the disupte about the falsification of the quran

8/6/2019 The Disupte About the Falsification of the Quran

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-disupte-about-the-falsification-of-the-quran 1/11

Sonderdrucke aus der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

RAINERBRUNNER

The Dispute about the Falsification of the Qur’ān

between Sunn ī s and Sh ī Ý ī s in the 20th

Century

Originalbeitrag erschienen in:Stefan Leder u.a. (Hrsg.): Studies in Arabic and Islam : proceedings of the 19th Congress, UnionEuropéene des Arabisants et Islamisants, Halle 1998.Leuven [u.a.]: Peeters, 2002, S. [437] - 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) consti-

tuted 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 iden-

tified 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 mod-

erate opinions began to circulate. Gradually, al-Mufid's way of tackling

the problem was accepted by most Shris: omissions from the estab-

lished 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 con-

tinued 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 Forschungsge-

meinschaft. For a comprehensive treatment of the topic, cf. BRUNNER, R .: Die Schia unddie 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 forRichard Walzer. Oxford 1972, pp. 209-24, at 216; see also Amilz -M0Ezzi, M. A.: L e

guide divin dans le shrisme originel: aux sources de lY sot&isme en Islam. Lagrasse

1992, pp. 200-27.



438. BRUNNER

nobody knew the exact amount and the passages in which tahrif hadoccurred, 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 por-

tions 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 al-

Najaf' "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 impor-

tance compared to the book Fag al-khitab 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; 1839-

1902), 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 oppres-

sors and enemies."7 The following almost 400 pages, closely-written

and without a single break, are divided into three introductions and twomain 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 nar-

ratives, all referring to taljrif either in general or with regard to specific

verses. In the end, Nüri resumes and refutes anticipated objections bythose who deny the existence of taljrif and once again confirms his point

3 KOHLBERG:"Some Notes", pp. 217-18.

4 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: Fart-rid 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'AN39

of view. Apart from the badith corpus there is one main argument thatconstantly 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 Quedn9 — 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 eulamd%

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 al-

Shahrastdni (no relative of the aforementioned Hibat al-Din) who criti-

cized 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 tradi-

tion 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 N un immediately felt obliged to

write a refutation that — to the best of my knowledge — never appeared

in print12 . 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 -A M IN,

M u t i s IN : 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 0BORUJERDI, MAHDI B. MAHMUD: Borhän-e roushan. Al-Burhän 'aid eadam talgrif al-

qur'Cin. Tehran 1374/1954, pp. 143-44; al-Shahrastärd, eAbd al-Ricla al -MareashI: A l-

Maeririf al-jaliyyah f t 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 Shahris-

täni'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

m e.



440. BRUNNER

Agha Bozorg al-Tehrani, he is reported to have said that he had given it awrong title. It would have been more appropriate to call it Fa,s1 al-khitclb

f t aclam talp-T f 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 spe-

cial (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 hisconciliatory 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 well-

known 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 talyifwas 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 chap-

ter on the ShIeT attitude towards the Qur'an, in which he characteristi-cally 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-

13 Tabaqdt 1.1, 550-51; Dharrah XVI, p. 232.

14 Dharrah XVI, p. 231.

15 Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhdj al-sunnah al-nabawiyyah ft naqd kaldm al-shrah al-qadariyyah. I - II. Cairo 1321h, I, 6; see also KOHLBERG, "Some Notes", p. 209.

16 Al-Dijwi, Ylisuf: A l-Jawdb al-muniffi al-radd 'aid mudda7 al-talyiffi al-kitdb al-

sharif. 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'AN4 1

edge any change of the Shiei point of view and gave the impression thatthe 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-nf irayn), 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

forgery17 . 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 beregarded 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 al-

tlusayn Al Käshif al-Ghip', in a two-volume collection of critical arti-

cles 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 one-

sided preference for Sunni polemic works of the Middle Ages and his

uncritical quotation of the sfirat al-nfirayn. Instead, he dissociated him-

self 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 f tnaqcj `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 notfound 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

17 NOELDEKE, T.: Geschichte des Qorcins. Leipzig 1919, II, p. 111.

18 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.

