VARIANT READINGS AND ADDITIONS OF THE IMAMI SHIA TO THE QURAN MEIR M. Bar-Asher I.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS In his groundbreaking book Die Richtungen der islamishen Koran-auslegung I. Goldziher delineated in the detail the importance of variant readings (qira'at) to the canonical codex of the Quran found in Muslim exegetical works on the Quran in general and in lmami Shia exegesis in particular. In this book as well as in later studies (such as those of J.Eliash, E. Kohlberg and M. Ayoub) examples are adduced of Quranic verses for which the Shia presented alternative and unique variant readings. However, as far as I know, to date no comprehensive attempt ham been made to collect all these shia variants in a single corpus. lt is the aim of this article partially to ll this gap. This should prove useful both for scholars interested in the Quranic text and for those dealing with Quran exegesis in general and sectarian exegesis in particular. The list published here complements the thorough and important study of A. Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran. Jeffery's study contains variant readings to the canonical text of the Quran collected from various sources, mostly of Sunni origin; shia readings were for the most part ignored. The article is divided into two parts. The rst (sections 2-6} is devoted to a discussion of several underlying principles guiding the lmami-shia variant readings to the canonical text of the Quran: the nature of the variants, their status vis-a-vis the canonical text, etc. The second part includes a list of the shia variant readings. This list is presented in the form of a synoptic table: the canonical verse is given on one side of the page while the lmami shia variant reading is presented on the other. Each shia variant is followed by a citation of the sources where it is found, references to modern literature where the text is discussed and brief notes explaining the doctrine behind the lmami-shia version. It should be stressed here that this list includes only variants which have a specic shia character. Other variant readings found in shia Quranic commentaries are not included. The sources from which the variant readings and additions were collected are first and foremost those early Imami shia Quran commentaries which have come down to us. These include in the rst place the works of Ali b. Ibrahim at-Qummi, Furat b. Furat b. lbrahim al-Kufi, Abu al Nadr Muhammad b. Masud al-Ayashi (all three flourished at the turn of the 3rd/9th century); Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. Gafar al-Numani (d. ca. 360/971); Abu Gafar alTusi (d. 460/ I067), one of the greatest lmami scholars at the close of the

Buwayhid period; and Abu Ali al-Fadl b. al-hasan al-Tabrisi (d. 548/ I 153). In addition, other early non-exegetical Imami writings, which nevertheless include much exegetical material, were also used. Of these, special note should be made of Basa-ir al daragat by Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-saffar alQummi (d. 290/903) and al-kafi by Abu jaffar Muhammad b. Yaqub al-Kulayni (d. 329/941). Finally, later lmami works were also consulted, including exegetical writings such as Tafsir al-Burhan by Hasim al-Bahrani (d.1107/ l693 or 1109/ I697) and Tafsir al safi by Muhammad b. Murtada (Muhsinin alFayd) al Kashani (d.1091/1680), and compilations of which the most important is Bihar al-anwar by Muhammad Baqir al-Maglissi(d. 1110/ I700). The main Sunni sources consulted for purpose of comparison are the most important exegetical commentaries on the Quran. These were supplemented by reference to Jefferys book mentioned above. lt should be emphasized that this comparison showed that typical shia variant readings to the text were only very rarely quoted by non-shia. 2. THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF VARIANT READTNGS OR ADDITIONS Until the mid-fourth/ tenth century, most lmami shia scholars held the view of the incompleteness of the Quran. One of the chief forms in which the lmami shia voiced its disapproval of the canonical text of the Quran was to point out an alternative version to several dozen verses in it. The text held sacred by most Muslims, i.e., that designated Mushaf Uthman (the Uthmanic Codexnamed after the caliph Utman b. Affan [d.35/656], to whom Muslim tradition assigns its editing) is viewed by the shia as tendentious and decidedly antishii. This caliph and his associates, as claimed by the shia, were bent on eliminating from the canonical text as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad all traces of shia legitimacy, i.e.. all references to the family of the Prophet (ahl al-bayt) and his heirs, the shia lmams; to the shia supremacy over the Islamic nation; and to certain shia doctrines. Revealing the original text is, in the eyes of the Shia, a step in the direction of correcting the falsications thus created. Before introducing the different types of variants, it should be pointed out that starting with the end of the fourth] tenth century, some decades after the establishment of the Buwayhid dynasty (334/945-44H I055), doctrinal changes began to take place in the position of the Imami shia. The period of sovereignty of the Buwayhid dynasty constitutes a golden era for the Imami shia, whose prior history was marked by continual suppression and persecution. The legitimation accorded the lmami shia under the Buwayhid brought about an important cultural turning point including farreaching internal innovations in Imami doctrine, which included a gradual rejection of the view that the Uthntanic codex was incomplete).

