The Ahlus Sunnah are in conformity with the Qur’an
The beliefs and teachings of the Ahlus Sunnah are in conformity with the Thaqalayn (i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) whereas the beliefs and teachings of the Shia faith opposes the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The number of statements which the Imams made disparaging and demeaning the scholars of the Shia are such that it is impossible to list them all in this concise treatise but as a way of example a few will have to be mentioned, which will be easily understood by the level-headed. After discussing these examples, we will continue with refuting the letter (of the Shia scholar ‘Ammar ‘Ali). Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mentions in the first chapter of the Qur’an:
الَّذِيْنَ أتَيْنَاهُمُ الْكِتَابَ يَتْلُوْنَهُ حَقَّ تِلَاوَتِهِ أُولَٰئِكَ يُؤْمِنُوْنَ بِهِ ۗ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُوْنَ
Those to whom We have given the Book recite it with its true recital. They [are the ones who] believe in it. And whoever disbelieves in it – it is they who are the losers.[1]
After studying the implication of this verse there is no possibility for any person to ever doubt the Ahlus Sunnah being on the truth, and once he has no doubt then he has attained the first stage of conviction that the Shia are on falsehood.
The implication of the verse
To elaborate upon the assertion made above, this verse was revealed regarding a few of the Ahl al Kitab and even though revealed regarding them, it has made iman dependent on having faith in the Book of Allah: “Recite it as it should be recited, they are the ones who believe in it.” When this is the prerequisite for iman, we learn that the sign of iman is that one recites it abundantly, whichever Book of Allah it might be: Tawrah, Injil, or Qur’an. An example of this is if an intelligent person understands something properly and quickly, and another then remarks: “This can only be understood by the intelligent.” Even though this praise was specifically for that person, in reality it will also be praise for every other intelligent person who understands that point in the same manner. Thus, this quality (even though it was directed to the Ahl al Kitab will testify to the iman of all those who possess it and it) can only be found in the Ahlus Sunnah and none of the other sects of Islam. The recitation of the Shia is something well-known to all.
The Shia deprivation of reciting the Qur’an
In fact, their recitation of the Qur’an is so well-known that they have become parables of failing to learn the Qur’an. This can only mean that they are unable to recite the Qur’an as it should be recited and they have failed to make that effort upon the Book of Allah which is required. As far as the Ahlus Sunnah are concerned and reciting the Qur’an as it should be recited; what need be said, their repeated recitation is such that chapters are memorised.
This verse also suggests that amongst the various sects of Islam, the sect on the truth will be the one which memorizes the Qur’an and the others will be unable to do so because if they were able to then it would necessitate them also being included in this praise despite them being on falsehood. Nevertheless, this bounty has been granted to the Ahlus Sunnah and all of the other sects have been deprived of it, such that up to this day you have never heard of any other sect having memorised the Qur’an, whether they be Khawarij or Shia (I mention these two only because there are no other sects in India but them). After the Ahlus Sunnah, the Shia are more in number such that there is rarely a village or town where they cannot be found. Not to mention Lucknow, suburbs of Dakan, and the districts of Sindh; where in addition to being the majority, authority is also in their hands. Thousands of Shia ‘Ulama’ reside therein and it is from here that the Shia dogma has spread throughout India, yet you will not find a single hafiz amongst them. If any of them happened to have been accused of being a hafiz by the Shia then he replies that he had memorised it but his memory has gotten a little weak and he cannot recite at the moment. If he does recite then he recites one or two chapters, unable to recite the entire Qur’an, beginning to end.
Amongst the acclaimed huffaz (plural of hafiz) of the Shia is Jafar ‘Ali, the senior imam of Delhi, whose piety, taqwa, knowledge, and excellence, if failing him to earn the title of Mujtahid al Zaman (Mujtahid of the era) most definitely earns him the title of a Mujtahid. What was the level of his recitation of the Qur’an before his illness? I have witnessed this with my very own eyes, along with the other attendees of the Shia faith, when he would recite in the qira’ah gatherings of Nawab Hamid ‘Ali Khan; he would recite while gazing into the Qur’an and then too he erred twice. Now see the manner in which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala reveals the truth: in the same gathering there were huffaz of the Ahlus Sunnah, who were forced by the Shia to also recite the Qur’an and when they did, they recited from memory. Yet the Shia still fail to take lesson.
