. Lith. Tehran 1260hq/1844, pp. 19-22; Abü al-tlasan al-Sharif al-eAmili: al-anwär wa-mishkat al-asreir. Lith. Tehran 1303/1885-86, pp. 25-36. 5 Al-AnsärT, Murtadä: Fartrid al-ttyfil. Lith., n. pl. 1342/1923, pp. 36-37; Al-Najafi, Jaefar: Kashf al-ghita'. Lith. Tehran 1271hq/1854, no pagination, 8th chapter on the Queän; cf. also Al-Naräqi, Ahmad Muhammad Mandi: Mandinj al-ahkärn fi usd1 al-fiqh. Lith. Tehran 1269/1852, pp. 152-54; eAbdallah b. Muhammad Ridd al-tlusayni Shubbar: Maseibrh al -anwarft hall mushkilat al-akhbär. I-II. Najaf 1952, II, pp. 294-95.
THE DISPUTE ABOUT THE FALSIFICATION OF THE QUR'AN
of view. Apart from the badith corpus there is one main argument that constantly recurs and that is attributed by Nüri to the sixth imam, Jaefar al-SA dig, namely: "Whatsoever has befallen the sons of Israel (banfi Isrcril) will inevitably also befall this community (of Muslims)" 8 . And as — according to a well-known tradition backed by the Quedn 9 — both the Torah and the Gospel had been forged, there remained little doubt that the Qur'an had suffered the same fate. It seems that the Shn learned community at the eatabät did not whole-heartedly welcome the book. Hibat al-Din al-Shahrastäni, although born some years after its publication, nevertheless remembers his student days with Ayatollah Mirza tlasan al-Shirazi in Samarra', when he could hardly attend a lecture without finding Nürl, his book and his publisher being heavily criticized and even insulted'. Other ulamd% contemporaries of Nilri, did not confine themselves to internal attacks, but publicly condemned the book by writing refutations. Two of these may be mentioned by name. The first was one Muhammad Husayn alShahrastdni (no relative of the aforementioned Hibat al-Din) who criticized Miff for having been much too credulous as far as the hadiths he quoted were concerned". The second reply to Mari equally centred around his dealing with tradition was composed by Malyniid b. Abi al-Qasim al-Mu e arrab al-Tehräni, who also lived and taught at the eatabeit in Iraq. His book obviously had a considerable influence on the debate, for Nun immediately felt obliged to write a refutation that — to the best of my knowledge — never appeared in print 12 . He particularly tried to counteract the conclusion that his critics drew from reading his book. In a private talk to his most famous student,
6 MAcEoiN, D.: Art. "Tabrisr. In E/2 X, p. 41; AL-TEHRANI, AGHA BOZORG: Tabaqät aeldm al shrah. I-II. Najaf 1954-68 (henceforth Tabaqät) 1.2, pp. 543-55; AL -AMIN, MutisIN: ileyän al shrah. I-X. Beirut 1986 (henceforth Aeydn) VI, pp. 143-44; on the book see AL-TEHRANI, AGH A BOZORG: al Dharrah ad ta.sCuiV al shrah. Beirut 1983 (henceforth Dharrah) XVI, pp. 231-32. 7 Fa.y1 al-khitäb, 1. 8 Ibid., p. 35. 9 Cf. Qur'an 2:75, 4:46, 5:13, 5:41. 1 0 BORUJERDI, MAHDI B. MAHMUD: Borhän-e roushan. Al-Burhän 'aid eadam talgrif alqur'Cin. Tehran 1374/1954, pp. 143-44; al-Shahrastärd, eAbd al-Ricla al MareashI: AlMaeririf al-jaliyyah ft tabwib ajwibat al-maseiil al-diniyyah. Najaf 1972, p. 21. H BOROJERDI: Borhän e roushan, 138-43; on Muhammad Husayn al-Shahrastäni see ARJOMAND, KAMRAN: "In Defense of the Sacred Doctrine. Muhammad Husayn Shahristäni's Refutation of Materialism and Evolutionary Theories of Natural History". In: Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft 25 (1998), pp. 1 18. 12 Dharrah X, 220-21; Nail's answer (possibly written in Persian) is not available to me.