The variants and additions to the Quranic text which the shia upholds can be divided typologieally into several categories: A. A MINOR ALTERATION OF A WORD: EXCHANGE OR ADDITION OF A LETTER ANDIOR ALTERATION OF VOCALIZATION Instead of the version in the Uthmanic Codex in verse 45/29(28): Hada kitabuna yantiqu alaykum bi-I-haqq... (This is our book that speaks against you the truth..."), the lmami reading suggests Hada bi-kitabina yantiqu alaykum bi-1-haqq... (This [i.e., Muhammad or the lmams] who speaks against you the truth by the book...)." A similar example is the variant reading suggested for verse 78/40(41). Instead of the reading ....Wa-yaqulu al-kar ya laytani kuntu turaban ("....and the unbeliever shall say: '0 would that I were dust") found in the canonical Codex, some lmami traditions suggest the variant turabiyyan. While according to the canonical text the wish of the desperate unbeliever on the day of judgment is to be turned into dust (mrban). the variant reading suggests that he in fact hopes to become a Shiite (turabiyyan). This is a term used by the Shiites to refer to themselves, since one of Ali's appellations was Au Turab. It should be stressed, however, that in most exegetical traditions the term turabiyyan is presented as an interpretation of quran and not necessarily as an alternative reading." B. EXCHANGING ONE WORD FOR ANOTHER The best example of this sort of alteration is the insertion of the word aimma (Imams) in place of the word umma (nation/people) found in the canonical text. This was done so as to introduce the doctrine of the imami into the text of the Quran. For example, instead of Kuntum khayra ummatin ukhriat Ii-Inass... (You are the best nation ever brought forth to men...") in verse 3/ 110(106). The Imami tradition reads: Kumum khayra aimamatin (You are the best Imams").

C. REARRANGEMENT OF WORD ORDER Many lmami commentators note that verse 11/ I7: a-fa-man kana alabayyinatin min rabihi wa-yatluhu shahidun minhu wa-min qablihi kitab Musa imaman wa rahmatan... (And what of him who stands upon a clear sign from his Lord and a witness from Him recites it, and before him is the Book of Moses for an ensample and a mercy...") is an example of a falsication. ln the original version of the Quran it appeared, according to them, in the following order: wa-yatluhu shahidun minhu imaman wa rahmatan. The signicant difference between the two verses is that in the Sunni version the expression imaman wa-rahmatan is disengaged from, and