Hafiz ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, a Sunni who resides in Najibabad, informed me that he used to study a few books under Jafar ‘Ali. One day it just so happened that the book mentioned: “The Shia cannot memorise the Qur’an.” On hearing this Jafar ‘Ali asked him whether he would listen to him recite. Hafiz ‘Abdul ‘Aziz replied:
What difficulty is there in reciting it in two sittings or perhaps if asked to recite as much as you can in one gathering.
However, Jafar ‘Ali replied:
Can we not rather arrange for one juz’ (chapter) to be recited daily?
It should be borne in mind that some gifted individuals are able to memorise an entire juz’ of the Qur’an in one day from scratch. What kind of a hafiz is there who has not recited the entire Qur’an in one sitting? And I know that Jafar ‘Ali is unable to recite even one juz’ in one sitting. This was but an empty promise. Hafiz ‘Abdul ‘Aziz thought that this was a ruse and that he would memorise the chapters to be recited each day, which would prove my claim to be false or perhaps he might have memorised a few chapters, which he will recite and then escape from reciting the rest with some flimsy excuse or the other.
It should be noted by all that he did not memorise the Qur’an and to award him the title of hafiz is absolutely incorrect. If by chance one or two have memorised the Qur’an then the Shia ought to be ashamed of this too, as it is common knowledge that in the cities and villages of the Ahlus Sunnah hundreds of huffaz can be found. At times the number of Ahlus Sunnah residing in a village is the same as the Shia yet amongst the Shia you will not find even a single hafiz whereas in the same village amongst the Ahlus Sunnah countless huffaz can be found. In areas such as Saharanpur, Panipat and Karanah this is the state of affairs. The reason for this failure to memorise the Qur’an (whereas the Shia often boastfully claim that never mind the Qur’an, the Shia memorise the entire Tafsir al Kabir as well) is that they are not of those who recite the Qur’an as it should be recited.
Why are the Shia deprived of reciting the Qur’an
The reason for this failure to recite the Qur’an, and Allah knows best, could be a result of the differences in the tastes of man. Just as the preferences of man differ from one to the other as far as food and nourishment is concerned; some having a taste for sweet while others have a greater inclination to bitter foods and that which is relished by some might be abhorred by others. Some dislike the smell of perfumes and spicy pickles with the mere smell of it let alone giving them a headache, might render them ill. Worms on the other hand revel in the sight of faeces and other filth, whereas the smell of perfume does not attract them. In a similar manner, tastes and preferences differ with regards to the nourishment of the soul. Likes and dislikes vary, what brings pleasure to one causes discomfort to the other and to the Shia any effort upon the Noble Qur’an is tantamount to death for them.
Or perhaps the reason for this deprivation is that whichever student is disrespectful towards his teacher, it is the practice of Allah that such a student will be deprived of knowledge. The reason for this is perhaps that just as gratitude leads to an increase in bounty:
لَئِنْ شَكَرْتُمْ لَاَزِيْدَنَّكُمْ
If you are grateful, I will surely increase you [in favor].[2]
Ingratitude leads to the bounty being rescinded. In addition to this The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has said:
من لم يشكر الناس لم يشكر الله
Whoever does not express his gratitude towards people has not expressed his gratitude to Allah.[3]
The bounty of knowledge is attained through the intermediary of a teacher and the teachers of the greatest bounty, the Noble Qur’an, were none other than the illustrious Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, amongst whom Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu were the compilers of the Qur’an. Why then should a person not be deprived of the knowledge of the Qur’an on account of him showing disrespect towards them?
True iman is found in those who recite the Qur’an appropriately
Just as the point above becomes apparent from the verse recited, so too do we learn that true iman is reserved for those people who recite the Qur’an in abundance as it should be recited. Those who are deficient in their recital of the Noble Qur’an or practice upon it according to their own personal understanding or even those who adhere to its teachings but recite it little — or not at all — are not included. The reason for this restriction in favour of those who recite the Qur’an as it should be, is primarily because whoever will read a book repeatedly will understand it best and he will understand its true reality. Iman in the book of Allah means that one considers its laws and directives to be the truth. Whoever will follow its directives will not be deprived of true iman and will not be included amongst the sect referred to by the words:
وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُوْنَ
And whoever disbelieves in it – it is they who are the losers.[4]
Undoubtedly those who are deficient in their recitation and do not adhere to its teachings or intend to practice upon it according to their own interpretations; such people are often deluded by the laws of the British, which contains no subtleties, so what will they understand of the Qur’an which is a treasury of all knowledge and filled with subtleties? Such people who say one thing about the Qur’an when the Qur’an says something entirely different, they have disbelieved in the Qur’an despite their claims of having faith in it. They are those who are referred to by the words of Allah:
وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُوْنَ
And whoever disbelieves in it – it is they who are the losers.
