By Defending-Islam.com Team

We will use the present article to post a number of declarations from current-day Twelver Shia scholars about the issue of whether the belief in the preservation of the Quran is part of the dharura (necessities) of the Twelver Shia religion or not. In our view, their answers expose a very serious flaw in the manner in which Shiaism's Aqeedah and Fiqh would be developed. We have taken this from the site of a Shia scholar named Murtadha al-Basha who gathered these statements himself from the declarations of the grand ayatullahs. The link is:

http://www.mishcat.org/home/art194.html

The questions are:

س 1: هل أن القول بنفي التحريف عن القرآن الكريم، يعد من ضروريات الدين، أو من ضروريات المذهب، أو أنه لا يعد من الضروريات أصلاً؟

س2: ما هو حكم من ألتـزم بثبوت التحريف في القرآن الكريم، لا عن شبهة، ولا عن خطأ، وإنما عن اعتقاد جازماً بذلك؟

Question 1: Is the saying of lack of alteration in the Holy Quran, is it part of the necessary things in the religion, or is it a part of the necessary things in the Madhab (i.e. Twelver Shiaism), or is it not at all part of the necessary things?

Question 2: What is the judgment on the one who insists on the certainty of alteration in the Holy Qur'an, not due to doubts, nor due to mistakes, but due to a firm belief in this?

Now notice the answers, since they are important to consider when discussing this issue with any Twelver Shia:

جواب المرجع الحائري – دام ظله-

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

ج1ـ ليس من ضروريات الدين ولا المذهب.

ج2ـ يعدّ جهله هذا جهلاً مركباً

The answer from Marja' Al-Hairi-may Allah lengthen his shadow

With the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful

Answer 1: It is not from the Dharuriyat of the religion nor of the Madhab.

Answer 2: He will be steeped in Ignorance; this is a very compound ignorance.

جواب مكتب المرجع مكارم الشيرازي – دام ظله-

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

بعد تحية والسلام؛

جواب: القول بنفي التحريف ليس من ضروريات الدين و المذهب ولكنه نتيجة الأدلة القوية العقلية و النقلية.

2- هو مخطئ قطعاً.

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Answer from the office of Marja' Makarem Shirazi-may Allah lengthen his shadow

With the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful :

After greetings and salutations

Answer: The saying concerning the lack of distortion in the Quran is not part of the necessities of the religion, nor of the Madhab, but rather is the result of strong logical and textual evidences.

2: He is indeed mistaken.

جواب مكتب المرجع السيد الشيرازي – دام ظله-

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

الجواب1: الظاهر أنه ليس من ضروريات الدين ولا المذهب مع إن القول بعدم التحريف معلوم عندنا.

الجواب2: إذا كان اعتقاده ناشئاً عن اجتهاد غير مقصر فيه فهو معذور، وينبغي العمل على رفع الشبهات وتوضيح الأمور على حقيقتها.

The answer from the office of Marja' Syed Shirazi-may Allah lengthen his shadow

With the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful :

Peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you:

Answer 1: The apparent is that this is not part of the necessities of the religion nor of the Madhab, even though the saying of lack of distortion is known amongst us.

Answer 2. If his belief emerged from an Ijtihad that was not constrained then he is excused, and it is incumbent on us to work in order to lift his doubts and explain to him the things as they are in truth.

جواب مكتب المرجع الشاهرودي – دام ظله-

بسمه تعالى

ج1- ليس من الضروريات نعم نفي التحريف بالزيادة من المسلمات و متفق عليه بين الكل .

ج2- ليس هناك من يلتزم بالتحريف بنحو مطلق نعم ادعي بعضهم وقوع النقيصة في بعض الآيات استنادا إلى ظاهر بعض الروايات الواردة من الفريقين العامة و الخاصة وهي محمولة علي إرادة التأويل و التفسير وربما مقصود هذا القائل ذلك أيضا و على كل حال فلو قصد إثبات التحريف بمعني النقيصة حقيقة فهو مشتبه و إن اعتقد بذلك جازما لان اعتقاده حصل لشبهة

Answer from the office of Marja' Shahroudi-may Allah lengthen his shadow:

With His Exalted Name:

Answer 1:  It is not from the necessary things, yes the (belief in) the lack of alteration by means of addition is part of the Muslims belief and it is accepted by all.