Agha Bozorg al-Tehrani, he is reported to have said that he had given it a wrong title. It would have been more appropriate to call it Fa,s1 al-khitclb ft aclam talp-Tf al-kitclb, because his real aim, as he put it, was to prove that the existing Qur'an had not undergone any change, be it addition or omission or any other form 13 . Yet at the same time, he emphasized that by talfrif he did not mean change or alteration in general, but only "the special (case of) dropping some revealed (passages) that were preserved by His people". Moreover, he equated the word kitclb not with the existing Qur'an "between its two covers", but with "the revealed divine book", because the existing Qur'an had remained unchanged and in the same form that it had been given in the days of eUthman 14 . Thus, in spite of his conciliatory tone he confirmed his conviction that the present Qur'an was not the real Qur'an that had been sent down to man. Up to this point, the debate about the authenticity of the Qur'an had remained largely within Shrism. Admittedly, there had been some polemic retorts by the famous Sunni heresiographers in classical times, above all by Ibn I-Jazm and Ibn Taymiyyah. Their criticism had been especially sharp and uncompromising. Ibn Taymiyyah, e.g., in a wellknown passage regarded it as a matter of course to compare the räfidis, as he used to call the Shieis, to the Jews, because both had distorted the holy scriptures (which, incidentally, shows that the accusation of talyif was a mutual one) 15 . But Sunni interest in this question seems to have waned during the following centuries, and even the revival of the defence of talp-if by writers of an akhbäri tendency, culminating in Nüri's Fasil al-khitclb, did not meet with any immediate repercussion among Sunni authors. As far as I can see, the first discussion on talp-if between a Sunni and a ShieT theologian took place only shortly before the First World War, when the Egyptian, Azhar-educated scholar Yfisuf b. Ahmad al-Dijwi published a book on the European view of Islam in general and the question of tahrif in particular. In it, he included a chapter on the ShIeT attitude towards the Qur'an, in which he characteristically relied on Ibn I-Jazm and Ibn Taymiyyah and did not quote from Shiei sources at al1 16 . Consequently he did not notice or even acknowl-
Tabaqdt 1.1, 550-51; Dharrah XVI, p. 232. Dharrah XVI, p. 231. 15 Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhdj al sunnah al nabawiyyah ft naqd kaldm al shrah alqadariyyah. I - II. Cairo 1321h, I, 6; see also KOHLBERG, "Some Notes", p. 209. 16 Al Dijwi, Ylisuf: Al Jawdb al muniffi al radd 'aid mudda7 al talyiffi al kitdb alsharif. Cairo 1331/1913, pp. 164-87; see also al Manär 16/7 (July 1913), P. 555; cf. also Journal Asiatique 36me 56r., 13 (1842), pp. 431-39 and 46me 56r., 2 (1843), pp. 373-429.