The following verse also refers to them:
يُضِلُّ بِه كَثِيْرًا
He misleads many thereby.[5]
The reason for revelation supports this deduction
Supporting this deduction, aside from it being apparent, is that this verse was revealed in favour of those who recited the Book of Allah in abundance and as a result memorised the qualities of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that were mentioned in that Book, allowing every angle and aspect of it to become apparent to them. This resulted in them recognising the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as soon as they saw him. However, there is difference of opinion whether the Book referred to here is the Tawrah or the Injil and whether it refers to the Christians or the Jews.
The majority will be considered
It is apparent to those of knowledge that the entire Ahlus Sunnah is considered to be one and the entire Shia sect for that matter as well. Collectively the Ahlus Sunnah should be considered and collectively the Shia should be considered, and then it should be seen which of the two groups collectively recites the Qur’an abundantly, as it should be recited. When scrutinising any group collectively then one ruling will apply to the entire group, if it is little then it is for all and if it is abundant then too it will apply to all. This is akin to the arms, legs and other limbs of the body, whereby the actions of one will be attributed to the entire body, i.e. the person himself. If he has some ailment in his hand, then he will say: “I have an ailment” or “A certain person has an ailment.” Similarly, he says I saw, he saw, I hit, he hit, in all these cases the action of a part of the body is attributed to the person himself and not that part only. This is the rule of “Majority is equal to entirely” and is accepted by all, whereby the action or quality of the majority will be taken to be that of all. With this in mind, it is noted that the majority of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah recite the Qur’an abundantly as opposed to the Shia whose state of recitation is known.
The Shia defence
It is possible that the Shia might attempt to save face by claiming that according to them, reciting the Qur’an as it should be recited means to recite it with humility and veneration (Khushu’ and Khudu’); and what proof do you have that this is found amongst the Ahlus Sunnah but not amongst the Shia? Thus, the Shia too are included in the above verse.
As far as humility and veneration is concerned, we do not deny its necessity, because humility and veneration are attained either by firm belief upon the Qur’an or abundant recitation. The manner in which firm belief will lead to deeper humility and veneration is evident and requires no further explanation. As far as abundant recitation is concerned: the majority of men are negligent of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and more inclined to the world, in such a case a moment or two of dhikr or recitation of the Qur’an will not remove this negligence. However, if he spends hours upon hours, over a long period of time, it will create the light of attentiveness in his heart. This is when humility and veneration is attained. However, these differences can only be understood by those who perform dhikr and recite the Qur’an; it is uncertain whether the Shia will be able to understand it.
The Ahlus Sunnah have firm belief in the Qur’an
In any case firm belief together with abundant recitation is a means of attaining humility and veneration upon the Qur’an. One can only imagine the firmness of belief those who refer to the Qur’an as being the pages of ‘Uthman (i.e. the Shia) whereas the Ahlus Sunnah regard the Qur’an to be the exact word of Allah, without any alterations, additions or subtractions. Much can be said but the Arabic proverb will be most apt here:
الاناء يترشح بما فيه
Only that which is contained in a vessel will flow forth.
Studying the conditions of the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia will allow us to determine which of the two have a firmer belief in the Qur’an. The condition of the Ahlus Sunnah is well-known: they regard the Qur’an as a part of one’s life. While the Shia may keep the Qur’an in their bags or in their homes, the Ahlus Sunnah keep it in their hearts. This is the reason why the Ahlus Sunnah give the greatest preference to the teaching of the Qur’an over all else. Children are first taught to recite the Qur’an and they are made to even memorise portions of it. Nothing overrules the Qur’an such that even hadith is only considered, if found to be in harmony with the Qur’an. If a contradiction is found, then the blame rests upon the shoulders of the narrators as it is evident that they have erred in some way or the other. As for the Shia, their disregard for the Qur’an is such that Al Kulayni reported in his book Al Kafi, (which is considered by them to be the most authentic book on hadith) such narrations regarding the Qur’an that if a person were to read them then he would discard the Qur’an altogether.