appears after, the expression shahidun minhu, which, according to the shia tradition, relate to Ali. D. ADDITION OF WORDS The lmami tradition holds that certain expressions were intentionally omitted from the Quran by the Sunnis. Of these, two word clusters are particularly common: a) Fi Ali (about Ali"). b) li Muhammad(Muhammads family") or sometimes l Muhammad haqqahum (The rights of Muhammad s family), usually as the object of verbs derived from the root dzlm (to do injustice, to usurp) often mentioned in the Quran. These additions are intended to show that the acts of injustice mentioned in some verses of the Quran are not neutral, but refer specically to the usurpation of the rights of the Prophet's family and their offspring, i.e., the shia itself." The same can he said for other typical lmami doctrines deduced from the text by way of word additions, or, as the commentator would have it, through restoring the original text by adding the words omitted by the editors. Thus, in several verses of the Quran, the words fi walayat Ali are added by Shia commentators in order to read into the text the duty of walaya(loyalty [to the house of Ali]"). Similar to this is the addition of the words ila ajalin musamman (for a given period of time") to the muta verse (4/24[28]), an addition intended to show the temporal nature of the marriage of pleasure [nikah al-muta), an issue on which Shiites and Sunnis have disagreed throughout history. It should further be stressed that the variant readings and additions put forward by the Shiites are limited in scope. They never constitute an entire verse but consist only of the alteration or addition of a limited number of words. There is, however, one exception to this rule, when an entire verse found in the 'Uthmanic Codex is replaced in some sources by another. The verse in question is (26/ 214) Wa-andir ashirataka alaqrabina ("And warn thy clan, thy nearest kin"); a tradition found in TQ in the name of Gafar al-sdiq states that the original verse descended from heaven was Warahtaka minhum al-mukhlisin (and your most faithful men among them"). While in this tradition it is not clear whether these words should be taken as replacing the canonical verse or are merely an addition to it, in another Shia tradition in TQ, brought in the name of Abu al-Gharud, the canonical verse is omitted altogether and only the words Wa-rahtaka minhum al-mukhlisin are

cited with no additional commentary. In TF, on the other hand, a third version is presented, which binds together the two above-mentioned verses. It appears that this last text represents a harmonizing tendency whereby both texts are accepted. 3. HOW TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN VARIANT READINGS AND EXEGETICAL ADDITIONS The differentiation between variant readings and exegetical additions of the commentators or their sources is based primarily on terminology. In many places where the commentator suggests a shii version to a Quranic verse, he does so by using typical formulas.The shii version is followed by statements such as: Nazala Gibr il/ Gibril bi--hdihi al-ya hkad (thus the verse was revealed by [the archangel] Gabriel"); Hkad nazalat (thus [the verse] was revealed") or by stating explicitly that the version suggested was the reading of one of the Imams. Sometimes even stronger expressions are used to stress that particular passages of the Quran as preserved by the Sunna are incorrect. These include Statements formulated in the negative, such as: ...al khilf m anzala Allh ([The verse in its canonical form] contradicts the form in which it was revealed) or m hurrifa min Kitb Allh ([This verse] is one of those falsied / altered in Gods book") etc. In the absence of such Firm indicators it is difcult to decide whether the alteration mentioned is a mere commentary or whether the exegete is in fact suggesting an alternative reading to the canonical text, despite the absence of typical expressions such as those mentioned above. A good example of such an uncertain case is found in the commentary to verses 81/8-9: wa-id al-mawdatu suilat bi-ayyi danbin qutilat (when the buried infant shall be asked for what sin she was slain"). Instead of explaining these verses as relating to the mawda (a buried infant"), (i.e., to the pre-Islamic custom of wad), it was understood as relating to mawadda (love), namely the duty to love the family of the Prophet and the Imams. However, since it is plainly stated in at least one tradition that the verse should be interpreted as relating to mawadda without the use of any formula common to the introduction of a Shia variant reading, this seems to indicate an interpretation rather than a qira. In cases where it was difficult decide whether the text refers to a variant reading or to an interpretation this has been noted in the list. 4. THE STATUS OF THE VARIANT READINGS WITHIN THE IMKMT QURAN