THE DISPUTE ABOUT THE FALSIFICATION OF THE QUR'AN
edge any change of the Shiei point of view and gave the impression that the present Shieis still clung to the opinion that the Quednic text had been forged. Of special importance for him was the so-called "Siirah of the two Lights" (siirat al-nfirayn), alluding to Muhammad and 'Ali. Dijwi most probably took this passage from an 18th century Persian work called Dabestän-e madhäheb that has been known to Western scholars since the 1840s. Noeldeke who had been the first to thoroughly investigate it came to the conclusion that it constituted a gross Shiei forgery 17 . Most Shiei writers readily agreed on the result as such, but always pointed to the fact that the author of the Dabestän presumably did not belong to the Shieis and that the sarah therefore had to be regarded as an anti-Shiei deception 18 . Dijwi did not have to wait long for a response. Still in the same year, the Iraqi ShieT scholar Muhammad altlusayn Al Käshif al-Ghip', in a two-volume collection of critical articles on various topics, devoted some pages to Dijwi whom he said he had met during his stay in Cairo. His criticism focussed on Dijwi's onesided preference for Sunni polemic works of the Middle Ages and his uncritical quotation of the sfirat al-nfirayn. Instead, he dissociated himself from the few Shieis who had endorsed the idea of taljrif and called upon his Egyptian counterpart to do the same in order to contribute to a united pan-Islamic front and to protect the Islamic religion 19 . In the course of the following decades until about 1950, there were only scattered remarks by Sunni authors in this respect, but all of them were duly perceived and refuted by the Shieis. Two examples deserve special mention. The first one is the well-known book al-Washrah ft naqcj `aqd'id al-shrah by the Russian-born Müsä Järalläh, written as a kind of modern travel book. This form of course served the purpose of enhancing the position of the author who relied on his own experiences. At the same time the book was far more dangerous to the Shris than, e.g., Dijwi's, which had merely repeated time-worn statements made by "the usual suspects". Järalläh, however, dropped hints that he had not found a single Shiei in the whole of Iraq and Iran who satisfactorily knew the Quedn. He even pretended that the Queän was completely out of use among the Shiei population of these countries. Not surprisingly
Geschichte des Qorcins. Leipzig 1919, II, p. 111. There is, however, a Shri source contemporary to the Dabestän in which this sürah is quoted without restraint and for polemic purposes against the Sunnis: al-Lähiji: Tadhkirat al-a'immah, pp. 20-21. 19 Al Kashif al-Ghitä', Muhammad al-I-Jusayn: al-Muteddeit wa-l-murajdeit wa-lnuqfid wa-l-rudfid. I-II. Beirut, Saida' 1331/1913, II, pp. 115-20; see also MARTIN HARTMANN' S remarks in Welt des Islam 1 (1913), pp. 223-24 and pp. 287-92.
then, he attached to the question of taltrif the same value as to the imamate itself and accused the Shieis in general of not believing in the same Qur'an as the Sunnis. In his eyes, contemporary Shrism was even more horrible than in former times 20 . The other example is still more important insofar as eAbdallah al-Qasimi, then a staunch Wahhabi, was the first Sunni writer who publicly took notice of Niiri's Fag al-khitäb. In his own two-volume refutation of Shieism, he not only treated the terms talp-if and ta'wil more or less as synonyms, but ended with an extensive attack on Wirt His counter-polemic, however, was not a source-critical, let alone theological examination but the rather one-dimensional assertion that Nüri's book proved the Shiti Persians' hatred of the Muslim Arabs'. It goes without saying that both books met with furious Shiei refutations. Their authors in turn not only played down the number and importance of the Shri traditions in favour of talyrf, but also began to remind the Sunnis of the large number of Sunni narratives of the same tendency 22 . When talking about the Queän