The belief of the Shia regarding the Qur’an
According to them, the Qur’an has been altered in the same way as the Tawrah and Injil were altered if not worse, such that they have replaced referring to the Qur’an as the Word of Allah with the term “Pages of ‘Uthman” and without verbally saying it, they believe that from the Thaqalayn (the two weighty things which the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had left behind for the guidance of the ummah) they are unable to derive benefit from the Qur’an. It is evident that the Qur’an has no weight in the eyes of the Shia because if this were not true then what would the meaning of Shia statements such as these be:
Reciting the Qur’an is no less than smoking a pipe.
Nevertheless, the majority of the Shia bear testimony to the fact that the Qur’an has no worth in their eyes and amongst the Ahlus Sunnah a few might be found, whose proclamations of honour are not complimented with their actions. As far as abundant recitation is concerned, this requires no explanation, as the Shia themselves admit that this virtue belongs to the Ahlus Sunnah.
Humility and veneration belong to the Ahlus Sunnah as well
If the Shia were to claim that humility and veneration is implied by reciting the Qur’an as it should be recited then too, we will not object as this too belongs to the Ahlus Sunnah, but what fault is it of ours that the wording of the verse implies abundant recitation? The reason being that the words “as it should be recited” is the maf’ul mutlaq (adverb) of the verb “Recite” and it is common knowledge that an adverb has to be from amongst the possible categories of that verb. Reciting abundantly is without a doubt of the categories of recitation but humility and veneration are not, rather they are external conditions. Recitation is an act of the tongue whereas humility and veneration are acts of the mind. It is also not correct to affix the result: “They are the ones who believe in it” to the statement: “Those who were given the Book” as the appropriateness of the sentence requires that the clause be affixed to the mentioned form of recitation. Those acquainted with the laws of balaghah (eloquence of the Arabic language) understand this well. This is also why the verb, “yu’minun” (believe) is in the future tense and not the past tense.
If humility and veneration is implied, then the order of occurrence will be switched
If the meaning of reciting the Qur’an as it should be recited is taken to mean reciting it with humility and veneration, then the meaning will be switched. The explanation of this is as follows: iman either denotes the commonly implied meaning[6], perfect and complete subjugation which is referred to as iman-e kamil, or tasdiq (affirming) the intended meaning of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. In each of these cases the order of occurrence will be switched.
In the case of the commonly implied meaning, testifying that none is worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is the Messenger of Allah is understood by everyone to come before humility and veneration, i.e. humility and veneration will be dependent on the level of iman one has and not the other way around that iman itself is dependent upon humility and veneration.
As for iman denoting iman-e kamil, this too precedes humility and veneration in recitation because it (iman) is the cause, whilst humility and veneration are the result. The verse:
الَّذِيْنَ أمَنُوْا وَتَطْمَئِنُّ قُلُوْبُهُمْ بِذِكْرِ اللَّهِ ۗ أَلَا بِذِكْرِ اللَّهِ تَطْمَئِنُّ الْقُلُوْبُ
Those who have believed and whose hearts are assured by the remembrance of Allah. Unquestionably, by the remembrance of Allah hearts are assured.[7]
Also suggests that iman-e kamil is the cause of abundant dhikr and the contentment of hearts, as contentment of the heart cannot be attained without Nafs-e Mutmaʼinnah, which is itself a result of iman-e kamil, which is manifest.
All that remains, is iman denoting tasdiq, which is clarified by the verse:
وَإِذَا سَمِعُوْا مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَى الرَّسُوْلِ تَرَىٰ أَعْيُنَهُمْ تَفِيْضُ مِنَ الدَّمْعِ مِمَّا عَرَفُوْا مِنَ الْحَقِّ ۖ يَقُوْلُوْنَ رَبَّنَا آمَنَّا فَاكْتُبْنَا مَعَ الشَّاهِدِيْنَ
And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.[8]
The concentration and deliberation referred to by “You see their eyes flowing with tears” in this verse is preceded by iman because the meaning of this verse is that when the people mentioned above heard the revelation that had descended upon the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, you will see their eyes filled with tears on account of them having understood the truth. This makes it clear that after having heard much about the Qur’an they requested to hear it for themselves and after hearing it, their eyes were filled with tears and their hearts filled with deliberation. It can never be that first they concentrated and cried and thereafter the truth dawned upon them. Thus, if the meaning of “Recite it as it should be recited” is said to mean reciting with humility and veneration (and not abundantly) then the order of occurrence will be changed (and the verse will mean that on account of humility and veneration they were blessed with iman whereas one is blessed with humility and veneration in recitation on account of iman).