Answer 2:  There is no one who accepted alteration with such certainty. Yes there were some who said about the occurrence of deletions in some of the Verses, supporting themselves with the apparent wordings of some of the narrations which have come from both sides, the general people and the specific ones[1], and these ones need to be interpreted and explained, and perhaps these people meant this as well, and in any case, if he is insisting on the certainty of alteration by means of true deletion then he is doubtful, even if his belief in this is strong and certain, since his belief is based on doubtful matters.

Now it is important for us to consider what the above means. From the answers above we can gather:

1. In Twelver Shiaism, the question of whether someone believes in the authenticity of the text of the Qur'an that is in our hands is not a religious question. What this means is that they do not consider this belief as being an essential part of their religion, nor of the Holy Qur'an as being a true primary source from which other matters are deduced.  So we have to wonder: How did the Twelver Shias come to the conclusion that (for example) the Imamah of Ali (Radhia Allahu Anhu) is a primordial tenet of their religion which can never be called into question by any Twelver Shia, while the basis for the Prophethood of Muhammad (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) - which is the prerequisite to accept the Imamah of Ali- is based on the text of the Qur'an being authentic, which is something which the Twelver Shias can call into question? This is a perfect example of putting the horse before the carriage, of declaring certain beliefs to be beyond dispute and of being pillars of the religion while claiming that the basis upon which these beliefs were supposed to be formulated are not themselves pillars of the religion nor are they essential parts of the religion.

2. Holding belief in alteration of the Quran according to Twelver Shias is a flaw of logic, not a flaw in faith. For us Sunnis, it would be like if a Sunni says that Australia does not exist. Yes, he is mistaken, in error, he may even be called stupid, but he cannot be called a non-Muslim, since belief in the existence of Australia is not part of Islam. So to go back to Shiaism, what they are saying is along the same lines: The person has made an error of logic and of not considering the reasonable proofs, but he has not left Islam nor Shiaism.

If it is possible for a person to have doubts about the correctness of the primordial sources he is using and still maintain his religion (as the Shias claim), then this is a recipe for total destruction of the religion. In fact, this is one of the major fatal flaws with Shiaism: It bases its necessary articles of faith on primary sources whose authenticy can be called into question without the person being expelled from the religion.

Now, we need to be clear: We are not saying at all that the Shia scholars mentioned above believe in alteration of the Quran. What we are saying is that they do not hold the preservation of the Quran to be a necessity of their faith, nor do they expel from their religion those who might take a stance favoring alteration of the Quran. Note that the questioner stated about what would happen if someone were to believe in alteration with total conviction, not based on doubts. Even in that case, the Shia scholars clearly said that such a person, in spite of being an ignorant, very mistaken, and in need of reform, was still a Shia in their view.

Another important point was from the answer given by ash-Shahroudi: He states that no one can possibly be certain of a belief in alteration given that it is based on doubt. However, he also says that there were some who believed in alteration of the Quran based on the apparent text of some narrations. We answer by saying that if a Shia scholar either of the past or the present can hold such a belief without facing expulsion nor censure from his peers, then this will definitely lead to totally wrong conclusions in every single aspect of the religion from his part, since he has based all of his articles of faith and basis for formulating decrees on a wrong assumption, and he did not suffer strong consequences based on this.

This also brings up the question about the reliability of the narrations of the Twelver Shias and their Imams. As it is known one of the foundations through which it can be ascertained as to whether a narration is correct ir incorrect is by comparing it with the text of the Holy Qur'an. Now, if the authenticity of the text of the Qur'an is not an essential part of the Twelver Shia religion nor its cornerstone, then how will it be used as a judge to differentiate the correct from the incorrect, the true from the spurious? Additionally, now that no narration can ever be taken as an essential part of the Twelver Shia religion (since there is no authentic text against which to compare it, so it reaches the level of speculation at best), then we can confidently say that ALL proofs in Twelver Shiaism are speculative in nature, and likewise the beliefs derived from such texts are also speculative, even if the Twelvers contend that they are otherwise.

If we actually go forward with the line of reasoning presented to us, then we would have no choice but to say that Twelver Shiaism is more like a philosophy than a religion: It has declared certain things to be primordial parts of the religion that cannot be questioned, and then seeks to find proofs for their beliefs, whether these proofs are rational or textual. This is why the use of reasoning itself can be called into question, and likewise so can the authenticity of the text of the Holy Qur'an or of the narrations be called into question, but the "primordial belief" itself can never be second-guessed.