in general, Shri scholars now hardly missed the opportunity to freely criticize MIT and others for having supported the talpjf opinion and for having relied on weak traditions 23 . Things became more and more implacable in the 1950s, when the question of tafrif gradually shifted to the centre of the discussion. The background for this may be seen in the efforts made by some Sunni and Shiei scholars to promote inner-Islamic ecumenical activities during these years. This movement gained enormous momentum after the foundation of the society rapprochement (Jamd'at al-taw-a) bayn al-mad20 Järalläh, Müsä: Al-Washrah ft naqd eaqa'id al-shrah. Cairo 1936 (repr. 1982), pp. 112-16, 125-27, 151-55; on the author (1874-1949) see J. L. ESPOSITO (Ed.): The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World. I-IV. New York, Oxford 1995, I, pp. 216-18. 21 Al-QasimI, eAbdalläh: Al-Sirae bayn al-Islam wa-l-wathaniyyah. I-II. Cairo 1938, I, pp. 69-75 and II, pp. 861-81; on the author see WASELLA, J.: Vom Fundamentalisten zum Atheisten. Die Dissidentenkarriere des eAbdallah al-Qasimi, 1907-1996. Gotha 1997. 22 See e.g. al-Amin, Muhsin: Nag(' al-washrah fi naqd eaqdicl al-shrah. Beirut 1951, pp. 194-205; Sharaf al-Din, eAbd al-Husayn: Ajwibat masail Jarallah. Najaf 3rd ed. 1966, pp. 28-37; al-Amini, eAbd al-Husayn: al-Ghadir fi al-kitab wa-l-sunnah wa-l-adab. I-XI. Beirut 1983, III, pp. 301-04 and 324-33; al-KhunayzI, Abü al-Ijasan: al-Daewah alislamiyyah ila wandat ahl al-sunnah wa-l-imamiyyah. I-II. Beirut 1956, II, pp. 71-107. Järalldh was approvingly cited by Kurd 'Ali, Muhammad: Al-Mudhakkirat. I-TV. Damascus 1949, III, p. 745 and by Ahmad b. `Abd al-eAziz al-ljamdän: Ma yajib an ydrifahu al-muslim 'an eaqa'id al-rawdfid al-imamiyyah, Cairo 1994, pp. 72-73. 23 Al-Baläghi, Muhammad Jawdd: Ala' al-rahmän ft tafsir al-qur'an. I-Ill. Saida' 1933/34, I, pp. 17-29; see also Sangalaji, Sharleat: Kelid-e fahm-e qor'an, Tehran 2nd ed. 1362, pp. 9-16.
THE DISPUTE ABOUT THE FALSIFICATION OF THE QUR'AN
hdhib al-isldmiyyah) in Cairo in 1947 24 . This society was not only backed by a number of leading shaykhs of al-Azhar university, but also enjoyed the tacit support of the Shiei marjae al-tacilid of the day, Ayatollah tiosayn Boriljerdi. But opposition to a dialogue or even any form of cooperation between Sunnism and Shieism remained vigorous from the very beginning. Its main representatives were those Sunnis who came from the salaft or even Wahhabite schools of thought that had always been sceptical about Shrism, to say the least 25 . In the following years, both groups — the Shiei supporters of ecumenism and their Sunni opponents — increasingly argued by referring to talu-Y , but of course for different purposes. Thus, the eminent Shiti scholar Abü al-Qasim al-Khfei openly discussed talyif in his much-read commentary of the Qur'an, alBaydn ft tafsir al-qur'dn. Without mentioning Niiri by name, he denied some of the latter's most frequent arguments. Moreover, he had the central part of his treatise — the pages on 'All's copy of the Qur'an with supposed additions in it — published in the Cairo-based journal of the ecumenical society, Risdlat al-Islc7m 26 . Evidently, these efforts aimed at proving that the overwhelming majority of the Shris had always believed in the same Qur'an as the Sunnis. On the other hand, the staunch adversaries of Shrism in general and ecumenism in particular also discovered the usefulness of the talp-if issue. By far the most important contribution to the dispute was made by Mubibb al-Din al-Khatib who at the time of the First World War had been an ardent Arab nationalist and in later times became one of the outstanding figures of salafiyyah thought in Egypt. In the 1950s he was for some years editor-in-chief of the official Azhar journal that thereby turned into a stronghold of Sunni orthodoxy against ecumenismn. Khatib did not immediately concentrate on taljrif. In his first articles against Shieism, published immediately after the foundation of the taw-Th.