If abundant recitation is implied, then the meaning will be correct
If “Recite it as it should be recited” is said to mean abundant recitation, then the meaning will be correct in all three instances. Those without iman or possessing weak iman through abundant recitation will understand the meaning of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala’s word, resulting in them being guided, their doubts removed and granting them true faith, which is the essence of iman.
If the commonly implied meaning of iman is implied, then abundant recitation will also award one such iman. If iman-e kamil is implied then too one will be awarded it because through abundant recitation, negligence is removed and slowly one attains the required level of attentiveness, purifying his heart even further. As for the meaning of tasdiq of the intended purpose of Allah then this too is obvious as it is well-known to everybody that a person who reads a book more than others will have greater knowledge of that book.
A doubt regarding the verse
One doubt still remains. The result, “They are the ones who believe in it”, is clearly attached to the clause, “Recite it as it should be recited”, for a few reasons. Firstly, because of the noun being affixed to the clause and the fact that the verb was in the future tense “yu’minun” (believe) and not past tense (the verb “amanu” was not used). But there is one possibility that this could be merely a sign of iman (that one recites it abundantly) and not a result of iman, as is the case with the signs of many things that the very sign of it is created from itself. An example of this will be smoke, which is a sign of fire but in itself is created from fire and its existence dependent upon the existence of the fire and not that the fire is dependent upon smoke. So, what is wrong if recitation with humility and veneration is said to be a sign of iman but at the same time it is created from iman, and in this case Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala only intended to make mention of the sign.
The reply to this will firstly be that to abandon the best interpretation and rely upon such weak interpretations is itself a sign of poor understanding.
This is more so when we are dealing with the Qur’an, which will only have the best interpretation.
Secondly the purpose of mentioning a sign of something is to make it recognisable and distinguishable, thus if the sign is itself imperceptible and indiscernible then mentioning such a sign is futile, and the speech of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala can never be futile. Humility and veneration are inner qualities which cannot be perceived so in making this a sign of iman, it would result in describing something vague with something also vague or something imperceptible with something also imperceptible. On the other hand, reciting the Qur’an abundantly is something perceptible and if this is said to be a sign of iman then it would make sense and this sign itself necessitates humility and veneration, which would make it correct for this to be just a sign, not affecting the meaning, order of occurrence, or the adverb.
Another benefit of this verse
After having discussed the possible doubt regarding the interpretation of this verse, I wish to mention another benefit which it gives. It comes to mind that the clause, “Those to whom We have given the Book”, indicates that if any of those who were not given a Book, i.e. they deny it completely or misinterpret it after accepting it, were to become a hafiz then it is no problem or one can even say that they may recite similar to the manner in which it should be recited. However, as far as those who were given the Book are concerned, only those who are on the absolute truth will be granted the ability to recite it abundantly. The reason for this is that abundant recitation, which is the manner in which the Qur’an should be recited, is a sign of iman. Thus, it will only be seen in those who believe in it entirely and not in everyone. With this in mind, the famous tale of Burnus, the Christian, having memorised the entire Book of Allah will need not be doubted and may be accepted to be possible.
Nevertheless, we learnt from the sign of reciting the Qur’an as it should be recited that the glad tidings of “They are the ones who believe in it” is for the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia are described by:
وَمَن يَّكْفُرْ بِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُوْنَ
Whoever denies it shall certainly be the losers.[9]
Many verses of the Qur’an prove the Ahlus Sunnah are on the truth
There are numerous verses of the Qur’an which prove the Ahlus Sunnah are on truth and the Shia on falsehood, and why should it not; when the majority of Shia beliefs oppose the Qur’an. The beliefs and practices of the Ahlus Sunnah however, are in complete conformity with the Qur’an. The reason for this is that through abundant recitation they have understood the intention of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, whereas the Shia on account of not fulfilling the right of the Qur’an have been deprived of its understanding. Since this has all been proven from the verse of the Qur’an, those with intellect will understand that the verses of the Qur’an will oppose the religion of the Shia and the Ahlus Sunnah will conform to the Qur’an. In fact, not just a few but the majority of the Qur’an refutes the beliefs, practices and customs of the Shia and bears testimony to the veracity of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah. How is it possible to explain all of these verses in this brief treatise, especially when each of these verses refutes the Shia and affirms the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah.
However, this one verse is capable of representing all of the other verses which is why I will suffice with it. It is possible that an obstinate Shia might object to this verse when understanding the guidance, it contains and say: “So what if the Qur’an contains this one verse, it is but one. What credibility does the Qur’an have, it makes no difference if it opposes our beliefs? The words of the Qur’an have been altered and changed, additions and subtractions carried out, so it is not far-fetched to believe that this too was added by the Ahlus Sunnah.”