1 9 Al Kashif al-Ghitä', Muhammad al-I-Jusayn: al-Muteddeit wa-l-murajdeit wa-l-

nuqfid wa-l-rudfid. I-II. Beirut, Saida' 1331/1913, II, pp. 115-20; see also MARTIN HART-

MANN' S remarks in Welt des Islam 1 (1913), pp. 223-24 and pp. 287-92.



442. BRUNNER

then, he attached to the question of taltrif the same value as to the ima-mate 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 impor-

tant 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 asser-

tion that Nüri's book proved the Shiti Persians' hatred of the MuslimArabs'. 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

tendency22 . When talking about the Queän in general, Shri scholars now

hardly missed the opportunity to freely criticize MIT and others for hav-

ing supported the talpjf opinion and for having relied on weak tradi-

tions23 .

Things became more and more implacable in the 1950s, when the

question of tafrif gradually shifted to the centre of the discussion. Thebackground 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 foun-

dation of the society rapprochement (Jamd'at al-taw-a) bayn al-mad-

20 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.): T he

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 zumAtheisten. 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: A jwibat 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 al-

islamiyyah 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. Damas-

cus 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: A la' 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'AN4 3

hdhib al-isldmiyyah) in Cairo in 1947 24. This society was not onlybacked 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, Ayatol-

lah 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 oppo-

nents — increasingly argued by referring to talu-Y ., but of course for dif-

ferent purposes. Thus, the eminent Shiti scholar Abü al-Qasim al-Khfeiopenly discussed talyif in his much-read commentary of the Qur'an, al-

Baydn ft tafsir al-qur'dn. Without mentioning Niiri by name, he denied

some of the latter's most frequent arguments. Moreover, he had the cen-

tral 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, R isdlat 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-ifissue. 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 out-

standing 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 unddie 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 f t tafsir al-qur'an. Najaf 1375/1955-56, pp. 136-81 (English

translation by A. A. SACHEDINA:he 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.



444. BRUNNER

society, he did not even mention it, but gave priority to more traditionalissues 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 uni-

versity, Matimüd Shaltilt, issued in July 1959 a fatwei in which he for-

mally acknowledged Shieism as a school of law in line with the four

Sunni madhähib28 . 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, theyturned 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 al-

Kulayni among the defenders of talp-if, one cannot overlook the angry

tone that was adopted by the participants in the discussion30.

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 aston-

ishing 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)"3 1 . But more important than this highly euphemistic treatmentof 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

28 Ibid., pp. 215-32.

29 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 wa-

seiir 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.

3 1 A1-eAmill: Ilaqcriq heimmah haul al-Qur'dn al-karim. Qom 1410hq (Beirut



THE DISPUTE ABOUT THE FALSIFICATION OF THE QUR'AN45

Shri writers or institutions (mostly propaganda organizations in Iran), inwhich tahrif forms the central theme 3 2 . 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 dis-

guising their views by means of taqiyyahm. Only very rarely does one

find authors who are willing to adopt a more moderate view and to dif-ferentiate the inner-Shiei currents in this regard at least to some extent 3 5 .

Oddly enough, there is no visible difference with regard to the con-

tents of the debate, because both Sunnis and Shieis emphasize the com-

pleteness 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 distinction36. 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 controversybetween 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 1-tahrif" .

3 2 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 f i 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.

3 3 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: A rd' hawl al-qur'dn. Beirut1411/1991, pp. 83-144.

34 Mälalläh, Muhammad: al-Shrah wa-tahrif al-qur'dn. Amman 1405hq (2nd ed.); al-

Najrämi, 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 al-

majfis. Cairo 1983, pp. 114-20; I-Jamdän: ma yajib an ydrifahu al-muslim, pp. 61-75.

3 5 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 f t 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 state-

ments on the topic; suffice it here to cite Tabdtabdi, Muhammad I-Jusayn: al-Ntizdn f t

tafsir al-qur'ein. I-XXI. Beirut 1991, XII, pp. 102-31.



446. BRUNNER

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.

RAINER BRUNNER

Freiburg

the disupte about the falsification of the quran

Documents