24 On this society and its activities see my Annäherung und Distanz. Schia, Azhar und die islamische Ökumene im 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin 1996, esp. pp. 95-188. 25 SHINAR, P. and ENDE, W.: Art. "Salafiyya". In EF VIII, pp. 900-09. 26 Al-Khin: al-Bayan ft tafsir al-qur'an. Najaf 1375/1955-56, pp. 136-81 (English translation by A. A. SACHEDINA The Prolegomena to the Qur'an. New York, Oxford 1998, pp. 135-62); Risalat al-Islam 10 (1958), pp. 186-89 (= pp. 172-75 of the book); on al-Khn's commentary, see also AYOUB, M.: "The Speaking and the Silent Qur'an. A Study of the Principles and Development of Imdm i Shn tafsir" in: A. RIPPIN (Ed.): Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an. Oxford 1988, pp. 177-98, at 190-92; another example of this kind is al-ShahrastänT, Hibat al-Din: Tanzih al-tanzil ft ithbal siyanat al-mu.shaf al-sharif min al-naskh wa-l-nawl wa-l-taljrif. Tehran 1371/1951-52 (in Persian), esp. pp. 5-79. 27 BRUNNER: Annäherung und Distanz, pp. 193-208.
society, he did not even mention it, but gave priority to more traditional issues such as the companions of the prophet, the ShieT belief in the Mandi and the infallibility of the imdms. But in view of the wide response to the society he seemingly felt compelled to bring up heavy artillery. His struggle reached a climax after the rector of the Azhar university, Matimüd Shaltilt, issued in July 1959 a fatwei in which he formally acknowledged Shieism as a school of law in line with the four Sunni madhähib 28 . Shortly afterwards, Khatib published his famous — and rather infamous — polemical booklet al-Khutfit al-earidah in which he described Shieism as he saw it, i.e. as a religion of its own, standing outside Islam. Although only some five pages dealt with tahrif, they turned out to be one of the most fateful blows against Shieism in the 20th century. With particular scorn the Egyptian eeilim mocked Nüri — whose book then at the latest became known to a wider Sunni audience — and thoroughly cut off his line of retreat by stating that if Shieis dissociated themselves from the doctrine of taigif, their attitude was completely worthless, as it only occurred out of taqiyyah 29 . Even in debates that cannot be described as "hard core polemics", as was the case with Muhammad Abfi Zahra who counted the great Shri theologian alKulayni among the defenders of talp-if, one cannot overlook the angry tone that was adopted by the participants in the discussion 30 . The last dramatic signpost for the relations between Sunnism and Shieism was the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Since then, the number of mutual polemic writings has once again increased, and it is hardly astonishing that the problem of tahrif has also been affected by this general trend. As far as Shiei writers are concerned, two methods of coping with the problem are to be observed. The first is apology. Thus, the Shiei author Jaefar Murtacid al-eAmill chose a remarkably careful expression and spoke of "a group of reports of which one may perhaps say that their outward and literal meaning points to the distortion (of the Quedn)" 31 . But more important than this highly euphemistic treatment of the issue is the second method that consists in open criticism. A series of new books has been published or older ones have been reprinted by
Ibid., pp. 215-32. Al-Khatib, Muhibb al-Din: al-Khutiit a!- 'an/ahli-l-usus al-/aui qdm ealayhei din al-shrah al-imeimiyyah al-ithnd `ashariyyah. Kairo 1982 (10th ed., ist ed. Jeddah 1961), pp. 10-15. 3° See e.g. al-eAmilT, ljusayn Yasuf Makki: eAqidat al-shrah fi al-imdm al-Sddiq waseiir al-dimmah. Beirut 1963, pp. 161-63; on Aba Zahra (1898-1974) see Abil Bakr eAbd al-Razz 5g: Abt4 Zahra imam easrihi. Ilaydtuhu wa-atharuhu a!- 'i/mi. Cairo 1984. 31 A1-eAmill: Ilaqcriq heimmah haul al-Qur'dn al-karim. Qom 1410hq (Beirut