If they were to make such a claim then the reply would first be that according to the research scholars of the Shia either no additions or subtractions were made to the Qur’an, as is the believe of Sheikh al Saduq, or subtractions have occurred but no additions. Thus, the Qur’an having no additions is a matter of consensus and the verse under discussion cannot be refuted. However, since both these standpoints of the Shia oppose the narrations of Al Kafi, which is considered to be the most reliable book by them, and the majority of Shia believe that additions and subtractions both occurred in the Qur’an; this reply will be insufficient.
The second reply will be that this doubt itself is proof of the falsehood of the Shia faith. By the testimony of the Shia themselves we have learnt that the Shia religion has no credibility because the first source of the laws of din is the Qur’an and when they have no reliance upon it, whichever aspects of their faith they manage to somehow prove from the Qur’an, it will not be accepted.
The foolishness of not relying on the Qur’an
The Thaqalayn, which is accepted by both groups, bears testimony that the Qur’an and ‘Itrah will always remain for one to grasp onto in order to save one from deviation. So accordingly, if one cannot grasp onto the Qur’an then one cannot be saved from deviation and he has been cast far astray. Thus, for the Shia to present such an argument is tantamount to shooting themselves in the foot.
There is no hadith in any of the sects of Islam that has reached the same level of authenticity as the Qur’an and there is no hadith regarding which the narrators are all in consensus regarding its wording as they are regarding the Qur’an. Furthermore, when one studies the conditions of the narrators of the Shia then he discovers new levels of unreliability. In summary, if any Shia were to present this as a counter argument, which they do most often, then we too have much to say in return.
This proves my point
The confession of the Shia themselves has proved the claim I made under the commentary of the verse, because when they have such a lack of reliance upon the Qur’an, claiming such phenomenal changes to have been enacted in it, that the Qur’an as we know it no longer remains the Qur’an. So now if a Shia were to memorise it or even recite it as it should be, he has not truly recited the Qur’an or memorised it.
The practice of the Ahlul Bayt negates any changes having occurred in the Qur’an
All the narrations of the Shia mention that the Ahlul Bayt recited this very same Qur’an, substantiated from it and cited its verses as proofs. They would also make commentaries on the verses of this very same Qur’an. The commentary on the Qur’an which has been ascribed to Hassan al ‘Askari is a commentary of the same. The Ahlul Bayt taught this Qur’an to others, their children and their servants and it was this same Qur’an that they recited in their salah.
The lengths to which it has been narrated and circulated is proof of its authenticity
In addition to this, imparting this Qur’an as it has been revealed and teaching it is compulsory upon the ummah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and there is consensus on this. We know for a fact that whenever any person embraced Islam in the life time of The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, he was first taught the Qur’an after which he would then teach it to others. In this manner, thousands learnt the Qur’an directly from The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and in some battles up to seventy huffaz would be martyred. To this very day, even in the villages, recitation of the Qur’an is regarded as one of the greatest acts of worship, with people remaining engaged in its recitation night and day, in salah and out. When a child enters the Madrasa, the first thing he is taught is how to recite the Qur’an. In short, the Qur’an is not the same as the Al Kafi of Al Kulayni or Al Tahdhib which was narrated through taqiyah (dissimulation) and hidden away for centuries in some box. The Qur’an is available in abundance with thousands of copies easily at hand, as opposed to Al Kafi or Al Tahdhib, for which a search needs to be carried out in order to obtain a copy. Then too, even amongst the Shia, what will every Shia do with a copy of Al Kafi or Al Tahdhib, and not everyone is capable of understanding it as well. India and Iran aside, in other countries the name of Al Kafi or Al Tahdhib is not even known. If perchance you were to come across one or two copies, then they would be riddled with errors. The case is different with the Noble Qur’an, it can be found in every country, city, town and village, such that no other book is available in such abundance. Every person has his own copy, with some homes having numerous copies. Such care has been taken that millions of huffaz have memorised it and even the verses, letters, diacritical marks and dots have been counted and recorded. Does it make sense to any sane person to believe that Al Kafi or Al Tahdhib of the Shia is free from alteration, such that they regard it to be the most authentic book, whereas the Qur’an is regarded to be tampered with and is claimed to no longer be reliable?