EXEGESIS The early shia criticism of the tendentious anti-shii nature of the Uthmanic Codex is categorical; formulas such as those cited at the beginning of section 3 brought proof to lmami commentators of the revealed truth. These expressions are intended to enhance the stature of the suggested lmami version and thus to underline its importance in the eyes of Shii believers, while at the same time serving to reject and delegitimize the other readings, i.e., those of the Sunnis. On the basis of such a rejection of the Sunni text one should naturally have expected the shii to insert these alternative versions and additions into the text of the Quran or at least to implement them in religious rulings and/ or include them in the liturgy. However, in reality, as far as l know, almost no action was taken on the part of the Imami shia to canonize their variant readings. One exception to this rule is a late attempt reected in a manuscript of the Quran discovered at the beginning of the 20th century in the city of Bankipur in India, in which, besides the Shia alternative versions to some of the Quranic verses, two apocryphal Suras were also included: Surat al-walaya (the Sura of loyalty [to the House of Ali]") and Surat al-nurayn ("the sura of the two lights [i.e., Muhammad and Ali]). This behavior on part of the shia reveals a paradox. On the one hand, the Shiites are certain that the true version of the Quranic text is that known to them, but on the other hand, not only do they not reject the canonical Codex, but they actually endorse it." This contradiction is typical of the shia in that, on the one hand, an uncompromising position of superiority was adopted on the theoretical-doctrinal level while, on the other hand, the constant fear of persecution from the hostile Sunni environment brought about, on the practical level, a pragmatic attitude which included the adoption of the Uthmanic codex. This tension and paradox in the shii tradition is reflected in many exegetical traditions in which lmami variants are mentioned. In some of them one nds the following situation: a disciple of a certain imam is reading out of the (canonical) Quran in the presence of the Imam, but when he suddenly reaches a controversial verse he is stopped by the Imam who tells him that it was revealed in a different version. The Imam then proceeds to read the true, i.e., shia version. However, as against these traditions which underrate the importance of the Uthmanic Codex, in others an opposing tendency is revealed: someone is reading out of the Quran in the presence of one of the lmams and inserts in his reading the Qversion of the verse; at this point he is stopped by the imam who instructs him to read according to the version followed by all the

people (i.e.. the canonical version) till the time when the righteous savior (the qaim) shall come with the correct version of the Quran, identical to the one which Ali had possessed. Typical of this kind of tradition is the following: Someone read words (hurufan) from the Quran not as is the custom (laysa ala ma yaqrauha al nas) in the presence of Abu Abdallah (Jafar asadiq) while l was listening (wa ana asmau). Said Abu Abd Allah: Stop, cease this reading (mah mah, kuffa an hadihi al-qiraa), read as is customary until the coming of the qaim and when he comes, he shall read the book of God as it should be (ala haddihi) and shall produce the book which Ali wrote... This tradition shows that the common opinion held by the shia was that the Uthmanic Codex is less than perfect but so long as the world is ruled by the enemies of the shia the Sunnis - one has to uphold, against one's will, their canonical book. In the eschatological era, when the qaim will appear and correct the wrongs done to the shia, the question of the correct text of the Quran will also be settled. 5. THE IMAMI VARIANT READINGS AND THE QUESTION OF THE NUMEROUS QJRAAT (NAZALA AL-QURAN ALA SABAT AHRUF) The supremacy accorded by the Shiites to their variant readings raises another difculty: what was their position on the Sunni" assertion according to which The Ouran was revealed according to seven words each of which is sufficient (nazala al quran ala sabat ahruf: kullin shafin kafin). As is well known, at a very early stage this tradition was associated with the variant readings in the Quran, all of which are considered equally canonical. At rst sight it would seem that the Shia rejected this interpretation since they believed in an lmami-shia version of the Quran which God had revealed to his Prophet Muhammad, and accepting it would have meant accepting as valid other versions, thus undermining the superiority and exclusivity reserved for their own readings. However, it seems that on this question, too, the Shias were not of one mind. Moreover, it appears that two contradictory approaches can be detected in the Shia with regard to this issue, revealing a direct link between the attitude of the shia scholars to the integrity of the Quran and their attitude to variant readings. ln the pre-Buwayhid period (3 -4th/ 9-10th centuries), when the shia propagated the theory of falsication (tahrif) of the Quran, a categorical attitude was also adopted regarding alternative versions of Quranic verses: they were rejected. In one tradition brought by al-Kulayni in the name of his teacher 'Ali b. Ibrahim al-Qummi, the Imam (Gafar al-$adiq) is asked: People say that the Quran was revealed according to seven variant readings (ahruf]: (is that so). Al-Sadiq answers: [No, (these) enemies of God have lied for [it is revealed] by one God according to one version (harf). A similar tradition is