THE DISPUTE ABOUT THE FALSIFICATION OF THE QUR'AN
Shri writers or institutions (mostly propaganda organizations in Iran), in which tahrif forms the central theme 32 . Finally, there is hardly a new book on the general subject of the Quednic sciences whose author can afford not to include a long chapter dealing with taljrif 33 . On the other hand, the number of Sunni polemic writings, usually centred around Nfiri's Fayl al khitdb and mostly paying tribute to Khatib, has become equally firmly established. Their authors scarcely bother to distinguish between different currents or stages of Shiei thought, but generally blame the whole of Shrism — past and present — for believing in taigif or disguising their views by means of taqiyyahm. Only very rarely does one find authors who are willing to adopt a more moderate view and to differentiate the inner-Shiei currents in this regard at least to some extent 35 . Oddly enough, there is no visible difference with regard to the contents of the debate, because both Sunnis and Shieis emphasize the completeness and authenticity of the Quedn. Therefore, the main argument against the possibility of tahrif, the reference to the Queän itself (15/9: "It is We who have sent down the Remembrance, and We watch over it"), can be found on both sides without distinction 36 . The whole dispute is about the assessment of the early Shiei compilations of badiths and of later Shiei authors who took them for granted. It seems rather ironical — in so far as religious polemics can be ironical — that the controversy between Sunnis and Shris on this question in modern times only started when the ShieT scholars unanimously agreed on abandoning the last signs
1413/1993), pp. 18-19: "tcVifah mina l-riwaydti 1-lati rubbamd yuqdlu inna zdhirand 1tahrif" . 32 Cf. e.g. Jaefariyän, Rasül: Ukdhfibat tahrif al-qurCin bayn al-shra wa-l-sunnah. N. Pl. 1413hq (1st ed. Tehran 1985); al-Mrläni, eAlT al-klusaynT: al-Talmiq fi nafy al-tahrif an al-qur'Cm al-sharTf. Qom 1410hq; Muearrafah, Muhammad Hädi: Siydnat al-qur'dn min al-tahrif. Qom 1413hq (1st ed. 1410); al-Radawi, Murtadd: al-Burhän 'aid eadam tahrif al-qur'dn. Beirut 1411/1991. 33 Khorramshähi, Baha' al-Din: Qor'dn pazhfihi. Haftdd bahth wa tahqiq-e qor'dnr. Tehran 1372sh/1994, pp. 85-122; al-Isfahäni, 'Ali al-Fäni: Ard' hawl al-qur'dn. Beirut 1411/1991, pp. 83-144. 34 Mälalläh, Muhammad: al-Shrah wa-tahrif al-qur'dn. Amman 1405hq (2nd ed.); alNajrämi, Muhammad Yasuf: al-Shrah fi al-mizän. Jeddah 1407/1987, pp. 99-112; Zahir, Ihsän BAT: al-Shrah wa-l-qur'dn. Lahore 1983; al-Gharib, eAbdalläh: Wa-jd'a dawr almajfis. Cairo 1983, pp. 114-20; I-Jamdän: ma yajib an ydrifahu al-muslim, pp. 61-75. 35 Al-Bahnasäwi, Salim: al-Sunnah al-muftard ealayhii. Kuwait 1979, pp. 60-61; idem: al-ljawfiq al-ghd'ibah bayn al-shrah wa-ahl al-sunnah. Cairo 1989; al-Sälas, 'Ali Ahmad: Bayn al-shrah wa-l-sunnah. Dirdsah muqdranah ft al-tafsir wa-usrdihi. Cairo 1989, pp. 157-58. 36 More or less detailed comments on this verse are to be found in virtually all statements on the topic; suffice it here to cite Tabdtabdi, Muhammad I-Jusayn: al-Ntizdn ft tafsir al-qur'ein. I-XXI. Beirut 1991, XII, pp. 102-31.
of ambiguity and denying their own tahrif-traditions. That this need not necessarily prevent Sunni polemicists from incessantly repeating old accusations and from crusading against al-Kulayni by quoting Ibn 1:lazm, is not really surprising. Religious polemicists have never and nowhere been characterized by the will or even the ability to look at more than one side of the medal.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.