The wide availability of the Qur’an clears ‘Uthman from all accusations
The era in which the Qur’an could have been possibly altered, such is the Shia accusation against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, could have been done in one or two copies and in no way could every single copy be seized from each Muslim residing in Syria, Persia, Yemen and Hijaz. All these countries came under the banner of Islam and its populace regarded the Qur’an as their means of salvation, reciting it night and day. In no way could all of these copies be seized and altered. These copies were written by huffaz: did Uthman alter the Qur’an in their hearts as well, such that it resulted in only altered copies coming into circulation? Considering all of this, no sane person will ever claim that the Qur’an has been altered. When the Qur’an is free from any change, addition or subtraction, when the commentary of Hassan al ‘Askari is of the same Qur’an, then substantiating from the following verses will be absolutely correct:
الَّذِيْنَ أتَيْنَاهُمُ الْكِتَابَ يَتْلُوْنَهُ حَقَّ تِلَاوَتِهِ أُولَٰئِكَ يُؤْمِنُوْنَ بِهِ ۗ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُوْنَ
Those to whom We have given the Book recite it with its true recital. They [are the ones who] believe in it. And whoever disbelieves in it – it is they who are the losers.[10]
Certificate of authenticity from the Qur’an itself
If this is further supported by the Qur’an itself, then without a doubt the substantiation made will be correct and it will be compulsory to accept. When we searched through the Qur’an, we found numerous verses testifying to the fact that the Qur’an is as it was revealed with not a single change or variation. Its words are as they were revealed without any substitution. I think it necessary to only mention one of these verses:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُوْنَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, We will be its guardian.[11]
Ponder over its meaning, the emphasis laid upon its protection; it is impossible to fathom that the third khalifah, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, had altered it such that there remains absolutely no trace of the original Qur’an. Despite the immense power of Allah, he still managed to thwart the power of Allah, Allah forbid.
The results of this incorrect belief
As for the assumption that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala made a promise and then broke it, this is utterly impossible. It is impossible that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala would make a promise with such emphasis and then go back on His word and not protect the Qur’an. Allah says in the Qur’an:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُخْلِفُ الْمِيْعَادَ
Indeed, Allah does not fail in His promise.[12]
Perhaps the Shia assume that the era in which ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu altered the Qur’an or whoever did it, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was asleep or maybe forgot his promise? The reply to this was given in the Qur’an as well, Ayah al Kursi is recited by the Shia as well, Allah says:
لَا تَأْخُذُهُ سِنَةٌ وَلَا نَوْمٌ
Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep.[13]
Allah says in Surah Maryam:
وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ نَسِيًّا
And never is your Lord forgetful.[14]
In Surah Taha, Allah says:
لَّا يَضِلُّ رَبِّيْ وَلَا يَنْسَى
My Lord neither errs nor forgets.[15]
These verses remove all possibilities of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala promising to protect the Qur’an and then failing to do so, or in error began protecting something else. When all of these are impossible, this humble servant of the house of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam wishes to ask the Shia; after this firm promise and nothing to impede its fulfilment, why then did Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala not protect the Qur’an? The only possibility then is that according to you, Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu has more power and authority than Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala (I seek Allah’s protection from having to utter such statements) that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was prevented from fulfilling his desire. This means that you have such high consideration for Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu that you consider him even superior to Allah, should you then not side with him? (Allah forbid) If this is your belief than what protection can you hope for on the Day of Qiyamah, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu will just seize you all from beneath the ‘Arsh of Allah and begin punishing you.
The falsehood of Al Kulayni
The only other option you have is to say that your belief is incorrect and that the narrations of Al Kulayni are all lies and fabrications.
عن هشام بن سالم عى ابى عبد الله ان القران الذى جاء به جبرئيل الى محمد صلى الله عليه و سلم سبعة عشر الف ايات
The Qur’an with which Jibril ‘alayh al Salam came to Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam contained seventeen thousand verses.[16]
The present Qur’an in our possession consists of approximately six thousand verses but according to this Shia narration, two thirds of the Qur’an is missing. It would have been better if Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had not made any promise to protect the Qur’an as it was on account of this promise that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had no concern about the Qur’an ever being altered. Perhaps if it had not been made then steps could have been taken to preserve it. Those who have studied the Tawrah and Injil, have not even claimed it being altered in this manner. In fact, after research it was found that the alterations in the Tawrah and Injil were not many, wherever they saw something supporting the claim of the Muslims they removed it and wherever there was a law causing difficulty to their leaders they would alter it, and Allah knows best the true reality. All the same, the gist of the Shia ideology is that despite the promise of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to protect the Qur’an, the Qur’an was not preserved and it has more changes and faults in it than even the Tawrah and Injil, whereas these Books had no protector, neither Allah, nor a Messenger. Yes, their materialistic scholars were present, whose occupation it was to sell the verses of Allah and alter the laws of Allah. They only taught and listened to it, knew its laws and expounded it; they were never its protectors or guardians. Perhaps this is what the Shia sect implies when they say the Qur’an is worse than the Tawrah and Injil; that in unreliability the Shia surpass the ‘Ulama’ of the previous nations.