cited there in the name of al-Baqir but with additional explanation that the origin of the difference [between the versions} goes back to the transmitters (wa lakinna al ikhtilafa yajiu min qibal al ruwati). On the other hand, in later periods the Shia rejected the view that the Quran was falsied and adopted another, less militant, view with regard to the issue of the numerous versions. A prime representative of this new attitude is Abu jafar al tusi (mentioned above). In his introduction to his commentary on the Quran, al-tusi approaches the question of the qiraat. He cites the abovementioned tradition about the seven ahruf and, like his predecessors, points to its various interpretations. When faced with the issue of the numerous versions, he says: You should know that the accepted view among our brethren (al-urf min madhab ashabina)) is that the Quran was revealed to the Prophet in one version (bi harf! Wahid ala nabiyyin wahid)). However, it was agreed among them that one may accept a version handed down among the readers (ghayra annahum ajmau ala jawaz al qiraa bima yatadawaluhu al qurra) and that a man is free to choose which version he prefers. They also refrained from recommending one particular version (wakarihu tajwid qiraa bi ayniha) and permitted only an approved version. [i.e.] one that had been approved among the readers (bal ajazu al qiraa bil mujaz alladi yajuzu bayna al qurra). This tolerant attitude prevalent among the 5hiites, beginning with the Buwayhid Period, seems quite understandable. Since the doctrine which propagated the imperfect character of the Quran was receding, shia scholars could now also adopt a positive attitude toward the issue of the numerous versions of the Quran and justify the Sversion within this framework. On the other hand, one should not rule out the possibility that the more tolerant position adopted here by the shia was tactical rather than reecting their true beliefs. In other words, the wish to avoid a direct confrontation with the Sunna, a wish based (as in other issues) on taqiyya (precautionary dissimulation), brought about an outward external decline in shia militant attitudes while internally the Shiites stuck to their view that only their version of the Quran was correct.

6. ON THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE IMAMI SHIA VARIANT READINGS AND THE JEWISH MIDRASH AL TIKREI (READ NOT) The exegetical system employed by the Shiites with regard to variant

readings is strongly reminiscent of the Talmudic method of exegesis known as al tikrei (read not')." This method entails a new interpretation of a Biblical verse by altering the reading of a word (in a very similar fashion to that described above with relation to the shia alterations in the Quranic text). Of the many examples found in Talmudic literature I shall restrict myself to one well known example: It was taught in the Tanna debe Eliyyahu: Whoever repeats halakot (i.e., religious rulings) may rest assured that he is destined for the future world, as it is written: his ways (halikot) are those of eternity (or of the world olam)' (Halakuk 3/ 6). Read not hilgr but halakot. The exegete wishes to deduce from Scripture the idea that anyone who devotes his time to the study of religious laws and rulings (halakot) has it place in the world to come. This he does by suggesting that one read halakot instead of halakot in Scripture and then, by using this new reading, reinterprets the verse so that the words those of eternity [or of the world)" should point to the eternal world, i.e., the world to come. The small alteration in the word (in this case the omission of a letter and a change in vocalization) enabled the Biblical exegete to insert into Scripture a new idea. It is, however, of great importance to note the difference between this system and that of the SM despite the technical similarity we have noted. Each of these systems has a totally different attitude to the status of interpretation with relation to the canon. The Talmudic interpreter has no intention of altering the meaning of Scripture and he does not believe even in theory that he has discovered the true original meaning of the verse. His readings have been, all along, an (allegorical) interpretation. On the other hand, the shia interpretation which does similar things with the Quranic verse sees in the version produced not just another exegetical possibility; in the eyes of the Shiites this is the original version.