Shia interpretation of the Qur’an being safe-guarded
The scholars of the Shia provide two explanations to Allah having taken responsibility of protecting the Qur’an:
It is protected in the Lawh al Mahfuz (Divine Tablet in the heavens).
It is protected by the Imam in the cave, Surra man Ra’a.
In the first case, the answer is obvious. Firstly, if:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُوْنَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, We will be its guardian.[17]
refers to the Lawh al Mahfuz then how does this assist us. What is the meaning of this promise? What would benefit us is a promise to protect this Qur’an which is in our possession, so that there will remain no doubt in deriving the laws of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala from it.
Secondly, what need is there to safeguard it in the Lawh al Mahfuz? Yes, if it were possible for some trouble-maker to reach the heavens than it would most definitely need safe-guarding.
Thirdly, this verse first mentions its revelation (to the world) and thereafter the promise of protection is made, the eloquence of which dictates that the promise of protection is directed towards this revealed Qur’an and not the Qur’an which is already safe in the Lawh al Mahfuz.
Fourthly, if this is truly the meaning, that it has been safeguarded in the Lawh al Mahfuz, then this virtue is shared by the Tawrah and Injil as well; what supremacy will the Qur’an then have over the Tawrah and Injil? Also, why then was the promise of protection made for the Qur’an and not for the Tawrah and Injil? What meaning will this have?
Fifthly, this verse refers to the Qur’an, from its many names, by the name “Reminder” (i.e. dhikr), and did not say the words of the Qur’an (that We have revealed the words of the Qur’an) or “Book” (that We have revealed the Book), etc., so that there remain no room to ever consider that it has been altered, changed, added to or subtracted from.
The wisdom behind referring to the Qur’an by the name “Reminder”
The point mentioned above requires some explanation, which makes it incumbent upon us to do so in order for the correct meaning to be understood. First one needs to understand that one item may have various names based upon its diverse uses, qualities and composition and each name will only be used in the most appropriate context and not mentioned arbitrarily. An example of this would be the manner in which one person may be a father, while at the same time he is someone’s son. Similarly, he is a brother, nephew, uncle, and a grandson. In essence one person may have different titles and each of them will not be used randomly but rather they will be used in context. A son will not address his father as son even though he is the son of another and similarly the father will not address his son as father, even though he may be a father to his own children.
A second example of this would be a governor, who may also be the treasurer and the magistrate. However, since the tasks of each of these posts are different, when he performs a task as governor then he will refer to himself as such, when carrying out a task as treasurer then he will refer to himself as the treasurer and as the magistrate when performing the duty of the magistrate.
In the same manner the Qur’an has many names and titles, each of them on account of a different quality and different perspective. For example, the Qur’an is called the Qur’an because qira’ah (recitation) is made of it, it is called a Kitab (Book) or Mushaf (Manuscript) on account of it being written on pages. Similarly, it is called Dhikr (Reminder) because it is a reminder for the ignorant, negligent and sinner. Therefore, the usage of this title, “Reminder”, will only be correct when directed towards the ignorant, negligent and sinful. It is common knowledge that if any creation possesses these qualities then it is man, since the angels are free from such deficiencies. Therefore, as long as the Qur’an was only present in the Lawh al Mahfuz, it was incorrect to refer to the Qur’an by this name as there were no ignorant, negligent or sinful creation present. If any creation was present at that time, it was only the angels. However, once revelation of the Qur’an began and it now came into the hands of man then it was correct to refer to the Qur’an as “Dhikr” because the purpose of its revelation was to advise and remind the negligent. When Allah then said:
وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُوْنَ
We will be its guardian.[18]
The personal pronoun (its) will refer to Dhikr (the Reminder), which would necessitate its protection being undertaken at the time it was given this name (Dhikr), which is only after revelation.